Relationship research in the dominant psychological science portrays the prioritization of conjugal over consanguine relationships as a healthy standard. We argue that this “standard” pattern is only evident in cultural ecologies of independence. Drawing on the Confucian concept of filial piety, we conducted five studies and two mini meta-analyses to normalize the prioritization of mother over spouse. Cultural ecologies were operationalized by a variety of indexes, including histories of residential mobility, country, manipulated relational/residential mobility, and race. While participants situated in cultural ecologies of independence prioritized care to spouse over mother, participants inhabited in interdependence prioritized care to mother over spouse. Both American and Chinese participants showed greater prioritization of care for mother over spouse when they imagined a relational ecology of interdependence versus independence. Authoritarian filial piety mediated cultural-ecological variation on relational prioritization. Results illuminate cultural-ecological foundations of care and naturalize love as dutiful fulfillment of obligation.
AdamsG.AndersonS. L.AdonuJ. K. (2004). The cultural grounding of closeness and intimacy. In MashekD.AronA. (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 321–339). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
AdamsG.DoblesI.GómezL.KurtişT.MolinaL. E. (2015). Decolonizing psychological science: Introduction to the special thematic session. Journal of Social and Political Psychology: Special Thematic Section on Decolonizing Psychological Science, 3(1), 213–238.
3.
AdamsG.KurtişT. (2012). Context in person, person in context: A cultural psychology approach to social-personality psychology. In DeauxK.SnyderM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 182–208). New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
4.
AschS. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In GuetzkowH. (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men; research in human relations (pp. 177–190). Carnegie Press.
5.
BedfordO.YehK. H. (2019). The history and the future of the psychology of filial piety: Chinese norms to contextualized personality construct. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 100.
6.
BedfordO.YehK. H.TanC. S. (2022). Filial piety as a universal construct: From cultural norms to psychological motivations. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 980060.
7.
BellahR.MadsenR.SullivanW.SwidlerA.TiptonS. (2008). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. University of California Press. (Original work published 1985)
8.
CamposB.KimH. S. (2017). Incorporating the cultural diversity of family and close relationships into the study of health. American Psychologist, 72(6), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000122
9.
CassidyJ.ShaverP. R. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. Guilford.
10.
ChenS. X.BondM. H.TangD. (2007). Decomposing filial piety into filial attitudes and filial enactments. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10(4), 213–223.
11.
CheonB. K.MelaniI.HongY.-y. (2020). How USA-centric is psychology? An archival study of implicit assumptions of generalizability of findings to human nature based on origins of study samples. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(7), 928–937.
12.
CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychollogy, 55, 591–621.
13.
CoeC. (2011). What is love? The materiality of care in Ghanaian transnational families. International Migration, 49(6), 7–24.
14.
CoontzS. (2005). Marriage, a history: From obedience to intimacy or how love conquered marriage. Viking.
15.
CrossS. E.MadsonL. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5–37.
16.
EsiakaD.AdamsG.Osei-TutuA. (2020). Dilemma tales as African knowledge practice: An example from research on obligations of support. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 2666.
17.
FiskeA. P. (1991). Structure of social life: The four elementary forms of social relations: Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing. Free Press.
18.
FletcherG. J.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG.GilesL. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72–89.
19.
GreenfieldP. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 401–418.
20.
HeavenP.CiarrochiJ. (2008). Parental styles, gender and the development of hope and self-esteem. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 22(8), 707–724.
21.
HenrichJ. (2020). The WEIRDest people in the world: How the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous. Penguin.
22.
HigginsE. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46.
23.
HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.
24.
HookerE. D.CoronaK.GuardinoC. M.SchetterC. D.CamposB. (2023). What predicts interdependence with family? The relative contributions of ethnicity/race and social class. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000593
25.
HwangK. K. (1999). Filial piety and loyalty: Two types of social identification in Confucianism. Asian Journal of Psychology, 2, 129–149.
26.
HwangK. K. (2011). Foundations of Chinese psychology: Confucian social relations. Springer SBM.
27.
KawamuraK. Y.FrostR. O.HarmatzM. G. (2002). The relationship of perceived parenting styles to perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 317–327.
28.
KellerH. (2003). Socialization for competence: Cultural models of infancy. Human Development, 46, 288–311.
29.
KimH. S.ShermanD. K. (2007). “Express yourself”: Culture and the effect of self-expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1–11.
30.
KitayamaS.SalvadorC. E.NanakdewaK.RossmaierA.San MartinA.SavaniK. (2022). Varieties of interdependence and the emergence of the Modern West: Toward the globalizing of psychology. American Psychologist, 77(9), 991–1006.
31.
KlausD. (2009). Why do adult children support their parents?Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40(2), 227–241.
32.
KoA.PickC. M.KwonJ. Y.BarlevM.KremsJ. A.VarnumM. E.. . . KenrickD. T. (2020). Family matters: Rethinking the psychology of human social motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 173–201.
33.
KomiyaA.OhtsuboY.NakanishiD.OishiS. (2019). Gift-giving in romantic couples serves as a commitment signal: Relational mobility is associated with more frequent gift-giving. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(2), 160–166.
34.
KrausM. W.PiffP. K.Mendoza-DentonR.RheinschmidtM. L.KeltnerD. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: how the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546.
35.
LamA. G.ZaneN. W. (2004). Ethnic differences in coping with interpersonal stressors: A test of self-construals as cultural mediators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(4), 446–459.
36.
LiL. M. W.AdamsG.KurtişT.HamamuraT. (2015). Beware of friends: The cultural psychology of relational mobility and cautious intimacy. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18(2), 124–133.
37.
MarkusH. R.MullallyP. R.KitayamaS. (1997). Selfways: Diversity in modes of cultural participation. Cambridge University Press.
38.
OishiS. (2010). The psychology of residential mobility implications for the self, social relationships, and well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 5–21.
39.
OishiS.KrochikM.RothD.ShermanG. D. (2012). Residential mobility, personality, and subjective and physical well-being: An analysis of cortisol secretion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 153–161.
40.
OishiS.SchugJ.YukiM.AxtJ. (2015). The psychology of residential and relational motilities. In GelfandM. J.ChiuC.-Y.HongY.-Y. (Eds.), Handbook of advances in culture and psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 221–272). Oxford University Press.
41.
ParkH.LauA. S. (2016). Socioeconomic status and parenting priorities: Child independence and obedience around the world. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(1), 43–59.
42.
PatrickH.KneeC. R.CanevelloA.LonsbaryC. (2007). The role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 434–457.
43.
SalterP. S.AdamsG. (2012). Mother or wife? An African dilemma tale and the psychological dynamics of sociocultural change. Social Psychology, 42(4), 232–242.
44.
SchoemannA. M.BoultonA. J.ShortS. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386.
45.
SchwartzS. J.WeisskirchR. S.HurleyE. A.ZamboangaB. L.ParkI. J.KimS. Y.. . . GreeneA. D. (2010). Communalism, familism, and filial piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather?Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(4), 548–560.
46.
ShwederR. A.JensenL. A.GoldsteinW. M. (1995). Who sleeps by whom revisited: A method for extracting the moral goods implicit in practice. In GoodnowJ. J.MillerP. J.KesselF. (Eds.), New directions in child development: Cultural practices as contexts for development (No. 67, pp. 21–39). Jossey-Bass.
47.
SimpsonJ. A.CampbellL. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of close relationships. Oxford University Press.
48.
SoenensB.VansteenkisteM. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, 30(1), 74–99.
49.
TalhelmT.EnglishA. S. (2020). Historically rice-farming societies have tighter social norms in China and worldwide. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(33), 19816–19824.
50.
TsaoW. C.YehK. H. (2019). Indigenous implications and global applications of the dual filial piety model: A psychological re-conceptualization of “xiao.” In K.-H. Yeh (Ed.), Asian indigenous psychologies in the global context (pp. 195–219). Springer.
51.
WuD. C.KimH. S.CollinsN. L. (2021). Perceived responsiveness across cultures: The role of cultural fit in social support use. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(9), e12634.
52.
WuT. F.CrossS. E.WuC. W.ChoW.TeyS. H. (2016). Choosing your mother or your spouse: Close relationship dilemmas in Taiwan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(4), 558–580.
53.
YehK. H. (2023). Constructing Indigenous psychological theories from a global perspective: Taking filial piety model as an example. Review of General Psychology, 27, 275–281.
54.
YehK. H.BedfordO. (2003). A test of the Dual Filial Piety model. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 215–228.
55.
YehK. H.BedfordO. (2019). The psychology of filial piety and moral decision-making in Chinese people. The Oxford handbook of moral development: An interdisciplinary perspective, 385–401.
56.
YilmazC.SelcukE.GunaydinG.Cingöz-UluB.FiliztekinA.KentO. (2022). You mean the world to me: The role of residential mobility in centrality of romantic relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(7), 1151–1162.
57.
YukiM.SchugJ. (2012). Relational mobility: A socioecological approach to personal relationships. In GillathO.AdamsG. E.KunkelA. D. (Eds.), Relationship science: Integrating evolutionary, neuroscience, and sociocultural approaches (pp. 137–151). American Psychological Association.
58.
YunR. J.LachmanM. E. (2006). Perceptions of aging in two cultures: Korean and American views on old age. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 21(1–2), 55–70.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
