Measuring Filial Piety in the 21st Century

Abstract

The experience and practice of filial piety have evolved in modern Chinese societies, and existing measures fail to capture these important changes. Based on a conceptual analysis on current literature, 42 items were initially compiled to form a Contemporary Filial Piety Scale (CFPS), and 1,080 individuals from a representative sample in Hong Kong were surveyed. Principal component analysis generated a 16-item three-factor model: Pragmatic Obligations (Factor 1; 10 items), Compassionate Reverence (Factor 2; 4 items), and Family Continuity (Factor 3; 2 items). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed strong factor loadings for Factors 1 and 2, while removing Factor 3 and conceptually duplicated items increased total variance explained from 58.02% to 60.09% and internal consistency from .84 to .88. A final 10-item two-factor structure model was adopted with a goodness of fit of 0.95. The CFPS-10 is a data-driven, simple, and efficient instrument with strong psychometric properties for assessing contemporary filial piety.

Keywords

filial piety scale development principal component analysis confirmatory factor analysis Hong Kong Chinese

Introduction

Filial piety is a cornerstone in Confucian Heritage Societies. It has long shaped the family structure and intergenerational relationships between parents and children through an intricate value system that defines the connections and obligations among them. It is thus not surprising that many Asian governments base and formulate their elderly policies on the traditional spirit of filial piety, where adult children are expected to care for their parents at old age (Liu & Kendig, 2000). However, adherence to filial commitments among younger generations has weakened due to modernization and social changes (Ikels, 2004). Longer life expectancy, higher education attainment, greater devotion to work, smaller family size, and decrease in intergenerational co-residence (Cheung & Kwan, 2009) have all played important roles in adult children’s changing desire and ability to shoulder care and responsibilities for their parents. This discrepancy between aged care policy and the social reality of family caregiving has led researchers to examine the changing nature of filial attitudes and behaviors, as well as their implications for the provision of elderly services (Chow, 2006; Chow & Lum, 2008).

Although filial piety has long been a central concept in cultural and family studies, only a handful of standardized tools have been developed to operationalize and measure its attitudinal and behavioral principles (D. Y. F. Ho & Lee, 1974; Sung, 1995; Yang, Yeh, & Huang, 1989; Yeh & Bedford, 2003). In these tools, the ideas of parental authority and child obedience formed the theoretical backbone of filial piety. According to one of the earliest assessment scales developed by D. Y. F. Ho and Lee (1974), filial piety is defined and measured as an authoritarian relationship that requires children’s absolute submission to parents’ wishes, as well as their duties to repay parents’ sacrifices, preserve family honor, and continue the ancestral line. Yang et al. (1989) later contended that apart from the authoritative elements of parental conformity, protection, and glorification, filial piety should also include the notion of “tender-heartedness to parents,” which reflects the importance of emotion and affection in the parent–child relationship. Sung (1995) also proposed that filial piety needs to be measured beyond its behavioral components of responsibility, sacrifice, and repayment, to include the emotional components of affection, harmony, and respect. Based on these conceptual advances, Yeh and Bedford (2003) developed the Dual Filial Piety Scale (DFPS) to integrate both the traditional prominence on authority and obedience, as well as the renewed emphasis on emotion and reciprocity. The DFPS proposed two fundamental aspects of filial piety: authoritarian filial piety, which entails an asymmetric parent–child relationship where children are guided by obedience to satisfy the demands and expectations of their parents, and reciprocal filial piety, which entails a more balanced parent–child relationship where children are guided by “gratitude and willingness to repay one’s parents’ care and sacrifice” to fulfill their parents’ psychological and relational needs (Yeh, Yi, Tsao, & Wan, 2013, p. 278). Whereas this duality clearly emphasizes both affective and authoritarian aspects of filial piety, the notion of parental indebtedness and unconditional repayment remains a prominent undertone of the DFPS. With mounting evidence suggesting that filial caregiving has become increasingly contingent upon adult children’s abilities and resources (Lam, 2006; Whyte, 2004; Zhan, 2004), the DFPS may not truly reflect the contemporary experience of filial piety, especially in the context of Hong Kong where individualistic pragmatism and collective ideologies have merged more fluently than other Chinese societies such as Taiwan and China.

Recent studies have shown that filial piety is no longer perceived as an authoritative obligation (Chow, 2006; Chow & Lum, 2008), but instead, an intergenerational exchange of care between children and parents that underscores utility, efficiency, personal choice, and pragmatic compromises (Lee & Kwok, 2005). Particularly in Hong Kong, although care and respect for elderly parents continue to be seen as a desirable filial behavior, its fulfillment is considered to be situational and symbolic in practice (Ting, 2009). Financial support, instead of actual caregiving, has become a primary expression of filial obligation (Cheung & Kwan, 2009). The cultivation of open communication, empathic understanding, and filial compassion are deemed more important (Chan et al., 2012), as interdependent relationships and mutual support are perceived as the new norm that strengthened filial convictions (A. H. Y. Ho, Leung et al., 2013). These changes in attitudes and behaviors highlight a much more egalitarian and utilitarian manifestation of filial piety, one that existing measurements cannot fully capture. This study fills this research gap by developing a new scale for measuring filial piety guided by factor structures in a representative sample of a contemporary Chinese society.

Method

Development of Initial Item Pool

The current study is a follow-up study of an earlier investigation that examined changing family attitudes and values in Hong Kong (Chow & Lum, 2008). The research team completed a comprehensive review of existing theories and measurements of filial attitudes and behaviors and carried out in-depth focus group discussions on the current views of filial piety in a contemporary Chinese context. A total of five focus groups, with number of participants ranging from seven to nine recruited from different age cohorts and socio-economic backgrounds, were conducted. Based on the focus group findings and our review of the theories and measurements of filial piety, a panel of experts, including a gerontologist, two family social workers, a family therapist, and a psychologist then worked together to create an initial pool of 42 filial piety items. These include 16 items on filial beliefs, affects, intentions, and behaviors modified from the Formal Filial Piety Scale (Yang et al., 1989), 16 items on the interplay between authoritarian filial piety and reciprocal filial piety modified from the DFPS (Yeh & Bedford, 2003), as well as 10 new pragmatic and utility-based items developed through our conceptual review and focus groups. These items can be broadly categorized a priori into the following traditional and contemporary filial dimensions: (a) conditional and unconditional care for parents, (b) care for oneself, (c) affection and consideration, (d) obedience and repayment, (e) honor and respect, and (f) family continuity. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 1 indicating very unimportant and 5 indicating very important. The panel then presented these 42 items to the researchers of the original study. Both groups were satisfied with the content and face validity of these items.

Sampling and Procedures

Using the 42 filial piety items, our trained and closely supervised interviewers conducted a large-scale face-to-face survey in a representative sample in Hong Kong between June and September 2013. We used the most up-to-date and complete sampling frame based on the frame of quarters maintained by the Census and Statistics Department, and randomly sampled 2,300 living quarters stratified by geographical area and type of quarters. A total of 1,239 quarters (with eligible respondents aged 18 or above) were successfully enumerated, representing a response rate of 61%. All the household members aged 18 or above in the households were invited for the interview, and a total of 1,800 interviews were conducted in Chinese. For our current analysis, only heads of household were included (n = 1,080) to avoid issues of correlated errors stemming from people living together. Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Hong Kong.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was carried out in three stages using the SPSS software. First, the Bartlett’s test for sphericity (p < .01; Bartlett, 1954) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test for sample adequacy (0.952; Kaiser, 1974) were conducted and confirmed the appropriateness for factor analysis. Second, progressive principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to explore the underlying factor structures of the 42 filial piety items. Third, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to determine the item loadings and validity of the final factor model for the new scale. Cronbach’s alpha and comparative fit index (CFI) were used to determine the model’s internal consistency and goodness of fit. Finally, we examined age-group differences in the perception of filial piety with the new scale using ANOVA.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Of the 1,080 respondents, 49.1% were male and 50.9% were female. Their mean age was 52.7 years (SD = 19.45), with a range of 18 to 97 years. More than three fifths of the respondents were married (62.1%), over one fifth were single (21.2%), and the remaining were either divorced or widowed. Moreover, roughly one third of the respondents had primary education (28.1%), nearly half had secondary education (49.1%), more than one tenth had university or college education (13.1%), and the remaining had no formal education. Finally, nearly half of the respondents (48.1%) had monthly family income below HK$20,000 per month or approximately US$2,570 (Hong Kong median monthly household income stood at US$22,000 in 2013), a little more than one third had income above HK$20,000 per month (39.7%), and over one tenth had no income (12.2%).

PCA

Among the 42 filial piety items included in the progressive PCA, items with a factor loading below 0.6 were removed from further analyses. The first PCA generated seven components with four items failing to meet the loading criteria. The second PCA generated five components and retained 25 items; the third PCA generated four components with 19 items; and the fourth, fifth, and sixth PCA all generated three components with 18, 17, and 16 items, respectively. The three-component 16-item solution was selected: Factor 1, coined Pragmatic Obligation (α = .90), contained 10 items and accounted for 32.26% of variance; Factor 2, coined Compassionate Reverence (α = .79), contained four items and accounted for 16.79% of variance; and Factor 3, coined Family Continuity (α = .53), contained two items and accounted for 8.97% of variance. The three-factor solution accounted for 58.02% of variance and had an internal consistency of .84.

Upon further examination of the items, four pairs of items in Factor 1 were found conceptually similar; we tested the effect on scale reliability by dropping the duplicate with a lower factor loading. The Cronbach’s alpha for the new six-items Factor 1 changed only slightly from .90 to .86.

CFA, Model Fit, and Internal Consistency

CFA was conducted to assess the factor structure of the model generated by PCA. Table 1 shows the item loadings of the three-factor model; as shown, one of the two items in Factor 3 had a CFA factor loading below 0.6. The correlation between component factors were significant at .73 for Factors 1 and 2, but only .31 for Factors 1 and 3, and .38 for Factors 2 and 3.

Table 1.

Factor Loadings, Cronbach’s Alphas, and Variance Explained With the Initial Three-Factor 12-Item Model.

Item	PCA loading	CFA loading	Variance explained by CFA
Component 1: Pragmatic obligations (α = .86)
Arrange care for parents when they can no longer care for themselves	0.79	0.72	0.51
Provide financial subsistence to parents when they can no longer financially support themselves	0.74	0.69	0.47
Arrange appropriate treatment for parents when they fall ill	0.72	0.73	0.53
Attend parents’ funerals no matter where I am	0.71	0.68	0.47
Visit parents regularly if I am not living with them	0.71	0.69	0.48
Be thankful to parents’ nurturing	0.69	0.73	0.54
Component 2: Compassionate reverence (α = .79)
Try my best to achieve parents’ expectation	0.77	0.69	0.48
Always be polite when talking to parents	0.72	0.75	0.57
Try my best to complete parents’ unachieved goals	0.79	0.62	0.53
Always care about parents’ well-being	0.63	0.73	0.38
Component 3: Family continuity (α = .53)
Have at least one child to carry on the family lineage	0.81	0.53	0.28
Have a child to ensure family continuity	0.82	0.69	0.48

Note. PCA = principal component analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

We tested model fit and internal consistency after removing Factor 3 that contains only two items. The overall variance explained increased from 58.02% to 60.09%, while the Cronbach’s alpha increased from .84 to .88, with high goodness of fit (CFI = 0.95). Table 2 shows the factor loadings and internal consistency of the final two-factor 10-item scale.

Table 2.

Factor Loadings, Cronbach’s Alphas, and Variance Explained With the Final Two-Factor 10-Item Model Used in the CFPS-10.

Item	PCA loading	CFA loading	Variance explained by CFA
Component 1: Pragmatic obligations (α = .86)
Arrange care for parents when they can no longer care for themselves	0.80	0.72	0.51
當父母不能自理時，你會親自或安排他人照顧其起居飲食（如，個人衛生/餵食）。
Provide financial subsistence to parents when they can no longer financially support themselves	0.74	0.69	0.48
如果父母沒有經濟能力，你會供養他們。
Arrange appropriate treatment for parents when they fall ill	0.71	0.72	0.52
如果父母生病時，你會為他們安排合適治療。
Attend parents’ funerals no matter where I am	0.69	0.68	0.47
如果父親/母親去世後，無論身在何處，你都會親自為他們奔喪。
Visit parents regularly if I am not living with them	0.71	0.69	0.48
當你不與父母同住時，你會定期探望父母。
Be thankful to parents’ nurturing	0.71	0.73	0.54
對父母的養育之恩心存感激。
Component 2: Compassionate reverence (α = .79)
Try my best to achieve parents’ expectation	0.77	0.69	0.48
你會盡力達成父母對你的期望。
Always be polite when talking to parents	0.74	0.75	0.57
與父母談話，你會溫和有禮。
Try my best to complete parents’ unachieved goals	0.80	0.61	0.53
如果父母有未完成的心願，你會盡力替他們達成。
Always care about parents’ well-being	0.64	0.73	0.37
你會經常對父母噓寒問暖。

Note. CFPS-10 = 10-item Contemporary Filial Piety Scale; PCA = principal component analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.

Age-Group Differences in the Perception of Filial Piety

We categorized respondents into four age-groups (below 40, 41-60, 61-80, and above 80) to examine the mean differences in the perception of Filial Piety as accessed by the 10-item Contemporary Filial Piety Scale (CFPS-10). ANOVA results showed no significant differences for the CFPS-10 total scores; however, a closer examination of sub-component scores showed a significant higher score of the compassionate reverence factor for the oldest age group (F = 3.470, p = .016).

Discussion

Under the rubric of modernization and social change, the experience and practice of filial piety have evolved in many Asian Chinese societies, transforming and diminishing children’s commitments and abilities to provide parental care at old age (Ikels, 2004). To reflect these important changes, we developed a new instrument, the CFPS-10, based on a comprehensive conceptual analysis on current literature with reference to existing measurements, and used a data-driven approach to determine the contemporary construct of filial piety in a representative Chinese sample in Hong Kong.

As anticipated, of the original pool of 42 items, those that convey the traditional values of authority and repayment in the care of aging parents were dropped due to low factor loading. This reflects that filial piety has evolved in the 21st century, where greater prominence is placed on pragmatic utilitarianism and emotional connections over absolute obedience and passive submission. The idea of indebtedness to parental sacrifices is no longer a strong ground for filial caregiving; conversely, the ability to exercise personal choice and reach mutual agreement of care between parent and children seem much more important for bolstering filial behaviors (Lee & Kwok, 2005). This clearly suggests a paradigm shift from an authoritarian to an egalitarian parent–child relationship in contemporary filial piety, highlighting the conditional and utilitarian nuance of caregiving practices based on one’s abilities and resources. This finding is consistent with that recently reported by Yeh et al. (2013), which shows that the practice of authoritarian filial piety has declined in Taiwan, China, and especially Hong Kong.

Results from the initial PCA and CFA generated a three-factor 12-item measurement of filial piety. The first factor, Pragmatic Obligations, contained six filial behavior items related to practical and pragmatic caregiving. However, different from the traditional insistence on authority and obedience, filial caregiving in this context is achieved through open exchanges of care needs and care capacities between parents and children for establishing a compromised commitment to care. Items such as “Arrange care for parents when they can no longer care for themselves” and “Provide financial subsistence to parents when they can no longer financially support themselves” underscore the significance of a conditional and task-contingent view of family care, one that accentuates the spirit of respectful reciprocity and pragmatic adaptation. Furthermore, our ANOVA results showed no significant age-group differences on Pragmatic Obligations. These findings are in line with recent evidence that shows both children and parents are increasingly more inclined to openly share their needs and concerns with one another and to participate in joint decision making so as to arrive at a mutually agreed plan of care in old age (Chan et al., 2012; Cheung & Kwan, 2009).

The second factor, Compassionate Reverence, contained four filial attitude items related to emotional caregiving. Yet, different from the customary emphasis on unquestionable honor and glorification, emotional support is achieved through the sharing of life experiences and wisdoms. Items such as “Try my best to complete parents’ unachievable goals” and “Always care about parents’ well-being” underline the importance of genuine affection and empathetic bonding between both parties through compassionate understanding and reasonable pursuit of parental aspirations. Our ANOVA results further showed that older respondents, particularly those above the age of 80, scored significantly higher on Compassionate Reverence as compared with their younger counterparts. These findings are congruent with previous research that indicates that establishing emotional bond with children, through reconciliation and the intergenerational transfers of moral values, is imperative for elderly parents to maintain and achieve a sense of dignity at later life (A. H. Y. Ho, Chan, et al., 2013).

The third factor, Family Continuity, contained only two items that denote the time-honored value of maintaining a family lineage. Although this is the only factor relevant to the notion of authoritarian filial piety (Yeh & Bedford, 2003) with an acceptable factor loading, dropping it from the scale increased the overall variance explained by 2.07% and internal consistency from .84 to .88. Whereas adult children have customarily felt pressured to conceive at least one child to carry on the family name, this value is, however, not as relevant today as evidenced by the continuous decline in fertility rates observed in most Asian Chinese regions including Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, and Singapore. Due to the ever-increasing standards of living and cost of raising a child, as well as gains in education and employment, many young couples have chosen personal freedom over a lifelong commitment to parenthood (Westley, Choe, & Retherford, 2010). Hence, the filial tradition of family lineage has, to a certain degree, become less of a priority in the modern era.

Conclusion

The newly developed CFPS-10 is an efficient measurement of the contemporary construct of filial piety with good psychometric properties. It addresses the research needs in assessing and understanding filial piety in the 21st century. Despite these merits, the current study has a few limitations worthy of note. First, further validation data are needed to examine the test–retest reliability of the CFPS-10, as well as its convergent and divergent validity with related constructs. Second, although we applied the CFPS-10 in a representative sample in the metropolitan area of Hong Kong, its relevance in other Confucian Heritage Societies remains unclear. Thus, future research needs to examine its applicability in cities of similar cultural and socioeconomic status, such as Taiwan, Singapore, Shanghai, and Beijing.

While policy makers buttress filial responsibility in the provision of elderly care, such policies must reflect the social reality of family practices. The CFPS-10 provides a simple and effective way to assess filial attitudes in the contemporary context, and together with other vital population demographics, it can serve as a useful tool of reference for understanding the changing patterns of filial behaviors, assisting in the development of family-friendly policies in aging societies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Terry Y. S. Lum, PhD, RSW, is the director of the Sau Po Centre on Ageing and associate professor at the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong. He is also an elected fellow of the Gerontological Society of America, specializing in long-term care and aging policy.

Elsie C. W. Yan, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong. She is also a member of the American Psychosomatic Society and associate fellow of the Hong Kong Psychological Society, specializing in elder abuse, elder sexuality, dementia care, and caregiving stress.

Andy H. Y. Ho, PhD, MFT, FT, is an assistant professor at the Division of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is also a fellow in thanatology of the Association of Death Education and Counseling, specializing in psychosocial gerontology, hospice and palliative care, formal and informal caregiving, public health, and community empowerment.

Michelle H. Y. Shum, JD, RSW, is currently a doctoral candidate at the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong. Her research interests lie in aging, social policy, public interest law, socio-legal study, law and policy analysis, third sector study, and non-governmental organization (NGO) governance.

Gloria H. Y. Wong, PhD, is a research assistant professor at the Sau Po Centre on Ageing at the University of Hong Kong. She is also a member of the American Psychological Association and honorary research associate at the Department of Psychiatry at the LKS Faculty of Medicine, specializing in neurocognitive disorders and psychopathology, particularly in dementia and delusions.

Mandy M. Y. Lau, MStat, is an assistant research officer at the Sau Po Centre on Ageing at the University of Hong Kong. She has vast experience working with the elderly population, participated in numerous government-committed studies on aging research, and worked closely with NGOs that cater to the needs of older people.

Junfang Wang, MSW, is currently a doctoral candidate at the Department of Social Work and Social Administration of the University of Hong Kong. Her research interests lie in long-term care policy, filial piety, dementia care, caregiver burden, and stress-coping strategies.

References

Bartlett

M. S.

(1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ² approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 16, 296-298.

Chan

C. L. W.

A. H. Y.

Leung

P. P. Y.

Chochinov

H. M.

Neimeyer

R. A.

Pang

S. M. C.

Tse

D. M. W.

(2012). The blessings and the curses of filial piety on dignity at the end of life: Lived experience of Hong Kong Chinese adult children caregivers. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 21, 277-296.

Cheung

C. K.

Kwan

A. Y. H.

(2009). The erosion of filial piety by modernisation in Chinese cities. Ageing & Society, 29, 179-198.

Chow

N. W. S.

(2006). The practice of filial piety and its impact on long-term care policies for elderly people in Asian Chinese communities. Asian Journal of Gerontology & Geriatrics, 1, 31-35.

Chow

N. W. S.

Lum

T. Y.

(2008). Trends in family attitudes and values in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong.

A. H. Y.

Chan

C. L. W.

Leung

P. P. Y.

Chochinov

H. M.

Neimeyer

R. A.

Pang

S. M. C.

Tse

D. M. W.

(2013). Living and dying with dignity in Chinese society: Perspectives of older palliative care patients in Hong Kong. Age & Ageing, 42, 445-461.

A. H. Y.

Leung

P. P. Y.

Tse

D. M. W.

Pang

S. M. C.

Chochinov

H. M.

Neimeyer

N. A.

Chan

C. L. W.

(2013). Dignity amidst liminality: Suffering within healing among Chinese terminal cancer patients. Death Studies, 37, 953-970.

D. Y. F.

Lee

L. Y.

(1974). Authoritarianism and attitude toward filial piety in Chinese teachers. Journal of Social Psychology, 92, 305-306.

Ikels

(Ed.). (2004). Filial piety: Practice and discourse in contemporary East Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

10.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.

11.

Lam

R. C.

(2006). Contradictions between traditional Chinese values and the actual performance: A study of the caregiving roles of the modern sandwich generation in Hong Kong. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37, 299-312.

12.

Lee

W. K. M.

Kwok

H. K.

(2005). Differences in expectations and patterns of informal support for older persons in Hong Kong: Modification to filial piety. Ageing International, 30, 188-206.

13.

Liu

W. T.

Kendig

(2000). Critical issues of caregiving: East-west dialogue. In Liu

W. T.

Kendig

(Eds.), Who should care for the elderly? An east-west value divide (pp. 183-199). Singapore: Singapore University Press and World Scientific Singapore.

14.

Sung

K. T.

(1995). Measures and dimensions of filial piety in Korea. The Gerontologist, 35, 240-247.

15.

Ting

(2009). The meaning and practice of filial piety in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Central Policy Unit, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

16.

Westley

S. B.

Choe

M. K.

Retherford

R. D.

(2010, May). Very low fertility in Asia: Is there a problem? Can it be solved? Asia Pacific, 94, 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/very-low-fertility-asia-there-problem-can-it-be-solved).

17.

Whyte

M. K.

(2004). Filial obligations in Chinese families: Paradoxes of modernization. In Ikels

(Ed.), Filial piety: Practice and discourses in contemporary East Asia (pp. 106-127). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

18.

Yang

K. S.

Yeh

K. H.

Huang

L. L.

(1989). A social attitudinal analysis of Chinese filial piety: Conceptualization and assessment. Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, 56, 171-227.

19.

Yeh

K. H.

Bedford

(2003). A test of the dual filial piety model. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 215-228.

20.

Yeh

K. H.

C. C.

Tsao

W. C.

Wan

P. S.

(2013). Filial piety in contemporary Chinese societies: A comparative study of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China. International Sociology, 28, 277-296.

21.

Zhan

H. J.

(2004). Willingness and expectations: Intergenerational differences in attitudes toward filial responsibility in China. Marriage & Family Review, 34, 175-300.