Eighty-one middle-class mothers of 3- and 4-year-old children from urban cities in Taiwan and the United States were interviewed about their child-rearing values. Three methods were used to assess values: open-ended probes, Likert-type ratings, and ordering of values according to importance. Child-rearing values could be grouped into five broad categories: individuality, achievement, proper demeanor, decency, and connectedness. U.S. mothers' child-rearing values were somewhat consistent with an individualistic orientation, yet they considered values associated with connectedness to be most important. Taiwanese mothers' child-rearing values were less focused on any specific category. Findings from the three methods suggest that child-rearing values in Taiwan and the United States cannot be dichotomized as collectivist or individualist. Mothers in the two societies embraced both individualist and collectivist values.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baer, D., Curtis, J., Grabb, E., & Johnston, W. (1996). What values do people prefer in children? A comparative analysis of survey evidence from fifteen countries. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of value: The Ontario Symposium (vol. 8, pp. 299-328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
Bigner, J. J. (1994). Parent-child relations: An introduction to parenting (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
3.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
4.
Gonzalez-Ramos, G., Zayas, L. H., & Cohen, E. (1998). Child-rearing values of low-income, urban Puerto Rican mothers of preschool children. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 377-382.
5.
Greenfield, P. M., & Suzuki, L. K. (1998). Culture and human development: Implications for parenting, education, pediatrics, and mental health. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and I. E. Sigel & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 1069-1109). New York: John Wiley.
6.
Harwood, R. L., Miller, J. G., & Irizarry, N. L. (1995). Culture and attachment: Perceptions of the child in context. New York: Guilford.
7.
Harwood, R. L., Schoelmerich, A., Schulze, P. A., & Gonzalez, Z. (1999). Cultural differences in maternal beliefs and behaviors: A study of middle-class Anglo and Puerto Rican mother-infant pairs in four everyday situations. Child Development, 70, 1005-1016.
8.
Harwood, R. L., Schoelmerich, A., Ventura-Cook, E., Schulze, P. A., & Wilson, S. P. (1996). Culture and class influences on Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers' beliefs regarding long-term socialization goals and child behavior. Child Development, 67, 2446-2461.
9.
Hoffman, L. W. (1988). Cross-cultural differences in child-rearing goals. In R. A. LeVine, P. M. Miller, & M. M. West (Eds.), Parental behavior in diverse societies (Vol. 40, pp. 99-122). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequence: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C., (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 296-309.
12.
Kohn, M. L. (1969). Class and conformity: A study in values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions (Vol. 47). Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.
14.
Lieber, E., Yang, K. S., & Lin, C. Y. C. (2000). An external orientation to the study of causal beliefs: Application to Chinese populations and comparative research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3, 160-186.
15.
Lin, C. Y. C., & Fu, V. R. (1990). A comparison of child-rearing practices among Chinese, immigrant Chinese, and Caucasian-American parents. Child Development, 61, 429-433.
16.
Ministry of Education, R. O. C. (1993). Education statistical indicators. Taipei.
17.
Ng, S. H. (1982). Choosing between the ranking and rating procedures for the comparison of values across cultures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 169-172.
18.
Olsen, S. M. (1971). Family, occupation, and values in a Chinese urban community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
19.
Osterweil, Z., & Nagano, K. N. (1991). Maternal views on autonomy: Japan and Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 362-375.
20.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Wong, N. Y. C. (1997). Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 2, 329-344.
22.
Richman, A. L., Miller, P. M., & Solomon, M. J. (1988). The socialization of infants in suburban Boston. In R. A. LeVine, P. M. Miller, & M. M. West (Eds.), Parental behavior in diverse societies (Vol. 40, pp. 65-74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human value. New York: Free Press.
24.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
25.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Western.
26.
Triandis, H. C. (2000). Culture and conflict. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 145-152.
27.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1997). Statistical abstract of the United States (117th ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
28.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 33-51.
