Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Psychol. 2024 Feb 6;59(4):568–577. doi: 10.1002/ijop.13117

Cultural Values, Parenting, and Child Adjustment in the Philippines

Liane Peña Alampay 1
PMCID: PMC11257813  NIHMSID: NIHMS1964482  PMID: 38320969

Abstract

This study examined whether Filipino mothers’ and fathers’ cultural values, namely individualism, collectivism, and conformity values; are associated with parental warmth, rules/limit-setting, and expectations of family obligations; and child internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Children (n = 103; Mage = 10.52, SDage = .44) and their mothers (n = 100) and fathers (n = 79) from urban Metro Manila, Philippines, responded to self-report measures orally or in writing. Mothers’ collectivistic values, and fathers’ individualistic and collectivistic values, were positively associated with expectations for children’s familial obligations. Fathers’ individualist values predicted lower internalizing behaviors in children, whereas the valuing of conformity predicted greater paternal warmth. Future research on cultural values should unpack their dynamic meanings, processes, and associations with parenting behaviors and child adjustment.

Keywords: Filipino, parenting, individualism, collectivism, child adjustment

Introduction

The Philippines is a lower middle-income country (LMIC) located in South East Asia. A history of colonization by Spain for more than three centuries, and subsequently the United States for five decades, has infused Philippine culture with Western features especially in language, education, and religion. Yet its culture is continuously shaped by its ongoing affinity and transactions with neighboring countries in Asia and the Pacific Rim, and the dynamic forces of rapid globalization. Given this complexity, questions of cultural values and their associations with behaviors and development are always meaningful. This study aims to investigate the relations between cultural values; the parenting variables of warmth, rule/limit-setting, and expectations regarding family obligations; as well as internalizing and externalizing child outcomes, among a sample of Filipino mothers and fathers.

Cultural Values in the Philippines

Individualism and collectivism are broad cultural constructs that have been widely used to describe and differentiate views of the self, value systems, and social behaviors across different societies (Kagitcibasi, 2007). Individualism grants importance to pursuing personal goals and choices, independence, and maximizing self-definition and self-worth; collectivism promotes interdependence and meeting mutual obligations and expectations, particularly towards the family or in-group (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2007). Philippine society has generally been characterized as collectivistic, consistent with cultural values that emphasize family relationships and welfare, respect for parents and authority figures, and the importance of fulfilling familial obligations (Alampay, 2014). Filipino interpersonal values and behaviors are rooted in the concept of kapwa, a sense of self that is shared with fellow-beings, cultivated in mutual respect and regard for another (Enriquez, 1994).

However, few studies have directly measured Filipinos’ cultural values in terms of individualism-collectivism. Rather, collectivism is typically assumed at the national level, rooted in Hofstede’s work comparing 53 countries on the individualist-collectivist continuum, where the Philippines scored among the lowest on individualism (Hofstede, 1980). In one of the few studies examining this dimension among college students in the United States and the Philippines, Grimm et al. (1999) reported that Filipino students valued collectivistic traits and values significantly more than did students in the US. In another cross-cultural study, Filipino college youth likewise scored lower in a measure of vertical individualism (i.e. emphasis on autonomy and achievement; endorsement of status and hierarchy) but higher in vertical collectivism (i.e. emphasis on interdependence and sacrifice for the in-group; endorsement of status and hierarchy) compared to youth in the US and Turkey (Cukur, De Guzman & Carlo, 2004).

Apart from individualism-collectivism, conformity is considered among the core values in Schwartz’s value theory. Schwartz’s model has identified and validated universally meaningful value dimensions in more than 50 countries (Schwartz et al., 2001); these values serve as guiding principles underlying individual attitudes and beliefs and have been found to predict various behaviors from religiosity (Saroglou et al., 2004) to environmental behaviors (Katz-Gerro et al., 2017). Conformity refers to the inclination towards tradition and security versus self-direction and openness to change (Saroglou et al., 2004; Schwartz et al., 2001).

The valuing of conformity can be inferred from the foregoing collectivistic depictions of Philippine society, and has likewise not been examined in relation to parenting. Higher collectivism was positively associated with valuing tradition and conformity in a study involving students from the Philippines, US, and Turkey (Cukur, De Guzman & Carlo, 2004). Filipino youth have been found to endorse parental authority and influence in decision-making, be less likely to disagree with parents, and feel greater obligation to obey and adhere to meeting familial obligations (Darling, Cumsille, & Alampay, 2005). Likewise, Filipino parents endorse attitudes such as strictness, respect for authority, and obedience, to a higher extent than average among parents across nine countries; conversely, they score significantly lower than average in attitudes affirming children’s autonomy and self-assertion (Alampay & Jocson, 2011; Bornstein, Putnick, & Lansford, 2011). These findings generally point to a high valuing for conformity in Philippine society, particularly in the family context.

It is worth re-examining cultural values and their associated parenting behaviors and child outcomes, given rapid changes in social contexts. For instance, more current conceptualizations and evidence regarding individualism-collectivism indicate that they are discrete rather than orthogonal dimensions and can co-exist in varying degrees within cultures and individuals. In a study involving 12 cultural groups in 9 countries, including the Philippines, Lansford et al. (2021) found that greater variance in individualism and collectivism is accounted for by within-culture than between-culture factors. Parents in different countries espouse both individualist and collectivistic values in raising their children (Wang & Tamis-LeMonda, 2012). For instance, Filipino youth endorse both independent and interdependent self-construals, albeit relatively more interdependence (Alampay, 2003). As a function of historical and culture change due to globalization, technological advances, and immigration, a more dynamic interaction and melding of individualist and collectivistic traits, goals, and value systems is likely in families and societies (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2007; Kagitcibasi, 2007). Likewise, conformity values decline over time due to shifts in the sociohistorical and political climate (Bond & Smith, 1996). Thus, although there are substantial accounts characterizing Philippine society as collectivistic and valuing conformity, the present study adds a more current perspective using data collected at the individual level from Filipino mothers and fathers.

Parenting in the Philippines

Family obligations refer to parental beliefs regarding the duties expected and considered important for children to fulfill for the sake of the family, including assisting the family by completing chores and caring for grandparents, respecting older family members, and doing well and making sacrifices for the welfare of the family (Fuligni et al., 1999). Meeting familial obligations is a significant feature in Filipino children’s upbringing, exemplifying the Filipino cultural value of utang na loob (immeasurable debt of being) towards one’s parents and the centrality of family interdependence and cohesion. Educational and career achievements, for instance, are means by which children can contribute to their family’s welfare (Alampay & Garcia, 2019).

Among various parent behaviors, behavioral control is a dimension that has been highlighted as varying in significance and practice across cultures, particularly families in Asia in contrast to Western contexts (Ng & Wang, 2019). With respect to setting rules and limits, an aspect of behavioral control, studies with Filipino adolescents have shown that they perceive their parents as setting rules over several areas in their lives, including issues considered in the personal domain (i.e. affect only the self). Unlike youth in the United States and Chile, the rules set by parents did not decrease for older Filipino adolescents in the cross-sectional study (Darling, Cumsille, & Alampay, 2005), suggesting high levels of parental authority and control. A more recent longitudinal study tracking the changes in parental rules and limit-setting over time showed a quadratic trajectory, with parents setting increasing rules (from “usually” to “always”) from ages 10 to 12, and then decreasing (around “usually”) through ages 13 to 17 in areas such as how they spend their free time and who they spend their time with (Alampay & Rothenberg, 2021). This reflects a more normative trend where Filipino parents may be adjusting their rules and affording more autonomy for adolescents, even in a collectivistic context.

On the other hand, parental warmth is considered a universal dimension of parenting albeit expressed differently in Asian cultural contexts (Ng & Wang, 2019). The longitudinal trajectory for parental warmth among Filipino parents indicates an overall linear trend with small decreases in warmth from age 8 to 16. More educated parents exhibited relatively higher levels of warmth across time (Alampay & Rothenberg, 2021). As with rule-setting, this may reflect a normative trend when children reach adolescence and the nature of emotional bonds with parents change, relative to peers (Smetana, 2011). Expressions of warmth among Filipino parents include providing children with instrumental support and making sacrifices so children can pursue their goals, from helping in school projects or cleaning the child’s room, to working overseas to provide for the children’s needs (Alampay & Garcia, 2019).

Culture and Parenting

Parenting goals and behaviors are embedded in a cultural milieu. The bioecological systems framework posits the dynamic and mutual influences between macrosystem factors, including cultural norms and values, and microsystem processes in the parent-child relationship (Bornstein & Cheah, 2006). Specifically, cultural norms shape aspects of the child’s “developmental niche” as the physical and social settings in the child’s life, the customs and practices of child care, and caregivers’ beliefs and values (Harkness & Super, 2006). Based on these frameworks, it is reasonable to posit that the cultural values of individualism-collectivism and conformity, to the extent these are espoused by caregivers, are associated with dimensions of parenting. The limited extant evidence indicates that expectations of family obligations, parental rules/limit-setting, and parental warmth are culturally relevant caregiver ethnotheories and practices in the Filipino child’s developmental niche. Examining these parenting dimensions more explicitly in relation to cultural values would substantiate assumptions of collectivism and interdependence in Filipino families and help address the paucity in empirical research on Filipino parenting and child outcomes.

Given that collectivism emphasizes an orientation towards the family, maintaining harmonious relationships, and meeting social roles and mutual expectations (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002), higher collectivistic and conformity values are expected to be positively associated wth parental expectations of children’s family obligations. Conversely, an individualist stance would be negatively associated with expectations of family obligations, as parents may encourage more independence from family bonds and validate personal choices over familial expectations (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).

The associations between cultural values and parental warmth are more equivocal. Parental warmth and nurturance is a fundamental aspect of parenting that has been shown to be associated with positive developmental outcomes across different cultural contexts (Rothenberg et al., 2019). As such a critical dimension of parenting, warmth may be less predicted by variations in individualism, collectivism, and conformity values. That is, whether a parent espouses independence or interdependence may not influence the warmth they demonstrate to their children to a significant degree.

Alongside parental warmth, parental monitoring in the form of setting rules and limits is a core parenting behavior that is necessary to regulate children’s behaviors and protect them from risks and harms (Rothenberg et al., 2019). However, parents may be more inclined to set rules and control children’s behaviors if they have a stronger valuing of conformity and lower emphasis on independence and personal choice. This is also inferred from cross-cultural studies where parents from more collectivistic societies such as the Philippines are reported to set more rules (Darling, Cumsille, & Alampay, 2005).

Mother and father roles in Filipino culture are circumscribed along gender typical lines, with mothers expected to be primarily responsible for child care and household management, and fathers considered to be the “head” of the household and main providers of financial support, but having limited involvement in the daily lives of their children (Alampay, 2014). In a study with the same sample as the current paper, Filipino mothers exhibited relatively more modern childrearing attitudes than Filipino fathers, such as granting children more independence and encouragement of self-expression. Still, Filipino mothers and fathers do not differ in espousing authoritarian beliefs that prioritize obedience of children to parental authority and directives (Alampay & Jocson, 2011). It may be expected, then, that both Filipino mothers and fathers endorse collectivistic and conforming cultural values, which in turn predict expectations of family obligations and rules/limit-setting, particularly at age 10 when rules were found to be somewhat increasing for this sample (Alampay & Rothenberg, 2021).

Culture and Child Adjustment in the Philippines

The dimensions of internalizing and externalizing behaviors are among the most widely used and agreed upon classifications of behavior problems or maladaptation in psychopathology research across different societies all over the world, and their study has clarified the mechanisms and interventions to understand and enhance the well-being of children worldwide (Achenbach et al., 2016). Internalizing behaviors refer to internalized distress (e.g. withdrawal, anxiety) whereas externalizing problems refer to undercontrolled behaviors (e.g. delinquency, aggression). Studies of Filipino children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors have revealed associations with various parenting behaviors, such as corporal and verbal punishment (Alampay et al., 2017; Anonas & Alampay, 2015); and as a predictor of parental hostility and aggression (Garcia & Alampay, 2012). In the Parenting Across Cultures multi-country studies (which include the Philippine sample), internalizing and externalizing outcomes have been associated with such variables as household income (Lansford et al., 2018), parental rejection (Putnick et al., 2015), and parents’ endorsement of aggression and authoritarian attitudes (Lansford et al., 2018).

To date, there have been no studies in the Philippines examining the relations between the cultural values of individualism, collectivism, and conformity on child behavior problems. According to the syndromal sensitivity model, cultures facilitate or encourage certain behaviors and emotions (e.g. inhibition), and sanction and punish others (e.g. rule-breaking), resulting in possible differential expressions of psychopathological syndromes in various cultures (Weisz et al., 2006). For instance, stronger endorsement of interdependent values (such as family obligations) evince higher stigmatization of externalizing behaviors but greater tolerance for internalizing behaviors, presumably because the former is more disruptive of relationships and expectations of obedience to authority. In turn, stigmatization or disapproval of externalizing symptoms predicts adolescents’ propensity to report lower levels of such problem behaviors (Lau et al., 2016). Lansford et al. (2018) also report that in cultural groups higher in authoritarian attitudes (over and above the effects of within-country parenting attitudes) children were more likely to have elevated externalizing behavior trajectories. To the extent that authoritarian attitudes, which emphasize unquestioning obedience to authority, are associated with lower levels of individualism and higher levels of conformity, then it may be inferred that these cultural values may be associated with externalizing behaviors.

The Present Study

Our research question was whether Filipino mothers’ and fathers’ individualism, collectivism, and conformity variables are significantly related to parenting behaviors and child adjustment during middle childhood. We hypothesized that higher levels of collectivism and conformity are positively associated with parents’ expectations of family obligations and with parents’ rules/limit-setting. This is hypothesized to be the case for both Filipino mothers and fathers. By contrast, the cultural values are not expected to predict parental warmth. There are no a priori expectations regarding associations of cultural values with externalizing and internalizing behaviors, for lack of strong evidence in the Philippine context.

Methods

Participants

Participants from the Filipino subsample of the Parenting Across Cultures Study are of Filipino parentage and were born and raised in the Philippines. They were recruited from the most densely populated city in Metro Manila, Philippines through letters sent to parents via their children in public and private schools. Lower income families enroll their children in public schools where tuition is free, whereas middle- and upper-class children attend private schools. Participants were recruited to approximate the socioeconomic distribution of families in Metro Manila (i.e., approximately 60% in the lower income stratum). Children (n = 103) were 10.52 years old, on average, at the time of data collection (SD = .44). Their mothers (n = 100) and fathers (n = 79) also participated. Most parents were married (90%) or cohabitating (2%) and biological parents (95%); nonresidential/non-biological parents also provided data.

Procedure

Measures were administered in either English or Filipino depending on participants’ preference. Filipino measures underwent forward- and back-translation from English language for originals and methodological validation to ensure the conceptual equivalence of the instruments (Erkut, 2010). Two-hour interviews were conducted after parent consent and child assent in participant-chosen locations. Parents chose whether to complete measures orally or in writing; children completed interviews orally with an interviewer who read the question aloud, showed the child a visual depiction of the rating scale, and recorded the child’s response.

Measures

Parent individualism and collectivism.

Mothers and fathers completed a measure of individualism and collectivism adapted from Singelis et al. (1995), Tam et al. (2003), and Triandis (1995). Parents rated the importance of different values related to their autonomy and belonging to a social group. Parents were asked whether they 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, or 4 = strongly agree with each of 16 statements, 8 reflecting individualism and 8 reflecting collectivism. Examples of individualist items included “I’d rather depend on myself than others” and “My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me.” Examples of collectivist items included “It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want” and “To me, pleasure is spending time with others.” Items were averaged to create an individualism scale (αs = .70 and .73 for mothers and fathers, respectively) and a collectivism scale (αs = .68 and .65 for mothers and fathers, respectively).

Parent conformity values.

Mothers and fathers each rated an item developed by Schwartz et al. (2001): “I believe that people should do what they’re told. I think people should follow rules at all times, even when no one is watching.” Parents responded using a 6-point scale (1 = not like me at all to 6 = very much like me).

Parent warmth.

Mothers and fathers completed the Parental Acceptance-Rejection/Control Questionnaire-Short Form, a measure with excellent established reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and measurement invariance that has been used in over 60 cultures worldwide and has been used successfully with Filipino families by our own and other research teams (Lansford et al., 2018; Rohner, 2005). Children also provided separate ratings about their mothers’ and fathers’ warmth. Eight items captured parental warmth (e.g., “parents say nice things to child”). Behavior frequency was rated on a modified 4-point scale (1 = almost never to 4 = every day). We averaged mothers’ and children’s ratings of mothers’ warmth and averaged fathers’ and children’s ratings of fathers’ warmth to create composite measures of mother warmth (α = .76) and father warmth (α = .79).

Parent rules/limit-setting.

Parent rules/limit-setting was assessed by a subscale of the parental monitoring scale derived from the work of Conger et al. (1994) and Steinberg et al. (1992). This measure has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in past studies examining both the entire Parenting Across Cultures sample and Filipino families in particular (Lansford et al., 2018). To measure parent rules/limit-setting, children answered 5 questions that captured the frequency with which parents impose limits on their child’s activities (e.g., with whom the child spends time, how the child spends his/her free time, how the child spends his/her money, where the child goes right after school, and the type of homework the child receives) on a 0 = never to 3 = always scale. Items were averaged to create a composite parent rules/limit setting scale (α = .69) with higher scores indicating more parental rules/limit-setting.

Parent family obligation expectations.

Mothers, fathers, and children completed the respect for family and current assistance scales of the family obligations measure developed by Fuligni et al. (1999). The measure includes 7 items assessing views about the importance of respecting the authority of elders in the family, including parents, grandparents, and older siblings (e.g., Please rate how important it is to you that your child treat you with great respect/ Please rate how important it is to your parents that you treat them with great respect; 1 = not important to 5 = very important) and 11 items assessing parents’ expectations and children’s perceptions of their parents’ expectations regarding how often children should help and spend time with the family on a daily basis (e.g., Please rate how often your child is expected to help out around the house/Please rate how often your parents expect you to help out around the house; 1 = almost never to 5 = almost always). These 18 items were averaged to create a composite scale for each reporter (α = .86, .87, and .87 for child, mother, and father reports, respectively).

Child internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

Parents and children, respectively, completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach, 1991). Parents and children indicated whether each behavior was 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, or 2 = very true or often true. The Achenbach measures have been translated into at least 100 languages and have been used with at least 100 cultural groups (Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment, 2016). The Internalizing Behavior scale was generated by summing the responses from 31 items (for parents) or 29 items (for children) including behaviors and emotions such as loneliness, self-consciousness, nervousness, sadness, feeling worthless, anxiety, withdrawn behavior, and physical problems without medical causes. The Externalizing Behavior scale was created by summing the responses from 33 items (for parents) or 30 items (for children) including behaviors such as lying, truancy, vandalism, bullying, disobedience, tantrums, sudden mood change, and physical violence. We created cross-informant composites by averaging all available reporters’ scores for internalizing (α = .86) and externalizing (α = .93) behaviors.

Covariates.

Child gender and parent education (number of years of education obtained by the mother and father) were included as covariates.

Analytic Plan

Analyses proceeded in two steps. First, we examined bivariate correlations between the cultural value variables and the parenting and child adjustment variables. Second, we conducted multiple regressions predicting each of the parenting and child adjustment variables from the three cultural value variables (i.e., individualism, collectivism, and conformity), separately for mothers and fathers, controlling for child gender and parent education (mother education in the models with mothers’ cultural values and father education in the models with fathers’ cultural values).

Results

Descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics

Study Variable M SD
Mother Individualism 2.90 .42
Mother Collectivism 3.42 .33
Mother Conformity 4.72 1.18
Father Individualism 2.91 .41
Father Collectivism 3.34 .33
Father Conformity 4.68 1.13
Mother Warmth 3.67 .30
Father Warmth 3.53 .40
Rules/Limit-setting 1.90 .61
Mother Family Obligations 4.10 .51
Father Family Obligations 3.95 .50
Child Family Obligations 3.99 .58
Child Internalizing 13.32 5.43
Child Externalizing 12.06 6.03
Open in a new tab

Mothers’ Cultural Values

Bivariate correlations are shown in Table 2. As shown, mothers’ individualism was positively correlated with mothers’ higher expectations regarding children’s family obligations and with more child internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Mothers’ higher collectivism was correlated with mothers’ higher expectations regarding children’s family obligations. Mothers’ higher conformity values were correlated with less child internalizing behavior.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations

Mother Father
Parenting or Child Adjustment Variable Individualism Collectivism Conformity Individualism Collectivism Conformity
Mother Warmth −.01 .14 .05 −.09 −.03 .04
Father Warmth −.06 .02 .13 .28* .32** .30**
Rules/Limit-setting .16 .14 −.14 .02 −.02 .18
Mother Family Obligations .31** .43*** .19 .22 .12 −.04
Father Family Obligations .02 .08 .17 .50*** .46*** .26*
Child Family Obligations .10 .11 −.09 .06 .06 .07
Child Internalizing .21* .01 −.20* −.27* −.18 −.22*
Child Externalizing .26* .06 −.07 −.15 −.09 −.13
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Results from the regression analyses are shown in Table 3. Mothers’ individualism and conformity values were not associated with any of the parenting or child adjustment variables after taking into account the other cultural values, child gender, and mothers’ education. Mothers’ higher collectivism was associated with higher maternal expectations regarding children’s family obligations, even after taking into account the other cultural values, child gender, and mothers’ education. Child gender and maternal education were not significantly associated with parenting or child adjustment outcomes in any of the models.

Table 3.

Regressions Predicting Parenting and Child Adjustment from Parents’ Cultural Values

Parenting or Child Adjustment Variable Mother Cultural Values Father Cultural Values
Individualism Collectivism Conformity F Individualism Collectivism Conformity F
Mother Warmth −.02 (.09) .12 (.11) −.01 (.03) .90 −.06 (.08) −.06 (.10) −.03 (.03) 1.74
Father Warmth −.07 (.12) .04 (.16) .12 (.04) .86 .19 (.11) .15 (.14) .21* (.04) 4.79***
Rules/Limit-setting .08 (.17) .14 (.21) −.15 (.05) 1.51 .05 (.19) −.05 (.24) .21 (.06) 1.07
Mother Family Obligations .09 (.13) .39*** (.16) .15 (.04) 5.97*** .20 (.16) .05 (.20) −.05 (.05) .83
Father Family Obligations −.04 (.16) .08 (.21) .17 (.06) .54 .39*** (.14) .24* (.17) .20* (.04) 8.26***
Child Family Obligations .06 (.17) .10 (.21) −.11 (.05) .53 .06 (.19) .01 (.24) .05 (.06) .22
Child Internalizing .20 (1.49) −.03 (1.84) −.04 (1.06) 2.05 −.27* (1.44) .01 (1.80) −.16 (.40) 2.59*
Child Externalizing .24* (1.67) −.02 (2.07) −.06 (.53) 1.77 −.15 (1.88) .03 (2.35) −.08 (.60) 1.12
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Note. Values presented are standardized betas with standard errors in parentheses. Models control for child gender and parent education.

Fathers’ Cultural Values

As shown in the correlations depicted in Table 2, fathers’ individualism was positively correlated with more paternal warmth, fathers’ higher expectations regarding children’s family obligations, and fewer child internalizing behaviors. Fathers’ higher collectivism was correlated with more paternal warmth and fathers’ higher expectations regarding children’s family obligations. Fathers’ higher conformity values were correlated with more paternal warmth, fathers’ higher expectations regarding children’s family obligations, and fewer child internalizing behaviors.

In the regression analyses (see Table 3), fathers’ individualism was associated with higher paternal expectations regarding children’s family obligations and less child internalizing behavior, even after taking into account collectivism, conformity values, child gender, and fathers’ education. Fathers’ higher collectivism was associated with higher paternal expectations regarding children’s family obligations, above and beyond the other cultural values, child gender, and father’s education. Fathers’ higher conformity values were associated with more paternal warmth and fathers’ higher expectations for children’s family obligations after taking into account the other cultural values, child gender, and fathers’ education. In significant regression models, fathers’ education was significantly associated with more paternal warmth.

Discussion

Results for the Filipino mothers indicate that collectivism is positively associated with maternal expectations about family obligations. This finding is as hypothesized, consistent with the conceptualization of collectivism as emphasizing interdependence, prioritization of group over personal goals, and meeting obligations within the in-group (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). The more such values are espoused by mothers, operationalized in such items as “It is my duty to take care of my family,” then the higher the expectation for children to help take care of siblings and grandparents, engage in household chores, and make sacrifices for the family.

Apart from expectations about children’s family obligations, mothers’ cultural values were not associated with other maternal parenting behaviors nor child adjustment. Although individualism and conformity had significant bivariate correlations with internalizing and externalizing behaviors, these relations were not sustained when covariates were included in the regression model. It may be that mothers’ parenting behaviors, particularly warmth and limit-setting, are less influenced by fairly abstract values especially when decontextualized from the family system (e.g., “winning is everything”, “competition is a law of nature”). In the daily tasks of child rearing, other factors may be more pertinent in shaping mothers’ nurturing and monitoring behaviors, such as individual, situational, and child factors (Kotchick & Forehand, 2002). Likewise, maternal cultural values may not be associated with child adjustment without the mediation of parenting behaviors and parent-child interactions.

For Filipino fathers, the cultural values of individualism, collectivism, and conformity were predictive of their expectations for children’s family obligations. Greater valuing of collectivism and conformity, as anticipated, were positively associated with expectations for children to remain connected with and support the family. That individualism likewise predicted higher expectations to meet family obligations was somewhat unexpected. It is possible that for Filipino fathers, self-definition, achievement, and status are attained through family cohesiveness and children’s pursuit of family goals. Filipino fathers stand as primary authority figures, and the welfare of the family and behaviors and achievements of children reflect on their own stature and worth relative to others (Alampay, 2014); hence, the association between higher levels of individualism and higher expectations for children to meet their obligations. It appears that meeting family obligations can serve both collectivistic and individualistic values, at least for Filipino fathers.

Fathers’ conformity values predicted higher paternal warmth. One conjecture is that a greater valuing of conformity leads fathers to be more attentive to and involved with their children either as an expression of the traditional father role as authority figure, or as a means to heighten or monitor obedience in children. Closer attachments to parents are associated with greater conformity in children (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Sarracino et al., 2011).

Only individualist values directly predicted lower levels of children’s internalizing behaviors. It is unclear why Filipino fathers’ valuing of independence, and personal goals and achievement, is associated with lower reports of anxiety, sadness, or withdrawal among children. A conjecture based on the syndromal sensitivity model (Weisz et al., 2006) is that individualist values are associated with lower tolerance for internalizing behaviors (and therefore reported or manifested to lesser extent), in converse to the finding that interdependent values are associated with lower tolerance for externalizing problems (Lau et al., 2016). Parenting behaviors that mediate this relation warrant further investigation, and may include autonomy-supportive behaviors and communication styles associated with individualist values that may promote children’s striving for independence and self-worth.

Limitations and Recommendations

The findings should be qualified in light of certain limitations. The sample is not representative of the general Philippine population, and thus the results are limited in generalizability and cannot speak to Filipino cultural values or Filipino parenting in an encompassing sense. Second, the data was collected when children were 10 to 11 years old. Parenting behaviors change as children grow older, and we are unable to capture the potentially varying associations between cultural values, parenting, and child adjustment in other time periods. Although we obtained data from mothers, fathers, and children, assessments were self-reported and subject to bias. Third, decisions on parenting variables and respondents to include in the study were constrained by this sample being part of a larger cross-national project.

Despite these limitations, this study contributes to the literature on Filipino parenting by considering how individualist, collectivist, and conformity values, measured at the individual level, are associated with parenting behaviors and child adjustment. Albeit relatively higher in collectivism, Filipino parents simultaneously hold collectivistic and individualist values, consistent with perspectives proposing the co-existence or even melding of the two value systems (Kagitcibasi, 2007; Wang & Tamis-LeMonda, 2012). Mothers’ collectivistic values, and fathers’ individualist and collectivistic values, significantly and positively predict expectations for children’s familial obligations. Moreover, and quite unexpectedly, fathers’ individualist values predicted lower internalizing behaviors in children, whereas the valuing of conformity predicted greater paternal warmth. Interpreting these results require further study.

Such findings suggest that the influence of cultural values on parenting and child outcomes is more complex than what may be expected from conventional descriptions of individualist and collectivist values. For instance, individualism and collectivism may be expressed in different ways in different cultures (Prevoo & Tamis-LeMonda, 2017). Broad cultural constructs such as these should be unpacked in terms of processes, meanings, and interactions in the local context, especially in the current time of rapid social change. For instance, how are individualist values expressed and accommodated by parents and children in the cohesive and interdependent Filipino family system? In addition, there may be dynamic interactions between individualist and collectivistic values of mothers and fathers that emerge and influence their parenting in different contexts, situations, and time periods in the child’s life (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2007). As found in this study, both individualist and collectivist values promote a sense of familial obligation, and these associations would possibly shift from childhood to adolescence. Future research on how cultural values shape parenting and child adjustment should reflect this complexity.

Funding:

This research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant RO1-HD054805.

Footnotes

Compliance with ethical standards: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee at the Ateneo de Manila University and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflicts of interest: The author declares she has no conflict of interest.

Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual adult participants included in the study; assent was obtained from children.

References

  1. Achenbach TM (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL 14-18, YSR, and TRF Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. [Google Scholar]
  2. Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment. (2016). Multicultural research with the ASEBA. Available http://www.aseba.org/aboutus/multiculturalresearch.html [Google Scholar]
  3. Achenbach TM, Ivanova M, Rescorla L, Turner L, Althoff R (2016). Internalizing/externalizing problems: Review and recommendations for clinical and research applications. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(8), 647–656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Alampay LP (2003). Self-complexity, self-construal, and negative emotion in Filipino adolescents. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 36(1), 68–102. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alampay LP (2014). Parenting in the Philippines. In Selin H and Schvaneveldt P (Eds.), Parenting Across Cultures: Childrearing, Motherhood and Fatherhood in Non-Western Cultures (Ch. 8, pp. 105–121). The Netherlands: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  6. Alampay LP, & Garcia AS (2019). Education and parenting in the Philippines. In Sorbring E& Lansford JE(Eds.), School systems, parent behavior, and academic achievement: An international perspective (pp. 79–94). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-28277-6_7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Alampay LP, Godwin J, Lansford J, Bombi AS, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Malone PS, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Tapanya S, Tirado LMU, Zelli A, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D (2017). Severity and justness do not moderate the relation between corporal punishment and negative child outcomes: A multicultural and longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(4), 491–502. doi: 10.1177/0165025417697852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Alampay LP, & Jocson MR (2011). Attributions and attitudes of mothers and fathers in the Philippines. Parenting: Science and Practice, 11(2–3), 163–176. 10.1080/15295192.2011.585564 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Alampay LP & Rothenberg D (2021). Four domains of parenting in the Philippines. In Alampay LP., & Rothenberg WA (2021). Four domains of parenting in the Philippines (Ch. 7, pp 132–151). [Google Scholar]; In Lansford JE, Rothenberg WA, & Bornstein MH (Eds.), Parenting across cultures across development: Parenting from childhood to adolescence in nine countries. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  10. Anonas MRA & Alampay LP (2015). The moderating effect of parental warmth on the relation of verbal punishment and child problem behaviors in Filipino same-sex and cross-sex parent-child groups. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 48, 115–152. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bond R & Smith P (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bornstein MH, & Cheah CSL (2006). The Place of “Culture and Parenting” in the Ecological Contextual Perspective on Developmental Science. In Rubin KH & Chung OB (Eds.), Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent-child relations: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3–33). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bornstein M, Putnick D, & Lansford J (2011). Parenting attitudes and attributions in cross- cultural perspective. Parenting: Science and Practice, 11(2–3), 214–237. 10.1080/15295192.2011.585568 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Conger RD, Ge X, Elder GH Jr., Lorenz FO, & Simons RL (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541–561. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00768.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cukur CS, De Guzman MRT, & Carlo G (2004). Religiosity, values, and horizontal and vertical individualism-collectivism: A study of Turkey, the United States, and the Philippines. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(6), 613–634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Darling N, Cumsille P, & Alampay L (2005). Rules, legitimacy of parental authority, and obligation to obey in Chile, the Philippines, and the United States. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 47–60. doi: 10.1002/cd.127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Enriquez V. (1994). From colonial to liberation psychology. Manila: De La Salle University Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Erkut S (2010). Developing multiple language versions of instruments for intercultural research. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 19–24. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00111.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fuligni AJ, Tseng V, & Lam M (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1030–1044. 10.1111/1467-8624.00075 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Garcia A, & Alampay LP (2012). Parental efficacy, experience of stressful events, and child externalizing behavior as predictors of Filipino mothers’ and fathers’ parental hostility and aggression. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 45(1), 1–24. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Grimm SD, Church AT, Katigbak MS, Reyes JA (1999). Self-described traits, values, and moods associated with individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(4), 466–500. [Google Scholar]
  22. Grusec JE, & Goodnow JJ (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental psychology, 30(1), 4. [Google Scholar]
  23. Harkness S & Super C (2006). Themes and variations: Parental ethnotheories in Western cultures. In Rubin KH & Chung OB (Eds.), Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent-child relations: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 61–79). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hofstede G 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  25. Katz-Gerro T, Greenspan I, Handy F, & Lee H (2017). The relationship between value types and environmental behaviour in four countries: Universalism, benevolence, conformity and biospheric values revisited. Environmental Values, 26(2), 223–249. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kagitcibasi C (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications (2nd edition). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kotchick BA, & Forehand R (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of the contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of child and family studies, 11, 255–269. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lansford JE, Godwin J, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D, Bornstein MH, Chang L,…Zelli A (2018). Longitudinal associations between parenting and youth adjustment in twelve cultural groups: Cultural normativeness of parenting as a moderator. Developmental Psychology, 54, 362–377. 10.1037/dev0000416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lansford J, Godwin J, Bornstein M, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge K, Malone P, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner A, Sorbring E, Steinberg L, Tapanya S, Uribe Tirado L, Alampay LP, Al-Hassan S, & Bacchini D (2018). Parenting, culture, and the development of externalizing behaviors from age 7 to 14 in nine countries. Development and Psychopathology, 30(5), 1937–1958. doi: 10.1017/S0954579418000925 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lansford JE, Malone PS, Tapanya S, Uribe Tirado L, Zelli A, Alampay LP, Al-Hassan S, Bacchini D, Bornstein M, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, & Steinberg L (2018). Household income predicts trajectories of child internalizing and externalizing behavior in high-, middle-, and low-income countries. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(1), 74–79. 10.1177/0165025418783272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lansford JE, Zietz S, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Gurdal S, Liu Q, Long Q, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Tapanya S, Steinberg L, Tirado LMU, … Alampay LP (2021). Culture and social change in mothers’ and fathers’ individualism, collectivism and parenting attitudes. Social Sciences, 10(12). 10.3390/socsci10120459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lau AS, Guo S, Tsai W, Nguyen DJ, Nguyen HT, Ngo V, & Weiss B (2016). Adolescents’ stigma attitudes toward internalizing and externalizing disorders: Cultural influences and implications for distress manifestations. Clinical Psychological Science, 4(4), 704–717. 10.1177/2167702616646314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ng F & Wang Q (2019). Asian and Asian American parenting. In Bornstein MH (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 4, pp. 108–169). Routledge. 10.4324/9780429398995. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Oyserman D, Coon HM, & Kemmelmeier M (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. 10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Prevoo MJ, & Tamis-LeMonda CS (2017). Parenting and globalization in Western countries: Explaining differences in parent – child interactions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 33–39. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Putnick D, Bornstein M, Lansford J, Malone P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Tapanya S, Uribe Tirado LM, Zelli A, Alampay LP, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D, Bombi AS, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Oburu P (2014). Perceived mother and father acceptance-rejection predict four unique aspects of child adjustment across nine countries. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 923–932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rohner RP (2005). Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ): Test manual. In Rohner RP & Khaleque A (Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (4th ed., pp. 43–106). Storrs, CT: Center for the Study of Parental Acceptance and Rejection, University of Connecticut. 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_56-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rothenberg WA, Lansford JE, Alampay LP, Al-Hassan SM, Baccini D, Bornstein MH, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Malone PS, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Steinberg L, Tapanya S, Uribe Tirado LM, & Yotangyamaneewong S (2019). Examining effects of mother and father warmth and control on child externalizing and internalizing problems from age 8 to 13 in nine countries. Development and Psychopathology, 1–25. doi: 10.1017/S0954579419001214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sarracino D, Presaghi F, Degni S, & Innamorati M (2011). Sex-specific relationships among attachment security, social values, and sensation seeking in early adolescence: Implications for adolescents’ externalizing problem behaviour. Journal of adolescence, 34(3), 541–554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Saroglou V, Delpierre V, & Dernelle R (2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4), 721–734. [Google Scholar]
  41. Schwartz SH, Melech G, Lehmann A, Burgess S, Harris M, & Owens V (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519–542. 10.1177/0022022101032005001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Singelis TM, Triandis HC, Bhawuk DPS, & Gelfand M (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275. 10.1177/106939719502900302 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Smetana J (2011). Adolescents, families, and social development: How teens construct their worlds. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444390896 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Steinberg L, Dornbusch SM, & Brown BB (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729. 10.1037//0003-066x.47.6.723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Tam W-CC, Shiah Y-J, & Chiang S-K (2003). Chinese version of the separation-individuation inventory. Psychological Reports, 93, 291–299. 10.2466/pr0.2003.93.1.291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Tamis-LeMonda CS, Way N, Hughes D, Yoshikawa H, Kalman RK, & Niwa EY (2007). Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and collectivism in cultures and individuals. Social Development, 17(1), 183–209. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00419.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Triandis HC (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview. [Google Scholar]
  48. Wang S & Tamis-LeMonda CS (2003). Do child-rearing values in Taiwan and the United States reflect cultural values of collectivism and individualism? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(6), 629–642. [Google Scholar]
  49. Weisz JR, Weiss B, Suwanlert S, & Chaiyasit W (2006). Culture and youth psychopathology: Testing the syndromal sensitivity model in Thai and American adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1098–1107. 10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES