Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences logoLink to The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
. 2023 Aug 1;78(11):1787–1795. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbad106

Different Interpretations of “Honor Your Parents”: Implications for Obligation of Parental Caregiving

Darlingtina K Esiaka 1,2,✉, Elizabeth Luth 3,4
Editor: Rodlescia Sneed
PMCID: PMC10645307  PMID: 37526091

Abstract

Objectives

Many religious and cultural settings embrace the principle to “honor your parents.” However, how individuals understand and enact this mandate varies by cultural context and community. The different understanding of “honor your parents” draws attention to motivations for parental caregiving across cultural contexts. This study investigates how individuals in 3 different cultural settings conceptualize “honoring your parents” and how these conceptualizations affect their perceptions of obligations to care for an older parent.

Methods

Semistructured interviews with 153 individuals in the United States, Ghana, and Nigeria explored the concept of “honor your parents,” how it is understood, and its relationship to the perceived obligation to care for one’s parents. A content analysis was applied to all transcripts and analyzed for discussion.

Results

Among individuals in the United States, “honor your parents” is less likely to be conceived as providing material and instrumental care to a parent, and more in terms of emotional care. In contrast, individuals in Nigeria and Ghana closely associated “honor your parents” with providing material and instrumental care to a parent.

Discussion

Understanding how different conceptions of “honor your parents” translate to expectations for and modes of parental caregiving can illuminate how caregiving needs can be met for the aging populations of the United States, Ghana, and Nigeria.

Keywords: Caregiving, Cross-culture, Cultural ecologies framework, Cultural expectations, Obligation

The principle to “honor your parents” exists in many religious and cultural settings, albeit with different interpretations (Blidstein, 2005; Daly, 2016; Olund, 2012). Some scholars conceptualized the principle to include loyalty, obedience, and respect for one’s parents (Gaebelein & Kaiser, 1990). Others interpreted it as an act that adult children would perform for their older parents, such as caring for them (Trimm, 2017). The principle is enforced or considered enforceable in different conventional communities, whereby many religions and cultures assign consequences for honoring one’s parents—or failing to do so. For example, in Judeo-Christian religions, children who honored their parents were rewarded with longevity, whereas failure to do so was socially disgraceful and punishable by death or stoning (Exodus 21:15, 17). Similarly, in many West African settings, honoring one’s parents, dead or alive, is a normative expectation with corporal and social repercussions (Esiaka & Adams, 2020; Moritz, 2008; Twum-Danso, 2009).

Although the “honor your parents” concept is (universally) important, its understanding and manifestation vary by cultural context and community. This variation potentially has important implications for how parental caregiving obligations are perceived and performed. Given the increased demand for caregiving as people live longer with greater disability, requiring ongoing care and support (Czaja, 2016), it is important that we understand how ideas about obligation to care manifest in social relationships, particularly parent–child relationships. Increased understanding will highlight practical ways to encourage and navigate the involvement of family members in the care of their older parents. To present the rationale for the present study, we first provide a cultural ecological framework for the experience of relationality—an individual’s sense of self and patterns of relating to others (Kavalski, 2016) and consider the implications for obligation to care for older adults.

Cultural Ecological Foundations for the Experience of Relationality

Cultural ecological frameworks focus on how psychological experiences (such as motivations and emotions) are not homogenous across all settings or communities (Adams, 2012; Keller et al., 2011; Oishi & Graham, 2010). Such frameworks allow for a nonrigid understanding of culture and self and make clear that the influence of culture on self is not the consequence of uniformed shaping by cultural traditions (Adams & Markus, 2004). Instead, cultural ecological frameworks suggest the existence of fluid forms of cultural influence embedded in cultural practices and artifacts (Adams & Plaut, 2003; Adams et al., 2004, 2012). As we strive to become well-functioning adults in our societies, our relationships and behaviors are influenced by engagement with the cultural ecology in which we live and accompanying expectations for behavior. As part of this process, we view ourselves as autonomous individuals, separate from others, or deeply embedded within a larger social network (Adams, 2005; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Markus et al., 1997). Thus, cultural ecological frameworks are a useful lens through which to understand how people construct and experience “honor” and, subsequently, the obligation of care within social relationships.

Growth-Oriented Relationality

Growth-oriented relational tendency refers to an orientation to social relationships that is characterized by the pursuit of self-expression, mutual exploration, a sense of voluntary commitment, and freedom from relational constraints (Adams et al., 2004; Gable & Impett, 2012; Higgins, 1998). Growth-oriented relationality emphasizes urges and behavioral tendencies that support personal and emotional fulfillment. Such relationality is driven by cultural and physical environmental manifestations that reflect, create, and promote a sense of independence that is associated with everyday behavioral tendencies, such as transportation systems that facilitate mobility, convenient access to resources, and a sense of financial independence that accentuate one’s ability to enact personal preferences and pursue life projects, with relative freedom from material constraint (Markus et al., 2004)

Maintenance-Oriented Relationality

Maintenance-oriented relational tendency refers to a cautious approach to relationships that is characterized by concerns about harmony, kin connections, and security in social relationships (Coe, 2011; Osei-Tutu et al., 2018; Osei-Tutu et al., 2022). Maintenance-oriented relationality emphasizes urges and behavioral tendencies that support the exercise of caution and dutiful management of social relationships (Adams, 2005), particularly kinship connections (Adams & Kurtiş, 2015; Esiaka, 2019). Cultural ecologies that create and reinforce maintenance-oriented relationality foster connectedness and harmonization with others (Adams & Plaut, 2003). In contrast to growth-oriented relationality, engagement with everyday social realities such as limited social and spatial mobility (Oishi, 2010; Oishi & Graham, 2010) creates a cautious approach to relationships, which leads to the maintenance of a mutually beneficial relationship between an individual and others in the relationship (Coe, 2011; Gyekye, 1999). For example, the lifelong communal residence in extended family compounds (Fiske, 1991) entails sharing space and amenities (e.g., bedrooms, eating from communal bowls) in ways that constitute and directly foster the experience of embedded interdependence.

Implications of Relationality for the Obligation of Care and Support in Social Relationships

Theory and research associate growth-oriented relationality with a variety of behavioral tendencies in Western urban settings, particularly the European American middle class (Adams et al., 2004; Esiaka et al., 2020; Leersnyder et al., 2013; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Salter & Adams, 2012). For example, research links growth-oriented relationality to a propensity to understand and provide social support and care as verbally oriented, emotional intimacy (Adams & Kurtiş, 2015; Esiaka et al., 2020). Research further revealed that people in U.S. settings endorsed emotional care (such as phone calls and sending cards and flowers) as the preferred form of care for an older parent (Atakere & Adams, 2018; Esiaka, 2019). In contrast, research links maintenance-oriented relationality to behavioral tendencies in West African settings, particularly in noncosmopolitan settings (Osei-Tutu et al., 2022; Salter & Adams, 2012). For example, research revealed that engagement with maintenance-oriented relationality is associated with preference to provide material and instrumental supports (e.g., housing, running errands, doing chores, and financial support) in parental caregiving (Atakere & Adams, 2018; Esiaka, 2019). These past research and theories provide the basis for exploring how “honor your parents” may reflect variations in relationality and the implication for attention to caregiving in a parent–child relationship.

Current Research

In the present paper, we investigated how cultural ecological frameworks for relationality promote different conceptualizations of “honor your parents” and examined how the conceptualizations lead to different manifestations of obligation of care to one’s parents. We aim to show how “typical” behaviors such as caregiving can be linked to relational tendencies that govern social relationships and compare the resultant experience of obligation to care for an older adult. Given the declining rate of familial caregiving, this will help us better understand the motivations for parental caregiving across cultural contexts. As exploratory research, we conducted semistructured interviews among people in the United States (associated with growth-oriented relationality) and Ghana and Nigeria (associated with maintenance-oriented relationality) to examine how people across the three settings understand “honor your parents.” Consistent with the theoretical framework we articulated in the introduction, we predicted that tendencies to conceptualize honor as obligation of care would be more evident in Ghanaian and Nigerian settings. Also, we expected that the manifestation of parental caregiving in terms of material and instrumental support would be more evident in Ghanaian and Nigerian settings. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Kansas provided ethics approval for the study.

Method

Participants

We recruited a purposive sample of 153 community-dwelling adults (69 men, 84 women; Mage = 43.72, SDage = 12.37)—those who self-identified as local residents—to take part in the interview. They included 42 Ghanaians (20 men, 22 women; Mage = 45.48, SDage = 13.60), 60 Nigerians (30 men, 30 women; Mage = 42.12, SDage = 10.24), and 51 Americans (19 men, 32 women; 47% African Americans; 53% European Americans; Mage = 44.16, SDage = 10.56). Approximately 61% of the participants were married, and 91.5% had at least 12 years of education. Mean subjective socioeconomic standing (SES), where respondents rate their social standing on a 10-rung ladder relative to others, was above the midpoint of the 10-point scale (M = 5.41, SD = 1.54). Additional demographic details are presented in Table 1. The Ghanaian participants were from one cosmopolitan and one less cosmopolitan area. The Nigerian participants were from two major cosmopolitan cities. The U.S. participants were from and around a university town in the Midwestern United States. The West African participants reported African ethnic backgrounds, and American participants reported European, Asian, Native American, and/or African descent. Participants received $5 or equivalent for completing the interview.

Table 1.

Demographic and Characteristics: Percentages and Means (Standard Deviation; N = 153)

Variable Overall Americans Ghanaian Nigerians
Participants 100% 33% 27% 40%
Gender
 Women 89% 63% 52% 50%
 Men 69% 37% 48% 50%
Age 36.5 (12.4) 44.2 (13.6) 45.5 (13.6) 42.l (10.2)
Education (more than 12 years) 61% 94% 81% 97%
Married 92% 51% 67% 65%
Have kids 65% 45% 67% 80%
Socioeconomic standing 5.4 (1.5) 5.2 (1.9) 5.4 (1.2) 5.7 (1.4)
Occupation
 Formal sector workers 68% 59% 74% 73%
 Informal sector workers 26% 24% 29% 27%
 Retired 4% 9% 2% 2%
 Student 2% 0% 0% 3%
Open in a new tab

Note: Socioeconomic standing measured by respondents rating their social standing on a 10-rung ladder relative to others.

Interviewer Procedure

The work we report here was part of a larger investigation of cultural groundings for the experience of obligation in West African and North American settings. Details about the larger project are available from the first author. The first author conducted the interviews in English, the official language of Ghana and Nigeria, and a common language in the United States. Using purposive sampling technique, she approached potential participants in public spaces such as neighborhood streets, market areas, shopping malls, government offices, schools, church centers, restaurants, and recreational parks and asked if they were willing to take part in an interview for a study about obligation. Once informed consent was obtained, the interview prompt required participants to explain their understanding of the phrase “honor your parents” and to give examples of actions they take to honor their parents (see Author Note 1).

One of the commandments in the Bible (and in many African (and other) societies) is “HONOR THY PARENTS.” I want to know how people understand and experience the phrase “honor your parents.” When you hear “Honor your parents,” what does it mean to you? Please give example of actions or ways that you honor your parents.

After responding to the prompt, participants responded to several demographic questions including their age, gender, ethnicity, occupation, and marital status. Also, the participants indicated their subjective social standing by choosing where they perceive themselves to stand on a 10-rung ladder (from 1 = worst off to 10 = best off) that represented everyone in the society.

Coding Procedure

In contrast to data-driven coding procedure for thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), we adopted conceptually driven content analysis designed specifically to explore preexisting assumptions—the themes derived through critical appraisal of the literature and the larger data study. We developed sets of coding items designed to explore the preexisting assumptions prior to reading interview scripts (Garcia et al., 2018; Sablan, 2018). The development of the codes followed an iterative process, including refining and eliminating overlapping or redundant codes. To code the responses, we recruited raters (undergraduate research assistants) who were unaware of the research questions and the participants’ characteristics. The coders (an African American woman, three European American women, and a Pakistani American woman) read each participant’s responses and made judgments about the presence (1) or absence (0) of each of the following themes: respect; obedience; care; deference; make them proud; love; avoid conflict; and not make them ashamed. They applied the final coding scheme to all transcripts to yield the results reported subsequently. A response could have more than one theme associated with it. Agreement between coders on these judgments was 100%.

Data Analysis

To explore possible differences in the conception of “honor your parents,” we conducted a series of Chi-square analyses of each coding item with setting as a categorical predictor of the binary outcomes. We did this in two separate analyses. First, we investigated differences in ideas about “honor your parents” across the three nations (Nigerians, Ghanaians, and Americans). Second, we investigated differences in ideas about “honor your parents” between Nigerians and Ghanaians and reported the few cases where Nigerians and Ghanaians differed significantly in Table 2. Additionally, we examined possible impacts of Gender and SES on the outcomes. We observed no relationships between Gender, SES, and the outcomes. However, there were few instances of Gender by SES interaction (but never Gender and Setting or Setting and SES) on certain outcomes. Subsequently, we reported instances where the strength of the observed interaction reached the criterion for statistical significance (p < .05). For the complete report on frequencies of themes, see Table 2.

Table 2.

Frequently Mentioned Themes in Responses to “Honor Your Parents”

Theme
Percentage of respondents who mentioned:		 Overall
(N = 153)		 Americans
(n = 51)		 Ghanaians
(n = 42)		 Nigerians
(n = 60)
Respect 83.7 78a 83a 88a
Obedience 47.7 33a 76b 40c
Care 48.4 27a 52b 63b
Deference 20.3 16a 29a 18a
Make them proud 18.3 12a 24a 20a
Love 13.1 20a 5a 13a
Avoid conflict 10.5 6a 19a 8a
Not shame them 8.5 6a 7a 12a
Remittance 24.2 10 45 25
Nature of care/support
 Material care 28.8 8a 40b 38b
 Instrumental care 37.9 44a 48b 27c
 Emotional care 34.6 61a 36b 12c
Open in a new tab

Notes: Within each row, entries with different subscripts denote significant differences in the percentage of respondents who mentioned the corresponding theme in each nation, χ2 = p ≤ .05.

Results

Conceptualization of “Honor Your Parents”

An analysis of responses to the prompt about the phrase “honor your parents” appears in Table 2. Following are examples of responses to the prompt regardless of nationality.

Honor your parents to me means that I need to respect my parents. I should obey their commands. Also, I should honor their wishes and provide and give them all they need to survive especially as they are older and depend on me.—Ghanaian respondent.

To respect and love your mother and father. Always obey them and treat them with dignity.—U.S. respondent.

Respect, love, care, listen to, and take care of them in their old age. Try as much as possible to always make them happy.—Nigerian respondent.

Although the current study is interested in the manifestation of obligation to care and support one’s parents in the conceptualization of “honor your parents,” below we present examples of the responses and the three most frequently mentioned themes among study participants.

Respect

One of the most frequently mentioned themes in response to the prompt was respect. Overall, 83.7% of participants mentioned the theme. As noted by a respondent:

Honor your parents to me means that I need to respect my parents. I should comply with their commands, advice, and opinions even when I may think otherwise. As much as possible, I do not speak harsh words to them. I always recognize them as elders and respect their views. Also, I honor their wishes.

The frequency of this theme was similar across settings, χ2 (2, N = 153) = 1.98, p = NS. However, these responses may mask variation in ideas about respect across settings. Upon examination of the transcripts, responses from West African participants suggest an understanding of respect in absolute terms. As a Nigerian respondent put, “It means to respect them, heed their voice whatever they tell you.” In contrast, the responses of American participants suggest a fluid conception of respect. As one American respondent stated, “To me, it means to treat your parents with due respect, but not necessarily to follow all of their values if they do not match your own.”

Obedience

Another of the most frequently mentioned themes was obedience. Overall, 47.7% of participants mentioned the theme. One of the respondents stated:

To honor your parents means to obey them at all times. Obeying your parents at all times, no matter your age or education, even if you do not live in their house any longer. Whatever they say, you adhere to it. Pleasing them. When we say honor, it means you are doing things to the person you want to honor. Some of these things include listening to them. [As their child], when they say go to school, you go to school.

Across settings, some of the respondents reported that obeying one’s parents is a characteristic of honor your parents. As a Ghanaian respondent stated, “It means that I should obey them. Keep their rules and honor them in my ways.” Similarly, an American respondent put, “it’s a law in the Bible, a very important one. One that means simply obey your parents whether they are right or wrong.” However, the proportion of the respondents who mentioned obedience as a characteristic of honor your parents was greater among Ghanaians (76%) than Nigerians (40%) and Americans (33%), χ2 (2, N = 153) = 19.31, p < .001.

Care

Most interesting for current purposes was the third most frequently mentioned theme, care. Overall, 48.4% of participants mentioned the theme. As noted by a respondent:

Honor your parents to me is to care for them. I visit them always with a lot of foodstuffs. I take them to the hospital when they are sick. I make sure they don’t lack anything. I buy clothes, repaint their house, bought them phones. I do so many things for them. My parents are happy with me. As their first child, I made sure I bought a land and built a small house for them, and they moved into it from the old house we grew up in. You should have seen their faces that day. I have never seen my father that happy, he prayed for me and my husband all day.

The respondents reported caring for one’s parents as a characteristic of honor your parents. As put by a Nigerian respondent, “It means to care for them in old age and treat them well.” An American respondent stated, “It means to take care of our parents as they age or get sick.” A prominent qualifying phrase in the respondents’ indication of care as a characteristic of honor your parents is “old age.” Respondents who mentioned caring also alluded to caring for one’s aging parents as one’s filial responsibility. Between-nation analyses show a significant difference in the frequency of mention of care across the settings, χ2 (2, N = 153) = 14.59, p = .048. Care was most frequently mentioned by Ghanaians and Nigerians.

Other themes that were mentioned are: deference, love, avoidance of conflict, remittance, make them [parents] proud, and not shame them [parents]. Table 2 shows the frequency in which the themes were mentioned across settings. Examples of responses for each of the themes can be found in Table 3.

Table 3.

Examples of Responses to the Prompt “Honor your Parents” Corresponding to Each Theme

Themes United States Ghana Nigeria
Respect Always speak to them with respect, even though some of our conversations are difficult now that they are in their 90s. It means to respect them. I listen to whatever they say. To adopt and follow the principle they give you as parents.
Obedience It’s a law in the Bible, a very important one. One that means simply obey your parents whether they are right or wrong. To obey their words, no matter how contrary it is to my opinion. At least, in their presence I just agree to whatever they tell me. To obey your parents because they are the God we see.
Care To take care of our parents as they age or get sick. Make sure I cater to their needs anytime they reach out to me. Sometimes, I do it before they ask. I buy foods, clothes, anything. Provide material needs when necessary and care for them when they are old.
Love Showing them that they are loved and revered. It is something like worshiping them. Love and care for them. Love and care physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
Deference Treat them with deference. To bow to greet my dad, no matter where I see him or who is around. When he is talking to me, I stand still and listen. I do not cut him short, no matter how in a haste I am. Traditionally, when I wake up. I prostrate to my parents.
Remittance Help with their bills if you have the means. Send money to them. I bought a car for them and pay their house rent. Sending them money for upkeep.
Not shame them Staying out of trouble. Doing something to please them instead of doing something that will bring sadness to them. Ensuring you do nothing that brings disgrace to their names.
Avoid conflict Don’t insult them, be rude. You should cooperate with them and not make their lives unnecessarily difficult. Do not exchange words with them. I have never exchanged words with my parents. When they are angry at me and are shouting at me, I take it all without saying a word back at them. Do not fight or argue with them no matter the provocation.
Make them proud Live in a way that makes them proud. Make them happy, and they will be happy to call you [my daughter]. Exhibiting impeccable character anywhere you find yourself.
Open in a new tab

Emotional Versus Material and Instrumental Care

Beyond the mention of care, we explored the constructions of care as material and emotional support. Consistent with the anticipated patterns about the construction of care as material support, the proportion of participants who mentioned material support (e.g., give parents money, buy food and necessities, pay bills, buy cars) was greater in Nigerian (38%) and Ghanaian (40%) settings than American settings (8%), χ2 (2, N = 153) = 16.39, p < .001. As one Ghanaian participant put, “I try to give to them what they gave me early on as I was growing up. I give them food, clothes, money, so many things … I pay them allowance monthly. Before the last day of the month I have sent money to them.” Additionally, findings show that the explicit discussion—especially in emphasis and expression—of material care differs across settings. Whereas the understanding of material care as a basis of “honor your parents” in U.S. setting suggests material care to be tangible actions (e.g., paying for care provided by eldercare institutions, seeking for government provided assistance), the understanding of material care as a basis of “honor your parents” in Ghanaian and Nigerian settings is not limited to the provision of tangible material resources (e.g., remitting money, clothing) but encompasses the involvement of the “self” in the process of care (e.g., housing a parent, running errands).

Also consistent with anticipated patterns, the proportion of participants who mentioned emotional support (e.g., not speak harshly to parents, calling to make parents happy) was significantly greater in U.S. settings (61%) than in Ghanaians (36%) and Nigerians (12%), χ2 (2, N = 153) = 29.41, p < .001. As one American participant put, “I appreciate them and love them and tell them that I love them all the time. …I let them know that they are important to me.” Though trending, there was no statistically significant difference between respondents in Ghana, Nigeria, and U.S. settings in mention of instrumental support (e.g., cook, go on errands) to parents, χ2 (2, N = 152) = 5.67, p = .059.

Discussion

The findings can be linked to previous research examining understandings of familial responsibilities, especially the responsibility to care for an aging parent, which suggests that ideas about caregiving for older adults are influenced by cultural ecological affordances for the experience of growth versus maintenance relationality (Coe, 2011; Esiaka & Adams, 2020; Funk, 2010; Osei-Tutu et al., 2018). This investigation corroborates current literature acknowledging the association of variations in relationality with obligations of care to one’s parents (Dilworth-Anderson et al., 2005; Falzarano et al., 2021; Osei-Tutu et al., 2022; Salter & Adams, 2012).

Our findings suggest people within the U.S. setting operationalized “honor your parents” in a manner that is consistent with emotional fulfilment (Adams et al., 2004). Similar to previous studies (Atakere & Adams, 2018; Coe, 2011; Esiaka, 2019), responses in U.S. settings suggest the constructions and manifestation of care/support as one’s ability to provide emotional intimacy. Specifically, people in the United States understand care in terms of emotional support (e.g., cards and flowers) and verbal care (e.g., phone calls) as descriptive and prescriptive standards for optimal caregiving. The provision of care as emotional support may be scaffolded by the presence of everyday structures such as access to caregiving resources, availability of formal caregiving services, and retirement benefits for older adults.

One can contrast emotional care with what Coe (2011) referred to as “the materiality of care”: an emphasis on tangible support and attention to obligation as a core expression of care (Thomas & Cole, 2019). We found evidence that the conceptualization of “honor your parents” is associated with emphasis on material forms of care in Ghanaian and Nigerian settings. In such settings, care has a material versus emotional character (Esiaka, 2019; Esiaka & Adams, 2020; Osei-Tutu et al., 2018). Consistent with the values and attitudes associated with maintenance-oriented relationality (Coe, 2011; Osei-Tutu et al., 2018; Salter & Adams, 2012), responses of participants from Nigerian and Ghanaian settings suggest attention to the maintenance of interpersonal networks through obligation of care. Their responses align with previous research in West Africa, showing that care is understood to take place through the provision of the necessities of life (e.g., clothing and food), and West Africans understand material care as a sign of love (Coe, 2011; Esiaka, 2019; Osei-Tutu et al., 2018).

Implications for Parental Caregiving Experiences

The responses from people in the U.S. setting may be more attractive to people in such settings because it is conducive to the experience of independence and separation from context associated with growth-oriented relationality (Adams et al., 2012). These findings help to illuminate how growth-oriented relational tendencies may liberate people from a focus on familial obligation and allow them to pursue relationships that support voluntary commitments—at least among those with sufficient resources and mobility to take advantage of such conditions (Adams et al., 2012; Esiaka, 2019). However, such emphasis may backfire when life circumstances—for example, aging—impinge upon that experience of independence and separation. Previous research shows that considering emotional support as a basis of care has implications for relationships with others, especially for consanguine relationships (Coe, 2011; Esiaka, 2019; Esiaka & Adams, 2020; Esiaka et al., 2020; Osei-Tutu et al., 2022; Salter & Adams, 2012).

On one hand, the emphasis on emotional forms of care over material and instrumental forms may promote the tendencies of adult children to favor the institutionalization of older adults (Esiaka, 2019; Esiaka & Adams, 2020; Esiaka et al., 2020) and result in the isolation of older adults, especially those “aging in place” (Oh et al., 2019; Quinlan et al., 2022). On the other hand, such a hands-free approach to parental caregiving may lessen—although not eliminate—the experience of caregiving burden (Gallagher et al., 2011; Gaugler et al., 2009) and poor health (McClendon et al., 2006) among caregivers. Nonetheless, it is important that in such situations, there are structures and resources to bolster the work of nonfamily caregivers to ensure older parents receive adequate and quality care, and that caregivers and care receivers are adequately insulated from the psychological stress that accompanies caregiving.

The responses from people in Ghanaian and Nigerian settings support the patterns of caregiving observed in such settings. Maintenance-oriented relational tendencies promote the development of a duty-based interpersonal relationality that stresses broad and socially enforceable interpersonal obligations such as caregiving in parent–child relationships. Caregiving is considered a duty and an involuntary element of social order (Coe, 2011; Hwang et al., 2022; Imoh, 2022). People in such settings valorize the provision of material and instrumental care (e.g., buy food, provide shelter, remit money, and take care of younger siblings) to aging parents (Atakere & Adams, 2018; Coe, 2011; Esiaka, 2019).

Although ideas about material support entail not only the provision of necessary assistance but also hands-on care to relational others including personal/physical care (Esiaka, 2019), it is possible that given the “obligatory” notions of caregiving, people in such settings may experience higher incidences of caregiving burden (Amoako et al., 2021; James et al., 2019; Pan et al., 2022). However, the maintenance-oriented relationality in such settings—and resultant embeddedness in “thick” networks of mutual obligation—may be more conducive to an individual’s sense of psychological well-being and relational harmony. This notwithstanding, it draws attention to the importance of adopting and implementing care policies that will allow people in such settings to continue fulfilling normative expectations for caregiving with additional (e.g., government) support. This is all the more important when we account for the changing demography in West Africa (e.g., migration, interests in blue-collar jobs, education, financial capabilities, and exposure to Eurocentric modernity).

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the current study results are consistent with speculative explanations (Esiaka et al., 2020; Osei-Tutu et al., 2022), the evidence comes from our judgment about what people meant in their responses to the interview prompts. Extending the findings by allowing people to make their direct judgments about the conceptualization of care is necessary for a deeper understanding of cultural–ecological groundings for the experience of care to older parents. We targeted community-dwelling adults in each of the settings; however, the locations were not randomly identified. Thus, they may not be fully representative of people in their settings. This may be especially the case for respondents in Ghanaian and Nigerian settings recruited from cosmopolitan cities similar to many cities in the United States. Including more Ghanaians and Nigerians from less cosmopolitan areas could lead to different outcomes. Another critical limitation concerns gender dynamics. We investigated but did not observe significant differences as a function of respondents’ gender. An exciting direction for future research will be to examine more carefully the differences in the conceptualization of honor for mothers versus fathers, both within and across settings.

In this study, participants from the United States are the only North American samples that we included. Therefore, our findings may not be applicable to people in other North American settings. Also, we treated participants from the U.S. setting as an indiscriminate mass. Investigating participants from the United States as a blended group may lead to difficulties distinguishing patterns of community, individualism, and caregiving that arose from intersections of race, ethnicity, and social class with national culture. Additionally, critiques might fault our use of quantitative techniques on qualitative data. However, because the focus of the current research was to explore the conceptualization of obligation to parents across settings, the application of quantitative method on thematic analyses allowed us to give numerical representation to situated experiences. Despite these limitations, our findings significantly contribute to the literature by showing how relationships and behaviors are influenced by engagement with the cultural ecology in which we live and how accompanying expectations for behaviors lead to different conceptualizations of care.

Conclusion

In this paper, we draw upon interview research conducted across U.S., Nigerian, and Ghanaian settings to illuminate the implicit constructions of “honor your parents” and the implications for understanding care to parents. The discussion on the implicit construction and experience of “honor your parents” suggests that among people in the United States, “honor your parents” is less likely to be conceived as care to a parent, and when construed as care, it is in terms of emotional support than material support. The contrast was evident among people in Nigeria and Ghana, who are more likely to conceive “honor your parents” as obligation to provide parental caregiving, particularly material and instrumental support. Understanding how people in different cultural ecologies experience the obligation of parental caregiving will better inform targeted ways to motivate family involvement in the care of their older adults.

Supplementary Material

gbad106_suppl_Supplementary_Material
Click here for additional data file. (29.7KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Glenn Adams and the Culture & Psychology Research Group members for their support during the conceptualization stage of this project. The authors would also like to thank Uche “Dr. Wash” Umezulora, Comfort Kazah, Fred Dzisi, and Stella Boadi-Danquah for their support during data collection in West Africa.

Contributor Information

Darlingtina K Esiaka, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; Department of Behavioral Sciences, University of Kentucky Medical School, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.

Elizabeth Luth, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; Rutgers Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Author Note

1. The work we report here was part of a larger investigation of cultural grounding for conceptualizing obligation of care in West African and North American settings. Details about the larger project are available from the first author.

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Kansas Jack Brehm Basic Research Award in Social Psychology to D. K. Esiaka; D. K. Esiaka was supported by the National Institutes of Health–funded Rutgers INSPIRE IRACDA Postdoctoral Program (#GM093854, D. K. Esiaka); E. Luth was supported by National Institute of Aging (grant AG065624).

Conflict of Interest

None.

Data Availability

Available from the first author upon request.

Preregistration

Not applicable.

References

  1. Adams, G. (2005). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Enemyship in North American and West African worlds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 948–968. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.948 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams, G. (2012). The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 181–208). Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398991.013.0008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Adams, G., Anderson, S., & Adonu, J. (2004). The cultural grounding of closeness and intimacy. In Mashek D. J. & Aron A. (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 331–350). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Adams, G., Bruckmüller, S., & Decker, S. (2012). Self and agency in context: Ecologies of abundance and scarcity. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 1(1), 141–153. doi: 10.1037/a0029348 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Adams, G., & Kurtiş, T. (2015). Friendship and gender in cultural–psychological perspective: Implications for research, practice, and consultation. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 4(4), 182–194. doi: 10.1037/ipp0000036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2004). Toward a conception of culture suitable for a social psychology of culture. The Psychological Foundations of Culture, 335–360. [Google Scholar]
  7. Adams, G., & Plaut, V. C (2003). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Friendship in North American and West African worlds. Personal Relationships, 10(3), 333–347. doi: 10.1111/1475-6811.00053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Amoako, Y. A., Ackam, N., Omuojine, J.-P., Oppong, M. N., Owusu-Ansah, A. G., Abass, M. K., Amofa, G., Ofori, E., Frimpong, M., Bailey, F., Molyneux, D. H., & Phillips, R. O. (2021). Caregiver burden in Buruli ulcer disease: Evidence from Ghana. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 15(6), e0009454. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Atakere, D., & Adams, G. (2018). Neoliberal construction of relationality and obligation to a parent with debility. Innovation in Aging, 2(suppl_1), 469–469. doi: 10.1093/geroni/igy023.1755 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Blidstein, G. (2005). Honor thy father and mother: Filial responsibility in Jewish law and ethics (Vol. 1). KTAV Publishing House, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Coe, C. (2011). What is love? The materiality of care in Ghanaian transnational families. International Migration, 49(6), 7–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2435.2011.00704.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Czaja, S. J. (2016). Long-term care services and support systems for older adults: The role of technology. American Psychologist, 71(4), 294–301. doi: 10.1037/a0040258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Daly, J. (2016). The caregiving season: Finding grace to honor your aging parents. NavPress. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dilworth-Anderson, P., Brummett, B. H., Goodwin, P., Williams, S. W., Williams, R. B., & Siegler, I. C. (2005). Effect of race on cultural justifications for caregiving. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 60(5), S257–62. doi: 10.1093/geronb/60.5.s257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Esiaka, D. (2019). Cultural psychology of relationality: Implications for eldercare. University of Kansas. [Google Scholar]
  17. Esiaka, D., Adams, G., & Osei-tutu, A. (2020). Dilemma tales as African knowledge practice: An example from research on obligations of support. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 546330. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.546330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Esiaka, D. K., & Adams, G. (2020). Epistemic violence in research on eldercare. Psychology and Developing Societies, 32(2), 176–200. doi: 10.1177/0971333620936948 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Falzarano, F., Moxley, J., Pillemer, K., & Czaja, S. J. (2021). Family matters: Cross-cultural differences in familism and caregiving outcomes. Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 77(7), 1269–1279. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbab160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fiske, A. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations: Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing. Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Funk, L. (2010). The interpretive dynamics of filial and collective ­responsibility for elderly people. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 47(1), 71–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-618x.2010.01223.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gable, S. L., & Impett, E. A. (2012). Approach and avoidance motives and close relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(1), 95–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00405.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gaebelein, F., & Kaiser, W. (1990). The expositors Bible commentary (Vol. 2). The Zondervan Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gallagher, D., Mhaolain, A. N., Crosby, L., Ryan, D., Lacey, L., Coen, R. F., Walsh, C., Coakley, D., Walsh, J. B., Cunningham, C., & Lawlor, B. A. (2011). Determinants of the desire to institutionalize in Alzheimer’s caregivers. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias®, 26(3), 205–211. doi: 10.1177/1533317511400307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Garcia, N. M., López, N., & Vélez, V. N. (2018). QuantCrit: rectifying quantitative methods through critical race theory. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 149–157. doi: 10.1080/13613324.2017.1377675 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gaugler, J. E., Yu, F., Krichbaum, K., & Wyman, J. F. (2009). Predictors of nursing home admission for persons with dementia. Medical Care, 47(2), 191–198. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31818457ce [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gyekye, K. (1999). The concept of a person. In Christensen K. R. (Ed.), Philosophy and choice (pp. 215–225). Mayfield Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  28. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60381-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hwang, W., Kim, J. H., Brown, M. T., & Silverstein, M. (2022). Are filial eldercare norms related to intergenerational solidarity with older parents? A typological developmental approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(4), 585–596. doi: 10.1037/fam0000920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Imoh, A. T.-D. (2022). Framing reciprocal obligations within intergenerational relations in Ghana through the lens of the mutuality of duty and dependence. Childhood, 29(3), 439–454. doi: 10.1177/09075682221103343 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. James, K., Thompson, C., Holder-Nevins, D., Willie-Tyndale, D., McKoy-Davis, J., & Eldemire-Shearer, D. (2019). Caregivers of older persons in Jamaica: Characteristics, burden, and associated factors. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 40(7), 713–721. doi: 10.1177/0733464819898315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kavalski, E. (2016). Relationality and its Chinese characteristics. China Quarterly, 226, 551–559. doi: 10.1017/s0305741016000606 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Keller, H., Borke, J., Lamm, B., Lohaus, A., & Yovsi, R. D. (2011). Developing patterns of parenting in two cultural communities. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(3), 233–245. doi: 10.1177/0165025410380652 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Leersnyder, J. D., Boiger, M., & Mesquita, B. (2013). Cultural regulation of emotion: Individual, relational, and structural sources. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 55. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Markus, H. R., Mullally, P. R., & Kitayama, S. (1997). Selfways: Diversity in modes of cultural participation. In Neisser U. & Jopling D. A. (Eds.), The conceptual self in context: Culture, experience, self-understanding (pp. 13–61). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Markus, H. R., Ryff, C. D., Curhan, K. B., & Palmersheim, K. A. (2004). How healthy are we? A national study of well-being at midlife (pp. 273–319). University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. McClendon, M. J., Smyth, K. A., & Neundorfer, M. M. (2006). Long-term-care placement and survival of persons with ­Alzheimer’s disease. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological and Social Sciences, 61(4), P220–P227. doi: 10.1093/geronb/61.4.p220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Moritz, M. (2008). A critical examination of honor cultures and herding societies in Africa. African Studies Review, 51(2), 99–117. doi: 10.1353/arw.0.0052 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Oh, A., Patel, K., Boscardin, W. J., Max, W., Stephens, C., Ritchie, C. S., & Smith, A. K. (2019). Social support and patterns of institutionalization among older adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 67(12), 2622–2627. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Oishi, S. (2010). The psychology of residential mobility: Implications for the self, social relationships, and well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 5–21. doi: 10.1177/1745691609356781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Oishi, S., & Graham, J. (2010). Social ecology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 356–377. doi: 10.1177/1745691610374588 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Olund, D. (2012). Honor thy parents? A religious perspective on poisonous parenting. In Dunham S. M., Dermer S. B., & Carlson J. (Eds.), Poisonous parenting (pp. 199–220). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  44. Osei-Tutu, A., Dzokoto, V. A., Hanke, K., Adams, G., & Belgrave, F. Z. (2018). Conceptions of love in Ghana: An exploration among Ghanaian Christians. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 28(2), 83–88. doi: 10.1080/14330237.2018.1454576 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Osei-Tutu, A., Adams, G., Esiaka, D., Dzokoto, V. A., & Affram, A. A. (2022). The modernity/coloniality of love: Individualist lifeways and charismatic Christianity in Ghanaian worlds. Journal of Social Issues, 78(1), 183–208. doi: 10.1111/josi.12432 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Pan, Y., Chen, R., & Yang, D. (2022). The relationship between filial piety and caregiver burden among adult children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Geriatric Nursing, 43, 113–123. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2021.10.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Quinlan, C., McKibbin, C., Cuffney, C., Brownson, R., Brownson, C., Clark, J., & Osvold, L. (2022). Barriers to aging in place for rural, institutionalized older adults: A qualitative exploration. Clinical Gerontologist, 45(5), 1167–1179. doi: 10.1080/07317115.2020.1820651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sablan, J. R. (2018). Can you really measure that? Combining critical race theory and quantitative methods. American Educational Research Journal, 56(1), 178–203. doi: 10.3102/0002831218798325 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Salter, P. S., & Adams, G. (2012). Mother or wife? An African dilemma tale and the psychological dynamics of sociocultural change. Social Psychology, 43(4), 232–242. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000124 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Thomas, L. M., & Cole, J. (2019). Love in Africa (pp. 1–30). University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/9780226113555 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Trimm, C. (2017). Honor your parents: A command for adults. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2(60), 247–263. [Google Scholar]
  52. Twum-Danso, A. (2009). Reciprocity, respect and responsibility: The 3Rs underlying parent–child relationships in Ghana and the implications for children’s rights. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 17(3), 415–432. doi: 10.1163/157181809x430337 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

gbad106_suppl_Supplementary_Material
Click here for additional data file. (29.7KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Available from the first author upon request.

Articles from The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES