Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Feb 25.
Published before final editing as: Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2026 Feb 23:10.1037/cdp0000799. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000799

Situating Chinese American Husbands’ Traditional Gender Beliefs Within Acculturative and Marital Processes

Albert Y H Lo 1, Su Yeong Kim 2
PMCID: PMC12931663  NIHMSID: NIHMS2135995  PMID: 41729748

Abstract

Objective.

The current study situated Chinese American husbands’ traditional gender beliefs within paths from their cultural orientations to their wives’ outcomes.

Background.

Confucian beliefs emphasize the role of husbands as financial providers and authority figures, whereas wives are tasked with managing household matters. Such beliefs in men may have negative effects on their partners within heterosexual couples. However, these concepts have rarely been examined with Chinese American families.

Method.

Among 416 Chinese American married couples and across three waves of data, path analyses examined indirect paths from husbands’ cultural orientations (Wave 1) to the outcomes of wives (Wave 3), sequentially through husbands’ traditional gender beliefs (Wave 2) and husbands’ marital behaviors (Wave 2).

Results.

Greater husbands’ Chinese cultural orientation (Wave 1) indirectly predicted both lower wives’ expressions of the husband mattering and greater wives’ depressive symptoms (Wave 3), sequentially through higher husbands’ traditional gender beliefs and lower husbands’ marital warmth (Wave 2). Neither wives’ own traditional gender beliefs nor family economic stress (Wave 2) significantly moderated effects from husbands’ traditional gender beliefs or marital behaviors (Wave 2) to wives’ outcomes (Wave 3).

Conclusion.

Husbands’ traditional gender beliefs are a significant factor linking their cultural experiences to the behavioral and adjustment outcomes of their spouses.

Keywords: Chinese American, gender beliefs, marital behaviors, cultural orientation

Confucian beliefs differentiate the roles of husbands and wives in ethnic-Chinese, heterosexual-parented families (Kim & Wong, 2002). Traditionally, husbands (i.e., fathers) were the financial providers for families and oversaw the most important decisions; wives (i.e., mothers) were tasked with childcare and managing household tasks (Chuang et al., 2018). These ideals emphasizing male authority also promoted gendered differences in emotional expression, mainly that husbands were to be strict disciplinarians of children whereas wives were to be warm (Kim & Wong, 2002). Prior studies have examined gendered family processes in largely ethnic-Chinese countries (Hu & Scott, 2016; Li et al., 2021). However, less is known about such processes within Chinese American families who have multidimensional acculturative experiences (Qin, 2009). In the current study, indirect paths were established from Chinese American husbands’ cultural orientations to wives’ outcomes eight years later, sequentially through husbands’ traditional gender beliefs, and husbands’ marital behaviors (Figure 1 for a conceptual model). Outcomes included wives’ depressive symptoms and expressions of the husband mattering. How wives’ own levels of gender beliefs and family economic stress moderated paths to wives’ outcomes were explored.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Conceptual Model for the Current Study.

Gender Beliefs in Couples

Models of acculturation and gender dynamics emphasize sociocultural influences on gender processes (Figure 1: Path A). Peplau (1983) described “causal conditions” that influence one’s gender role cognitions and behaviors, including social norms. For Chinese Americans, such concepts align with theories of acculturation, in which immigrant and ethnically-minoritized persons adopt values and beliefs of destination cultures and retain the values and beliefs of their heritage culture, both to varying degrees (Schwartz et al., 2010). Chinese Americans’ beliefs about gender roles are thus formed through their interactions with socializing agents in their environments (Bornstein & Lansford, 2010; Harkness and Super, 2020; Phinney & Flores, 2002).

Theories then explain how Chinese American husbands’ traditional gender beliefs may have negative implications for their spouses within heterosexual couples (Figure 1: Paths B and C). The gender role strain paradigm (Pleck, 1995; Levant & Richmond, 2016) and theoretical expansions (gender role conflict theory; O’Neil, 2008; Rochlen & Mahalik, 2004) describe how men may prescribe to socially constructed masculine ideologies that emphasize male authority and negatively impact others. Rigid adherence to ideals of masculinity presumably lead to behaviors (e.g., restricted affect/warmth; Figure 1, Path B) that are maladaptive within interpersonal relationships (O’Neil, 2008; Pleck, 1995).

Last, compatibility theory describes how husbands and wives who are more similar in their views on household roles experience more positive marital outcomes, stressing the need to examine how husbands’ and wives’ gender beliefs interact (Aube & Koestner, 1995; Huston & Houts, 1998). Among Chinese samples, couples in which wives have less traditional gender attitudes but husbands have more traditional attitudes report lower marital satisfaction than others (Cao et al., 2019; X. Li et al., 2020). Thus, divergence on gender attitudes in Chinese American couples, such as wives having more egalitarian gender attitudes than their husbands, may predict more negative marital outcomes compared to when attitudes are aligned, such as the husband and wife both having high levels of traditional gender beliefs (Figure 1, Paths G and H). Yet, theories on gender and power describe how women’s greater enacting of traditional roles expose them to risk factors for negative health consequences, including lower levels of education, negative self-esteem, and sole responsibility for managing stressful family events (Lara, 2008; Wingood & DiClemente, 2002). Greater internalization of traditional gender beliefs among wives may therefore not provide a protective effect against greater husband’s traditional gender processes, in regards to specifically wives’ mental health outcomes.

Sociocultural Roots of Traditional Gender Beliefs

Given theories of acculturation, Chinese American husbands’ Confucian gender beliefs should be rooted in their identification with Chinese culture (Figure 1, Path A). In support, Chinese Canadian men’s gender beliefs have been found to be predicted by their level of identification with Chinese culture, but not by their level of acculturation towards Western-dominant Canadian culture (Kim et al., 2004). Thus, although maintenance of heritage culture appears vital, it is unclear whether the adoption of more Western, presumably egalitarian, values influences ethnic-Chinese husband’s gender beliefs. Yet, such beliefs may not follow a dichotomy in which heritage culture reflects traditional gender beliefs and destination culture reflects more egalitarian attitudes. Social changes over the years, such as political efforts for gender equality and women’s increasing presence in the workforce, have shifted the roles men and women play in parts of predominantly ethnic-Chinese countries (Li et al., 2021; Chuang, 2013). Furthermore, beliefs promoting male authority are also present among Western cultures (Carter et al., 2016). Therefore, Chinese American men may receive messages similar to their traditional gender beliefs from Western cultural influences.

Within predominantly ethnic-Chinese countries, levels of traditional gender beliefs also appear dependent on families’ socioeconomic contexts, such as more egalitarian beliefs being related with higher education levels (Hu & Scott, 2016). These factors take on more complexity in the context of immigration. Following immigration, some Chinese men may experience difficulties applying the skills from their previous professional jobs (e.g., office work) to careers in the United States due to language and other cultural barriers, leading to decreases in social status. Many women, in contrast, may have service-related skills that are more transferable (e.g., as a beautician; Qin, 2009). These factors, combined with economic stress from immigration, may lead to women taking an increasing role in financially providing for the family and a decreased role caring for children (Qin, 2009). Changes in family hierarchy could then impact how men view and express their roles in their families. Therefore, it would be important to control for socioeconomic experiences when determining the acculturative roots of traditional gender beliefs, as well as determine how gendered processes may be moderated by socioeconomic stress.

Implications of Husbands’ Gender Beliefs

Studies conducted in countries with Confucian influences suggest that traditional gender attitudes predict hostility towards women (L. Li et al., 2020; Ozaki & Otis, 2017; Shen et al., 2012; Figure 1, Path B). Among Chinese adults in Beijing and Hong Kong, stronger beliefs about male dominance and authority predicted greater acceptance of violence towards wives (L. Li et al., 2020). In addition, East Asian men have been found to display stronger beliefs about male dominance than their European counterparts, and belief of male dominance positively predicted aggression towards partners across both groups (Ozaki & Otis, 2017).

Broader work on marital processes then supports paths from husbands’ marital behaviors to wives’ adjustment outcomes (Figure 1, Path C). Identifying predictors of wives’ adjustment outcomes is essential given higher levels of mental health difficulties, such as depressive symptoms, among women compared to men, with adverse interpersonal experiences that disproportionally affect women likely contributing to this discrepancy (Kuehner, 2017). Regarding the influence of husband’s marital behaviors, the marital discord model (Beach, 2014) theorizes how negative relational processes within couples are detrimental to mental health, with specific emphasis on lower warmth/support and greater hostility (Barton et al., 2022). Indeed, studies have consistently supported a link between marital quality and later well-being (Proulx et al., 2007). Within predominantly White samples of heterosexual couples, marital hostility, such as that perpetrated by the husband, was associated with increases in wives’ depressive symptoms (Bryant et al., 2017; Proulx et al., 2009).

Additionally, the marital conflict literature emphasizes behavioral reciprocity between spouses (Fincham & Beach, 1999). Thus, marital behaviors displayed by one spouse have implications for the behaviors of the other (Bradbury & Fincham, 1992; Durtschi et al., 2011; Figure 1, Path C). For example, higher warmth and lower hostility in husbands appears to predict the same behaviors in wives (Durtschi et al., 2011). Such findings suggest the importance of determining how Chinese American wives may respond to the behaviors rooted in their husbands’ traditional gender attitudes. Examinations of behavioral reciprocity have historically focused on negative behaviors due to their relation with adverse family outcomes; however, identification of positive reciprocity may be essential for understanding how marital relationships not just avoid dysfunction, but also give meaning to those involved (Fincham & Beach, 2010).

One positive behavior that has received little attention in examinations of behavioral reciprocity is expressions of one’s spouse mattering. Mattering, defined as feeling important and valued by others, is uniquely significant for well-being; however, its examination within romantic relationships has been limited (Flett, 2022). Within couples, feelings of mattering appear negatively associated with depressive symptoms and positively associated with feelings of investment and satisfaction with the relationship, indicating the value of promoting mattering in romantic relationships (Mak & Marshall, 2004; Nash et al., 2015). Yet, few examinations have focused on behaviors that may promote mattering in others, such as direct expressions (Pychyl et al., 2022). Expressions of a partner mattering would share qualities with expressions of warmth, such as focus on appreciation for the partner, lending credence to the reciprocity between these behaviors (Flett, 2022; Matthews et al., 1996). However, expressions of mattering would be distinguished through greater emphasis on the importance of the partner’s role in the individual’s life (Pychyl et al., 2022). Expressions of mattering would be of particular interest in relation to Confucian gender beliefs that delineate the specific role of the wife and husband and emphasize the value each family member brings. Whether traditional gender beliefs promote or impede actual expressions of value would be important to establish.

The Current Study

Aims were two-fold and utilized three waves of data, with each wave separated by four years. First, we sought to establish indirect paths from Chinese American husbands’ Chinese or American cultural orientations at Wave 1 to the outcomes of wives at Wave 3, sequentially through: 1) husbands’ Confucian-rooted, traditional gender beliefs at Wave 2, and 2) husbands’ marital warmth and hostility at Wave 2 (Figure 1, Paths A, B, and C). Outcomes included wives’ depressive symptoms and expressions of the husband mattering. Second, we sought to determine whether wives’ own traditional gender beliefs or family economic stress at Wave 2 moderated the effects of husbands’ gender beliefs and marital behaviors on wives’ outcomes (Figure 1, Paths G and H). Variables separated by wave were specified as such given literature supporting those directions of effects (Peplau, 1983; Beach, 2014). Husbands’ gender beliefs and marital behaviors were measured within the same wave because gender role processes involve both cognitive and behavioral components that are closely related (Peplau, 1983).

It was hypothesized there would be significant indirect effects from husbands’ cultural orientation to wives’ outcomes. Higher levels of husbands’ Chinese cultural orientation were expected to predict higher levels of traditional gender beliefs (Figure 1, Path A); higher levels of beliefs would in turn predict higher hostility or lower warmth (Figure 1, Path B); higher hostility or lower warmth would finally predict greater wives’ depressive symptoms or lower wives’ expressions of the husband mattering (Figure 1, Path C). As it was less clear whether husbands’ American cultural orientation would predict their gender beliefs, no hypotheses were made about significance of indirect effects from husbands’ American cultural orientation to wives’ outcomes, and such tests were exploratory.

Given theory on compatibility in gender attitudes and its protective effects for marital outcomes, it was hypothesized that higher levels of wives’ traditional gender beliefs may buffer against potential detrimental effects of husbands’ higher gender belief, higher hostility, or lower warmth, on wives’ expressions of mattering (Figure 1, Paths G and H). Whether there would be buffering effects of compatibility on wives’ depressive symptoms was less clear, given theories on the general negative health consequences of traditional gender attitudes in women. It was also unclear how husbands may respond to economic stress potentially subverting their gender roles; therefore, moderation analysis involving economic stress were exploratory (Figure 1, Paths G and H).

Method

Participants

Participants included Chinese American married couples from a northern metropolitan area on the western coast of the United States (US). Couples were wives and husbands within a three-wave study of 444 Chinese American families that each included a husband, wife, and child, with waves collected in 2002, 2006, and 2010 (Kim et al., 2017). For the current study, only wives and husbands who were still married at Wave 3 were included (n = 416). Average duration of marriage at Wave 1 (W1) was 17.7 years (SD = 4.7). At W1, husbands were 36 to 79 years old (M = 48.1, SD = 6.2) and wives were 31 to 56 years old (M = 44.2, SD = 4.5). Median level of education at W1 was having finished high school for both husbands and wives; median family income at W1 was $30,001 to $45,000. Eighty-seven percent of husbands and 90% of wives were born outside of the US, with most immigrating from southern China or Hong Kong. Of the immigrant husbands and wives, husbands had lived in the US for on average 17.5 years (SD = 10.1) whereas mothers had lived in the US for on average 15.70 years (SD = 8.4). Average age of the child at W1 was 13.0 years old (SD = 0.7); 53.8% of children were female, whereas 46.2% were male.

Procedure

Families at W1 were recruited through letters sent home with Chinese American students in seven middle schools. Letters consisted of study descriptions and consent/assent procedures written in both Chinese and English. Questionnaires were provided to families who returned consent and assent forms to the students’ schools. Wives, husbands, and students each completed separate questionnaires. Chinese or English versions of the questionnaires were offered. To ensure equivalency of the two versions, English versions were translated into Chinese and then back-translated into English, with discrepancies between the back-translated and original English versions addressed by researchers proficient in English and Chinese. Of the families sent letters, 47% completed consent/assent procedures. Seventy-six percent of consenting families ultimately submitted questionnaires. Families were recontacted four years later by phone or mail for participation at W2. Families at W2 received packets by mail that included consent/assent procedures and paper questionnaire packets. Families then returned completed consent/assent forms and questionnaires by mail using postage-paid envelopes. Families were recontacted and participated again four years later for Wave 3, through procedures similar to at W2. Monetary compensation was provided to families for submission of completed questionnaires (W1: $30, W2: $50, W3: $130). The study procedures, including those involving consent and assent processes, received approval by the Institutional Review Boards at the institutions of the senior author (W1: University of California Davis; W2: Arizona State University; W3: University of Texas at Austin).

Regarding attrition rates for the 416 families, 22% of W1 families returned at W2, whereas 27% of W1 families returned at W3. Attrition rates from W2 to W3 could not be calculated, as 21 families who returned at W3 did not initially return for W2. Analyses were conducted to compare families at W1 who did and did not return for W2 or W3 on husbands’ and wives’ immigration statuses, husbands’ and wives’ education levels, husbands’ and wives’ employment statuses, and family-level economic stress. Only one comparison was significant: average education level was higher among W1 husbands who returned for W3 compared to those who did not, t(343) = −2.58, p = .010. Husbands’ education level was used as a covariate in all analyses. Data, study materials, and analysis code are not available due to the initial criteria for IRB approval.

Measures

Cultural Orientation

Husbands’ Chinese and American cultural orientations were measured at W1 through two subscales of the Vancouver Acculturation Index (Ryder et al., 2000). Each subscale consisted of 10 items reflecting the degree to which individuals ascribe to behaviors and beliefs associated with Chinese or American cultures. Items were rated from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), and included “I often follow Chinese/American cultural traditions.” Responses were averaged together, with higher scores indicating higher levels of Chinese or American cultural orientations. Internal consistencies were α = .82 and α = .83 respectively.

Gender Beliefs

Wives’ and husbands’ traditional gender beliefs were assessed at W2 using a six-item, self-report scale adapted from measures of Parents’ Gender-Based Attitudes (Hoffman & Kloska, 1995). Two items were taken from the measure of wife-husband roles (e.g., “Men should make the really important decisions in the family”) and two were taken from the measure of gendered child rearing (e.g., “Education is important for both sons and daughters, but it is more important for a son”). Two additional items were created to capture Confucian gender ideals (Kim & Wong, 2002): “The husband should be strict (e.g., discipline children) while the wife should be kind (e.g., being warm with children)” and “It is important for a wife to give birth to a son to carry the family bloodline.” Items were reported on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Responses on items within each parent were averaged together to create one measure for wives and one measure for husbands, with higher scores indicating higher levels of traditional gender beliefs. Internal consistencies were α = .82 for husbands and α = .80 for wives.

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted that consisted of both the wife-report and husband-report measures at W2 for the larger sample of 444 families. All six items for each partner were loaded onto their respective factors. Residuals of corresponding items were correlated across partner factors. In addition, residuals for the two items about gendered child rearing were correlated within each partner. Model fit was χ2(45) = 72.57, p = .006; RMSEA = .04 [.02, .06]; CFI = .97; SRMR = .04. All items loaded onto their respective factor at p < .001 (λ = .50 - .77).

Marital behavior

At W2, husbands’ behaviors were assessed through two self-report measures adapted from Conger et al., 2002 and Matthews et al., 1996. The marital warmth measure consisted of eight items rated on a scale from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always) that reflected husbands’ displays of affection, care, and support (e.g., “let her know that you appreciate her, her ideas, or the things she does”). The marital hostility measure consisted of seven items rated on a scale from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always) that reflected husbands’ displays of verbally and physically aggressive behaviors (e.g., “shout or yell at her because you were mad at her”). Items within each scale were averaged together to create two measures in which higher scores indicated higher levels of the marital behavior. Both measures previously demonstrated validity within this sample through relations with family stress processes (Hou et al., 2018). Internal consistencies were α = .94 for warmth and α = .84 for hostility.

Expressions of Husband Mattering

Wives’ expressions of the husband mattering at W3 was assessed through items adapted from a scale of mattering (Marshall, 2001). Wives responded to four items on a scale from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always) that reflected how often they expressed that the husband mattered (e.g., “let him know that he is special”). Items were averaged together, with higher scores indicating higher expression of the husband mattering. Internal consistency was α = .90.

Depressive Symptoms

Wives’ self-reports of depressive symptoms were measured at W3 through the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CESD; Radloff, 1977). The CESD consists of 20 items that ask about levels of depressive symptoms in the past week. The measure has been found to be valid with Chinese American women (Li & Hicks, 2010). Items were averaged together, with higher scores indicating greater depressive symptoms. Internal consistency was α = .89.

Covariates

W1 covariates were selected due to their importance in predicting study variables such as traditional gender beliefs and marital behaviors (Hu & Scott, 2016; Phinney & Flores, 2002; Qin, 2009; Randall & Bodenmann, 2009). Husbands and wives separately reported on their own education levels on a scale from 1 (No formal schooling) to 9 (Finished graduate degree) as well as whether they were born in the US (yes/no). Husbands and wives separately reported on their own employment level, with the resulting variables dichotomized to indicate whether they worked at least part-time. Separate measures of family economic stress were created at W1 and W2 from husbands’ and wives’ reports on two items each: “Think back over the past three months, how much difficulty did you have with paying your bills” (1 - A great deal to 5 - None at all) and “Think back over the past three months, generally, at the end of each month, how much money did you end up with” (1 – More than enough to 5 – Very short). All four items within each wave were averaged together (the second items were reverse-scored) to create a measure of family economic stress, with higher scores indicating less stress. The W1 measure was used as a covariate whereas the W2 measure was used for tests of moderation. Internal consistencies on the family economic stress variable were α = .80 (W1) and α = .77 (W2).

Data Analysis

Primary analyses involved path analyses in Mplus 8.6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Due to the many variables of interest and the desire to be sensitive towards potential indirect effects, eight individual models (Models 1–8) were first tested that each included only one of the cultural orientation variables (Chinese or American), one of the marital behaviors (warmth or hostility), and one of the wife outcomes (depressive symptoms or expressions of mattering). A combined model including all study variables was then created to identify the most robust indirect effects (Model 9a). Regarding covariates, husband variables were regressed on W1 husband’s education level, husband’s immigrations status, husband’s employment status, and family-level economic stress. Similarly, wife variables were regressed on W1 wife’s education level, wife’s immigration status, wife’s employment status, and family-level economic stress. Education level, immigration status, and employment status were included only on paths for the respective spouse due to some of the constructs correlating highly across wives and husbands (e.g., immigration status: r = .67, p < .001). Indirect effects from W1 husbands’ cultural orientation to W3 wife outcome, through W2 gender beliefs and marital behaviors, were calculated through bootstrapped confidence intervals with 10,000 samples (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Percentile-based bootstrapping was used over less conservative methods (e.g., bias-corrected bootstrapping; MacKinnon et al., 2004) in order to account for the number of indirect effects tested (Tibbe & Montoya, 2022; Yzerbyt et al., 2018). Missing data were addressed through maximum likelihood estimation with bootstrapped standard errors.

Moderation by wives’ traditional gender beliefs and family economic stress at W2 were tested separately through follow-up combined models (Models 9b, 9c). Within each model, three interaction terms were created from interacting the moderating variable with husbands’ traditional gender beliefs (W2), husbands’ warmth (W2), and husbands’ hostility (W2) separately. All variables involved in creating the interaction terms were mean-centered. The moderating variable and the three interaction terms were regressed on both wife outcomes. Missing data were addressed through maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR), as interaction terms are non-linear and MLR is suitable for non-normal data. Significance of interaction terms were examined to the p = .01 level due to the number of interactions conducted (12 total).

Results

Individual Path Models

Bivariate correlations of study variables are presented in Table 1. Results from the four individual path models that included only Chinese cultural orientation at W1 (Models 1–4) are presented in Table 2. Husbands’ Chinese cultural orientation consistently positively predicted husbands’ W2 traditional gender beliefs (Figure 1, Path A). Husbands’ W2 traditional gender beliefs negatively predicted husbands’ W2 warmth (Models 1 and 3; Figure 1, Path B) and positively predicted husbands’ W2 hostility (Models 2 and 4; Figure 1 Path B). Husbands’ W2 warmth positively predicted wives’ W3 expression of mattering (Model 1) and negatively predicted wives’ W3 depressive symptoms (Model 3; Figure 1, Path C). Husbands’ W1 Chinese cultural orientation also positively predicted their W2 warmth (Models 1 and 3; Figure 1, Path D).

Table 1.

Bivariate correlations for study variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. H. Ch. CO W1 –
2. H. Am. CO W1 .24** –
3. H. Edu. W1 −.05 .30** –
4. W. Edu. W1 −.00 .30** .62** –
5. H. Imm. Status .20** −.31** −.42** −.42** –
6. W. Imm. Status .28** −.23** −.38** −.37** .67** –
7. H. Emp. W1 −.02 .04 .16** .11† −.12* −.15** –
8. W. Emp. W1 −.06 .07 .09 .12* −.08 −.11* .03 –
9. Econ. Stress W1 −.04 .13* .28** .32** −.16** −.22** .23** .21** –
10. H. TGB W2 .23** −.06 −.13† −.15* .12† .13* −.11 −.08 −.04 –
11. W. TGB W2 .07 −.15* −.20** −.25** .25** .30** −.02 −.16* −.13* .36** –
12. H. Warmth W2 .13† .15* .01 .08 .10 .13† .04 −.00 −.01 −.18** −.10 –
13. H. Host. W2 .05 −.05 −.09 −.03 .11 .10 −.05 .08 .12† .27** .05 −.34** –
14. W. Matter W3 .10 .07 .16* .14* −.07 −.02 .12† .02 .16* −.00 −.06 .23** −.05 –
15. W. Dep. W3 .00 −.10 −.21** −.20* .11 .12† −.06 −.04 −.19** .00 .10 −.16* .12† −.08 –
Mean 3.82 3.48 5.93 5.86 1.87 1.90 .84 .77 3.73 2.81 2.54 5.45 2.70 5.19 .66
Standard Deviation .45 .44 1.82 1.72 .34 .30 .37 .42 .84 .70 .72 1.18 1.01 1.55 .42
Range 1–5 1–5 1–9 1–9 - - - - 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–7 1–7 1–7 0–3
Open in a new tab

Note. H. = Husband, W. = Wife, Ch. = Chinese, Am. = American, CO = Cultural Orientation, Edu. = Education, Imm. = Immigration, Emp. = Employment, Econ. Stress = Economic Stress, TGB = Traditional Gender Beliefs, Dep. = Depressive

†

p < .10;

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01

Table 2.

Results for the individual models with husbands’ W1 Chinese cultural orientation (Models 1–4).

Path Label and Direct Effect Unst. SE St.
Model 1: Warmth and Mattering
A. H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) .33** .11 .21
B. H. TGB (W2) → H. Warmth (W2) −.38** .11 −.23
C. H. Warmth (W2) → W. Mattering (W3) .30** .09 .23
D. H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. Warmth (W2) .46** .16 .18
E. H. TGB (W2) → W. Mattering (W3) .08 .14 .04
F. H. Ch. CO (W1) → W. Mattering (W3) .26 .20 .08
χ2(9) = 13.05, p = .160; RMSEA = .03 [.00, .07]; CFI = .90; SRMR = .02
H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) → H. Warmth (W2) → W. Mattering (W3): −.037* [−.086, −.008]
Model 2 Hostility and Mattering
A. H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) .33** .11 21
B. H. TGB (W2) → H. Hostility (W2) .37** .11 .28
C. H. Hostility (W2) → W. Mattering (W3) −.08 .12 −.05
D. H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. Hostility (W2) −.10 .13 −.05
E. H. TGB (W2) → W. Mattering (W3) .01 .16 .01
F. H. Ch. CO (W1) → W. Mattering (W3) .33 .22 .10
χ2(9) = 9.12, p = .427; RMSEA = .00 [.00, .06]; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = .02
H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) → H. Hostility (W2) → W. Mattering (W3): −.010 [−.042, .021]
Model 3: Warmth and Dep. Symptoms
A. H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) .33** .11 .21
B. H. TGB (W2) → H. Warmth (W2) −.38** .11 −.23
C. H. Warmth (W2) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) −.06* .03 −.17
D. H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. Warmth (W2) .44** .16 .17
E. H. TGB (W2) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) −.03 .04 −.05
F. H. Ch. CO (W1) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) .01 .06 .01
χ2(9) = 11.14, p = .266; RMSEA = .02 [.00, .06]; CFI = .95; SRMR = .02
H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) → H. Warmth (W2) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3): .008* [.001, .018]
Model 4: Hostility and Dep. Symptoms
A. H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) .33** .11 .21
B. H. TGB (W2) → H. Hostility (W2) .38** .11 .28
C. H. Hostility (W2) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) .06† .03 .15
D. H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. Hostility (W2) −.10 .13 −.05
E. H. TGB (W2) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) −.04 .04 −.06
F. H. Ch. CO (W1) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) .00 .06 .00
χ2(9) = 7.85, p = .549; RMSEA = .00 [.00, .05]; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = .02
H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) → H. Hostility (W2) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3): .008 [−.001, .023]
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded path letters A through F align with labeling in Figure 1. Model fit statistics and indirect effects for each model are presented below the direct effects. H. = Husband, W. = Wife, CO = Cultural Orientation, Dep. = Depressive, TGB = Traditional Gender Beliefs, Unst. = Unstandardized Estimate, SE = Standard Error, St. = Standardized Estimate. Indirect effects are reported as unstandardized estimates and 95% confidence intervals. For direct effects:

†

p < .1;

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01.

For indirect effects: * = significant to 95% confidence interval.

There was a significant indirect effect in Model 1 in that higher husbands’ W1 Chinese cultural orientation indirectly predicted lower levels of wives’ W3 expressions of husband mattering, sequentially through higher husbands’ W2 traditional gender beliefs and lower husbands’ W2 warmth. There was also a significant indirect effect in Model 3 in that higher husbands’ W1 Chinese cultural orientation indirectly predicted higher wives’ W3 depressive symptoms, sequentially through higher husbands’ W2 traditional gender beliefs and lower husbands’ W2 warmth.

Four models included husbands’ W1 American cultural orientation instead of Chinese cultural orientation (Models 5–8; full results not presented). Across all models, husbands’ W1 American cultural orientation did not significantly predict husbands’ W2 traditional gender beliefs at W2 (B = .010, p = .887 - .944; Figure 1, Path A). As a result, there were no significant indirect effects from husbands’ W1 American cultural orientation to wives’ W3 outcomes. Within the two models with W2 warmth, there were significant and positive direct effects from husbands’ W1 American cultural orientation to W2 warmth; B = .21 - .22, p = .001 - .002 (Figure 1, Path D).

Combined Models

Results from the combined model are presented in Table 3 (Model 9a). There was a significant negative indirect effect from husbands’ W1 Chinese cultural orientation to wives’ W3 expressions of mattering, through W2 gender beliefs and W2 warmth. Indirect effects involving W1 American cultural orientation were not tested due to results from the individual models. No interaction effects involving wives’ W2 traditional gender beliefs (Model 9b; Table 4) or W2 economic stress (Model 9c; Table 4) were significant to the p < .01 level (Figure 1, Paths G and H).

Table 3.

Results for the combined model (Model 9a).

Path Label and Direct Effect Unst. SE St.
A. H. Ch. CO (W1) →H. TGB (W2) .35** .11 .22
A. H. Am. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) −.07 .13 −.03
B. H. TGB (W2) → H. Warmth (W2) −.38** .11 −.24
B. H. TGB (W2) → H. Hostility (W2) .38** .12 .28
C. H. Warmth (W2) → W. Mattering (W3) .32** .10 .24
C. H. Hostility (W2) → W. Mattering (W3) .06 .12 .04
C. H. Warmth (W2) →W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) −.04 .03 −.12
C. H. Hostility (W2) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) .04 .04 .10
D. H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. Warmth (W2) .35* .17 .14
D. H. Am. CO (W1) → H. Warmth (W2) .47* .18 .18
D. H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. Hostility (W2) −.09 .14 −.04
D. H. Am. CO (W1) → H. Hostility (W2) −.06 .18 −.03
E. H. TGB (W2) → W. Mattering (W3) .07 .15 .03
E. H. TGB (W2) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) −.04 .04 −.07
F. H. Ch. CO (W1) → W. Mattering (W3) .31 .21 .09
F. H. Am. CO (W1) → W. Mattering (W3) −.17 .23 −.05
F. H. Ch. CO (W1) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) .02 .06 .02
F. H. Am. CO (W1) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) −.01 .06 −.02
Indirect Effects Unst. [95% CI]
H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) → H. Warmth (W2) → W. Mattering (W3) −.042* [−.099, −.008]
H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) → H. Hostility (W2) → W. Mattering (W3) .007 [−.023, .049]
H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) → H. Warmth (W2) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) .006 [−.002, .016]
H. Ch. CO (W1) → H. TGB (W2) → H. Hostility (W2) → W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) .006 [−.004, .022]
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded path letters A through F align with labeling in Figure 1. Model fit statistics and indirect effects are presented below the direct effects. H. = Husband, W. = Wife, Ch. CO = Chinese Cultural Orientation, Am. CO = American Cultural Orientation, Dep. = Depressive, TGB = Traditional Gender Beliefs, Unst. = Unstandardized Estimate, SE = Standard Error, St. = Standardized Estimate, CI = Confidence Interval. For direct effects:

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01.

For indirect effects: * = significant to 95% confidence interval.

Table 4.

Moderation results for the combined models with interaction effects (Models 9b, 9c).

Path Label and Interaction Effect Unst. SE. p-value
Model 9b: Wives’ Traditional Gender Beliefs
G. W. TGB (W2) × H. TGB (W2) on W. Mattering (W3) .03 .19 .882
H. W. TGB (W2) × H. Warmth (W2) on W. Mattering (W3) −.10 .15 .504
H. W. TGB (W2) × H. Hostility (W2) on W. Mattering (W3) −.12 .21 .567
G. W. TGB (W2) × H. TGB (W2) on W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) −.04 .05 .442
H. W. TGB (W2) × H. Warmth (W2) on W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) .05 .03 .091
H. W. TGB (W2) × H. Hostility (W2) on W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) .09 .05 .034
Model 9c: Family Economic Stress
G. Econ. Stress (W2) × H. TGB (W2) on W. Mattering (W3) −.29 .16 .080
H. Econ. Stress (W2) × H. Warmth (W2) on W. Mattering (W3) −.02 .14 .913
H. Econ. Stress (W2) × H. Hostility (W2) on W. Mattering (W3) .16 .20 .405
G. Econ. Stress (W2) × H. TGB (W2) on W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) −.05 .04 .170
H. Econ. Stress (W2) × H. Warmth (W2) on W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) −.03 .03 .444
H. Econ. Stress (W2) × H. Hostility (W2) on W. Dep. Symptoms (W3) .04 .05 .441
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded path letters G and H align with labeling in Figure 1. H. = Husband, W. = Wife, Dep. = Depressive, TGB = Traditional Gender Beliefs, Econ. = Economic, Unst. = Unstandardized Estimate, SE = Standard Error.

Discussion

Consistent with hypotheses, there were significant indirect effects from husbands’ Chinese cultural orientation to both wives’ depressive symptoms and wives’ expressions of the husband mattering eight years later, through husbands’ traditional gender beliefs and marital behaviors, although the indirect effect involving depressive symptoms was no longer significant in the combined model. Results suggest negative marital outcomes in Chinese American couples can be traced to aspects of husbands’ cultural identity.

The fact that traditional gender beliefs appeared rooted in Chinese, but not American, cultural orientation speaks to the multidimensional nature of acculturation and how maintenance of Chinese cultural values, such as Confucian-rooted gender beliefs, is at least partially independent from adopting of Western values (Schwartz et al., 2010). Yet, despite traditional gender beliefs demonstrating negative implications, results suggest Chinese cultural orientation was not wholly indicative of maladaptive marital processes. Greater Chinese cultural orientation directly predicted greater marital warmth, when controlling for traditional gender beliefs (Figure 1, Path D), suggesting that Chinese culture encompasses an assortment of values and practices that differentially influence marital outcomes. For example, Chinese culture emphasizes the concept of harmony, in which focus is placed on maintaining positive relationships in order to prevent strain in familial bonds (Leung et al., 2011; Li et al., 2021; Quek et al, 2010). Similar to warmth, promotion of harmony involves sensitivity and respect towards others’ perspectives (Leung et al., 2011). Therefore, traditional gender beliefs appear to be just a singular aspect of Chinese culture that may have certain negative implications for family functioning.

Husbands’ hostility may not have been predictive of negative outcome in the current study due to reports of hostility being generally low. Therefore, few husbands may have expressed hostility severe enough to have long-lasting negative influences on their spouses, such as high and sustained levels of verbal and physical aggression. Expressions of mattering were involved in the most robust finding, as indicated by the significant indirect effect in the combined model. This finding could be attributable to marital warmth and expressions of mattering involving similar expressions of importance and appreciations, leading to a closely reciprocal effect (Flett, 2022; Matthews et al., 1996). The finding that lower expressions of mattering was indirectly predicted by greater husbands’ Chinese cultural orientation and subsequent traditional gender beliefs is notable, given that Confucian values emphasize each family member inhabiting a distinct role that is essential for the preservation of harmony (Chuang et al., 2018). One would expect expressions and feelings of value to be particularly adaptive within a Confucian family environment that delineates specific roles for its members. Yet, in the current study, traditional gender beliefs instead appeared to impede a marital behavior that could promote adaptive functioning within Confucian belief systems.

Overall, no significant moderating effects of wives’ gender beliefs were found. Concerning expressions of mattering, there was limited evidence to suggest that compatibility theory extended to behavioral reciprocity in the couples. Regarding depressive symptoms, when using an uncorrected significance level (p < .05), one moderation effect suggested that greater wives’ traditional gender beliefs resulted in husbands’ marital hostility more positively predicting wives’ depressive symptoms. Because traditional gender expectations prescribe women with roles limited to the home, women who abide by such expectations may consider the home environment more central to their lives and therefore be particularly impacted by the stressors that occur there (Lara, 2008). A positive statistical interaction effect could then be attributed to marital hostility being a stressor more localized to the home environment. This interpretation could explain why past studies relating immigrant women’s traditional gender beliefs with their mental health outcomes have been mixed, with findings identifying negative associations among some cultural groups but not others (Cano et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2024; Mann et al., 2017). That is, the negative health consequences of traditional gender beliefs for some women may be more apparent in the context of significant household stressors. Replication of these findings are needed, with future studies benefiting from centering on Chinese American women’s experiences.

The current study utilized economic stress in an attempt to capture subversion of men’s gender roles (e.g., husbands being unable to act as primary financial providers; Qin, 2009). Lack of moderating effects in the study could be attributed to this construct failing to reflect actual gender role subversion, as husbands could still be the primary financial providers during times of financial duress. In future examinations, a more direct measure of this phenomenon, such as though examining differences in income between husbands and wives, could be beneficial.

Constraints on Generality

Results should be interpreted within the families’ sociocultural contexts (Harkness & Super, 2020). The sample involved Chinese American families with average levels of education of high school completion and average family income of $30,001-$45,000 (approximately $40,000-$65,000 when adjusted to 2020 levels of inflation). Therefore, families differed socioeconomically from the overall population of Chinese Americans (54% of individuals 25 years and older having a bachelor’s degree, median family income of $82,000; Budiman & Ruiz, 2021). As traditional gender beliefs may be negatively associated with education among ethnic-Chinese individuals (Table 1; Hu & Scott, 2016), the current study may have demonstrated the implications of greater traditional gender beliefs than those seen in the overall Chinese American population. However, husbands with higher levels of education were more likely to return at W3 of the study, suggesting that results could also be biased towards levels of traditional gender beliefs that are lower than what may be expected from this specific population of Chinese American couples.

In addition, couples resided around a northwestern, socially progressive metropolitan areas of the US; therefore, their considerations of what constituted “American” culture was likely influenced by the socializing agents within that environment. US-based studies have established how gender attitudes, such as among White Americans, differ based on geographic region; specifically, gender attitudes emphasizing male authority are higher within southern parts of the US compared to northern and/or urban areas (Carter et al., 2016; Powers et al., 2003). Therefore, couples’ locations have implications for how husbands’ traditional gender beliefs and marital behaviors are maintained or change as they continuously receive socialization messages from US cultures.

Because social and political changes in China increasingly move Chinese society towards greater gender equality (Li et al., 2021; Chuang, 2013), couples’ timing of migration should be considered. Of the immigrant husbands and wives in the current study, many arrived prior to the 21st century; therefore, the gender socialization messages they received while living in China potentially differ from those of later waves of Chinese immigrants. As such, processes established in the current study may not apply to the many Chinese Americans who have more recently arrived to the US and who may have more gender-egalitarian beliefs. Last, the inclusion of only married couples may have excluded couples who separated due to more extreme incompatibility in gender attitudes, thereby biasing the moderation results.

Future research should replicate the current findings using samples that differentiate Chinese American couples’ gendered experiences. While some well-established findings may be replicated across contexts (e.g., marital behaviors to outcomes), the discussed factors have significant implications for the more culturally-specific processes (e.g., gender beliefs to marital behaviors). Future studies could explore the moderating role of education, location, immigration background, and marital status, among more diverse Chinese American samples. A more heterogeneous sample may also help determine the moderating role of wives’ gender beliefs and economic stress, as the current design may have impacted the variability in those constructs.

Strengths, Limitations, and Implications

The current study is the first to use multiple waves of data in examining cultural orientation, traditional gender beliefs, marital behaviors, and family outcomes, in Chinese American couples. Through centering Confucian-rooted beliefs, the current study contributed to a literature focused on culturally relevant family processes (Campos & Kim, 2017). The incorporation of multiple cultural orientations, marital behaviors, and outcomes allowed for greater understanding of the ways traditional gender beliefs are formed, expressed, and influence others. Last, the study contributes to the limited literature on mattering within couples (Flett, 2022).

Although the three-wave design allowed for the establishment of temporal precedence and long-term influences, models did not account for changes in constructs over time. Second, some studies of gender beliefs have utilized actor-partner designs that model how husbands and wives influence both themselves and their partners (Falconier, 2013; Helms et al., 2019). An actor-partner design was not used in the current study due to the desire to focus specifically on the cultural roots of husbands’ traditional gender beliefs and its implications for wives. The current design allowed for the inclusion of multiple constructs at each wave and therefore a more detailed examination of the research questions. Finally, the study was limited through use of self-report measures. For example, results involving husband’s hostility may have been biased by husbands under-reporting their negative marital behaviors (Cui et al., 2005). Future research would benefit from the use of wives’ reports of husbands’ hostility or observation measures.

Practitioners supporting Chinese American couples should be mindful of how husbands’ cultural orientations and gender-based attitudes influence how they interact with their spouse and their wives’ adjustment. Providers would benefit from acknowledging Chinese American husbands’ cultural beliefs and considering how such beliefs could be integrated into treatment (Hwang, 2006). Providers should also understand that although Confucian-rooted gender beliefs may have negative implications in certain Chinese American couples, other aspects of Chinese culture may promote positive functioning. Overall, Chinese American couples would benefit from working with providers that identify and reinforce the strengths that their cultural backgrounds bring to their relationships.

Public Significance Statement:

Gender attitudes of male authority among Chinese American husbands may negatively impact their wives, stressing the need to determine how these attitudes fit within husband’s cultural and marital experiences. Over an eight-year timespan, this study found that husbands’ greater identification with Chinese culture was related with them having greater Confucian-rooted gender beliefs about male authority, which in turn was related with more negative marital behaviors and then worse marital and mental health outcomes for their wives. These results are important for understanding how best to support Chinese American couples as they navigate their cultural beliefs and marital relationships.

Acknowledgments

Support for this research was provided through awards to Su Yeong Kim from (1) Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 5R03HD051629-02 (2) Office of the Vice President for Research Grant/Special Research Grant from the University of Texas at Austin (3) Jacobs Foundation Young Investigator Grant (4) American Psychological Association Office of Ethnic Minority Affairs, Promoting Psychological Research and Training on Health Disparities Issues at Ethnic Minority Serving Institutions Grant (5) American Psychological Foundation/Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology, Ruth G. and Joseph D. Matarazzo Grant (6) California Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, Extended Education Fund (7) American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, Massachusetts Avenue Building Assets Fund, and (8) Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 5P2CHD042849-22 grant awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin. This study was not preregistered. Data, study materials, and analysis code are not available due to the initial criteria for IRB approval.

References

  1. Aube J, & Koestner R (1995). Gender characteristics and relationship adjustment: Another look at similarity-complementarity hypotheses. Journal of Personality, 63(4), 879–904. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00319.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barton AW, Lavner JA, Sutton NC, McNeil Smith S, & Beach SRH (2022). African Americans’ relationship quality and depressive symptoms: A longitudinal investigation of the Marital Discord Model. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(7), 1061–1072. 10.1037/fam0000967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Beach SRH (2014). The couple and family discord model of depression. In Agnew CR & South SC (Eds.), Interpersonal relationships and health: Social and clinical psychological mechanisms (pp. 133–155). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bornstein MH, & Lansford JE (2010). Parenting. In Bornstein MH (Ed.), Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp. 259–277). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bradbury TN, & Fincham FD (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 613–628. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bryant V, Wickrama KAS, O’Neal CW, & Lorenz FO (2017). Family hostility and depressive symptoms in middle-aged couples: Moderating effect of marital integration. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(6), 765–774. 10.1037/fam0000306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Budiman A, & Ruiz NG (2021, April 29). Key facts about Asian origin groups in the U.S Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/04/29/key-facts-about-asian-origin-groups-in-the-u-s/
  8. Campos B, & Kim HS (2017). Incorporating the cultural diversity of family and close relationships into the study of health. American Psychologist, 72(6), 543–554. 10.1037/amp0000122 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cano MÁ, Rojas P, Ramírez-Ortiz D, Sánchez M, & De La Rosa M (2020). Depression and gender roles among Hispanic immigrant women: Examining associations of gender egalitarianism, marianismo, and self-silencing. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 31(2), 713–723. 10.1353/hpu.2020.0056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cao H, Li X, Chi P, Du H, Wu Q, Liang Y, … & Fine MA (2019). Within-couple configuration of gender-related attitudes and its association with marital satisfaction in Chinese marriage: A dyadic, pattern-analytic approach. Journal of Personality, 87(6), 1189–1205. 10.1111/jopy.12467 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Carter JS, Carter SK, & Corra M (2016). The significance of place: The impact of urban and regional residence on gender-role attitudes. Sociological Focus, 49(4), 271–285. 10.1080/00380237.2016.1169896 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chuang SS (2013). Roles and responsibilities: A critical exploration of Chinese fathers in Canada and China. In Chuang SS & Tamis-LeMonda CS (Eds.), Gender roles in immigrant families (pp. 27–42). Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4614-6735-9_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chuang SS, Glozman J, Green DS, & Rasmi S (2018). Parenting and family relationships in Chinese families: A critical ecological approach. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(2), 367–383. 10.1111/jftr.12257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Conger RD, Wallace LE, Sun Y, Simons RL, McLoyd VC, & Brody GH (2002). Economic pressure in African American families: a replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental psychology, 38(2), 179–193. 10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cui M, Lorenz FO, Conger RD, Melby JN, & Bryant CM (2005). Observer, self-, and partner reports of hostile behaviors in romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1169–1181. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00208.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Durtschi JA, Fincham FD, Cui M, Lorenz FO, & Conger RD (2011). Dyadic processes in early marriage: Attributions, behavior, and marital quality. Family relations, 60(4), 421–434. 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00655.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Falconier MK (2013). Traditional gender role orientation and dyadic coping in immigrant Latino couples: Effects on couple functioning. Family Relations, 62(2), 269–283. 10.1111/fare.12002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fincham FD, & Beach SR (1999). Conflict in marriage: Implications for working with couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 47–77. 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.47 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fincham FD, & Beach SRH (2010). Of memes and marriage: Toward a positive relationship science. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(1), 4–24. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00033.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Flett GL (2022). An introduction, review, and conceptual analysis of mattering as an essential construct and an essential way of life. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 40(1), 3–36. 10.1177/07342829211057640 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Harkness S, & Super CM (2020). Why understanding culture is essential for supporting children and families. Applied Developmental Science, 25(1), 14–25. 10.1080/10888691.2020.1789354 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Helms HM, Supple AJ, Hengstebeck ND, Wood CA, & Rodriguez Y (2019). Marital processes linking gender role attitudes and marital satisfaction among Mexican-origin couples: Application of an actor–partner interdependence mediation model. Family process, 58(1), 197–213. 10.1111/famp.12338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoffman LW, & Kloska DD (1995). Parents’ gender-based attitudes toward marital roles and child rearing: Development and validation of new measures. Sex roles, 32(5), 273–295. 10.1007/BF01544598 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hou Y, Neff LA, & Kim SY (2018). Language acculturation, acculturation-related stress, and marital quality in Chinese American couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(2), 555–568. 10.1111/jomf.12447 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hu Y, & Scott J (2016). Family and gender values in China: Generational, geographic, and gender differences. Journal of Family Issues, 37(9), 1267–1293. 10.1177/0192513X14528710 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Huston TL, & Houts RM (1998). The psychological infrastructure of courtship and marriage: The role of personality and compatibility in romantic relationships. In Bradbury TN (Ed.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 114–151). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/cbo9780511527814.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hwang W-C (2006). The psychotherapy adaptation and modification framework: Application to Asian Americans. American Psychologist, 61(7), 702–715. 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.702 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jones MK, Briones-Zamora M, & Underwood A (2024). Relating profiles of ethnocultural gender roles to mental health and help-seeking attitudes among Latina women. Sex Roles, 90(6), 706–722. 10.1007/s11199-024-01470-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kim C, Laroche M, & Tomiuk MA (2004). The Chinese in Canada: A study in ethnic change with emphasis on gender roles. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(1), 5–29. 10.3200/SOCP.144.1.5-29 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim SY, Chen S, Sim L, & Hou Y (2017). Stability and change in parenting and adjustment profiles across early, middle, and late adolescence in Chinese American families. In Choi Y & Hahm HC (Eds.), Asian American parenting (pp. 69–88). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-63136-3_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim SY, & Wong VY (2002). Assessing Asian and Asian American parenting: A review of the literature. In Kurasaki KS, Okazaki S, & Sue S. (Eds) Asian American mental health: International and cultural psychology series (pp. 185–201). Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4615-0735-2_13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kuehner C (2017). Why is depression more common among women than among men? The Lancet Psychiatry, 4(2), 146–158. 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30263-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lara MA (2008). Women and depression: The influence of gender in major depressive disorder. In Aguilar-Gaxiola SA & Gullotta TP (Eds.), Depression in Latinos: Assessment, treatment, and prevention (pp. 239–261). Springer Science + Business Media. 10.1007/978-0-387-78512-7_12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Leung K, Brew FP, Zhang ZX, & Zhang Y (2011). Harmony and conflict: A cross-cultural investigation in China and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(5), 795–816. 10.1177/0022022110363474 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Levant RF, & Richmond K (2016). The gender role strain paradigm and masculinity ideologies. In Wong YJ & Wester SR (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 23–49). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/14594-002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Li X, Cao H, Curran MA, Fang X, & Zhou N (2020). Traditional gender ideology, work family conflict, and marital quality among Chinese dual-earner couples: A moderated mediation model. Sex Roles, 83, 622–635. 10.1007/s11199-020-01125-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Li L, Sun IY, & Button DM (2020). Tolerance for intimate partner violence: A comparative study of Chinese and American college students. Journal of interpersonal violence, 35(21–22), 4533–4557. 10.1177/0886260517716941 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Li X, Hu Y, Huang CYS, & Chuang SS (2021). Beyond WEIRD (Western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic)-centric theories and perspectives: Masculinity and fathering in Chinese societies. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(3), 317–333. 10.1111/jftr.12403 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Li Z, & Hicks MHR (2010). The CES-D in Chinese American women: Construct validity, diagnostic validity for major depression, and cultural response bias. Psychiatry Research, 175(3), 227–232. 10.1016/j.psychres.2009.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, & Williams J (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Mak L, & Marshall SK (2004). Perceived mattering in young adults’ romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(4), 469–486. 10.1177/0265407504044842 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Mann SK, Roberts LR, & Montgomery S (2017). Conflicting cultural values, gender role attitudes, and acculturation: Exploring the context of reproductive and mental health of Asian-Indian immigrant women in the US. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 38(4), 301–309. 10.1080/01612840.2017.1283376 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Marshall SK (2001). Do I matter? Construct validation of adolescents’ perceived mattering to parents and friends. Journal of Adolescence, 24(4), 473–490. 10.1006/jado.2001.0384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Matthews LS, Conger RD, & Wickrama KA (1996). Work-family conflict and marital quality: Mediating processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62–79. 10.2307/2787119 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Muthén LK and Muthén BO (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén [Google Scholar]
  46. Nash SP, Longmore MA, Manning WD, & Giordano PC (2015). Strained dating relationships, a sense of mattering and emerging adults’ depressive symptoms. Journal of Depression & Anxiety, s1. 10.4172/2167-1044.s1-013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. O’Neil JM (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men’s gender role conflict using the Gender Role Conflict Scale: New research paradigms and clinical implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(3), 358–445. 10.1177/0011000008317057 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Ozaki R, & Otis MD (2017). Gender equality, patriarchal cultural norms, and perpetration of intimate partner violence: Comparison of male university students in Asian and European cultural contexts. Violence Against Women, 23(9), 1076–1099. 10.1177/1077801216654575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Peplau LA (1983). Roles and gender. In Kelley HH, Berscheid E, Christensen A, Harvey JH, Huston TL, Levinger G, McClintock E, Peplau LA, & Peterson DR (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 220–264). W. H. Freeman and Company. [Google Scholar]
  50. Phinney JS, & Flores J (2002). “Unpackaging” acculturation: Aspects of acculturation as predictors of traditional sex role attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3), 320–331. 10.1177/0022022102033003007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Pleck JH (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In Levant RF & Pollack WS (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). BasicBooks. [Google Scholar]
  52. Powers RS, Suitor JJ, Guerra S, Shackelford M, Mecom D, & Gusman K (2003). Regional differences in gender-role attitudes: Variations by gender and race. Gender Issues, 21, 40–54. 10.1007/s12147-003-0015-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Proulx CM, Helms HM, & Buehler C (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 576–593. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Proulx CM, Buehler C, & Helms H (2009). Moderators of the link between marital hostility and change in spouses’ depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(4), 540–550. 10.1037/a0015448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Pychyl TA, Flett GL, Long M, Carreiro E, & Azil R (2022). Faculty perceptions of mattering in teaching and learning: A qualitative examination of the views, values, and teaching practices of award-winning professors. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 40(1), 142–158. 10.1177/07342829211057648 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Qin DB (2009). Gendered processes of adaptation: Understanding parent–child relations in Chinese immigrant families. Sex Roles, 60(7–8), 467–481. 10.1007/s11199-008-9485-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Quek KMT, Knudson-Martin C, Rue D, & Alabiso C (2010). Relational harmony: A new model of collectivism and gender equality among Chinese American couples. Journal of Family Issues, 31(3), 358–380. 10.1177/0192513X09351162 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Radloff LS (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. 10.1177/014662167700100306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Randall AK, & Bodenmann G (2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical psychology review, 29(2), 105–115. 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Rochlen AB, & Mahalik JR (2004). Women’s Perceptions of Male Partners’ Gender Role Conflict as Predictors of Psychological Well-Being and Relationship Satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(2), 147–157. 10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.147 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Ryder AG, Alden LE, & Paulhus DL (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 49–65. 10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.49 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Schwartz SJ, Unger JB, Zamboanga BL, & Szapocznik J (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–251. 10.1037/a0019330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Shen ACT, Chiu MYL, & Gao J (2012). Predictors of dating violence among Chinese adolescents: The role of gender-role beliefs and justification of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(6), 1066–1089. 10.1177/0886260511424497 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Tibbe TD, & Montoya AK (2022). Correcting the bias correction for the bootstrap confidence interval in mediation analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.810258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Wingood GM, & DiClemente RJ (2002). The theory of gender and power: A social structural theory for guiding public health intervention. In DiClemente RJ, Crosby RA, & Kegler MC (Eds.), Emerging Theories in Health Promotion: Strategies for Improving Public Health (pp. 313–346). Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Company [Google Scholar]
  66. Yzerbyt V, Muller D, Batailler C, & Judd CM (2018). New recommendations for testing indirect effects in mediational models: The need to report and test component paths. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(6), 929–943. 10.1037/pspa0000132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES