Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychol. 2020 Mar 5;56(5):993–1008. doi: 10.1037/dev0000913

Mexican-Origin Family Members’ Unique and Shared Family Perspectives of Familism Values and their Links with Parent-Youth Relationship Quality

Jenny Padilla 1, Justin Jager 1, Kimberly A Updegraff 1, Susan M McHale 2, Adriana J Umanña-Taylor 3
PMCID: PMC7148189  NIHMSID: NIHMS1559783  PMID: 32134308

Abstract

To advance understanding of parents’ and adolescents’ unique and shared perspectives of familism, a core cultural value in Mexican-origin families, our study addressed two goals. First, we identified family members’ unique and shared perspectives of familism values using Multitrait-Multimethod Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MTMM-CFA; Kenny & Kashy, 1992). Second, we examined links between family members’ unique and shared perspectives of familism values and mother-youth and father-youth warmth and conflict. Participants were mothers, fathers, and two siblings (Mage = 15.48 years for older and Mage = 12.55 years for younger siblings) from 246 Mexican-origin families who were interviewed in their homes on two occasions over five years. Results indicated that familism values operated as an individual-level more so than as a family-level process, and that youth’s familism values were most consistently linked to parent-youth relationship quality. These findings provide novel insights into investigating family system dynamics involving familism values, suggest that youth’s familism values may keep them connected to their families during adolescence, and highlight potential implications for prevention and intervention programs geared toward Mexican-origin families.

Keywords: adolescence, familism values, Mexican-origin families, parent-youth relationship quality, young adulthood

Familism refers to individuals’ identification with and attachment to family, and emphasizes family responsibilities, support, and obligation (Knight et al., 2010; Sabogal et al., 1987). Familism values are central in Mexican culture and have been the focus of research aimed at explaining individual differences in Mexican-origin adolescents’ and young adults’ family relationships (Stein et al., 2014). This work documents that parents’ and youth’s familism values are associated with more positive family relationship dynamics and well-being in adolescence (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Updegraff, McHale, Whiteman, Thayer, & Delgado, 2005). Moreover, an emerging body of research on discrepancies between adolescent and parent perspectives in a number of cultural domains including familism values (e.g., behavioral practices, language use, ethnic identity) indicates that larger discrepancies, generally measured as dyadic differences, are linked to poorer health and well-being (Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1993; Telzer, 2010). Because of increasing ethnic diversity in the U.S., the need to study minority families in their own right to understand the role of cultural values in family relationships and family members’ well-being is a growing priority (Knight, Mazza, & Carlo, 2018). Latinos are the largest ethnic minority group in the U.S. (17.8% or 57.5 million of the nation’s total population), and those of Mexican origin comprise two-thirds of the U.S. Latino population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018), making them an important focus for the study of the role of culture in family systems dynamics.

This study built on research documenting links between individual and within-dyad differences in familism values and family relationships (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Updegraff, McHale, Whiteman, Thayer, & Delgado, 2005; White, Roosa, & Zeiders, 2012) to consider an additional complexity – namely, that family members’ perspectives of familism may both diverge from (i.e., unique perspectives) as well as converge with (i.e., shared perspectives) one another’s perspective. Consistent with social construction theory (Hoffman, 1990; Paikoff, 1991), differences in family members’ personal qualities and experiences beyond the home may lead family members to internalize and interpret the same family socialization and cultural practices in different ways, leading to familism values that are unique to each family member. Indeed, a body of research focused on dyad differences in familism values focused mostly on mother- or generic “parent-youth” dyads (Elder, Broyles, Brennan, Zuniga de Nunicio, & Nader, 2005; Schofield, Parke, Kim, & Coltrane, 2008; Smowski, Rose, Bacallao, 2008; Telzer, 2010), documents that family members often differ in their familism values. Yet, individuals from the same family also may have overlapping perspectives on familism given intergenerational transmission of values and a shared, culturally structured home environment (Knight et al., 2011). Indeed, prior research reveals positive correlations between family members’ familism values (Stein et al., 2014). However, what remains unclear is the extent to which familism values are an individual-level or a family-level construct. Also unclear is whether the extent to which familism values are an individual-level construct varies by family member (i.e., the degree to which familism values are an individual-level construct might not hold equally for all family members). Thus, an important step in capturing within-family heterogeneity in cultural values, such as familism, as well as, family-level cultural values, is to incorporate the potentially different perspectives and experiences of multiple family members to clarify the degree to which familism is primarily an individual- or family-level construct (Minuchin, 1974).

Accordingly, to advance understanding of family members’ unique and shared perspectives of familism values in Mexican-origin families as well as their impacts on family functioning, our study addressed two goals. First, we expanded on prior research on differences and similarities between members of family dyads to examine the familism values of four family members (mother, father, older sibling, younger sibling) and assessed family members’ unique and shared perspectives of familism values using Multitrait-Multimethod Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MTMM-CFA; Jager, Yuen, Bornstein, Putnick, & Hendricks, 2014; Kenny & Kashy, 1992). Second, to illuminate their implications, using longitudinal data spanning five years, we tested whether both family members’ unique and their shared family perspectives of familism values predicted parent-youth relationship warmth and conflict over time. By examining the perspectives of four family members we aimed to provide novel insights about familism and its effects on family functioning.

Family Perspectives and Unique Perspectives of Familism Values

The term, shared perspectives here refers to the extent to which there is shared variance, in the statistical sense, across two or more family members’ perspectives of familism. One type of shared perspective is the family perspective, which can be seen as a measure of the overall family system (Cook & Goldstein, 1993; Jager et al., 2014). Using the perspectives of a hypothetical four-member family (consisting of a mother, father, and two adolescent siblings), a shared family perspective (i.e., where the perspectives of all four family members overlap) is illustrated in the central, dark gray portion of the Venn diagram in Figure 1. Figure 1 is conceptual in nature and assumes perfect measurement; it is not intended to depict the degree to which different perspectives overlap, but merely the different ways in which different perspectives can overlap. From both a family systems framework and empirical research documenting that cultural values are transmitted from parents to youth in childhood and early adolescence (Phinney, Ong, & Madden, 2000; Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010), reciprocally related in late adolescence and young adulthood (Perez-Brena, Updegraff, & Umanña-Taylor, 2015), and similar among individuals from the same ethnic background and with similar social experiences (Roosa et al., 2002), we would expect some degree of consensus across family members in their familism values.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual model for family and unique perspectives of familism values predicting dyadic-level relationship quality. YS = Younger Sibling; OS = Older Sibling; M = Mother; F = Father. Light gray circles represent a single family member’s perspective or relationship report; overlapping circles represent shared familism perspectives or dyad-level relationship reports. Paths labeled with a black number originate from a unique perspective of familism values. Paths labeled with a white number originate from the shared family perspective of familism values.

Likewise there are reasons to expect that family members will be to some extent unique in their perspectives, as depicted in the lightest gray sections of the Venn diagram shown in Figure 1. For example, although significant, correlations between family members’ reports of familism values have generally been low to moderate (Stein et al., 2014), suggesting that overlap in family members’ familism values is far from complete. In addition, longitudinal analyses based on data from the current sample revealed that that Mexican-origin adolescents and their mothers and fathers exhibited distinct trajectories of familism (Padilla et al., 2016)—another indication that family members’ familism values may not entirely overlap. More generally, social construction theory (Hoffman, 1990; Paikoff, 1991) suggests that differences in their personal qualities and experiences shape family members’ interpretations of and meanings attributed to family interactions and experiences. Because family members internalize their experiences in unique ways, they may develop perspectives of familism values that are in some ways unique. Sibling research further highlights the significance of children’s position in the sibling constellation for youth development (McHale, Updegraff, & Whiteman, 2012). Familism values may also differ as a function of age differences. Older and younger siblings may explore and internalize values differently given that cultural development becomes increasingly self-driven across adolescence as youth are exposed to the world beyond the family (Parke & Buriel, 2008). This means that unique perspectives on familism values may become more evident during adolescence, highlighting the importance of longitudinal investigation of family members’ shared and unique values. With few exceptions (e.g. Padilla, McHale, Rovine, Updegraff, & Umaña-Taylor, 2016), research focused on dyad differences in familism values does not address sibling differences or inter-parental differences in familsm values; instead, most of this research has focused on mother or generic “parent-youth” dyads, and thus differences involving fathers or siblings have been relatively neglected (Telzer, 2010; Padilla et al., 2016). Thus, an important step in capturing within-family heterogeneity in cultural values, such as familism, as well as family-level cultural values, is to incorporate the potentially different perspectives and experiences of multiple family members (Minuchin, 1974). This study takes an important step in this direction by measuring the familism values of four family members, moving beyond the typical focus on a single dyad within the family. We know of no studies that have examined the shared and unique perspectives of four family members.

Family and Unique Perspectives of Familism and Parent-Youth Relationship Quality

As noted, this study builds on prior research that has documented links between differences in parents’ and youth’s familism values and relationship qualities to examine whether and how shared and unique perspectives of familism are together related to parent-youth relationships. As prior work has highlighted, shared cultural values are salient for intergenerational cohesion across adolescence and young adulthood in Mexican-origin families wherein values emphasize tight family bonds (Cauce & Domenech-Rodriquez, 2002). Familism values, in particular, are associated with more positive parent-youth relationship quality (Updegraff, McHale, Whiteman, Thayer, & Delgado, 2005; White, Roosa, & Zeiders, 2012), but parent-youth differences in these values have been linked to poorer parent-youth relationships and adolescent adjustment (Elder, Broyles, Brennan, Zuniga de Nunicio, & Nader, 2005; Schofield, Parke, Kim, & Coltrane, 2008; Smowski, Rose, Bacallao, 2008). We extended this literature to incorporate the perspectives of four family members, mother, father, and two siblings, to capture shared and unique perspectives of familism values. Based on extant literature, we expected that shared perspectives of familism should be associated with better parent-youth relationship quality (See Figure 1; Paths 1- 4).

Although not focused on unique perspectives of familism values, there is available research on parent-youth discrepancies in perspectives, as measured through difference scores, indicating that larger parent-youth discrepancies in familism values have been concurrently linked to poorer parent-youth relationships and adolescent adjustment in Mexican-origin families (Elder, Broyles, Brennan, Zuniga de Nunicio, & Nader, 2005; Schofield, Parke, Kim, & Coltrane, 2008; Smowski, Rose, Bacallao, 2008). This line of research provides insights by combining both dyad members’ unique perspectives with one another (i.e., dyad disagreement is the aggregate of both dyad members’ unique perspectives). The current study, however, aimed to more specifically identify each dyad member’s unique perspective (Jager et al., 2016). Thus, by virtue of its focus on unique perspectives, the current paper addresses a distinct and complementary research question as compared to those using difference scores. Specifically, rather than asking how the differences between parent and youth perspectives alone relate to relationship quality, we address how parent and youth unique perspectives (i.e., the unique variance attributable to each reporter) each relate to parent-youth relationship qualities, specifically warmth and conflict.

Given that familism has been associated with more positive parent-youth relationships we expected both parents’ and youths’ unique perspectives of familism to be associated with better parent-youth relationship quality (see Figure 1; paths 5 and 6 for the father-older sibling dyad, paths 7 and 8 for the mother-younger sibling dyad, paths 9 and 10 for the father-younger sibling dyad, and paths 11 and 12 for the mother-older sibling dyad). Moreover, because family members’ unique perspectives are independent of each other’s, we expected these associations to hold independently of their shared perspective of familism. Finally, because earlier familism values have implications into late adolescence, young adulthood, and beyond (Knight, Mazza, & Carlo, 2018; Zeiders et al., 2016), we expected the shared family perspective of familism values as well as both dyad members’ unique perspectives of familism values to be positively and independently associated with that dyad’s relationship quality and also with relative change in that dyad’s relationship quality over time.

Capturing the Unique and Shared Perspectives of Familism Values

The aim of MTMM-CFA is to isolate trait variance from method variance because method variance is often sizable but not theoretically or substantively important. By reinterpreting “trait” variance as shared variance across different family members and “method” variance as variance specific to each family member, Jager et al. (2014, 2016) identified and examined family and unique perspectives of family systems and their subsystems. Conventional CFAs are designed to capture either unique or shared perspectives whereas our goal here is to capture unique and shared perspectives. Thus, given the current paper aims to advance understanding of family members’ unique and shared perspectives of familism values in Mexican-origin families as well as their impacts on family functioning, we utilized MTMM-CFA. MTMM-CFAs enable us to identify size of as well as assess independent effects of unique and shared perspectives on family functioning. Here, as depicted in Appendix A, we employ this MTMM-CFA approach to identify for familism values (a) a family perspective and (b) four unique perspectives (i.e., one for each family member). More specifically, we extracted a family perspective by loading all family members’ reports of familism onto a single factor (i.e., family perspective factor, Appendix A).

After extracting common variance across all four family members (via the family factor), we specified parent-dyad residual covariances (i.e., allowed the residual variances of the mother and father reports to covary with one another, see residual covariances denoted by “A” in Appendix A) as well as sibling-dyad residual covariances (i.e., allowed the residual variances of the older and younger siblings to covary within one another, see residual covariances denoted by “B” in Appendix A) to account for any additional common variance within the generational dyads (i.e., parent-parent; older and younger sibling). We did so because research on intergenerational differences in cultural values has shown that, while parents tend to more strongly retain their focus on Mexican culture, youth more rapidly adopt U.S. cultural values and practices (Phinney, Ong, & Madden, 2000; Telzer, 2010); thus, there is reason to expect that there may be generational dyad-specific perspectives of familism values. As depicted in Figure 1, a dyad-specific perspective is a shared perspective that represents commonality between two family members’ perspectives that is specific to that dyad or subsystem. Consequently, adolescent siblings within the same family might be similar in their familism values (leading to a dyad-specific perspective within the sibling subsystem), in a way that parents and youth within the same family are not, and the same holds for mothers and fathers (leading to a dyad-specific perspective within the parental subsystem).

Finally, after extracting variance common across all four family members (via the family factor) as well as any potential additional variance common to each generation (via parent-specific residual correlations and sibling-specific residual correlations), the “non-shared” variance remaining for each observed variable is a combination of variance specific to the individual family member (i.e., their unique perspective) plus random measurement error. In order to isolate variance specific to each family member from random measurement error and thereby capture each family member’s unique perspective, we loaded the reports of a given family member onto a single factor.

The Current Study

Grounded in a family systems perspective, the goals of the study were to: (a) identify Mexican-origin mothers’, fathers’, older and younger siblings’ family and unique perspectives of familism values using MTMM-CFA (Kenny & Kashy, 1992), and (b) examine how family members’ family and unique perspectives of familism values are linked to parent-youth relationship quality as well as relative change in parent-youth relationship quality over time. As part of our second aim, and as depicted in Figure 1, it is important to note that we focused on dyad perspectives of parent-youth relationship quality (i.e., variance in reports of parent-youth relationship quality that is common across parent and youth reports) in order to remove reporter-specific measurement error as a potential confound (Jager et al., 2016).

Method

Participants

The data came from a longitudinal study of 246, two-parent Mexican-origin families (Padilla et al., 2016). Participating families were recruited through public and parochial schools in a southwestern metropolitan area with an established Latino population. Given the goals of the larger study, which were to examine family, gender, and cultural socialization processes in two-parent Mexican-origin families with adolescents, the criteria for participation at Time 1 were that: (a) family membership included a seventh grader, at least one older adolescent sibling (ranging from age 13 to 21 and living in the home), a biological mother and a biological or adoptive father figure (all non-biological father figures had lived with the target children for at least 10 years), all living together; (b) mothers were of Mexican origin (93% of fathers also were of Mexican origin, although this was not a study criterion); and (c) fathers were employed for pay for at least 20 hours/week. Data for the present study came from two waves of the study (conducted in 2002-2003 and 2007-2008).

To recruit families, letters in English and Spanish were sent to families, and follow-up telephone calls were made by bilingual staff to determine eligibility and interest in participation. Families’ names were obtained from five school districts and five parochial schools. Schools were selected to represent a range of socioeconomic situations, with the proportion of students receiving free or reduced lunch varying from 8% to 82% across schools.

At Time 1 (T1), families represented a range of education and income levels. The percentage of families that met federal poverty guidelines was 18.3%, a figure similar to the 18.6% of two-parent Mexican-origin families living in poverty in the county from which the sample was drawn (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The median family income was $41,000 (SD = $45,381; range = $3,000 to over $250,000). Mothers and fathers had completed an average of 10 years of education (M = 10.34, SD = 3.74; M = 9.88, SD = 4.37, respectively). Older siblings were 15.48 (SD = 1.57) years old, on average, and younger siblings were 12.55 (SD = .60) years of age, on average. Time 2 (T2) interviews were completed five years later. The majority of siblings lived with mothers (65% of older and 95% of younger siblings) and fathers (64% of older and 90% of younger siblings) at T2.

The retention rate was 75% for T2. Comparisons of families who were retained (n = 185) versus were not retained (n = 61) revealed that participating families, relative to nonparticipating families, reported higher maternal education and family income at T1 (maternal education M = 10.62; SD = 3.80 versus M = 9.48; SD = 3.45; family income M = $59,517; SD = $48,395 versus M = $37,632; SD =$28,606, respectively). To adjust for any effects of attrition and make use of all available data, we used full information maximum likelihood (FIML; Enders, 2010), a missing data algorithm available within Mplus.

Procedures

Data were collected in semi-structured home interviews separately with each family member after obtaining informed consent and assent (for siblings under age 18). Interviews lasted an average of 3 hours for parents and 2 hours for youth because bilingual interviewers read questions aloud to all participants and entered their response into laptop computers. Families received $100 for in-home interviews at T1 and $125 at T2. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Arizona State University (Protocol No. 002001021, Project Title: Gender Socialization in Mexican American Families).

Measures

To create scores for each family member, items for the scales described below were averaged, with higher scores indicating stronger familism values and more warmth/conflict. Cronbach’s alphas for measures can be found in Appendices B1-B3.

Familism values (T1).

All four family members rated their familism values using the Mexican American Cultural Values Scale (MACVS; Knight et al., 2010). The familism items were rated on a scale with a possible range of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The 16 items form 3 subscales: Family Support (6 items; e.g., “It is always important to be united as a family”), Family Obligations (5 items; e.g., “A person should share his/her home with relatives if they need a place to stay”), and Family as Referent (5 items; “It is important to work hard and do your best because your work reflects on the family”).

Parent-youth warmth (T1 & T2).

We assessed parental warmth using the 8-item warmth subscale from the Child’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; Schaefer, 1965; Schwarz, Barton-Henry, & Pruzinksy, 1985). Youth used a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much) to rate their experiences with each of their parents (e.g., “My mom/dad understands my problems and worries.”) during the past year. Mothers and fathers used the parent version of the same scale to rate their experiences with each sibling, separately.

Parent-youth conflict (T1 & T2).

We assessed the frequency of parent-youth conflict using a measure adapted from Smetana (1988) for Mexican-origin families (Updegraff, Delgado, & Wheeler, 2009). At each time of measurement, youth rated the frequency of conflict with their mother and father on a 6-point scale (1 = not at all, 6 = several times a day). Mothers and fathers used the same scale to rate the frequency of their conflict with each sibling, separately.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive data (see Appendix B1) indicated that, on average, mothers, fathers, and youth reported familism values above the mid-point of the scale. Within-reporter across-subscale correlations were consistently positive. However, between-reporter, within-subscale correlations were rarely significantly correlated. That is, there was more similarity in how the same reporter viewed different dimensions of familism than there was in how different reporters viewed the same dimension of familism. Appendix B2 shows the correlations for mother-youth study variables and Appendix B3 shows the correlations for father-youth study variables. Youth- and parent-reported conflict fell below the mid-point of the scale, whereas youth- and parent-reported warmth fell above the mid-point of the scale. Both within- and between-reporter correlations for warmth and conflict were consistently positive.

Identification of Optimal Multitrait-Multimethod Confirmatory Factor Analysis

All analyses were conducted with Mplus Version 7.4 (Muthen & Muthen, 2015); we used a maximum likelihood estimator that is robust to non-normality and Kline’s (2015) guidelines to assess model fit, which specify that comparative fit index (CFI) values > .95 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values < .05 constitute a good fit. Our first goal was to identify whether there were unique and/or family perspectives of familism values. To accomplish this goal, we conducted MTMM-CFAs. In using this approach, misidentified solutions are common and important to avoid because, even when providing an excellent fit, misidentified solutions can still yield biased or incorrect parameter estimates (Kenny & Kashy, 1992; Marsh, 1989). Common forms of misidentification include out of range estimates, Heywood cases (negative error variances), and non-convergence (Kenny & Kashy, 1992; Marsh, 1989; Rindskopf, 1984). Regarding MTMM-CFAs, the most common cause of model misidentification is model misspecification due to extracting more factors than the data support (Rindskopf, 1984). Aside from indications of misidentification, other indicators of over-factoring are (a) poor discriminant validity (i.e., high correlations among latent factors) and (b) poor convergent validity (i.e., a sizable proportion of the loadings for a particular factor are small and non-significant).

We identified the optimal MTMM-CFA model by maximizing model fit while eliminating all indications of model misidentification and misspecification. We used the following criteria to determine the optimal MTMM-CFA: (a) fit indices and change of model fit (e.g., χ2, CFI, RMSEA) from nested models; (b) indications of model misidentification; and (c) the degree of convergent and discriminant validity. First, we estimated a model that included four unique factors (i.e., one for each family member) by loading each family member’s reports of the three familism subscale scores (i.e., support, obligation, and referent) on an individual factor. Model fit statistics indicated a good fit (χ2 (54) = 93.042, p < 0.05, CFI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.054). Building on this unique factors only (baseline) model, we ran five additional models that varied in how the family factors were specified (Appendix C for model fit statistics). Because family members’ unique perspectives are independent of one another and of the shared family perspective, the unique perspective factors were not allowed to covary with one another or with the shared family factor. As a secondary step, within each of the five family factor models, we included parent-specific and sibling-specific residual covariances (Models A and B in Appendix C; the sets of residual covariances denoted as “A” and “B”, respectively, in Appendix A) to account for potential dyad-specific perspectives. Following our baseline model (Model 1), we tested a model that included one shared family factor (loading the three familism subscale scores, support, obligation and referent, reported by every family member, on a single factor; Model 2 in Appendix C). This model provided a better fit than Model 1, the unique factors only model, Δχ2(12) = 34.86, p < 0.001, however, the single family factor model displayed poor convergent validity. Further, neither the addition of parent-specific residual correlations (Model 2A), Δχ2(3) = .70, p = .872, or sibling-specific correlations (Model 2B), Δχ2(3) = 4.57, p = .206, improved model fit. The next model (Model 3) estimated separate shared family factors for each of the three familism subscales (a three family factor model) and provided a better fit than baseline, Δχ2(15) = 39.85, p < 0.001, but displayed poor convergent validity. Once again, neither the addition of parent-specific residual correlations (Model 3A), Δχ2(3) = .3.77, p = .287, or sibling-specific correlations (Model 3B), Δχ2(3) = 5.02, p = .170, improved model fit. In the three models to follow, we estimated shared family factors for single subscales (support, obligation, and referent separately; Models 4-6, respectively) and the addition of parent-specific and sibling-specific residual correlations. In no case did the addition of either parent-specific or sibling-specific residual correlations improve model fit. Additionally, out of all the models fitted, all either displayed poor convergent validity or out of bounds estimates except for the family support only model without dyad-specific correlations (Model 4 in Appendix C). The family support factor model displayed convergent validity, no out of bounds estimates, and fit the data better than the baseline model, Δχ2(4) = 29.17, p < 0.001, and best overall (χ2 (50) = 67.600, p < 0.05, CFI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.038). Thus, the best-fitting MTMM-CFA model was a family factor (for support only), four unique factor model (for support, obligation and referent collectively for each family member; standardized estimates are presented in Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Optimal Multitrait-Multimethod Confirmatory Factory Analysis. The black circles are shared perspectives; white circles are unique perspectives. M = mother; F = father; O = older sibling; Y = younger sibling. RF = family referent; SP = family support; OB = family obligation. All estimates are standardized. All black lines/estimates are significant at the .05 level or higher. Model fit: χ2(50) = 67.60, p = .05, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .04 (.00 ∣ .06).

Description of Optimal Multitrait-Multimethod Confirmatory Factor Analysis

For each family member, the percentage of familism variance attributed to his/her unique factor, the shared family support factor, and residual error (i.e., unexplained variance) are listed in Appendix D. Although there was some variation across family member, unique factors accounted for the largest portion of variance in familism values (ranging from 57.03% to 71.91% across the across the four family members), followed by residual error (ranging from 25.62% to 37.48% across the four family members), followed by the shared family support factor (ranging from 2.69% to 16.48% across the four family members). Thus, given that the portions of explained variance were much larger for the unique factors than for the shared family factors and that the portions of explained variance for the family factors were overall quite small in magnitude, familism appears to be largely an individual-level construct, as opposed to a family level construct.

Links Between Perspectives of Familism and Parent-Youth Relationship Quality

Our second goal was to examine how the unique and shared family factors of familism values are associated with parent-youth relationship quality, as measured by warmth and conflict. Prior to addressing this goal, to remove reporter-specific measurement error as a confound (Jager et al., 2016), we created factors to represent dyad-perspectives of parent-youth warmth and conflict at T1 and T2 (five years later) for each dyad. Separately for warmth and conflict and separately for each parent-youth dyad, both dyad members’ reports were loaded onto a single factor. For example, for mother-older sibling warmth, we loaded mothers’ reports of warmth with older sibling and older siblings’ reports of warmth with mother on the same factor. In doing so, we isolated the common variance in mother-older sibling dyad warmth shared across mothers’ and older siblings’ reports. We repeated these same steps to create dyad factor scores for all four dyads (i.e., mother-older sibling; mother-younger sibling; father-older sibling; father-younger sibling) for warmth and conflict at T1 and T2 and used the FSCORE command within Mplus to output the dyad factor scores.

Next, separately for warmth and conflict and separately for each parent-youth dyad, we specified a path model where: (a) the T2 dyadic relationship quality factor was regressed on the T1 dyad factor (e.g., the T2 dyad factor for mother-older sibling warmth was regressed on the T1 dyad factor for mother-older sibling warmth) and (b) both the T1 and T2 dyad factor scores were regressed on the family support factor and both dyad members’ unique factors of familism values (e.g., the T1 and T2 dyad factor for mother-older sibling warmth were each regressed on the shared familism support factor, the mother unique factor of familism, and the older sibling unique factor of familism). Because the T2 dyad factors were regressed on the T1 dyad factors, in the path models the T2 dyad factors capture variance at T2 that remains after controlling for T1 dyad factors.

We would like to clarify a key distinction between difference scores and the unique and shared factors captured here that is important to keep in mind when interpreting the results presented below. For difference scores, larger values indicate greater disagreement (and vice-versa). However, for the unique and shared factors captured here, higher values indicate stronger (i.e., more endorsement of) familism values. Put another way, whereas absolute difference scores capture the magnitude of disagreement, the shared (and individual) factors we studied here capture the valence of the family’s shared perspective (i.e., families whose shared perspective entails a stronger endorsement of familism values will have higher shared factor scores) and unique factors capture the valence of each family member’s unique perspective (i.e., individual family members whose unique perspective entails stronger endorsement of familism values will have higher unique factor scores and vice-versa).

Focusing first on results (standardized estimates shown in Table 1) of parent-youth dyads involving the younger sibling, the unique younger sibling factor of familism was positively associated with the T1 mother-younger sibling dyad factor of warmth. The unique younger sibling factor of familism was also positively associated with the T1 father-younger sibling dyad perspective of warmth. That is, younger siblings with higher T1 unique perspective factor scores (i.e., relative to other younger siblings, their unique perspective is characterized by stronger familism values) were also members of parent-younger sibling dyads with dyad perspectives of higher T1 parent-youth warmth (i.e., relative to other dyads, their dyad perspectives with each parent are characterized by higher warmth). However, for both the mother-younger sibling and father-younger sibling dyads, the relations between T1 perspectives of familism (whether shared or unique) and T2 warmth were not significant. Moreover, for both mother-younger sibling and father-younger sibling dyads, the relations between familism perspectives (both shared and unique) and the T1 and T2 dyad perspectives of conflict were not significant.

Table 1.

Family and Unique Perspectives Predicting Dyad Perspective of Parent-Youth Relationships

Parent-Younger Sibling Parent-Older Sibling
Warmth Conflict Warmth Conflict
T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2
Mother
   Shared family 0.115 −0.005 −0.197 0.104 0.025 0.030 0.015 −0.052
   Unique sibling 0.209* −0.118 −0.032 0.061 0.218** 0.057 −0.242** −0.052
   Unique mother −0.021 0.118 −0.037 −0.049 −0.055 0.086 −0.014 0.033
   T1 dyad perspective -- 0.475** -- 0.614** -- 0.483** -- 0.395**
Father
   Shared family 0.178 −0.025 −0.259 0.093 0.061 −0.020 −0.064 0.062
   Unique sibling 0.284* 0.023 −0.023 0.077 0.277** 0.053 −0.194* −0.087
   Unique father 0.075 0.037 −0.129 0.035 0.066 −0.007 −0.047 0.206**
   T1 dyad perspective -- 0.399** -- 0.580** -- 0.437** -- 0.361**
Open in a new tab

Note. T1=Time 1 report. T2=Time 2 report. Significant estimates appear in bold.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Focusing next on results for the parent-youth dyads involving the older sibling, the older sibling unique perspective of T1 familism was positively associated with the T1 dyad perspective of warmth within both the mother-older sibling and the father-older sibling dyads. The older sibling unique perspective of T1 familism was also negatively associated with the T1 dyad perspective of conflict in both the mother-older sibling and father-older sibling dyads. That is, older siblings with higher unique familism factor scores (i.e., relative to other older siblings, their unique perspective is characterized by higher familism values) were also members of parent- older sibling dyads with higher dyad-perspectives of warmth (i.e., relative to other parent-older sibling dyads, their dyad perspectives where characterized by higher warmth) and lower dyad- perspectives of conflict (i.e., relative to other parent-older sibling dyads, their dyad perspectives where characterized by lower conflict). However, for both the mother-older sibling and father-older sibling dyads, the relations between T1 perspectives of familism (whether shared or unique) and the T2 dyad perspectives of both warmth and conflict were not significant. Finally, the unique T1 father familism perspective was positively related to the T2 (controlling for T1) dyad perspective of father-older sibling conflict. That is, fathers with higher unique perspective factor scores (i.e., relative to other fathers, their unique perspective is characterized by stronger familism values) were also members of father-older sibling dyads with higher dyad perspectives of dyad conflict scores five years later (i.e., relative to other dyads, their dyad perspective is characterized by higher conflict).

Results indicate that it is youth’s unique perspectives of familism values, rather than parents’ unique perspectives or the shared family support perspective, which positively inform parent-youth relationship quality. That is, youth’s unique perspective scores were positively related to dyadic warmth scores, and for older siblings, less dyadic conflict. Thus, the link between familism values and parent-youth relationship quality was driven by youth’s unique perspectives, with the exception of fathers’ unique perspective and father-older sibling conflict.

Discussion

Grounded in a family systems perspective, the current study advances understanding of a key cultural value within Mexican-origin families and how familism values are linked to parent-youth relationship quality. Our study goals were to identify mothers’, fathers’, and older and younger siblings’ family and unique perspectives of familism values using MTMM-CFA (Kenny & Kashy, 1992) and examine how family members’ family and unique perspectives of familism values were linked to family relationship dynamics, specifically concurrent mother-youth and father-youth warmth and conflict and relative change in parent-youth relationship quality over time (five years later). Results indicated that mothers’, fathers’, and older and younger siblings’ unique perspectives accounted for the largest portion of variance in familism values. Although a shared family perspective did not emerge as significant for the overall familism scale, a shared perspective of family support, one facet of familism, did emerge, though it accounted for only a modest proportion of each family members’ perspectives. In addition, the link between familism values and parent-youth relationship quality was driven almost exclusively by youth’s unique perspectives, rather than parents’ unique perspectives or the shared family perspective. These findings indicate that familism values are more of an individual-level than family-level construct, and that youth’s familism values may be particularly important for keeping youth connected to their parents in adolescence. These findings also have important practical implications for prevention and intervention programs geared toward Mexican-origin families.

Familism Values are Largely Unique to Each Family Member

Cultural values, such as familism, are partly the product of culturally based interactions and socialization that are typically shared or experienced by all family members, and thus we expected that a portion of family members’ perspectives of familism values would overlap translating into a “family perspective.” But, based on social-construction theory, which posits that family members may interpret or experience the same interactions differently from one another, we also expected that a portion of each family member’s perspectives of familism would prove unique to that family member, translating into “unique perspectives” for each family member. Counter to our expectations, we did not find a family perspective of familism values, although and as we discuss in the next section, we did find a family perspective for one of the three facets of familism values: family support. However, as expected, for each family member we did find a unique perspective of familism values across all three dimensions of this construct. Further, for all family members, their unique perspective of familism values accounted for large portions of their total perspective of familism values. Specifically, for each of the four family members, his/her unique perspective of familism accounted for more than 50% (ranging from 57% for mothers to 67% for fathers) of the total variance in his/her familism values and more than 75% (ranging from 77% for mothers to 96% for fathers) of his/her explained variance (i.e., total variance minus residual error) in familism values. Given that we found no evidence for a family perspective of familism (or at least no evidence for one that generalized across all three facets of familism) and found evidence of unique perspectives that accounted for substantial portions of family members’ overall perspectives of familism, our findings suggest that familism values are largely unique to individual family members, at least in this sample of Mexican-origin families.

These findings have implications for our understanding of how familism values develop and operate in families. That is, although socialization within the family may lay the foundation for culturally related values leading to some degree of similarity within the family (Knight et al., 2011; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2009), our findings indicated that mothers, fathers, and older and younger siblings have unique views regarding these cultural values. There are several potential explanations for these largely divergent perspectives. For example, family socialization experiences may be missed, misinterpreted, or even ignored by children (Marshall, 1995). Social construction theory also highlights that individuals may internalize or absorb family experiences differently from one another. Further, although children are dependent on families for socialization in their early years, a shift occurs across adolescence (Parke & Buriel, 2008). Developmental processes in adolescence, including adolescents’ active roles in their identity formation and cultural development (Berry, 2007), as well as their increased autonomy in choosing how and with whom to spend their time (Larson & Richards, 1991), may mean that adolescents’ perspectives diverge from those of other family members. More generally, both parents and youth are embedded in other social and socializing systems such as school, friends and peers for youth, and work sites, colleagues, and friends for parents, as well as extended family members for both (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). Indeed, a lifespan perspective highlights that adults continue to develop across their lives (Elder, 1998). Thus, the impact of outside influences may be underemphasized. A range of extrafamilial influences need to be considered in future research to understand the dynamic ways in which cultural development unfolds for each family member and the circumstances in which extrafamilial influences override or dilute shared family-level socialization forces.

The current findings are consistent with the acculturation gap literature, which highlights cultural differences between parents and youth. Within the literature on the parent-youth acculturation gaps (i.e., differences in cultural values, behaviors, and practices), the focus has been on dyad disagreement (Telzer, 2010). The current study goes beyond this body of research to capture and analyze (a) the ways in which four family members’ perspectives of familism values both diverge and converge, (b) each family member’s unique contribution to diverging views, and (c) the magnitude of the family’s converging view as well as the magnitude of each family member’s diverging view. Previous research also primarily focused on family subsystems or dyads (i.e., mother or generic “parent-youth” dyads), and fathers and siblings have been relatively neglected (Padilla et al., 2016; Telzer, 2010). An important step in capturing family systems processes as well as an understanding of family-level cultural values is to incorporate the potentially different perspectives and experiences of multiple family members (Minuchin, 1974). Our utilization of MTMM-CFA allowed us to include mothers, fathers, and two siblings in the family and demonstrated that a substantial portion of each family member’s perspective of familism values does not overlap with those of other family members and further, that the shared perspective of familism values did not emerge as a significant component of family members’ values.

Family Perspective of Familism Values

Although familism values overall proved to be largely individualized, evidence for a family perspective on family support did emerge. The shared component indicated that family members’ values for family support overlapped to some extent. This finding is consistent with a small body of research that has examined each facet of familism separately. Sabogal et al. (1987) demonstrated that family support was the only facet of familism values that individuals endorsed at similar levels despite differences in nativity status, generation, cultural orientation, and geography. Based on these results, Sabogal et al. (1987) concluded that family support is the most powerful dimension of familism; while the importance of family obligations and family as referent vary as a function of such demographic characteristics, the importance of family support does not. Family support is core to the concept of familism and specifically pertains to values that emphasize the maintenance of close and supportive family relationships. They posited that valuing supportive family relationships might be advantageous because mutual help among relatives means that problems are jointly solved with family members. These interdependent relationships may provide individuals with a sense of security as they become increasingly autonomous and navigate the world outside the home.

These findings are important in understanding familism values because previous research has utilized measures of familism values in a way that incorporates all three facets of familism values more broadly (Knight et al., 2010) or examines a single facet (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999), whereas research examining each facet separately is far less common (Zeiders, Updegraff, Umaña-Taylor, Wheeler, Perez-Brena, & Rodríguez, 2013). Therefore, it was unclear whether such work captured important information about each of these facets. Our inclusion of these three facets allowed us to examine the extent to which diverging and converging views generalized across all three facets, as was the case with family members’ unique perspectives, or were applied to specific facets of familism, as was the case with the family perspective of family support. By examining these three facets separately for each family member, we were able to leverage the power of the MTMM-CFA to capture these distinctions in familism values at the family level. Future research should examine these facets of familism values separately in different samples and at different developmental stages to establish the generalizability of our findings.

Links to Parent-Youth Relationship Quality

By and large, youth’s unique perspectives of familism values were linked to concurrent parent-youth relationship quality, but not relative change in relationship quality over time. That is, youth’s unique perspective scores were positively related to dyadic warmth scores, and for older siblings, less dyadic conflict. However, there were no significant associations between parents’ unique perspectives or the shared perspective of family support and parent-youth relationship quality, with the exception of fathers’ unique perspective and father-older sibling conflict, discussed below.

These findings indicate that of the two dyad members’ unique perspectives of familism values, it is specifically the youth’s unique perspective of familism values that positively informs the dyad’s shared perspective or “shared reality” of parent-youth relationship quality (higher dyad perspectives of warmth/lower dyad perspectives of conflict). These findings are consistent with research indicating that strong familism values promote positive youth adjustment and family relationships (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Gonzales et al., 2008; Smokowski & Bacallao, 2007; for review, see Stein et al., 2014). However, these findings also add needed specificity in suggesting that it is the youth’s unique perspective of familism values that is linked to parent-youth relationship quality. Youth’s familism values may be particularly important for maintaining family ties given a mainstream cultural emphasis on autonomy and the world beyond the family across adolescence and into young adulthood in the U.S. (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). It is important to note, however, that familism values are not the opposite of individualistic values or autonomy, but rather, an individual’s concern for supportive interdependent family relationships and consideration of family’s needs when making important decisions. For example, youth’s endorsement of greater familism values may influence the ways in which they structure their daily activities (Hardway & Fuligni, 2006). These findings suggest that youth have unique perspectives of familism that may serve to benefit relationships. Importantly, the use of MTMM-CFA allowed us to address how the parent and youth unique perspectives (i.e., the portions of dyad disagreement attributable to each reporter) each individually related to parent-youth relationship quality.

Importantly, fathers’ unique perspectives were positively associated with relative change in their conflict with older siblings, though not in the predicted direction, such that fathers’ unique perspective of familism predicted more father-youth conflict. It may be that fathers with stronger familism have higher expectations regarding their children’s duty to assist, respect, and support their families and those expectation may also be highly differentiated by age and birth order (Weisner, 1993). In this way, the more emphasis fathers uniquely place on familism values the more they may expect from older children in the family. Thus, when the older siblings’ behaviors do not meet their fathers’ higher expectations, dyadic father-older sibling conflict may show relative increases over time; that 36% of older siblings were no longer living at home with their fathers at T2 (as compared to 10% of younger siblings), may be reflective of older siblings’ values that distance them from their families. Consistent with this finding, prior research highlights that Mexican-origin youth believe that they have lower expectations for their current assistance to their family (i.e., putting the family’s needs before their own) and place less importance upon familial respect relative to their parents, and these youth also report more frequent conflict with their fathers (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999). This divergence in views of family obligation may be a point of contention for fathers given their role in Mexican-origin families as the authority figure and disciplinarian of the household (Cauce & Domenech-Rodriguez, 2002; Mirande, 1991). Indeed, Mexican-origin adolescents often describe fathers as the parent to enforce rules, stating that, “… you know that if you do something bad you’re going to hear from him,” (Crockett & Russell, 2013, p.6).

These findings have important practical implications for prevention and intervention programs geared toward Mexican-origin families. More specifically, these findings will enable programs to target individuals within Mexican-origin families more strategically. For instance, efforts to promote parent-youth relationships may be most effective if they focus on the youth's perspective of familism given youth’s perspectives: Youth’s perspectives may be malleable and open to revision as they continue to develop across adolescence (Padilla et al., 2016) and further, our findings suggested that it was youth’s not parents’ unique perspectives that were predictive of positive relationship dynamics. It is important to note, however, that while parents’ unique perspectives were not predictive of parent-youth relationship quality in the current study, parents’ perspective may be more important in other developmental periods such as childhood, given the changing centrality of family. Parents’ unique perspectives may also be important in other samples and family configurations or structures, and perhaps for parents’ own adjustment and well-being or other family and individual outcomes.

Limitations

Despite its contributions, there are several limitations to the present study. First, the sample was drawn from a particular geographic region that has an established Latino (predominantly Mexican-origin) population. Future investigations should include families from other geographic regions (e.g., new/emerging destinations) and examine families that differ in structure (e.g., inclusion of extended family members that live in the household) to determine whether similar patterns emerge in both the MTMM-CFAs as well as in the links between youth’s unique perspectives of familism values and parent-youth relationship quality. Additional research is needed to examine patterns in family members’ converging and diverging views with respect to multiple cultural values and practices -for example familism and individualism values--that may make a difference for family dynamics. Also important is to examine shared and unique familism values in other cultural groups from diverse backgrounds to understand the generalizability of these findings. Finally, the developmental scope of the study was limited to adolescence and early adulthood, and given the significance of family relationships in Mexican-origin families across the lifespan, future research should examine these dynamics in childhood and further into adulthood.

Conclusions

The current study advances understanding of a key cultural value within Mexican-origin families and the implications of parents’ and youth’s unique and family perspectives of familism for parent-youth relationship dynamics. Overall, the findings indicate that mothers’, fathers’, and older and younger siblings’ unique perspectives accounted for a larger portion of variance in familism values than did a shared family perspective, and although a shared perspective of family support proved significant, it only accounted for a modest proportion of each family member’s perspective of family support. Furthermore, youth’s, but not parents’, unique perspectives of familism were associated with parent-youth relationship quality. Together, these findings provide important insights regarding familism and its relation to family functioning and demonstrate that a more holistic and family systems approach to the study of cultural values requires incorporating the perspectives and experiences of multiple family members.

Appendix

APPENDIX A.

APPENDIX A.

Open in a new tab

Multitrait-Multimethod Confirmatory Factory Analysis. The black circle represents the shared family perspective; white circles are unique perspectives. M = mother; F = father; O = older sibling; Y = younger sibling. RF = family referent; SP = family support; OB = family obligation.

APPENDIX B1.

Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations, and Alphas for Familism Variables (N = 246. families)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Alphas
Younger Sibling
1.   Family support - .74
2.   Family obligations 0.71** - .66
3.   Family referent 0.62** 0.65** - .70
Older Sibling
4.   Family support 0.20* 0.10 0.14* - .79
5.   Family obligations 0.11† 0.02 0.13* 0.77** - .72
6.   Family referent 0.10 0.03 0.12† 0.69** 0.71** - .76
Mother
7.   Family support 0.11† 0.02 0.02 0.17** 0.12† 0.07 - .61
8.   Family obligations 0.02 0.02 0.00 −0.03 −0.01 0.03 0.52** - .61
9.   Family referent 0.03 0.06 0.01 −0.02 0.03 0.09 0.40** 0.68** - .61
Father
10.  Family support 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.00 −0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.14* - .65
11.  Family obligations 0.00 0.01 0.07 −0.10 −0.04 0.01 0.01 0.19** 0.22** 0.62** - .67
12.  Family referent 0.02 0.04 0.11 −0.10† −0.01 0.06 0.07 0.22** 0.27** 0.58** 0.76** - .60
Mean 4.39 4.25 4.11 4.41 4.22 4.03 4.72 4.31 4.21 4.62 4.36 4.36
SD 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.70 0.33 0.52 0.58 0.38 0.55 0.52
Open in a new tab

Note. Familism variables were collected at Time 1. Within-reporter, across-subscale correlations are in bold; across-reporter, within-subscale correlations are underlined.

†

p < .10.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

APPENDIX B2.

Correlations and Means and Standard Deviations of Mother-Sibling Study Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean SD Alphas
1.  Siblings’ familism - 0.06 0.27** 0.15† −0.22 −0.00 0.18** 0.20* −0.15* −0.14† 4.23 0.60 .90
2.  Mothers’ familism 0.04 - −0.13* 0.03 0.07 −0.05 0.07 0.10 −0.07 0.04 4.43 0.39 .80
3.  T1 Sibling-reported warmth 0.21 −0.02 - 0.52** −0.41** −0.14 0.35** 0.30** −0.26** −0.14 3.96 0.39 .89
4.  T2 Sibling-reported warmth 0.01 0.05 0.37** - −0.16† −0.28** 0.26** 0.43** −0.24 −0.34** 4.19 0.80 .93
5.  T1 Sibling-reported conflict −0.03 0.02 −0.24** −0.22** - 0.42** −0.30** −0.15 −0.28** 0.28** 2.61 0.81 .81
6.  T2 Sibling-reported conflict 0.10 −0.09 −0.22** −0.43** 0.36** - −0.23** −0.26** 0.16 0.24** 2.01 0.79 .83
7.  T1 Mother-reported warmth 0.08 0.13* 0.41** 0.36** −0.16* −0.36** - 0.47** −0.41** −0.21** 4.31 0.60 .84
8.  T2 Mother-reported warmth 0.06 0.17* 0.42** 0.51** −0.20* −0.37** 0.57** - −0.32** −0.48** 4.17 0.64 .85
9.  T1 Mother-reported conflict −0.07 −0.08 −0.21** −0.28** 0.30** 0.37** −0.50** −0.43** - −0.48** 2.22 0.85 .87
10.  T2 Mother-reported conflict −0.03 −0.01 −0.34** −0.32** 0.34** 0.43** −0.32** −0.50 0.48** - 1.97 0.85 .74
Mean 4.26 4.43 3.94 3.96 2.71 2.26 4.32 4.20 2.31 2.23
SD 0.52 0.39 0.71 0.90 0.88 0.76 0.57 0.61 0.76 0.71
Cronbach alpha .87 .80 .84 .94 .80 .82 .82 .82 .82 .80
Open in a new tab

Note. T1=Time 1 report. T2=Time 2 report. Mother-younger sibling correlations are the below diagonal, mother-older sibling correlations are the above diagonal. Mother-younger sibling means and standard deviations are the last row, mother-older sibling means and standard deviations are the last column.

†

p < .10.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

APPENDIX B3.

Correlations and Means and Standard Deviations of Father-Sibling Study Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean SD Alphas
1.  Siblings’ familism - −0.02 0.33** 0.14† −0.26** −0.00 0.09 0.04 −0.19** −0.13 4.23 0.60 .90
2.  Fathers’ familism 0.06 - 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.22** 0.17** 0.19* −0.08 0.11 4.46 0.42 .85
3.  T1 Sibling-reported warmth 0.26** 0.05 - 0.41** −0.16* 0.06 0.22** 0.25** −0.20** −0.12 3.59 0.99 .93
4.  T2 Sibling-reported warmth 0.10 −0.00 0.35** - −0.04 −0.04 0.21* 0.40** −0.02 −0.20* 3.69 0.95 .93
5.  T1 Sibling-reported conflict −0.02 0.06 −0.16* −0.11 - 0.41** −0.12† 0.02 0.17** 0.20* 2.57 0.94 .85
6.  T2 Sibling-reported conflict 0.10 0.02 0.01 −0.31** 0.37** - 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.29** 1.98 0.75 .82
7.  T1 Father-reported warmth 0.10 0.20** 0.34** 0.17* −0.10 −0.02 - 0.60** −0.32** −0.07 4.04 0.68 .86
8.  T2 Father-reported warmth 0.16† 0.20* 0.26** 0.38** −0.08 −0.22** 0.54 - −0.22** −0.29* 3.99 0.70 .86
9.  T1 Father-reported conflict −0.04 −0.11† −0.26** −0.23** 0.29** 0.13 −0.21** −0.16† - 0.42** 2.19 0.89 .91
10.   T2 Father-reported conflict 0.05 −0.07 −0.02 −0.13 0.22* 0.29** −0.12 −0.18* 0.42** - 1.91 0.75 .84
Mean 4.26 4.46 3.84 3.47 2.69 2.10 4.11 3.95 2.25 2.11
SD 0.52 0.42 0.78 1.02 0.99 0.74 0.59 0.67 0.83 0.69
Cronbach alpha .87 .85 .89 .94 .86 .84 .81 .83 .87 .84
Open in a new tab

Note. T1=Time 1 report. T2=Time 2 report. Father-younger sibling correlations are the below diagonal, father-older sibling correlations are the above diagonal. Father-younger sibling means and standard deviations are the last row, father-older sibling means and standard deviations are the last column.

†

p < .10.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

APPENDIX C.

Model Fit Indices for MIMM-CFAs

Factor loading specification
Model Support Obligation Referent χ2 df CFI RMSEA Convergent
Validity		 Out of Bounds
Estimates		 Models
Compared		 Δχ2 Δdfa p-value
Y O M F Y O M F Y O M F
1. Unique perspectives only - - - - - - - - - - - - 93.042 54 0.971 0.054 Yes No - - - -
2. Single family perspective 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 51.254 42 0.993 0.030 No No 1, 2 34.86 12 0.001
2A. Single family perspective, parent correlations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 58.594 51 0.985 0.045 No Yes 2, 2a 0.70 3 0.872
2B. Single family perspective, sibling correlations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 46.609 39 0.994 0.028 No Yes 2, 2b 4.57 3 0.206
3. Subscale family perspectives 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 46.873 39 0.994 0.029 No No 1, 3 39.85 15 0.000
3A. Subscale family perspectives, parent correlations 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 43.036 36 0.995 0.028 No No 3, 3a 3.77 3 0.287
3B. Subscale family perspectives, sibling correlations 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 38.362 36 0.998 0.016 No No 3, 3b 5.02 3 1.70
4. Support only perspective 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - 67.600 50 0.987 0.038 Yes No 1, 4 29.17 4 0.000
4A. Support only perspective, parent correlations 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - 66.029 47 0.986 0.041 No No 4, 4a 2.13 3 0.545
4B. Support only perspective, sibling correlations 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - 64.050 47 0.987 0.038 No No 4,4b 3.55 3 0.315
5. Obligation only perspective - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - 89.346 50 0.970 0.057 No Yes 1, 5 3.29 4 0.511
5A. Obligation only perspective, parent correlations - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - 85.480 47 0.971 0.058 No Yes 5, 5a 4.18 3 0.243
5B. Obligation only perspective, sibling correlations - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - 79.045 47 0.976 0.053 No Yes 5, 5b 11.06 3 0.011
6. Referent only perspective - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 84.999 50 0.974 0.053 No No 1, 6 7.83 4 0.098
6A. Referent only perspective, parent correlations - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 81.136 47 0.974 0.054 No No 6, 6a 3.99 3 0.262
6B. Referent only perspective, sibling correlations - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 76.302 47 0.978 0.050 No No 6,6b 8.87 3 0.031
Open in a new tab

Note. All models contain unique perspective factors for each family member. Y = younger sibling, O = older sibling, M = mother, F = father. Final model appears in bold.

APPENDIX D.

Percentage of Variance Explained in Familism Subscales, by Perspective and Family Member

Family Unique Error
Younger Sibling
  Family support 4.88 66.10 29.02
  Family obligations - 74.13 25.87
  Family referent - 58.22 41.78
  Mean 4.88 66.15 32.22
Older Sibling
  Family support 7.40 73.27 19.33
  Family obligations - 78.15 21.85
  Family referent - 64.32 35.68
  Mean 7.40 71.91 25.62
Mother
  Family support 16.48 32.49 51.03
  Family obligations - 84.27 15.73
  Family referent - 54.32 45.68
  Mean 16.48 57.03 37.48
Father
  Family support 2.69 49.14 48.17
  Family obligations - 81.72 18.28
  Family referent - 70.06 29.94
  Mean 2.69 66.97 32.13
Open in a new tab

References

  1. Berry JW (2007). Acculturation strategies and adaptation In Lansford JE, Deater-Deckard K, & Bornstein MH (Eds.), Immigrant families in contemporary society (pp. 69–82). New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cauce AM, & Domenech-Rodriguez M (2002). Latino families: Myths and realities. Latino Children and Families in the United States: Current Research and Future Directions, 3–25. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cook WL, & Goldstein MJ (1993). Multiple perspectives on family relationships: A latent variables model. Child Development, 64(5), 1377–1388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Elder GH Jr (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child development, 69(1), 1–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Elder JP, Broyles SL, Brennan JJ, Zuniga de Nuncio ML, & Nader PR (2005). Acculturation, parent-child acculturation differential, and chronic disease risk factors in a Mexican-American population. Journal of Immigrant Health, 7(1), 1–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fuligni AJ, Tseng V, & Lam M (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin America, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70(4), 1030–1044. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gonzales NA, Germán M, Kim SY, George P, Fabrett FC, Millsap R, & Dumka LE (2008). Mexican American adolescents’ cultural orientation, externalizing behavior and academic engagement: The role of traditional cultural values. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 151–164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hardway C, & Fuligni AJ (2006). Dimensions of family connectedness among adolescents with Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1246–1258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hoffman L (1990). Constructing realities: An art of lenses. Family process, 29(1), 1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jager J, Mahler A, An D, Putnick DL, Bornstein MH, Lansford JE, Dodge KA, Skinner AT, & Deater-Deckard K (2016). Early adolescents’ unique perspectives of maternal and paternal rejection: Examining their across-dyad generalizability and relations with adjustment 1 year later. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(10), 2108–2124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jager J, Yuen CX, Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, & Hendricks C (2014). The relations of family members’ unique and shared perspectives of family dysfunction to dyad adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(3, 407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kenny DA, & Kashy DA (1992). Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1, 165. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kline RB (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  14. Knight GP, Berkel C, Umanña-Taylor AJ, Gonzales NA, Ettekal I, Jaconis M, & Boyd BM (2011). The familial socialization of culturally related values in Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 913–925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Knight GP, Gonzales NA, Saenz DS, Bonds DD, German M, Deardorff J, Roosa MW, & Updegraff KA (2010). The Mexican American cultural values scales for adolescents and adults. Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(3), 444–481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Knight GP, Mazza GL, & Carlo G (2018). Trajectories of familism values and the prosocial tendencies of Mexican American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 54(2, 378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Larson R, & Richards MH (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development, 62(2, 284–300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Marshall S (1995). Ethnic socialization of African American children: Implications for parenting, identity development, and academic achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(4), 377–396. [Google Scholar]
  19. McHale SM, Updegraff KA, & Whiteman SD (2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 913–930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Minuchin S (1974). Families & family therapy. Harvard U Press, Oxford. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mirande A (1991). Ethnicity and fatherhood In Bozett F & Hanson S (Eds.), Fatherhood and families in cultural context (pp. 53–82). New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mutheén LK, & Mutheén B (2015). Mplus. The comprehensive modelling program for applied researchers: User’s guide, 5. [Google Scholar]
  23. Padilla J, McHale SM, Rovine MJ, Updegraff KA, & Umaña-Taylor AJ (2016). Parent–youth differences in familism values from adolescence into young adulthood: Developmental course and links with parent–youth conflict. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(12, 2417–2430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Paikoff RL (1991). Shared views of the family during adolescence: New directions for child development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  25. Parke RD, & Buriel R (2008). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives. Child and Adolescent Development: An advanced course, 95–138. [Google Scholar]
  26. Perez-Brena NJ, Updegraff KA, & Umanña-Taylor AJ (2015). Transmission of cultural values among Mexican-origin parents and their adolescent and emerging adult offspring. Family Process, 54(2, 232–246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Phinney JS, Ong A, & Madden T (2000). Cultural values and intergenerational value discrepancies in immigrant and non-immigrant families. Child Development, 71(2, 528–539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Roosa MW, Morgan-Lopez AA, Cree WK, & Specter MM (2002). Ethnic culture, poverty, and context: Sources of influence on Latino families and children. Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and future directions, 27–44. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sabogal F, Mariín G, Otero-Sabogal R, Mariín BV, & Perez-Stable EJ (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn't? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(4), 397–412. [Google Scholar]
  30. Schaefer ES (1965). A configurational analysis of children's reports of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(6), 552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Schofield TJ, Parke RD, Kim Y, & Coltrane S (2008). Bridging the acculturation gap: Parent-child relationship quality as a moderator in Mexican American families. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1190–1194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Schwarz JC, Barton-Henry ML, & Pruzinsky T (1985). Assessing child-rearing behaviors: A comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 462–479. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Schwartz SJ, Unger JB, Zamboanga BL, & Szapocznik J (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Smetana JG (1988). Adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental authority. Child Development, 321–335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Smokowski PR, & Bacallao ML (2007). Acculturation, internalizing mental health symptoms, and self-esteem: Cultural experiences of Latino adolescents in North Carolina. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 37(3, 273–292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Stein GL, Cupito AM, Mendez JL, Prandoni J, Huq N, & Westerberg D (2014). Familism through a developmental lens. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 2(4), 224. [Google Scholar]
  37. Steinberg L, & Morris AS (2001). Adolescent development. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 2(1), 55–87. [Google Scholar]
  38. Szapocznik J & Kurtines WM (1993). Family psychology and cultural diversity. American Psychologist, 48, 400–407. [Google Scholar]
  39. Telzer EH (2010). Expanding the acculturation gap-distress model: An integrative review of research. Human Development, 53(6), 313–340. [Google Scholar]
  40. Umanña-Taylor AJ, Alfaro EC, Baámaca MY, & Guimond AB (2009). The central role of familial ethnic socialization in Latino adolescents’ cultural orientation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 46–60. [Google Scholar]
  41. Updegraff KA, McHale SM, Whiteman SD, Thayer SM, & Delgado MY (2005). Adolescent sibling relationships in Mexican American families: Exploring the role of familism. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(4), 512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Hispanic Heritage Month 2017. U. S. Census Bureau News. Retrieved March 30, 2018 from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2017/hispanic-heritage.html
  43. Weisner TS (1993). Overview: Sibling similarity and difference in different cultures In Nuckolls CW (Ed.), Siblings in South Asia (pp. 1–18). New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zeiders KH, Updegraff KA, Umanñ-Taylor AJ, McHale SM, & Padilla J (2016). Familism values, family time, and Mexican-origin young adults' depressive symptoms. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(1), 91–106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES