Measures of Family Process: Psychometric Properties and Invariance Testing across South Koreans, Korean Chinese, and Korean Americans

Abstract

Using data from three interrelated studies of Korean adolescents in South Korea (N=524; M_age=14.98), China (N=267; M_age=15.24), and the U.S. (N=408; M_age=14.76), this study tested the psychometric properties and measurement invariance of multiple measures of family process, including those originally developed for subgroups of Asian Americans and commonly used Western measures. The results showed excellent psychometric properties of the scales in each group and supported metric and scalar invariances, at least partial for some, of the examined measures, providing cross-culturally comparable instruments for diverse Korean communities across the U.S. and Majority Countries. The findings also showed nuanced cultural variations despite similar conceptualizations of the constructs across groups. The study compared the means of the family process measures and examined the associations among these measures and with youth adjustments. The results from these urban samples in three different sociopolitical and economic contexts may reflect a complex interplay of culture and minority status in shaping the family process and its impact on youth development, illustrating how the modern Korean family process is flexible and responsive to the local contexts. The findings of this study present useful instruments and warrant additional research on the antecedents, mechanisms, and implications of the family process to maximize youth potential in respective contexts.

Global migrations, rapid industrialization, and Westernization have occurred during the last century at a mass scale, disproportionately affecting non-Western populations. For example, Koreans have established several sizable diasporic communities around the world (e.g., in Brazil, China, Japan, and the U.S.). In addition to the pressure of Westernization, traditional cultural characteristics of the Korean family process might have been further complicated as im/migrant Koreans settled in various sociopolitical contexts as racial/ethnic and cultural minorities (Okazaki et al., 2025). However, there is a paucity of empirical data on how the families might have modified or preserved their culture while juggling minority status and reinventing the family process (Kim et al., 2025). Moreover, research endeavors are frequently hampered by methodological challenges of the lack of adequate measures for the population of interest. Commonly used family process measures were developed using Western theories and predominantly White middle-class samples. Thus, the utility of those measures may be limited in culturally different contexts (Kim et al., 2025). In recent decades, challenging the unquestioned acceptance and use of existing measures among non-White populations in Western countries, it has become more common to examine the appropriateness of the measures before using them with such populations (e.g., Harachi et al., 2006). Further, an array of new measures has been developed to assess the unmeasured aspects of the Asian American family process in Western literature (e.g., Choi, Kim, et al., 2018; Wu & Chao, 2017). As developmental psychology research expands to Majority Countries, however, researchers continue to face a lack of adequate measures for the population in the non-Western world, having to resort to Western measures.

Filling this gap, this study examined the psychometric properties and measurement invariances of the selected family process measures across three Korean communities that share cultural heritage and racial/ethnic background but live in distinct cultural, socioeconomic, and political contexts. Specifically, this study tested the utility of several conventional Western measures of family process and those developed from Asian Americans for Korean adolescents in South Korea, China, and the U.S., and compared the patterns of family process and explored their associations with youth adjustments across the groups. The results of the study would provide much-needed measures, essential tools for empirical research. In addition, this study can produce preliminary empirical data to advance the theoretical understanding of how culture, class, racial/ethnic minority status, and immigrant history collectively shape family process and the extent to which family process is associated with youth development across various contexts.

Koreans in South Korea, China, and the United States

Following the Korean War (1950–1953), South Korea, a previously agrarian and collectivistic society, underwent massive industrialization and urbanization (Cumings, 2005). Although racial/ethnic diversity is on the rise due to a growing number of migrant workers and international marriages (Kim, 2008), South Korea remains largely racially and ethnically homogenous, with the people taking pride in such national homogeneity (Seol, 2010).

While Koreans have been emigrating to China for centuries, the most recent massive wave of migration occurred in the early to mid-1900s during the Japanese occupation of Korea and Northeast China, initially as transient migrants to flee from atrocity of the Imperial Japan, to organize independence movement or to seek economic opportunities, but later as an ethnic minority as they permanently settled (Choi, 2001). Similar to Korea, China, where Confucianism originated, was an agrarian society and traditionally collectivistic. Since the 1980s, China has experienced dramatic economic development and social changes. In 2019, over 1.8 million Korean Chinese were in China. The Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture of Jilin Province in Northeast China, where the data for this study were collected, has the largest concentration of Korean Chinese, who make up nearly 36% of the local population (Yanbian Bureau of Statistics, 2020). Korean Chinese are favorably viewed because of their higher education level [e.g., 12% of Korean Chinese vs. the national average of 7.7% have a bachelor’s or higher degree (Choi, 2001; National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2020)]. Partly because they are phenotypically indistinguishable from the majority group Han Chinese, ethnicity-based discrimination is not prevalent, although it still exists [e.g., in employment (Lee et al., 2007)].

Korean Americans, along with other immigrants from Asia and Latin America, mostly arrived in the U.S. after the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and are the fifth-largest Asian American subgroup (Min, 2010). In 2019, over 1.9 million Korean Americans were living in the U.S., concentrated in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., and Chicago (Budiman, 2021). The early Korean immigrants in the 1900s were laborers on sugar plantations in Hawaii, but contemporary Korean immigrants are generally from educated, urban, and middle-class families. In 2019, 57% of Korean Americans above age 25 had a bachelor’s or higher degree, above the national average of 33% (Budiman, 2021). Asian Americans are regarded as the “model minority,” a term that emerged during the Civil Rights Movement to undermine demands for racial justice and has valorized Asian Americans relative to Black Americans (Kim, 1999). Nonetheless, they have long been subject to racial discrimination and are often ostracized as “perpetual foreigners,” struggling to be fully accepted in American society (Park et al., 2021).

Korean Family Process and Measures

Based on the literature broadly on parenting and specifically on Asian/Asian American parenting (e.g., Bornstein, 2019; Chao & Tseng, 2002; Chen, 2025; Rubin et al., 2006; Russell et al., 2010), a conceptual model (Figure 1) was constructed to organize family process constructs and measures for this study. The family process is comprised of parenting goals, values and beliefs, parenting styles and behaviors, and the quality of parent-child relations (Bornstein, 2019). The Korean family process constructs examined in this study are arranged by these categories. These constructs are generally shared with other Asian subgroups under overarching Asian cultures (Ng & Wang, 2019), although specific practices (e.g., manners and etiquette toward the elderly) may vary across cultures (Lau & Fung, 2013; Rubin et al., 2006). In addition, a systematic cross-cultural approach is desired to identify both general/universal and culture/context-specific processes (e.g., Chen, 2025; Harkness & Super, 2002). Cultural changes around the globe in the last century interweaved two dominant cultural scripts, i.e., independence and interdependence, producing a complex hybrid (Chen, 2025; Okazaki et al., 2025). Thus, this study used both recently developed indigenous measures for Asian Americans and well-established conventional Western measures.

Figure 1:

Conceptual Model of Korean Family Process

Traditional Parenting Values and Beliefs

Korean culture was profoundly influenced by Confucianism, Taoism, Mahayana Buddhism, and shamanism (Sung, 2010). Confucianism emphasizes filial piety, patriarchy, age, and education. Taoism stresses harmony. Mahayana Buddhism (in contrast to Hinayana Buddhism) emphasizes compassion to and cohesion with others as a pathway to individual enlightenment. Despite their distinct origins, philosophies, and emphases, their influences on the Korean family process are intimately intertwined and often indistinguishable, as they were, together with shamanism, absorbed into the traditional Korean culture (Hurh, 1998).

Korean parenting is called ga-jung-kyo-yuk (가정교육) (Choi, Kim, Pekelnicky, et al., 2013). The literal translation of ga-jung-kyo-yuk is “teaching/education in the family.” The core values of ga-jung-kyo-yuk squarely reflect Asian cultural emphases on interdependence, conformity, and humility that produce deeply ingrained family values, such as a strong sense of family obligation, orientation to the family, and respect for and obedience to parents and elders (Kim, 2006). Ga-jung-kyo-yuk also governs childrearing practices and, as the word kyo-yuk (교육, teaching/education) connotes, emphasizes teaching in the family. Korean parents, along with other East Asian parents influenced by Confucian teachings (Ng & Li, 2025), may exert strict discipline and training so that their children can learn to control personal desires and emotions, conform to authority, and behave well in society (Kim, 2006). Children are socialized to appreciate family hierarchy and age veneration and taught to show respect via appropriate Korean etiquette to adults (e.g., passing things with two hands to adults or bowing to adults with proper greetings like “an-nyung-ha-se-yo”) (Choi, Kim, Pekelnicky, et al., 2013).

Based on an extensive literature review and qualitative data from focus groups and individual interviews with Korean American families (Choi & Kim, 2010), several measures were created to identify and assess traditional traits of the Korean family process that Western measures may not recognize, including traditional Korean parent virtues, familial and cultural values, and traditional Korean manners and etiquette (Choi, Kim, Kim, et al., 2013). Specifically, traditional Korean parent virtues assessed traditionally desired virtues for parents, such as self-discipline, moral cultivation, teaching children by modeling the desired values and traits, and stern parenting. The familial and cultural values measure captured filial piety, close family ties, centrality of the family, and obedience to parents. The traditional manners and etiquette scale included a series of traditional etiquette that symbolize core traditional values, and those that Korean immigrant parents regard as essential to preserve in their children.

Based on another round of extensive qualitative interviews and literature reviews, the family process measures were expanded to further encompass measures of familism, as this distinctive value is widely found across Asian cultures regardless of religion, traditional custom, and dominant philosophy (Choi, Kim, et al., 2018). The added measures included respect for adults, centrality of the family, harmony and sacrifice, and family obligation expectations (Choi et al., 2021; Choi, Kim, et al., 2018). Respect for adults assessed obedience to and respect for older persons, regardless of one’s contrary views. Centrality of the family measured the extent to which an individual is willing to give to their wide network of those perceived as family, often despite their adverse circumstances. Harmony & sacrifice measured the degree of harmony desired, and sacrifice made by an individual to benefit both family and non-family members, highlighting the collective nature of the core culture. Finally, family obligation expectations measured parents’ anticipation of children’s care provision for them when in need. This study also considered two additional major Asian parenting beliefs – the value of education and achievement, and gendered norms. Asian parents’ emphasis on their children’s education and achievement is one of the predominant traits. Moreover, educational achievement continues to be critical because it is in high demand in the industrialized economy. Although the rapid industrialization and urbanization have resulted in notable transformation in the family structure and gender-specific expectations, traditional cultural norms and expectations on gender remain persistent, but in more nuanced and complicated ways (Ng & Wang, 2019). The gender issue is at the center of societal conflict in South Korea (Kim et al., 2021) and a common source of intergenerational conflict in Asian American families (Hahm et al., 2014).

To avoid multicollinearity issues for the traditional value constructs that are conceptually interrelated, some measures were not included in this study. In addition, when parenting values and behaviors are highly correlated (e.g., emphasis on education and education-related behaviors), behavior measures were retained over belief measures to prioritize constructs more proximal to youth experiences and outcomes, as behavioral indicators more directly capture how cultural values are enacted in daily family processes.

Parenting Behaviors

Childrearing is fundamental in the acquisition and preservation of core cultural values (Harkness & Super, 2002). Naturally, parenting behaviors are shaped by what parents believe in and value. While expanding measures for Asian families described above, several parenting behavior measures were also developed (e.g., Choi et al., 2021; Choi, Kim, Pekelnicky, et al., 2013; Choi, Park, et al., 2017). For example, the promoting ideal cultural traits scale measured the extent to which parents reinforced in their children their own beliefs in core traditional values such as modesty, suppression of negative emotions, and obedient behaviors. The pressure to succeed measure assessed the degree to which the emphasis on education and achievement was expressed as parental pressure on children to succeed academically. In addition to its cultural emphasis, immigrant ethos, i.e., immigrant families are characteristically highly motivated and driven for adaptation and social mobility, solidifies achievement orientation in the im/migrant family (Rumbaut et al., 2005).

Parental control, warmth, and autonomy support are three key parenting behaviors (Chao & Tseng, 2002; Ng & Wang, 2019), the excessive or limited practices of which have been a source of family conflict in U.S. Asian immigrant families. For example, Asian parents tend to exercise more directive and restrictive parental control over their children than their Western counterparts (e.g., more rules and restrictions). However, such parental control, i.e., termed as order-keeping control, is practiced with reasoning, praise, and warmth, unlike coercive Western parental control, which is punitive and emotionally distant (Jose et al., 2000; Kagitçibasi, 2007). This concept of order-keeping control resonates with kyo-yuk (교육, teaching) among Koreans and guan (管, governing) among Chinese parents. Likewise, parental restrictions in Asian families are often motivated by the strong emphasis on education (Louie, 2004). Academic-oriented control created by Chao and Wu (2011) differs from harsh or punitive parental control and targets to improve academic performance. Asian parents may also express warmth differently. A traditional Asian parenting virtue is sternness, with fewer overt expressions of love (Kim, 2006). Parental warmth tends to be expressed nonverbally and indirectly through instrumental support, devotion and sacrifice, and support for education (Ng & Wang, 2019). Wu and Chao (2017) identify this construct of Asian American parental warmth as qin (親), which is also found among Korean Americans (Choi, Kim, Pekelnicky, et al., 2013). This unique combination of order-keeping control and implicit warmth is not well captured in the Western authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles (Ng & Wang, 2019). Indeed, ga-jung-kyo-yuk, as assessed by the above measures, was neither authoritative nor authoritarian but is a distinct hybrid of authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles (Choi, Kim, Pekelnicky, et al., 2013). These measures together gauged the degree to which culture-infused control and warmth are blended in the socialization process of Korean families. In modern and industrialized society, autonomy is an essential and valued trait, and Asian families now place greater importance on fostering independence and autonomy (Okazaki et al., 2025). Granting autonomy captures an essential parenting dimension beyond parental control and warmth that actively encourages and provides youth with an opportunity to develop autonomy (Ng & Wang, 2019).

Rohner (2004)’s Interpersonal Parental Acceptance and Rejection Theory (IPARTheory) posits that parental acceptance and rejection are fundamental to understanding parenting behaviors. The parental acceptance and rejection measures, widely used in Western literature, are offered as a better tool than authoritative and authoritarian parenting style measures to assess parenting behaviors and to predict parent-child relationships across various cultures (Ng & Wang, 2019; Rohner & Smith, 2025) and are included in this study. (Ng & Wang, 2019)

Parent-Child Relations

The quality of the parent-child relationship, including parent-child bonding and conflict, is fundamental and has a lasting impact on development in any culture (Bornstein, 2019). In addition, intergenerational cultural conflict is so prevalent that it is regarded as normative among immigrant families (Choi et al., 2008), though not uncommon among nonimmigrant families.

Most of the constructs and their measures described above have been tested for the psychometric properties with Filipino American and Korean American families and respectively, with parents and adolescents (e.g., Choi et al., 2021; Choi, Park, et al., 2017; Choi, Park, et al., 2018). Some of the measures have been used in the studies of parenting and youth adjustments with Korean American (Y. Choi, M. Lee, et al., 2020), South Korean (J. Choi et al., 2020), and Korean Chinese samples (Shen et al., 2022). Conventional Western measures of parent-child conflict and parent-child bonding have been validated and widely used across various cultural groups. Similarly, the Asian American Family Conflict scale (Lee et al., 2000) is one of the most widely used scales to measure intergenerational cultural conflict, tailored for Asian Americans. For meaningful comparative analyses across the three groups of this study, investigating measurement properties, including measurement invariance testing, is necessary.

Three Korean-Heritage Groups: Differences and Similarities

During the last several decades, non-Western nations have been swiftly westernized, and the effects have permeated the family process (Okazaki et al., 2025). Moreover, im/migrant families partially or fully alter the family process in response to the sociocultural expectations of mainstream society (Choi, Kim, Pekelnicky, et al., 2013). In the U.S., the intention of immigrant policies during its early years was assimilation into the mainstream White culture (Gordon, 1964). Racial minority families have resisted pressure to assimilate and have made deliberate efforts to preserve their heritage and culture (Alba et al., 2000). For instance, Asian immigrant parents in the U.S. have preserved their traditional core parenting values (Kibria, 2002; Louie, 2004) and, in resistance to assimilative pressures, they in fact may adhere to their culture even more than their counterparts do in the country of origin (Rosenthal & Feldman, 1992).

Contrary to the U.S. policies, the gist of integration policies in China is to allow respective ethnic groups to keep their heritage language and traditions by practicing regional administrative autonomy in areas where ethnic minorities live in concentrated communities. About 70% of the ethnic minority population lives in autonomous ethnic areas, including 5 autonomous regions, 30 autonomous prefectures, and 120 autonomous counties, which account for 64% of the entire territory of China (State Council Information Office, 2009). The relative geographical isolation of these ethnic enclaves may have slowed the assimilation process and enabled preservation of ethnic culture. Thus, despite different migration histories and sociopolitical contexts, Koreans in the U.S. and China have similarly preserved their distinct heritage culture.

Furthermore, minority status in a society may have unique implications for the family process, beyond the impacts of culture and social class. Minority families face specific stressors from their marginalized position (e.g., racism, prejudice, and discrimination), which are key to understanding minority youth development and family process (Garcia Coll et al., 1996). For example, in efforts to better prepare their children for the perceived disadvantages, families of East Asian descent in the U.S. may use their cultural model (e.g., emphasis on education) as an adaptation strategy for coping with the potential barriers associated with their minority status (Xie & Goyette, 1997). Similarly, Asian American parents intentionally work to retain their heritage culture and strengthen their children’s sense of racial/ethnic pride to prepare their children to navigate the racialized society (Juang et al., 2018). Thus, minority status may facilitate the preservation of traditional culture in the family more so than nonimmigrant, majority group co-ethnics. Korean Chinese are similarly subject to minority stress, and their minority status is likely to influence the family process (Shen et al., 2022). However, the influence might be less prominent because of potentially higher levels of assimilation due to a longer history of residence, similarities between traditional Korean and Chinese cultures, low perceptions of ethnic discrimination perpetrated by Han Chinese, coupled with higher perceived discrimination perpetrated by South Koreans (Zhao et al., 2024) (Zhang et al., 2023), all of which may lead to a reduced need to retain heritage culture relative to Korean Americans.

Current Study

The primary aim of this study is to test the psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the selected family process measures to provide high-quality measures in studying adolescent development and the role of family process in Korean communities in Majority Countries. Empirical testing of psychometric properties and measurement invariance is a prerequisite for comparative analyses of different cultural groups and should become a common practice. Based on the conceptual model (Figure 1), this study organized family process measures in three clusters: (1) traditional parenting values and beliefs (e.g., respect for adults, traditional manners and etiquette, harmony and sacrifice, and gendered norms), (2) parenting behaviors (e.g., parental behaviors that promote ideal cultural values, pressure to succeed, academic-oriented parental control, qin, parental acceptance and rejection, and granting autonomy), (3) parent-child relations (e.g., intergenerational cultural conflict, parent-child bonding, and parent-child conflict).

We first examined the psychometric properties and the measurement invariance of all family process measures. Using measures that showed at least partial scalar invariance, we compared the means/proportions of each measure, while controlling for covariates and, to examine construct validity, ran bivariate correlations among the variables. Then, for each group, we explored the associations between these measures and youth adjustments, including depressive symptoms and antisocial behaviors, first for each cluster of family process measures separately and then for all three clusters together. Finally, we tested whether these associations significantly differed across groups. The results are organized in the following order: (1) psychometric properties, (2) measurement invariance, (3) mean comparisons, (4) bivariate correlations for construct validity, and (5) regressions.

Based on their cultural and racial/ethnic minority status, this study expected a higher level of preservation of cultural tradition in family process among Korean Chinese and Korean Americans than South Koreans and an even higher level among Korean Americans because of their double-minority status (i.e., cultural and racial). Although such a pattern has been postulated, empirical data are rarely available to document the differences. This study is one of the first to examine it. We expected, however, the differences to be statistically significant but not large, because both South Korea and China have undergone rapid industrialization and Westernization, and their core cultural values, while largely remaining, are expressed in different ways tailored to the industrialized context (Lim et al., 2019). Likewise, despite parental efforts to maintain heritage culture, assimilative pressures on immigrants are also inevitable, and Korean Americans are modifying family processes, creating a cultural hybrid that is neither orthogonally Korean/Asian nor Western (Choi, Kim, Kim, et al., 2013). Culture evolves, and so does family process, regardless of context. With widespread globalization, diverse cultures coalesce with one another, narrowing the cultural gaps (Robertson, 1995).

Regarding group differences in the associations between family process and youth adjustment, previous comparative research across cultural groups shows that the group differences are mostly in the mean levels (i.e., a group can endorse family obligation more so than others) but not the associations (e.g., parental rejection is harmful regardless of cultural context) (Choi, Lee, et al., 2020). However, nuanced differences can still exist [e.g., harmony and sacrifice may be less harmful to Korean Americans than South Koreans (Choi, Lee, et al., 2020)]. Although we did not have enough literature to establish specific hypotheses, we expected that the traditional family process may not be as negative among Korean Americans as it may be in the other two contexts because the cultural retention and enculturation among racial/ethnic minority groups in the U.S. have shown significant benefits and buffering effects against disadvantages derived from the minority status (e.g., Mistry et al., 2016).

Methods

Participants

Data were from three interrelated studies of South Korean, Korean American, and Korean Chinese youth. In 2014, 408 Korean American youth (M_age=14.76 [SD=1.91]; 47.3% female) in the greater Chicago area were surveyed, which was the first wave of the Midwest Longitudinal Study of Asian American Families (MLSAAF) that follows Filipino American and Korean American families. The Korean American youth sample was predominantly from middle-class families, more likely living in neighborhoods with a high proportion of Whites and a substantial co-ethnic group presence, a general trait of Korean immigrants to the U.S., as shown in the Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). In 2017, 524 Korean youth (M_age=14.98 [SD=1.45]; 50.1% female) from socioeconomically diverse families in Seoul, South Korea, were surveyed. In 2019, 267 Korean Chinese youth (M_age=15.24 [SD=1.66]; 58.9% female) were recruited from a Tier-4 city in the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture of China.

Of the participating families, 61% Korean American parents, 42% of Korean Chinese mothers, and 47% of Korean Chinese fathers had a college or associate degree. This information was not collected in the South Korean survey, but the sampling strategy was intentional to sample family SES evenly by recruiting youth from schools in high, middle, and low-income neighborhoods. Nevertheless, 90% of the South Korean youth sample, 94% of Korean Chinese, and 81% of Korean American youth self-rated their families as middle or higher class. Of the participating students, 16% of South Korean youth received public assistance, and 26% of Korean American youth received free lunch at school. Korean Chinese and Korean American youth on average reported speaking more Korean than the society’s dominant language at home.

Procedure

Korean American youth were recruited from the greater Chicago area via multiple sources, including school rosters, phonebooks, and ethnic community organizations. Parental consent and adolescent assent were obtained. The survey was available both in English and Korean, and 85% of the youth used the English version. Youth in South Korea were recruited from middle and high schools in the Eunpyeong-Gu School District, Seoul, including three schools in high-income (31%), four in middle-income (42%), and two in low-income (27%) neighborhoods. The Eunpyeong-Gu school district was selected because its socioeconomic status (SES) distributions were comparable to those of Seoul as a city. Schools were further selected to ensure SES variability in the samples. Passive parental consent and adolescent assent were obtained. Youth filled out a paper-pencil survey. Korean Chinese youth were recruited from Grades 7 and 8 in one dual-language middle school and Grades 10 and 11 in one dual-language high school in Yanbian, China. Passive parental consent and adolescent assent were obtained. Participating youth completed a paper-pencil questionnaire in Korean. Approvals were obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the respective universities of the Investigators.

Measures

Regarding the languages of the measures, existing measures were in English, and new measures were first developed in either Korean or English to reflect the qualitative data verbatim. The finalized measures were prepared in English, Korean, and Tagalog. For translation, a committee translation approach (Epstein et al., 2015) was used in which multiple translators made independent translations of the same questionnaire and, at a consensus meeting, reconciled discrepancies and agreed on a final version. The measures were pre-tested in 2013 before the start of the MLSAAF, with different samples from those in this study. Means (or proportions), item-total correlations, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), multifactor CFA, and invariance testing across gender groups were examined to test the psychometric properties of the measures (e.g., Choi et al., 2021; Choi, Park, et al., 2017; Choi, Park, et al., 2018). Multiple tests were also performed to ensure content and construct validity. Surveys in Seoul and Yanbian used selected measures from the Korean version of the MLSAAF survey with minor modifications to fit the local contexts. Unless noted otherwise, response options were a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., 1 = not at all to 5 = very well), and scores were averaged across the items of a scale. Table 1 lists all items of the family process measures.

Table 1:

Basic Psychometric Properties

Constructs	Mean (SD)			Item-total correlation			Factor loading			Factor loading (if modified)
Items	SK	KC	KA	SK	KC	KA	SK	KC	KA	SK	KC	KA
Traditional Parenting Values and Beliefs
Respect for adults
(Fit indices N/A)
1. Even if I’m angry at an older person, I shouldn’t fight/talk back out of respect.	2.81 (1.15)	3.24 (1.19)	3.79 (0.92)	.59	.58	.54	.78	.79	.69
2. Parents/grandparents should be treated with respect regardless of differences in views.	3.50 (1.07)	3.82 (1.00)	4.41 (0.76)	.53	.50	.58	.65	.61	.75
3. Children should obey parents without question, even if they believe parents are wrong.	2.00 (1.03)	2.35 (1.09)	3.36 (1.03)	.52	.49	.51	.63	.60	.63
Traditional manners and etiquette
SK: χ2=5.25*, CFI=.989, RMSEA=.090, SRMR=.013; KC: χ2=0.28, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.000, SRMR=.004; KA: χ2=0.18, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.000, SRMR=.003
1. To greet elders properly	4.12 (0.94)	4.28 (0.84)	4.58 (0.69)	.68	.68	.63	.79	.77	.75
2. To keep Korean social manners towards adults	4.04 (0.98)	4.15 (0.91)	4.14 (1.02)	.73	.77	.62	.88	.91	.77
3. To use proper addressing terms instead of first names	3.78 (1.14)	4.19 (0.93)	4.24 (1.03)	.62	.75	.56	.66	.74	.57
4. To use the Korean way of speaking to adults to show respect	3.96 (1.12)	4.25 (0.90)	4.32 (0.98)	.60	.68	.67	.61	.66	.70
Harmony and sacrifice
(Fit indices N/A)
1. It’s important to ensure harmonious relations with family members, even at the expense of my own desires.	3.27 (1.10)	3.63 (1.02)	4.09 (0.77)	.64	.61	.43	.80	.80	.56
2. It’s important to ensure harmonious relations with others, even at the expense of my own desires.	3.03 (1.16)	3.18 (1.12)	3.66 (0.86)	.64	.58	.52	.81	.73	.89
3. It’s important to sacrifice individual(s) for greater good.	3.01 (1.04)	3.24 (1.06)	3.67 (0.92)	.46	.47	.30	.52	.55	.35
Gendered norms
SK: χ2=31.60***, CFI=.971, RMSEA=.070, SRMR=.035; KC: χ2=22.18**, CFI=.942, RMSEA=.074, SRMR=.043; KA: χ2=7.44, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.000, SRMR=.020
1. My parents think that girls should not date while in high school.	2.10 (1.23)	3.29 (1.28)	2.52 (1.20)	.50	.42	.46	.44	.43	.46
2. My parents think that boys should not express any signs of emotional weakness.	1.90 (1.07)	3.00 (1.30)	2.21 (1.14)	.61	.57	.57	.60	.60	.55
3. My parents think that girls should not stay out late.	3.33 (1.25)	4.00 (1.05)	3.30 (1.18)	.50	.50	.46	.56	.62	.55
4. My parents think that boys should be physically strong.	2.53 (1.20)	3.53 (1.15)	2.93 (1.05)	.63	.53	.44	.68	.65	.52
5. My parents think that girls should live with their parents until married.	2.23 (1.21)	2.32 (1.07)	2.35 (1.15)	.53	.30	.52	.56	.39	.61
6. My parents think that boys should avoid anything girlish or feminine.	1.98 (1.09)	3.02 (1.24)	2.69 (1.15)	.61	.47	.54	.80	.67	.68
7. My parents think that girls should not express negative feelings.	1.99 (1.10)	2.68 (1.22)	2.27 (1.13)	.65	.40	.56	.74	.46	.61
Parenting Behaviors
Promoting ideal cultural traits
SK: χ2=26.61*, CFI=.983, RMSEA=.036, SRMR=.027; KC: χ2=31.92*, CFI=.946, RMSEA=.061, SRMR=.045; KA: χ2=30.49*, CFI=.969, RMSEA=.047, SRMR=.033 MODIFIED SK: χ2=16.16, CFI=.991, RMSEA=.030, SRMR=.021; KC: χ2=11.49, CFI=.998, RMSEA=.013, SRMR=.030; KA: χ2=14.29, CFI=.991, RMSEA=.027, SRMR=.026
1. My parents do not like when I express anger or anxiety.	3.34 (1.06)	3.05 (1.24)	3.68 (1.03)	.45	.39	.43	.59	.56	.51	.59	.57	.54
2. My parents tell me to accommodate others’ needs before my own.	2.64 (1.04)	3.01 (1.16)	3.46 (0.97)	.41	.45	.47	.48	.56	.56	.48	.56	.58
3. My parents discourage me from confronting adults.	3.86 (0.99)	3.81 (1.11)	3.15 (1.26)	.58	.49	.45	.68	.57	.47	.67	.58	.44
4. My parents say that I should give in on arguments rather than make people angry.	2.78 (1.17)	2.55 (1.14)	3.04 (1.08)	.56	.47	.52	.69	.64	.64	.70	.64	.65
5. My parents tell me my actions should not bring shame to them.	3.16 (1.26)	2.83 (1.24)	3.29 (1.23)	.57	.44	.54	.66	.56	.65	.66	.55	.62
6. My parents discourage me from having conflict.	2.77 (1.28)	3.04 (1.31)	3.38 (1.12)	.40	.41	.44	.44	.44	.47	.44	.44	.45
7. My parents encourage me to be humble and modest.	3.45 (1.12)	3.86 (1.18)	4.10 (0.91)	.50	.44	.42	.59	.59	.47	.60	.60	.50
8. My parents encourage me to be dependent on them and the family.	3.18 (1.17)	3.23 (1.30)	3.42 (1.09)	.16	.20	.42	.13	.16	.45	Drop	Drop	Drop
Pressure to succeed
SK: χ2=30.76, CFI=.997, RMSEA=.019, SRMR=.016; KC: χ2=20.28, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.000, SRMR=.024; KA: χ2=51.03**, CFI=.982, RMSEA=.049, SRMR=.035
1. My mother shows she loves me less if I perform poorly.	1.94 (1.10)	1.83 (1.02)	1.75 (0.96)	.66	.66	.51	.67	.67	.48
2. My mother only shows her love if I get good grades.	1.85 (1.05)	2.00 (1.19)	1.55 (0.89)	.72	.71	.55	.73	.71	.49
3. My mother is proud of me only if I perform well on exams.	2.22 (1.31)	2.22 (1.36)	1.81 (1.09)	.61	.65	.59	.61	.65	.54
4. My mother pressures me to go to a top college.	2.03 (1.15)	2.06 (1.12)	2.55 (1.27)	.73	.72	.59	.75	.73	.63
5. My mother gets upset when I don’t do well in school.	2.17 (1.25)	2.31 (1.25)	3.14 (1.14)	.73	.73	.67	.78	.81	.82
6. When I get a poor grade, my mother makes me feel guilty.	2.21 (1.28)	2.33 (1.30)	2.57 (1.24)	.78	.76	.68	.86	.86	.84
7. When I get a good grade, my mother says my other grades should be as good.	2.48 (1.30)	2.83 (1.35)	2.76 (1.24)	.74	.64	.61	.78	.64	.66
8. My mother wants me to be the best at everything.	2.38 (1.27)	2.51 (1.34)	3.04 (1.35)	.65	.61	.46	.63	.55	.36
9. My mother has higher expectations for my future than I have.	2.74 (1.33)	2.97 (1.32)	2.95 (1.26)	.71	.56	.62	.68	.51	.56
10. I never felt like I could meet my mother’s standards.	2.15 (1.13)	2.13 (1.06)	2.25 (1.11)	.50	.44	.55	.52	.49	.51
Academic control
SK: χ2=35.65***, CFI=.947, RMSEA=.066, SRMR=.034; KC: χ2=10.71, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.000, SRMR=.020; KA: χ2=21.86*, CFI=.974, RMSEA=.049, SRMR=.031 MODIFIED SK: χ2=19.53***, CFI=.952, RMSEA=.087, SRMR=.030; KC: χ2=7.61, CFI=.986, RMSEA=.058, SRMR=.022; KA: χ2=7.62, CFI=.989, RMSEA=.047, SRMR=.021
1. Make sure you do homework	2.24 (1.15)	2.58 (1.36)	3.85 (1.26)	.46	.61	.46	.65	.74	.60	.64	.75	.59
2. Purchase extra workbooks or other materials for your schooling or education	3.28 (1.36)	2.78 (1.38)	3.23 (1.26)	.42	.58	.49	.43	.65	.50	.42	.66	.49
3. Have rules about doing homework	2.02 (1.15)	2.73 (1.52)	2.92 (1.48)	.46	.65	.56	.70	.77	.80	.71	.75	.81
4. Involve you in after-school study programs or tutoring	3.69 (1.31)	3.40 (1.40)	2.67 (1.42)	.30	.52	.36	.21	.56	.33	Drop	Drop	Drop
5. Limit your social activities so that you can focus on studying	2.01 (1.22)	2.40 (1.37)	2.22 (1.12)	.44	.56	.42	.48	.62	.49	.47	.61	.50
6. Punish if your grades are down	1.53 (0.98)	1.65 (1.13)	2.26 (1.22)	.37	.35	.45	.43	.32	.43	.43	.31	.43
7. Reward if your grades are up	2.78 (1.42)	2.98 (1.41)	3.19 (1.19)	.26	.24	.22	.28	.27	.21	Drop	Drop	Drop
Qin
SK: χ2=59.86***, CFI=.969, RMSEA=.067, SRMR=.032; KC: χ2=42.79**, CFI=.970, RMSEA=.072, SRMR=.036; KA: χ2=43.68**, CFI=.972, RMSEA=.059, SRMR=.034
1. My parents invest all what they have for my education.	3.41 (1.08)	4.02 (0.99)	3.90 (0.88)	.43	.58	.45	.45	.65	.46
2. My parents teach me morals and values.	3.75 (1.00)	4.22 (0.94)	4.13 (0.88)	.57	.71	.52	.59	.72	.52
3. My parents insist on taking care of me even when they don’t feel well.	3.68 (1.05)	4.22 (0.90)	4.15 (0.86)	.64	.67	.47	.66	.71	.48
4. My parents are very thoughtful in recognizing and caring for my needs.	3.40 (1.10)	4.03 (1.07)	4.20 (0.87)	.73	.76	.59	.74	.79	.63
5. My parents know all my possible needs before I am aware of them.	3.07 (1.14)	3.70 (1.19)	3.57 (1.03)	.68	.72	.63	.70	.75	.67
6. My parents understand my difficulties even though they don’t say anything.	2.99 (1.14)	3.62 (1.31)	3.54 (1.11)	.66	.68	.61	.73	.76	.68
7. My parents tell me what they think is best for me.	3.33 (1.08)	3.76 (1.17)	4.08 (0.85)	.67	.75	.58	.72	.77	.63
8. My parents explain to me what they expect from me.	3.13 (1.12)	3.57 (1.17)	3.77 (0.95)	.50	.50	.49	.47	.45	.48
9. My parents watch how I behave before giving me more responsibility.	3.31 (1.03)	3.60 (1.13)	3.67 (1.01)	.60	.57	.56	.64	.57	.63
Parental acceptance
SK: χ2=56.01***, CFI=.977, RMSEA=.054, SRMR=.025; KC: χ2=36.23*, CFI=.977, RMSEA=.047, SRMR=.030; KA: χ2=56.94***, CFI=.974, RMSEA=.060, SRMR=.029 MODIFIED SK: χ2=48.92***, CFI=.975, RMSEA=.061, SRMR=.026; KC: χ2=29.75*, CFI=.975, RMSEA=.053, SRMR=.029; KA: χ2=50.08***, CFI=.971, RMSEA=.069, SRMR=.029
1. Says nice things about me	3.89 (1.01)	4.03 (1.01)	3.90 (0.87)	.64	.62	.67	.68	.67	.70	.68	.67	.71
2. Makes it easy for me to tell her things that are important to me	3.40 (1.18)	3.62 (1.16)	3.39 (1.11)	.70	.61	.67	.74	.68	.74	.73	.68	.74
3. Is really interested in what I do	3.30 (1.23)	3.30 (1.39)	3.44 (1.12)	.43	.25	.59	.43	.27	.62	Drop	Drop	Drop
4. Makes me feel wanted and needed	3.53 (1.20)	3.67 (1.23)	3.58 (1.24)	.75	.69	.53	.79	.72	.56	.79	.72	.55
5. Pays a lot of attention to me	3.80 (1.08)	4.06 (1.02)	4.00 (0.94)	.72	.70	.74	.70	.67	.75	.70	.67	.75
6. Makes me feel what I do is important	3.46 (1.11)	3.69 (1.07)	3.62 (1.05)	.62	.70	.73	.68	.75	.77	.68	.75	.76
7. Cares about what I think, and likes me to talk about it	3.30 (1.20)	3.47 (1.25)	3.56 (1.18)	.71	.61	.74	.77	.69	.79	.77	.69	.79
8. Lets me know she loves me	3.75 (1.12)	3.99 (1.04)	4.15 (0.99)	.77	.66	.69	.82	.71	.71	.82	.70	.72
9. Treats me gently and with kindness	4.03 (0.97)	4.11 (1.02)	4.15 (0.88)	.72	.58	.68	.74	.61	.70	.74	.61	.70
Parental rejection
SK: χ2=110.38***, CFI=.980, RMSEA=.034, SRMR=.033; KC: χ2=123.95***, CFI=.952, RMSEA=.054, SRMR=.046; KA: χ2=107.04**, CFI=.966, RMSEA=.036, SRMR=.038 MODIFIED SK: χ2=82.41**, CFI=.982, RMSEA=.037, SRMR=.033; KC: χ2=73.78*, CFI=.972, RMSEA=.044, SRMR=.040; KA: χ2=77.60**, CFI=.969, RMSEA=.038, SRMR=.037
1. Pays no attention to me	1.76 (0.95)	1.83 (1.09)	1.47 (0.69)	.54	.53	.40	.57	.52	.42	.57	.50	.43
2. Hits me, even if I do not deserve it	1.60 (1.01)	1.67 (1.06)	1.21 (0.51)	.59	.63	.53	.62	.66	.58	.61	.65	.58
3. Sees me as a big nuisance	1.40 (0.82)	1.44 (0.90)	1.34 (0.63)	.64	.66	.54	.63	.69	.55	.63	.68	.54
4. Punishes me severely when she is angry	2.16 (1.25)	1.94 (1.20)	1.50 (0.82)	.66	.66	.50	.73	.75	.59	.74	.75	.60
5. Is too busy to answer my questions	2.08 (1.12)	2.12 (1.13)	1.82 (0.88)	.44	.53	.38	.46	.57	.41	.46	.57	.42
6. Seems to resent me	1.52 (0.89)	1.59 (0.96)	1.38 (0.70)	.64	.74	.39	.71	.83	.38	.71	.84	.37
7. Says many unkind things to me	1.84 (1.01)	1.74 (1.05)	1.39 (0.71)	.74	.73	.62	.79	.81	.72	.79	.82	.71
8. Pays no attention when I ask her for help	1.56 (1.02)	1.52 (0.94)	1.57 (0.92)	.58	.64	.39	.63	.68	.38	.63	.68	.38
9. Hurts my feelings	2.22 (1.12)	2.09 (1.16)	1.76 (0.91)	.73	.61	.61	.79	.64	.69	.79	.64	.69
10. Forgets important things that I think she should remember	2.62 (1.09)	2.59 (1.16)	2.31 (1.03)	.49	.43	.46	.52	.45	.47	.52	.45	.48
11. Makes me feel unloved if I misbehave	2.14 (1.24)	2.04 (1.24)	1.64 (0.82)	.68	.63	.61	.72	.65	.66	.72	.64	.64
12. Frightens or threatens me when I do something wrong	1.83 (1.16)	1.79 (1.18)	1.63 (0.92)	.70	.72	.53	.72	.73	.63	.72	.72	.64
13. Feels other children are better than I am, no matter what I do	2.59 (1.32)	2.27 (1.27)	1.82 (1.06)	.17	.47	.49	.16	.42	.54	Drop	Drop	Drop
14. Let me know I am not wanted	1.61 (1.03)	1.77 (1.10)	1.18 (0.60)	.63	.70	.17	.60	.66	.20	Drop	Drop	Drop
15. Pays no attention to me as long as I don’t bother her	1.69 (1.02)	1.79 (1.19)	1.71 (0.94)	.52	.47	.40	.47	.41	.38	.46	.39	.38
Granting autonomy
SK: χ2=40.79***, CFI=.972, RMSEA=.055, SRMR=.034; KC: χ2=29.18*, CFI=.971, RMSEA=.056, SRMR=.041; KA: χ2=25.64, CFI=.984, RMSEA=.038, SRMR=.035 MODIFIED SK: χ2=19.25*, CFI=.989, RMSEA=.042, SRMR=.020; KC: χ2=15.93, CFI=.986, RMSEA=.047, SRMR=.089; KA: χ2=7.32, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.000, SRMR=.020
1. My mother emphasizes that every member of family should have say in family decisions.	3.23 (1.16)	3.25 (1.33)	3.74 (1.00)	.49	.39	.48	.46	.39	.39	.46	.38	.40
2. My mother emphasizes that it’s important to get ideas across even if others don’t like it.	3.11 (1.04)	3.33 (1.19)	3.57 (0.95)	.33	.38	.48	.33	.32	.34	.32	.32	.34
3. My mother keeps pushing me to think independently.	3.02 (1.06)	3.54 (1.15)	3.56 (1.06)	.37	.55	.42	.38	.60	.33	.38	.60	.33
4. My mother lets me make my own plans for things I want to do.	3.53 (1.05)	3.82 (1.05)	3.72 (0.90)	.64	.69	.48	.81	.84	.72	.81	.84	.72
5. My mother admits that I may know more about some things than adults do.	3.35 (1.16)	3.73 (1.12)	3.38 (1.01)	.56	.52	.46	.69	.68	.52	.69	.67	.53
6. My mother allows me to choose what to do whenever possible.	3.78 (1.02)	3.88 (1.04)	3.76 (0.85)	.64	.68	.52	.78	.81	.76	.78	.81	.76
7. My mother allows me to choose my own directions in life.	3.86 (1.02)	3.91 (1.14)	3.93 (0.88)	.60	.59	.44	.70	.66	.67	.70	.67	.66
8. My mother has mapped out my future, including school and career.	3.58 (1.20)	3.41 (1.25)	2.26 (1.12)	−.20	−.17	−.03	−.20	−.15	−.10	Drop	Drop	Drop
Parent-Child Relations
Intergenerational cultural conflict
SK: χ2=33.86, CFI=.990, RMSEA=.033, SRMR=.025; KC: χ2=49.43***, CFI=.953, RMSEA=.068, SRMR=.037; KA: χ2=44.30**, CFI=.972, RMSEA=.050, SRMR=.033 MODIFIED SK: χ2=26.10, CFI=.990, RMSEA=.035, SRMR=.024; KC: χ2=43.47***, CFI=.955, RMSEA=.080, SRMR=.037; KA: χ2=31.07*, CFI=.980, RMSEA=.048, SRMR=.029
1. Your parents tell you what to do with your life, but you want to make your own decisions.	3.15 (1.33)	3.27 (1.26)	2.70 (1.16)	.58	.56	.54	.62	.61	.58	.61	.61	.57
2. Your parents tell you that social life is not important, but you think it is.	2.86 (1.48)	3.00 (1.42)	2.20 (1.17)	.59	.65	.52	.63	.69	.55	.63	.69	.55
3. You have done well in school, but parents’ academic expectations always exceed your performance.	2.54 (1.39)	2.68 (1.31)	2.51 (1.22)	.56	.65	.56	.61	.70	.64	.61	.69	.65
4. Your parents want you to sacrifice personal interests for family but you feel this is unfair.	2.29 (1.28)	2.38 (1.31)	2.15 (1.01)	.66	.61	.58	.73	.69	.65	.73	.69	.65
5. Your parents always compare you to others, but you want them to accept you for yourself.	2.70 (1.43)	3.08 (1.41)	2.81 (1.34)	.70	.66	.57	.76	.73	.64	.76	.74	.65
6. Your parents argue that they show you love by housing, feeding, educating, but you wish they’d show more physical and verbal affection.	2.45 (1.36)	2.63 (1.32)	2.29 (1.25)	.58	.65	.60	.63	.71	.65	.63	.72	.65
7. Your parents don’t want you to bring shame on family, but you feel your parents are just saving face.	1.90 (1.18)	2.16 (1.24)	2.08 (1.16)	.65	.58	.63	.71	.62	.69	.71	.62	.68
8. You want to state your opinion, but your parents say it is disrespectful to talk back.	2.42 (1.41)	2.17 (1.31)	2.45 (1.28)	.62	.54	.58	.63	.53	.62	.63	.52	.62
9. Your parents demand you always show respect for elders, but you believe in showing respect if they deserve it.	2.93 (1.43)	2.89 (1.41)	2.32 (1.31)	.56	.40	.25	.59	.40	.25	Drop	Drop	Drop
Parent-child bonding
SK: χ2=1.07, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.000, SRMR=.004; KC: χ2=.52, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.000, SRMR=.005; KA: χ2=2.46, CFI=.999, RMSEA=.024, SRMR=.010
1. How close do you feel to your mom?	4.20 (0.94)	4.14 (0.98)	4.48 (0.73)	.79	.73	.67	.83	.80	.74
2. How often do you share your thoughts and feelings with her?	3.71 (1.14)	3.64 (1.18)	3.64 (0.97)	.74	.73	.68	.82	.84	.83
3. How much do you want to be the kind of person she is?	3.51 (1.16)	3.44 (1.21)	3.72 (0.97)	.76	.75	.62	.76	.74	.66
4. How much are you satisfied with the way your mom and you communicate?	3.55 (1.19)	3.68 (1.05)	3.92 (0.90)	.81	.76	.67	.80	.71	.64
5. Overall, how satisfied are you with your relationships with your mother?	4.02 (1.05)	4.04 (0.96)	4.28 (0.79)	.83	.79	.71	.92	.87	.80
Parent-child conflict
SK: χ2=.08, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.000, SRMR=.002; KC: χ2=.05, CFI=1.00, RMSEA=.000, SRMR=.002; KA: χ2=2.17, CFI=.997, RMSEA=.054, SRMR=.009
1. My mom and I get angry at each other.	2.35 (1.07)	2.30 (1.00)	2.36 (0.87)	.69	.51	.66	.79	.60	.69
2. My mom and I argue about rules.	1.88 (1.04)	2.03 (1.00)	1.97 (0.92)	.64	.63	.61	.71	.79	.64
3. My mom never listens to my side of the story	1.83 (1.10)	1.73 (1.02)	1.88 (1.00)	.66	.50	.58	.76	.61	.70
4. My mom nags at me a lot.	2.81 (1.26)	3.16 (1.22)	2.65 (1.22)	.61	.45	.57	.68	.54	.70

Note. SK = South Korean. KC = Korean Chinese. KA = Korean American. CFI = comparative fit index. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. SRMR = standardized root mean residual.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

Traditional Parenting Values and Beliefs

Respect for Adults.

This 3-item scale assesses youth endorsement of the importance of obedience to and respect for adults, even when they have different views, and upholding parental wishes over their own.

Traditional Manners and Etiquettes.

This 4-item scale assesses how much parents emphasize practicing a set of traditional manners and etiquette that symbolize age veneration and relational hierarchy.

Harmony and Sacrifice.

This 3-item scale measures youth endorsement of needing to maintain harmonious relations and make sacrifices for the greater good (e.g., family, others).

Gendered Norms.

This 7-item scale asks youth about parental endorsement of gendered norms.

Parenting Behaviors

Promoting Ideal Cultural Traits.

This 8-item scale assesses the level of parents’ socialization efforts to reinforce traits idealized in Asian culture, such as humility, modesty, suppression of negative emotions, and compliance.

Pressure to Succeed.

This 10-item scale assesses parental pressure for their child to excel and their use of love withdrawal, guilt induction, or conditional regard in response to their child’s performance.

Academic-oriented Parental Control.

This 7-item scale (Chao & Wu, 2001) assesses parental control specific to a child’s schoolwork and academic behaviors, such as having rules about doing homework and limiting social activities.

Qin.

This 9-item scale (Wu & Chao, 2011) measures the indirect expression of parent-child closeness, parental thoughtfulness, devotion, and sacrifice.

Parental Acceptance.

This 9-item scale was from a short version of the Parental Acceptance and Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ; Rohner, 2004) to measure parents’ warm, caring and attentive behaviors.

Parental Rejection.

This 15-item scale was from a short version of PARQ (Rohner, 2004) to measure parents’ rejecting, neglecting, and hostile behaviors.

Granting Autonomy.

This 8-item scale (Grolnick et al., 1991; Silk et al., 2003) measures the extent to which parents support their child’s autonomy.

Parent-Child Relations

Intergenerational Cultural Conflict (ICC).

This 9-item scale was from the Asian American Family Conflicts Scale (Lee et al., 2000) to measure generational conflict between youth and their parents.

Parent-Child Bonding.

This 5-item scale was from Add Health to assess youth’s bonding with their parents.

Parent-Child Conflict.

This 4-item scale from the Conflict Behavior Questionnaire (Prinz, 1977) assesses the extent to which parents and children get angry at each other.

Youth Adjustments

Depressive Symptoms.

The 14 items from the Children’s Depression Inventory (Angold et al., 1995) and the Seattle Personality Questionnaire for Children (Kusche et al., 1988) were used to measure depressive symptoms of youth for two weeks prior to the survey (e.g., “I didn’t enjoy anything at all.”).

Antisocial Behaviors.

Seventeen items of Antisocial Behaviors, originally from DSM-V but considered antisocial in all countries, were selected (such as fighting, and stealing). Youth were asked to indicate whether they had each of the antisocial behaviors in the past year (0 = no and 1 = yes). Responses were summed to indicate the number of antisocial behaviors.

Covariates

Youth Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female. Youth Age was calculated as the difference between the survey date and self-reported birthdate. Perceived Family SES was reported by youth on a 5-point scale (1 = lower class to 5 = upper class).

Analytical Plan

Analyses were conducted using SPSS (v.26) and Mplus (v 8.1). First, descriptive statistics of the measures were generated in each group (e.g., the mean and standard deviation of each item and the scale, item-total correlations in the scale, and internal consistency of the scale). Second, the factorial structure of each scale was examined using CFA within each group. Four recommended statistics were used to assess measurement fit: the χ² statistics, the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean residual (SRMR). Acceptable model fit was suggested by a nonsignificant χ² statistic, CFI>.90, RMSEA and SRMR<.08 (Bentler, 1990; MacCallum et al., 1996; Meyers et al., 2006). Items with near-zero mean scores, item-total correlations below .30 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), and factor loadings below .32 were to be removed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). When items were removed from the scale, another set of parallel analyses was conducted for the modified scale.

We then examined the measurement invariance. We first fit an unconstrained model in which parameters (e.g., factor loading, intercepts) were set free across the groups, and next, the constrained model that constrains parameters to be equal. There are different levels of measurement invariance, including configural, metric, scalar (or strong), and strict. Configural invariance, the most basic level of factorial invariance, is supported when the scale is composed of the same items across groups (Widaman & Reise, 1997). If the magnitudes of factor loadings are similar, metric invariance is established, upon which relations between the scale and other variables can be compared across groups. Scalar invariance is attained when the intercepts of all items measuring a construct are similar. Hence, a particular score on an instrument represents the same degree, intensity, or magnitude of the construct across groups. E.g., strong invariance is necessary in order for the same score on a diagnostic tool to reflect the same level of severity across groups. Lastly, strict invariance is established if the error terms of the scale items are equivalent. Testing for strict invariance is not a prerequisite for testing group differences in the latent factor means, because the residuals are not part of the latent factors (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). Whether or not the item residuals are invariant across groups does not affect how we interpret the results (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). In addition, the differences between the unconstrained and constrained models in χ² statistics (Δχ²/Δdf) were no longer considered for model comparisons due to the high degrees of freedom for most models (Chen et al., 2005).

A combination of multiple model fit indices (e.g., ΔCFI, ΔRMSEA, and ΔSRMR) was used in evaluating measurement invariance, with changes in CFI as the primary criterion, supplemented by changes in RMSEA and SRMR (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). To establish measurement invariance, ΔCFI should be <.05 (Little, 1997) or ideally be <.01 (Chen, 2007). Typically, ΔRMSEA≤.015 and ΔSRMR≤.03 (Chen, 2007) indicate measurement invariance, though there is no universal consensus on cutoff values for these indices (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). Some measures did not fully meet the ΔRMSEA and ΔSRMR criteria. In such cases, we prioritized ΔCFI<.05 as the primary criterion. Measures need to exhibit at least partial metric invariance for comparing associations among constructs or partial scalar invariance for comparing mean/averages to enable adequate comparative analyses without biased conclusions (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000).

Using the finalized scales with at least partial scalar invariance, the means of each construct were compared across groups, using Analyses of Covariances (ANCOVAs), with youth gender, age, and perceived family SES included as covariates. Lastly, the scales were further examined for components of construct validity (e.g., convergent/divergent and concurrent/predictive validity) by examining bivariate correlations among the measures. To control for false discovery rates, we applied the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to adjust p-values (Thissen et al., 2002).

To explore how the family measures are associated with youth adjustments, we ran multiple regression models in which youth adjustment variables were regressed on each of the three organized clusters and then all together, controlling for covariates. Because family measures tend to correlate with one another, we assessed multicollinearity using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). The common threshold of VIF values that indicate high multicollinearity ranges from 5 to 10 (Kutner et al., 2005). Ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression was conducted for the continuous outcome variable (i.e., depressive symptoms) and the negative binomial regression for the count outcome variable (i.e., antisocial behaviors). The fit indices, such as AIC and BIC, were compared among Poisson, negative binomial, and zero-inflated Poisson regression models (Swartout et al., 2015), and the negative binomial regression model fitted the data the best and was used. Multi-group analyses, along with the Wald tests of parameter constraints, were then conducted to examine whether the regression coefficients differed across the groups.

Results

The results are summarized in the tables, and to avoid redundancies, we report only notable patterns of similarities and/or differences in the text.

Psychometric Properties

Table 1 summarizes the results of psychometric properties and measurement fit among South Korean (SK), Korean Chinese (KC), and Korean American (KA) samples. Items of the family process measures generally showed acceptable to high item-total correlations and factor loadings, with good model fit in each sample. Several items were removed based on the criteria described earlier. E.g., “My parents encourage me to be dependent on them and the family” of promoting cultural traits was removed because of low item-total correlations among SK (r=.16) and KC (r=.20); “Involve you in after-school study programs or tutoring” in academic control for a low factor loading in SK (λ=.21); “Reward if your grades are up” for low item-total correlations among SK (r=.26), KC (r=.24), and KA (r=.22); “Is really interested in what I do” of the acceptance scale for a low item-total correlation in KC (r=.25); “Feels other children are better than I am, no matter what I do” for a low item-total correlation among SK (r=.17) and “Let me know I am not wanted” for a low item-total correlation among KA (r=.17) in rejection; “My mother has mapped out my future, including school and career” in granting autonomy for low item-total correlations among SK (r=−.20), KC (r=−.17), and KA (r=−.03); and “Your parents demand you always show respect for elders, but…” in ICC for a low item-total correlation among KA (r=.25). The modified scales without these items showed acceptable to good reliability, with α’s ranging from .60 to .91 and good measurement fit (shown in Table 2).

Table 2:

Reliability, Mean of Each Scale, and Mean Comparisons

	South Korean (n=524)			Korean Chinese (n=267)			Korean American (n=408)			F or χ 2	Contrasts
	α/r	Mean/N	SD	α/r	Mean/N	SD	α/r	Mean/N	SD
Traditional parenting values and beliefs
Respect for adults	.73	2.77	(0.87)	.70	3.14	(0.86)	.72	3.85	(0.73)	192.86***	KA > KC > SK
Manners and etiquette	.83	3.97	(0.85)	.87	4.23	(0.76)	.80	4.32	(0.74)	22.61***	KC, KA > SK
Harmony and sacrifice	.75	3.10	(0.90)	.73	3.35	(0.86)	.60	3.81	(0.63)	79.36***	KA > KC > SK
Gendered norms	.83	2.29	(0.81)	.74	3.26	(0.79)	.78	2.65	(0.76)	134.96***	KC > KA > SK
Parenting behaviors
Promoting ideal cultural traits (modified)	.78	3.14	(0.74)	.73	3.16	(0.75)	.74	3.44	(0.69)	18.08***	KA > KC, SK
Pressure to succeed	.91	2.21	(0.91)	.90	2.32	(0.89)	.87	2.44	(0.79)	8.00***	KA > SK
Academic control (modified)	.68	2.22	(0.78)	.80	2.43	(0.98)	.73	2.90	(0.87)	73.70***	KA > KC > SK
Qin	.87	3.34	(0.76)	.89	3.86	(0.81)	.84	3.89	(0.62)	85.77***	KC, KA > SK
Parental acceptance (modified)	.91	3.63	(0.87)	.89	3.82	(0.83)	.89	3.80	(0.78)	6.93**	KC, KA > SK
Parental rejection (modified)	.90	1.88	(0.72)	.90	1.86	(0.75)	.83	1.59	(0.47)	27.17***	KC, SK > KA
Granting autonomy (modified)	.81	3.41	(0.73)	.82	3.63	(0.80)	.77	3.67	(0.61)	20.28***	KA, KC > SK
Parent-child relations
Intergenerational cultural conflict (modified)	.86	2.55	(0.98)	.87	2.67	(0.95)	.84	2.40	(0.83)	9.57***	KC, SK > KA
Parent-child bonding	.91	3.79	(0.95)	.90	3.78	(0.91)	.85	4.01	(0.70)	10.21***	KA > KC, SK
Parent-child conflict	.82	2.22	(0.90)	.73	2.30	(0.78)	.79	2.22	(0.79)	0.84	n.s.
Youth adjustments
Depressive symptoms	.94	1.86	(0.79)	.91	2.12	(0.78)	.93	1.81	(0.73)	15.19***	KC > SK, KA
Antisocial behaviors	N/A	1.51	(1.93)	N/A	1.11	(1.66)	N/A	0.77	(1.41)	23.39***	SK > KC > KA
Covariates
Youth gender (n=female; %)		n=262	(50.1%)		n=155	(58.9%)		n=193	(47.3%)	9.03*	KC > SK, KA
Youth age		14.98	(1.45)		15.24	(1.66)		14.76	(1.91)	6.64**	KC > KA
Perceived family SES		3.17	(0.63)		3.12	(0.55)		3.03	(0.70)	5.15**	SK > KA

Note. SK = South Korean; KC = Korean Chinese; KA = Korean American. F values for traditional parenting values and beliefs, parenting behaviors, parent-child relations, and youth adjustments are from univariate ANCOVA on each variable, with youth gender, age, and perceived family SES included as covariates in analyses. Chi-square test was conducted for youth gender. F values for youth age and perceived family SES are from univariate ANOVAs.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

Measurement Invariance

The original or modified family process measures were examined for measurement invariance. With minor modifications, e.g., freeing a small number of equality constraints, all demonstrated metric and partial scalar invariances. Details are summarized in Table S1.

Mean Comparisons

Since all measures, modified or original, showed at least partial scalar invariances, we compared means across the groups (Table 2), controlling for covariates. Three groups reported overall high rates of traditional parenting values and beliefs (i.e., respect for adults, manners and etiquette, and harmony and sacrifice), except that SK youth moderately endorsed respect for adults (2.77 compared to KC=3.14 and KA=3.85) and that SK (2.29) and KA (2.65) youth moderately endorsed gendered norms. Similarly, all three samples reported generally high levels of promoting cultural traits, qin, acceptance, granting autonomy [means>3], whereas low to moderate levels of pressure to succeed, academic control, and rejection (means<2 or 3).

The traditional parenting values and beliefs were higher among KC and KA than SK samples. For example, youth endorsement of respect for adults (KA=3.85) and harmony and sacrifice (KA=3.81) was the highest among KA. KC (3.26) reported higher gendered norms than SK (2.29), with KA (2.65) in between. Similarly, traditional parenting behaviors were also higher among KC and/or KA than SK. In particular, KA reported higher promoting cultural traits (KA=3.44) and academic control (KA=2.90) than did the other two groups. KA reported higher pressure to succeed (KA=2.44) than SK. Lastly, KC and KA reported higher qin than SK (SK=3.34, KC=3.86, and KA=3.89). In terms of parent-child relations, KA reported more favorable relationships with parents, e.g., less ICC (SK=2.55, KC=2.67, and KA=2.40) and higher bonding (SK=3.79, KC=3.78, and KA=4.01). Conflict was not significantly different across the groups.

Bivariate Correlations: Construct Validity

Table S2 summarizes bivariate correlations among the family measures and with youth adjustments in each group. First, across all three groups, promoting cultural traits was positively associated with parenting behaviors generally perceived as negative, such as pressure to succeed, academic control, and rejection, and negative parent-child relations, such as ICC and conflict, and less bonding. However, for the KA sample, promoting cultural traits seemed to carry fewer relational costs than did for the other two groups (e.g., nonsignificant correlations with bonding; nonsignificant correlations with depressive symptoms and antisocial behaviors).

Gendered norms were positively associated with other traditional values and beliefs and traditional parenting behaviors but more notably among KC who reported the highest value among the three groups. It was significantly associated with negative family processes, particularly among SK (e.g., less acceptance, granting autonomy, and bonding; more rejection and conflict, and more depressive symptoms and antisocial behaviors). However, these associations were often not significant among KC and KA. Interestingly, qin was positively correlated with gendered norms only in KC.

Traditional parenting values and beliefs were significantly associated with youth adjustments, but somewhat inconsistently across the groups. E.g., youth endorsement of respect for adults was negatively associated with depressive symptoms among KC and KA but not SK. It was, however, negatively associated with antisocial behaviors in all groups. Harmony and sacrifice was significantly associated with depressive symptoms only among KC.

Granting autonomy was overall positively associated with traditional parenting values and beliefs (e.g., respect for adults, manners and etiquettes, and harmony and sacrifice) and other family processes that can be construed as positive, such as more qin, acceptance, and bonding and less pressure to succeed, rejection, and ICC and importantly, fewer depressive symptoms. These patterns were largely consistent and significant across all three groups. It was also significantly associated with fewer antisocial behaviors among KC.

Regression Analyses

The VIF values were all below 2, indicating a minimal sign of multicollinearity; thus, we proceeded with regression analyses. Table 3 summarizes the results of multiple regression analyses by each cluster, and Table S3 reports the results of the full model.

Table 3:

Associations between Family Process and Youth Adjustments: By Clusters

	Depressive symptoms							Antisocial behaviors
	SK		KC		KA		Wald tests	SK		KC		KA		Wald tests
	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE		B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Cluster 1: Traditional Parenting Values and Beliefs
Respect for adults	−.03	.05	−.19**	.07	−.15*	.06	n.s.	−.15	.08	−.28*	.12	−.38**	.13	SK < KA
Manners and etiquette	.03	.04	.01	.07	−.02	.06		−.09	.07	−.20	.14	.14	.13
Harmony and sacrifice	−.03	.05	−.08	.06	−.01	.06		.03	.07	−.19	.13	−.01	.14
Gendered norms	.20***	.05	.15*	.06	.14**	.05	n.s.	.19**	.06	.27*	.11	.14	.12	n.s.
Covariates
Youth gender	.31***	.07	.06	.10	.08	.07		−.23*	.12	−.56**	.16	−.60**	.18
Youth age	.03	.02	−.08**	.03	.09***	.02		−.02	.04	−.11*	.05	.16***	.04
Perceived family SES	−.20**	.06	−.27**	.09	−.03	.06		−.10	.09	−.13	.17	−.19	.13
R 2	.12		.12		.10
Cluster 2: Parenting Behaviors
Promoting ideal cultural traits	.11*	.06	.23***	.07	−.02	.06	KC > KA	.03	.09	.06	.11	−.01	.14
Pressure to succeed	.11*	.05	.23***	.06	.11	.07	n.s.	−.04	.08	.12	.10	−.15	.13
Academic control	−.09	.05	−.06	.05	.01	.05		−.02	.08	−.06	.09	.08	.11
Qin	−.00	.07	.05	.06	−.03	.09		−.01	.10	.08	.14	−.26	.19
Parental acceptance	−.03	.06	−.09	.08	−.01	.08		−.02	.10	−.07	.14	−.05	.16
Parental rejection	.32***	.07	.13	.08	.43***	.08	KC < KA	.51***	.11	.40**	.12	.94***	.21	SK < KA; KC < KA
Granting autonomy	.02	.05	−.03	.06	−.02	.07		.16	.09	−.23	.12	−.04	.18
Covariates
Youth gender	.37***	.06	.24**	.07	.10	.07		−.20	.11	−.50**	.15	−.59**	.18
Youth age	.03	.02	−.03	.03	.08***	.02		−.01	.04	−.05	.05	.17***	.05
Perceived family SES	−.12*	.05	−.19*	.08	−.04	.06		−.05	.08	−.01	.17	−.09	.12
R 2	.25		.27		.20
Cluster 3: Parent-Child Relationships
Intergenerational conflict	.10*	.04	.15**	.05	.13**	.05	n.s.	.10	.07	.17	.10	.05	.13
Parent-child bonding	−.18***	.05	−.09	.05	−.07	.06	n.s.	−.04	.07	−.19*	.09	−.28*	.12	SK < KA
Parent-child conflict	.10	.05	.25***	.06	.19**	.06	n.s.	.25**	.08	.17	.12	.45***	.13	SK < KA; KC < KA
Covariates
Youth gender	.37***	.06	.14	.09	.10	.07		−.19	.11	−.51**	.17	−.52**	.18
Youth age	.03	.02	−.04	.03	.07***	.02		−.01	.04	−.10*	.05	.10*	.05
Perceived family SES	−.14**	.05	−.21*	.08	−.04	.06		−.06	.09	−.02	.16	−.10	.12
R 2	.21		.23		.18

Note. B = unstandardized coefficient. SE = standard error. SK = South Korean. KC = Korean Chinese. KA = Korean American.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

In the regression model with traditional values and beliefs, respect for adults was associated with fewer depressive symptoms among KC and KA and fewer antisocial behaviors in all groups. The Wald tests showed no significant group difference for depressive symptoms, but the association between respect for adults and antisocial behaviors differed between SK (B=−.15, n.s.) and KA (B=−.38, p<.01) [χ²(1)=4.19, p=.041]. Gendered norms was associated with more depressive symptoms across all groups and more antisocial behaviors among SK and KC. These associations did not differ significantly across samples.

Among the parenting behaviors measures, promoting cultural traits was associated with more depressive symptoms among SK (B=.11, p<.05) and KC (B=.23, p<.001). The Wald tests showed that this association significantly differed between KC and KA (B=−.02, n.s.) [χ²(1)=8.67, p=.003]. Pressure to succeed was associated with more depressive symptoms among SK (B=.11, p<.05) and KC (B=.23, p<.001), and Wald tests were nonsignificant. Rejection was associated with more depressive symptoms among SK (B=.32, p<.001) and KA (B=.43, p<.001), and more antisocial behaviors in all three groups. The Wald tests suggested that the association between rejection and depressive symptoms differed between KC (B=.13, n.s.) and KA [χ²(1)=6.77, p=.009], whereas the association between rejection and antisocial behaviors significantly differed between SK (B=.51, p<.001) and KA (B=.94, p<.001) [χ²(1)=9.66, p=.002], and between KC (B=.40, p<.01) and KA [χ²(1)=4.48, p=.034].

In the third model with parent-child relations, ICC was associated with more depressive symptoms across all groups, and Wald tests were nonsignificant for this association. Bonding was associated with fewer depressive symptoms among SK (but n.s. Wald tests) and fewer antisocial behaviors among KC (B=−.19, p<.05) and KA (B=−.28, p<.05). The Wald tests showed the association between bonding and antisocial behaviors differed between SK (B=−.04, n.s.) and KA [χ²(1)=11.13, p<.001]. Conversely, conflict was associated with more depressive symptoms among KC (B=.25, p<.001) and KA (B=.19, p<.01) (n.s. Wald tests) and with more antisocial behaviors among SK and KA. The Wald tests showed that this association differed between SK (B=.25, p<.01) and KA (B=.45, p<.001) [χ²(1)=7.90, p=.005], and between KC (B=.17, n.s.) and KA [χ²(1)=3.96, p=.047].

In the final full model, where all variables were entered, rejection notably remained significant and strong, mostly in both adjustment outcomes and in all groups. Details are provided in Table S3.

Sensitivity Analysis

As a sensitivity analysis, we examined descriptive statistics and compared means across SK, KC, and KA using the aforementioned ANCOVAs by excluding youth who were not currently living with their parents to account for a disproportionate number of KC youth whose parents left them behind to find jobs. These analyses produced the same patterns of findings.

Discussion

Research on child development and the role of family in it is swiftly expanding to Majority Countries. However, the field continues to face significant methodological challenges in rigorously and appropriately expanding the research. For example, the lack of available measures that can be used across various diasporic communities remains one of the methodological challenges that limit comparative analyses. Moreover, globalization and Westernization have added challenges such as acculturation and enculturation among families in Majority Countries and immigrant communities. A deeper understanding of how indigenous and Western parenting together shape youth development in this multicultural, globalizing, and dynamic world is crucial for helping youth achieve their developmental potential.

Addressing these challenges, this study demonstrated how the measures of family process developed for Asian American families can be used in families of the same/similar cultural heritage in Majority Countries, as well as the selected, widely used Western family measures that have been used with cultural and racial/ethnic minority youth in Western literature. The measures examined in this study, with minor modifications, showed excellent psychometric properties and measurement invariances, providing a set of reliable and good-quality measures to use in Majority Countries and for comparative studies. Some measures did not obtain full scalar invariance. When utilizing these family process measures for cross-cultural research, caution is warranted regarding mean-level comparisons for scales exhibiting partial scalar invariance. By examining the measures that reached metric or partial scalar invariances through additional exploratory investigations, this study expanded our theoretical understanding of how core traditional cultural traits may be persevered or modified in the family process in different contexts. Further, the findings provided preliminary empirical data that illustrate how minority status may influence the family process, and in turn, child and youth development across contexts. We discuss some of the major findings in detail below.

Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance

The results of psychometric properties and measurement invariance testing supported the utility of the selected family process measures across South Korean, Korean Chinese, and Korean American youth groups. We removed a few items based on the selection criteria, and the modified scales showed excellent quality and are ready for use. In addition, the measures demonstrated metric invariance, showing a similar conceptualization of the underlying constructs of the family process across the three groups, and partial scalar invariance, which implies nuanced cultural variations in the endorsement levels, perceptions, or interpretations of specific traditional family process items, despite similar conceptualizations across groups.

The findings also suggest how contextual differences and distinct demographic traits of each group may conjointly shape the family process. For example, an item about after-school study programs or tutoring in academic control had a lower factor loading among South Koreans than the other two samples and was removed. This may be because this practice is so common in South Korea that it is not strongly correlated with the construct of parental academic control. Similarly, significant differences emerged in adherence to traditional values and social manners to express respect towards adults/elders across the groups. Despite the mean differences, the factor loadings were equal across groups, indicating that even though they may be more or less frequently endorsed or practiced, the items remain a good indicator of the cultural values.

Mean Comparisons: Preservation and Modification of Culture in the Family

The study highlights intriguing variations in how the traditional family process is preserved among three groups and (discussed in the next section) their complex relationships with youth development, showing a nuanced impact. First, in examining the means of the traditional family process, this study found that, as expected, Korean Americans retain their cultural heritage significantly more than Korean Chinese and South Koreans, evident in youth’s adherence to traditional values, such as respect for adults and harmony and sacrifices, and in traditional parenting behaviors, such as promoting ideal cultural traits and academic pressure (shown in Table 2). Meanwhile, Korean Chinese youth in general exhibited intermediate levels of traditional values (e.g., respect for adults, and harmony and sacrifice), while demonstrating similarities both to Korean Americans in some cases (e.g., manners and etiquette) and to South Koreans in others (e.g., promoting ideal cultural traits).

Diaspora groups, often minorities in new cultural and socioeconomic settings, might consciously preserve traditions to counteract the impact of minority status (Choi & Kim, 2010; Juang et al., 2018). Meanwhile, urban families in Majority Countries tend to blend Western and urban family values with selective traditional parenting practices, creating a new cultural synthesis in family dynamics (Zhang & Ng., 2022). The results of this study provide empirical data that immigrant and racial/ethnic minority communities, such as Korean Americans, indeed adhere to their tradition, more so than those in the country of origin or who have migrated to a context with cultural and racial similarities. In interviews with Korean community leaders and families in the U.S., it is not uncommon to hear that their family process feels “antique” (Choi & Kim, 2010). Thus, it is plausible that given their minority status and the significant cultural distance from the Western mainstream, Korean Americans might have reactively and deliberately held on to their tradition, whereas South Korean families have westernized themselves more readily in the process of rapid industrialization. Meanwhile, the sociocultural and historical context of Korean Chinese families resembles that of Korean Americans in some ways (e.g., minority status) and that of South Koreans in others (e.g., rapid economic development and Westernization over past few decades), which might explain partial similarities of cultural preservation patterns of Korean Chinese to both of the other two groups.

Bivariate Correlations and Regression Analyses: Comparative Exploration of the Role of Family Process in Youth Development

In addition to testing construct validity, this study used bivariate, as well as multivariate, relationships to explore how the family process, as it undergoes the process of cultural preservation and modification, may complicate youth adjustments across different contexts. This part of the study was exploratory, and we provide, with caution, the following discussion to serve as a springboard for additional research. For example, we found that efforts by parents across all groups to uphold traditional values positively correlated with parenting practices typically viewed as negative (e.g., parental rejection), yet they had less impact on the developmental outcomes of Korean American youth than the other two groups. This, coupled with Korean Americans’ stronger retention of heritage culture compared to other groups, may illustrate that non-White immigrant families in the U.S. engage in active cultural socialization, likely viewing the preservation of tradition as a means to bolster racial/ethnic pride and counteract challenges associated with racial/ethnic minority status (Juang et al., 2018). Consequently, traditional values or parenting behaviors, even those that might be perceived as archaic by South Korean youth, may help build resilience in Korean Americans as their cultural insight fosters stronger family bonds (Choi, Kim, et al., 2017). Meanwhile, previous literature suggests that, although Korean Chinese adolescent families engage in similar ethnic socialization practices, which are similarly associated with perceptions of ethnic discrimination, they notably experience to a significantly lesser extent than do their Korean American counterparts (Shen et al., 2022). Thus, parenting behaviors that promote ideal cultural traits may not be perceived by Korean Chinese youth as distinct or adaptive as by their Korean American counterparts, but as similarly archaic and intrusive as their South Korean neighbors. Nevertheless, youth’s enculturation, indicated by their endorsement of traditional values such as respect for adults, was associated with fewer maladaptive youth adjustments, similarly across Korean Americans and Korean Chinese, possibly showing the common adaptive value of enculturation among minority groups.

While identifying group differences is important, it is equally vital to recognize universal aspects of the family process that are key to youth development. This study affirmed that parental rejection is extensively harmful regardless of the country where the youth live in. Specifically, parental rejection was one of the most notably strong and negative predictors of youth adjustments in both cluster-specific and full models. Pressure to succeed in South Korean and Korean Chinese, gendered norms in all groups, and intergenerational cultural conflict, as well as parent-child conflict, among Korean Chinese and Korean Americans had a particularly negative impact on mental health, which is critical to note given the high rates of mental distress among these youth (Choi, Park, et al., 2020; Ryou et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2023)). These findings are consistent with several existing empirical results that highlight the deleterious impact of “disempowering parenting” (i.e., abusive, burdening, culturally-disjointed, and gendered) on mental health (Hahm et al., 2017) and the fundamental importance of parent-child relationships in youth development (Choi, Park, et al., 2020). In bivariate relationships, granting autonomy to youth was consistently positively correlated with favorable family processes and negatively correlated with maladaptive youth adjustments, suggesting that autonomy is a valued trait across modern societies and benefits youth development universally. However, when other family process measures were accounted for together, its positive influence was limited to Korean Chinese in antisocial behaviors or, conversely, it increased antisocial behaviors among South Korean youth. This may suggest that even if a trait such as autonomy is regarded as positive, it is crucial to account for dynamic family processes to identify universally beneficial parenting behaviors.

Limitations and Future Directions

The samples analyzed in this study were conveniently recruited from certain regions and do not reflect the broader ethnic Korean populations across the three examined societies, suggesting the need for careful interpretation of the findings in a cross-cultural context. Notably, the selection process focused exclusively on urban areas, thereby excluding the perspectives of rural adolescents. Moreover, the decision to only include Korean Chinese youth enrolled in Korean ethnic schools further narrows the sample’s scope, especially given the declining number of this particular demographic. The diversity within the Korean Chinese youth community, especially those who are more integrated into local mainstream culture, remains unexplored. However, it is noteworthy that the three projects in respective countries employed the same measures to evaluate family dynamics among Korean heritage groups in various sociopolitical contexts, which was rare. The data collection occurred at different times. However, they were still close to one another within a few years, during which the cultural traits of the family process were unlikely to shift significantly.

The optimal balance of cultures that produces positive adjustment might look slightly different depending on which context they live in (e.g., academic control may be manifested differently in China and the U.S.). In addition, different diasporic communities have different reasons and pathways for migration, resulting in distinctive demographics of migrants in each context (e.g., Korean Americans are predominantly urban middle class). In future analyses, both culturally universal and group-specific contextual factors should be directly accounted for to discern their impacts on the family process and youth development.

Conclusions

Given the lack of culturally appropriate measurements of family process for populations in the Majority World, this study tested the psychometric properties and demonstrated at least partial scalar invariance of existing Asian American and Western measures of family process across Korean adolescent samples from South Korea, China, and the United States. This study provides cross-culturally comparable instruments for studying family process and its impact on youth development. Enhancing these tools’ cross-cultural validity by carefully evaluating item wordings and developing context-specific items could optimize their utility for research on family processes and child/youth development, especially in the Majority World. Overall, the findings highlight the need for culturally sensitive assessment approaches that accurately capture family processes across diverse global populations.

This study offers several important insights into how culture, minority vs. majority status, and demographic traits of each group may collectively shape the family process. First, the selective preservation of cultural heritage among Korean families across contexts suggests that modern Korean parenting (and by cautious extension, Asian parenting) is quite flexible and responsive to the local sociopolitical demands, contrasting with the stereotypical view of harsh and controlling “traditional” Korean (or Asian) parenting. Second, there is considerable within-group variability in the family process across the three Korean groups, with some families maintaining more traditional cultural values and practices than others, and interestingly, more preservation of heritage culture tends to be somewhat detrimental for Korean youth in Majority World (i.e., South Korea and China) but relatively adaptive for Korean American youth. Therefore, Korean families should be encouraged to selectively adopt heritage parenting that would be appropriate and adaptive in their respective contexts.

Public Significance Statements:

As developmental research expands to Majority Countries, researchers continue to face methodological challenges of not having adequate measures for the population of interest. This study aimed to provide much-needed measures of family process for empirical research and advance theoretical understanding of how culture, class, minority status, and immigrant history collectively shape the family process in respective contexts.