Parents as Cultural Middlemen

Abstract

As the world is increasingly globalized, more and more families now reside in a society culturally differing from their ethnic origin and thus face a bicultural environment. Ethnic minority families exemplify this situation. What values do parents from these families prefer when they socialize their children? To answer this question, the present research examines an extension of the intersubjective model of value transmission. In two studies conducted in Hong Kong, it was found that when constructing their value socialization preference, ethnic minority parent participants emphasized not only values they personally endorsed but also values they perceived to be normative in the settlement society and the ethnic society, respectively. Furthermore, it was found that the reference to these dual sets of perceived norms was a function of the participants’ plans about their children’s future destination: They were more likely to refer to values of a society when they to a larger extent expected that their children would reside in that society in future. The participants’ ethnic identity played a significant role too: The reference to perceived norms in the ethnic society was particularly pronounced among those who strongly identified with their ethnic group. Taken together, this extended model represents a useful tool for researchers to examine the intricate dynamics in bicultural and even multicultural families’ value socialization practice. It also offers insights for the understanding of various culture-related psychological issues, including behavioral influence of perceived cultural norms, cultural transmission, and effects of globalization.

Keywords

value socialization ethnic minority perceived norms ethnic identity intersubjective approach cultural transmission

Introduction

Values are fundamental goals that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives (Schwartz, 1992). When socializing children, what values do parents emphasize? This question bears implications for not only children’s social development but also persistence of cultures across generations (Schönpflug, 2009). In this research, we focus on value socialization in ethnic minority families. Based on a recent model that emphasizes the role of perceived norms in value socialization (Tam, Lee, Kim, Li, & Chao, 2012), we hypothesize that when socializing children, ethnic minority parents emphasize not only values they personally endorse but also values they perceive to be normative in the settlement society and their ethnic culture, respectively. Furthermore, we hypothesize that the reference to these dual sets of perceived norms is a function of these parents’ plans about their children’s future destination and their own ethnic identity. In two studies, we found support for these hypotheses.

The Role of Personal Values

What values do parents emphasize when they socialize their children? One prevalent view is that parents construct their socialization practice with reference to their own values. This view can be figuratively described as the “fax” model (see Kuczynski, Marshall, & Schell, 1997), as it implies that parents want to transmit a replica of their personal values to their children. Two sets of findings are in line with this model. According to the model, when parents’ socialization is effective, parents and children should share similar values. Indeed, in some past studies, moderate to strong parent–child similarity was found (e.g., Schönpflug, 2001). For instance, Rohan and Zanna (1996) found a strong correlation (an average r of around .50). Also, they found that this correlation was larger than that of randomly paired adult–child dyads, indicating that the parental influence observed was unique.

One limitation of the aforementioned findings is that it is difficult to rule out the influence of genetic transmission on the similarity observed (see Schönpflug, 2009). Thus, in some studies, the researchers directly asked parents to report what values they wanted their children to have (i.e., value socialization preference) and observed whether this preference was correlated with their personal values (e.g., Whitbeck & Gecas, 1988). The findings from these studies show evidence for the assumed significant role of parents’ values. For example, Knafo and Schwartz (2001) found a strong correlation (an average r of around .70).

The Role of Perceived Normative Values

Parents sometimes see the need to differentiate what they personally endorse from what they want their children to endorse (e.g., Benish-Weisman, Levy, & Knafo, 2013; Tam & Lee, 2010). In fact, the correlation observed by Knafo and Schwartz (2001), though strong, was far from perfect; a substantial proportion of the variance in value socialization preference was still unexplained. There is a need for a model that can account for this unexplained variance.

Familial value socialization is embedded in the societal context. Schönpflug (2009) pointed out that parents may extrapolate the future of their children and notice that their own values, socialized in the old days, may be non-adaptive nowadays. They thus recognize a need to socialize their children for adopting values important to the present and future cultural environment (see Alwin, 1988). This view coincides with the very definition of socialization, a process through which individuals are inculcated with a society’s values and thereby become its adaptive members (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997). In other words, parents are cultural middlemen (Tam, Lee, et al., 2012): When they socialize their children, parents not only emphasize what they personally endorse but also what they know to be culturally important.

To capture this intricate process, Tam, Lee, et al. (2012) proposed the intersubjective model of value transmission. The basic premise of this model is that parents want to transmit to their children not only their own values but also values they perceive to be normatively endorsed in the society (see also Tam & Lee, 2010). In a typical study, parent participants report their personal values, perceived norms of values in the society, and value socialization preference. Through multi-level analyses (with values as the Level-1 unit and parents as the Level-2 unit), the strength of an average parent’s tendency to refer to his or her personal values and perceived norms in his or her value socialization preference can be estimated. In addition, by measuring parental or familial characteristics, this approach allows researchers to investigate whether the tendency to refer to personal values or perceived norms varies significantly across parents and identify factors that might explain such variations.

This model has received support in a series of studies. Tam, Lee, et al. (2012) found that for an average participant, both personal values and perceived normative values significantly predicted value socialization preference. In addition, they found that the tendency to refer to perceived norms was determined by parents’ personality (parents who were more conforming or who had a stronger need for closure showed stronger reference to perceived norms) and families’ immigrant status (immigrant parents referred to perceived norms to a larger extent than did native parents). In two studies that included child participants, Tam, Lee, et al. (2012) further found that parents’ perceived normative values predicted children’s values, indicating that these values were to some degree actually transmitted to children.

The intersubjective model complements the “fax” model in several ways. First, it successfully identifies an additional factor in explaining parents’ value socialization preference. Second, it provides a more intricate view as to the effectiveness of parental influence. In the “fax” model, a low level of parent–child value similarity is often interpreted as proof of failed or ineffective socialization endeavors (see Kuczynski et al., 1997). The intersubjective model offers an alternative interpretation: Parents’ influence on children’s value development manifests in not only how successful they are in transmitting a replica of their own values but also how competent they are in understanding the prevailing values in society and helping their children be inculcated with these values. Thus, parent–child value dissimilarity can still be an outcome of effective socialization as long as it is intended by parents (see also Trommsdorff, 2009). Third, the intersubjective model incorporates the latest theoretical advances in cultural psychology. The importance of norms as a driver for behavior is a fundamental tenet in social psychology (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991). This importance has recently been elaborated in cultural psychology research. According to the emerging normative approaches (see Chiu, Gelfand, Yamagishi, Shteynberg, & Wan, 2010; Fischer et al., 2009; Gelfand, Lun, Lyons, & Shteynberg, 2011), cultural members do not just passively internalize cultural ideas and act out these internalized orientations; they also actively construct and share knowledge about their culture, and use such knowledge to guide their behavior. By explicitly adding perceived norms into the analysis of value socialization, the intersubjective model is abreast of these recent developments in cultural psychology.

Value Socialization by Ethnic Minority Parents

As the world is increasingly globalized, nowadays more and more people move across borders and settle in a society that culturally differs from their origin. A substantial proportion of these people become ethnic minorities, numerically inferior to the rest of the population, and possess characteristics (e.g., language, values) differing from those of the mainstream. According to an estimate, 10% to 20% of the world’s population are ethnic minorities (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2013). Ethnic minorities face a lot of challenges as they adapt to the new cultural environment (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006), and, what is more, when they become parents they need to manage their children’s social development too (Berry & Georgas, 2009). One feature that distinguishes ethnic minority parents from native ones is that they are members of two cultures—the settlement society and the ethnic society. Their value socialization practice therefore involves dual cultural orientations (Padilla, 2009). On one hand, they need to help their children adapt to the settlement society. On the other hand, they bear the responsibility of ensuring the survival of their heritage culture in the next generation (Hughes et al., 2006). This view is consistent with the bi-dimensional view of acculturation: Individuals in a new cultural environment are concerned about both adapting to the settlement society and maintaining their original culture (Berry, 2008).

The possibility of bicultural socialization presents a challenge to the “fax” model. Focused on the role of parents’ personal values, this model is able to test whether this role is disrupted by the ethnic minority status (see Knafo & Schwartz, 2001), but cannot assess how parents incorporate their ethnic culture (and the mainstream culture) into their socialization practice. One might assume that the influence of the ethnic culture is already represented by that of parents’ personal values because such values result from the parents’ own socialization history (Schönpflug, 2001). This assumption is questionable, however. Most people are members of more than one group (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Their value system is influenced by the cultures of these groups simultaneously and cannot be taken as a full representative of any one of these cultures (Zou et al., 2009).

The possibility of bicultural socialization causes some problems to the intersubjective model too. This model thus far assumes that children are socialized into a single culture—the settlement society—only. In the past studies, the families studied were mostly natives of a society (Tam & Lee, 2010; Tam, Lee, et al., 2012). The differentiation between the mainstream culture and the ethnic culture that applies to ethnic minorities has not been taken into account. Nevertheless, it is possible to extend the intersubjective model by adding an additional factor—perceived norms in the ethnic society—so as to address the dual socialization concerns facing ethnic minority families. The present research aims to achieve this extension.

The Present Research

We propose that perceived norms in the ethnic culture plays an important role in value socialization by ethnic minority parents. We test two core hypotheses in the present research. First, we expect to replicate the findings in Tam, Lee, et al. (2012). Ethnic minority parents, such as native parents, emphasize values they perceive to be normative in the settlement society to help their children adapt to it. Thus, it is hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Perceived norms in the settlement society predict value socialization preference.

Second, we expect that ethnic minority parents also emphasize values of importance in their ethnic culture to keep the culture alive in the next generation. Thus, it is hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Perceived norms in the ethnic society predict value socialization preference.

As Tam, Lee, et al. (2012) showed, there are variations across parents in terms of the extent to which they refer to their perceived norms. Accordingly, we expect that the predictive power of the dual sets of perceived norms varies across ethnic minority parents. We test two factors that might explain such variations in the present research. First, as noted, familial socialization is essentially future-oriented (Alwin, 1988; Schönpflug, 2009). Even parents who are of the same ethnicity and live in the same settlement society could show different value socialization preference if they have different plans about their children’s future destination. If parents expect that their children will stay in the settlement society, then perceived norms in that society should be particularly useful for their socialization practice. Thus, it is hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 3a: Parents’ plan about children’s future in relation to the settlement society moderates the importance of perceived norms in the mainstream culture in predicting value socialization preference.

This logic should apply to perceived norms in the ethnic culture too. It is hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 3b: Parents’ plan about children’s future in relation to the ethnic society moderates the importance of perceived norms in the heritage culture in predicting value socialization preference.

Another factor that might explain between-parent variations of reference to perceived norms in the ethnic culture is parents’ ethnic identity. Ethnic identity is an important construct in psychological studies of ethnic minorities (e.g., Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997). It refers to the part of an individual’s self-concept that derives from his or her knowledge of his or her membership in an ethnic group together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership (Phinney & Ong, 2007). There are two reasons to expect that ethnic identity moderates ethnic minority parents’ reference to their perceived norms in their ethnic culture. First, social identity research has documented that identification with a social group strengthens the extent to which an individual exhibits prototypical features in the group and the tendency to follow the group’s norms (Hogg, 2003). Second, research on socialization among ethnic groups has shown that parents’ ethnic identity determines the extent to which they want to teach their children things about their ethnicity (e.g., history, customs; see Hughes et al., 2006). For instance, Knight, Bernal, Garza, Cota, and Ocampo (1993) found that Mexican American parents who showed stronger Mexican identity were more likely to teach their children things about the Mexican culture and the importance of having pride in it. Taken together, it is hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 4: Ethnic minority parents’ perceived normative values in the ethnic culture will be more predictive of their value socialization preference when they possess a stronger ethnic identity.

Whether national identity (the part of the self-concept in relation to the settlement society) has any effect on the role of perceived norms in the mainstream culture is open to exploration. On one hand, based on the social identity research, it is expected that national identity enhances ethnic minority parents’ reference to perceived norms in the mainstream culture. On the other hand, studies on the influence of national identity on ethnic minority parents’ socialization practice have found that this identity is not significant. For instance, Knight, Bernal, Cota, Garza, and Ocampo (1993) found that Mexican American parents’ American identity was not related to their teaching about American culture (see also Romero, Cuéllar, & Roberts, 2000). We explore these possibilities in the present research.

To test our hypotheses, we conducted two studies in Hong Kong, a predominantly Chinese society. Ethnic Chinese make up 93.62% of the population in Hong Kong, and the remaining 6.38% comprises other ethnicities mainly from Southern and Central Asian countries (e.g., Philippines, Pakistan; Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, 2012). We recruited participants through non-profit organizations that served ethnic minority communities in Hong Kong. Parents who showed interest in participation received a questionnaire from an organization and returned it through mail. All participants were compensated monetarily (HK$60 or US$7.74 in Study 1 and HK$50 or US$6.45 in Study 2). Although past socialization studies tended to use mother participants, in the present research, we used one father sample (Study 1) and one mother sample (Study 2) to check the robustness of our findings.¹ In both studies, participants reported their personal values; perceptions of normative values in the settlement society and the ethnic society, respectively; and value socialization preference. They also reported their plans about their children’s future destination. In Study 2, ethnic and national identities were also measured.

Study 1

Method

Fifty-eight ethnic minority fathers in Hong Kong participated. Their ethnic origin included Pakistan (23 participants; 39.66%), Nepal (9; 15.52%), Bangladesh (8; 13.79%), India (8; 13.79%), Thailand (5; 8.62%), Philippines (4; 6.90%), and Egypt (1; 1.72%).² Sixteen participants (27.59%) were born in Hong Kong, and the remaining ones (72.41%) were born in the ethnic society. Their length of residence in Hong Kong ranged from 0.60 to 53 years (M = 18.33 and SD = 11.23). Their age ranged from 26 to 62 years (M = 39.21 and SD = 8.69). The number of children they had ranged from one to seven (M = 2.31 and SD = 1.45). In terms of the highest education level obtained, 6 participants (10.34%) reported primary school, 11 (18.97%) middle school, 12 (20.69%) high school, 23 (39.66%) college/university, 5 (8.62%) a master’s degree, and 1 (1.72%) a doctorate degree.

As all participants understood English, they completed the questionnaire in English. Because our interest was on the participants’ views regarding a broad spectrum of values (rather than a single specific value), we referred to the model by Schwartz (1992) that suggests a universal structure of 10 value types. Because our participants needed to respond to the same list of values four times, the original 56-item list by Schwartz (1992) would be too long and exhausting. We thus used a shortened, 28-item version instead; selection of items was based on Bernard, Gebauer, and Maio (2006). Each value type was represented by two to four values.³ The participants reported their personal values (“How much do you endorse each of the following values?”), perceived normative values in the settlement society (“In your estimation, how much would an average Hongkonger endorse each of the following values?”), perceived normative values in their ethnic society (e.g., “In your estimation, how much would an average Pakistani endorse each of the following values?”), and value socialization preference (“How much would you want your children to endorse each of the following values?”). The participants responded to these questions on a 6-point scale (0 = not important at all to 5 = extremely important). The participants also answered four questions concerning their plans about their children’s future. Two questions were about the settlement society: “Ideally, how much do you want your children to live in Hong Kong when they have grown up?” and “Considering the reality, how likely do you foresee that your children will live in Hong Kong when they have grown up?” (α = .76). The other two questions were about the ethnic society (α = .84). The participants answered these questions on a 7-point scale (1 = do not want at all/very unlikely to 7 = want very much/very likely).

Results and Discussion

Table 1 shows the inter-correlations of the participants’ characteristics. Most significant correlations concerned the demographic variables. The correlation between the two plans regarding children’s future was negative and significant, suggesting that parents who to a larger extent planned that their children would stay in the settlement society were less likely to plan that they would return to the ethnic society, and vice versa.

Table 1.

Inter-Correlations of the Parental Characteristics in Studies 1 and 2.

	Study 1	Study 2	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
	M (SD)	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Age	39.21 (8.69)	42.02 (10.91)		.55***	−.29*	.47***	.00	−.04	—	—
2. Number of children	2.31 (1.45)	2.56 (1.22)	−.03		−.20	.37**	−.30*	.18	—	—
3. Education	3.22 (1.21)^a	1.95 (0.90)^b	−.31*	−.14		−.15	−.07	−.00	—	—
4. Length of residence	18.33 (11.23)	15.99 (9.43)	.66***	.16	−.29*		.11	−.10	—	—
5. Plan related to the settlement society	5.44 (1.16)	5.51 (1.28)	−.25*	.27*	.03	−.18		−.28*	—	—
6. Plan related to the ethnic society	4.26 (1.46)	3.34 (1.62)	.12	−.31*	.12	−.21	−.23*		—	—
7. National identity	—	4.97 (1.25)	−.29*	.08	.01	−.04	.05	−.20		—
8. Ethnic identity	—	5.92 (1.08)	.05	−.19	.08	−.18	.33**	.33**	−.02

Note. The numbers above the diagonal represent results from Study 1, and those under the diagonal represent results from Study 2.

Education was measured with a 6-option item in Study 1: 1 = primary school, 2 = middle school, 3 = high school, 4 = college/university, 5 = a master’s degree, 6 = a doctorate degree.

Education was measured with a 5-option item in Study 2: 1 = primary school, 2 = middle school, 3 = college/university, 4 = a master’s degree, 5 = a doctorate degree.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Because values were nested within persons, the multi-level analytic approach was used. The Level-1 unit was values and the Level-2 unit was participants. No centering was used for Level-1 predictors because the number zero was meaningful, and grand centering was used for Level-2 predictors. To test overall whether participants’ personal values and the two sets of perceived normative values predict their value socialization preference (Hypotheses 1 and 2), a random-coefficient model was constructed. The Level-1 equation contained personal values and the two sets of perceived norms as predictors. The slopes of these predictors were allowed to vary randomly. The Level-2 equations contained no predictor.

Level-1 equation:

\begin{array}{l} {Value socialization preference}_{i j} = β_{0 j} + β_{1 j} (personal values) + β_{2 j} (perceived normative values in the settlement society) + \\ β_{3 j} (perceived normative values in the ethnic society) + r_{i j} . \end{array}

Level-2 equations:

β_{0 j} = γ_{00} + u_{0 j},

β_{1 j} = γ_{10} + u_{1 j},

β_{2 j} = γ_{20} + u_{2 j},

β_{3 j} = γ_{30} + u_{3 j} .

Table 2 shows the results. Consistent with the “fax” model, the slope of personal values was significant. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the slope of perceived norms in the settlement society was significant. In addition, in line with Hypothesis 2, the slope of perceived norms in the ethnic society was also significant. The three sets of values together explained 43.44% of the variance in value socialization preference. In all, these findings show that on average our participants constructed their value socialization preference with reference to not only their personal values but also normative values in the settlement society and the ethnic society.

Table 2.

Results of the Random-Coefficient Models in Studies 1 and 2.

	γ (SE)/u	p
Study 1
Intercept, β_0j
Intercept, γ₀₀	2.18 (.23)	<.001
u_0j	2.46	<.001
Slope of personal values, β_1j
Intercept, γ₁₀	0.40 (.04)	<.001
u_1j	0.09	<.001
Slope of perceived normative values in the settlement society, β_2j
Intercept, γ₂₀	0.05 (.02)	.009
u_2j	0.01	.01
Slope of perceived normative values in the ethnic society, β_3j
Intercept, γ₃₀	0.08 (.03)	.01
u_3j	0.03	<.001
Study 2
Intercept, β_0j
Intercept, γ₀₀	1.63 (.15)	<.001
u_0j	0.96	<.001
Slope of personal values, β_1j
Intercept, γ₁₀	0.31 (.03)	<.001
u_1j	0.03	<.001
Slope of perceived normative values in the settlement society, β_2j
Intercept, γ₂₀	0.14 (.03)	<.001
u_2j	0.02	.001
Slope of perceived normative values in the ethnic society, β_3j
Intercept, γ₃₀	0.09 (.03)	.004
u_3j	0.03	<.001

The variances of the slopes of the two sets of perceived norms were significant, indicating that the importance of these norms indeed varied across parents. A preliminary analysis revealed that age, education level, and number of children did not explain such variations, so these variables were not further considered. To test whether parents’ plans about their children’s future explain these variations (Hypotheses 3a and 3b), a slopes-as-outcomes model was constructed. The Level-2 equations for the slopes of the two sets of perceived norms contained parents’ plan related to the respective society. For all Level-2 equations, length of residence in the settlement society was included to control for the effect of immigrant status (see Tam, Lee, et al., 2012).

Level-2 equations:

β_{0 j} = γ_{00} + γ_{01} {(length of residence)}_{j} + u_{0 j},

β_{1 j} = γ_{10} + γ_{11} {(length of residence)}_{j} + u_{1 j},

β_{2 j} = γ_{20} + γ_{21} {(length of residence)}_{j} + γ_{22} {(plan related to the settlement society)}_{j} + u_{2 j},

β_{3 j} = γ_{30} + γ_{31} {(length of residence)}_{j} + γ_{32} {(plan related to the ethnic society)}_{j} + u_{3 j} .

Table 3 shows the results. For the slope of perceived norms in the settlement society, parents’ plan was a positive and marginally significant predictor. For the slope of perceived norms in the ethnic society, parents’ plan was a positive and significant predictor. Parents’ plan uniquely explained 6.69% of the variance in the former and 8.81% of the variance in the latter. These findings suggest that for participants who to a larger extent planned that their children would stay in the settlement society, perceived normative values in that society became more influential. Similarly, for participants who to a larger extent planned that their children would return to the ethnic society, perceived normative values in that society became more influential. These findings support Hypotheses 3a and 3b.

Table 3.

Results of the Slopes-as-Outcomes Model in Studies 1 and 2.

	γ (SE)/u	p
Study 1
Intercept, β_0j
Intercept, γ₀₀	2.18 (.23)	<.001
Length of residence, γ₀₁	0.00 (.02)	.96
u_0j	2.51	<.001
Slope of personal values, β_1j
Intercept, γ₁₀	0.40 (.04)	<.001
Length of residence, γ₁₁	0.00 (.00)	.94
u_1j	0.09	<.001
Slope of perceived normative values in the settlement society, β_2j
Intercept, γ₂₀	0.05 (.02)	.008
Length of residence, γ₂₁	−0.003 (.00)	.06
Plan related to the settlement society, γ₂₂	0.01 (.01)	.07
u_2j	0.01	.01
Slope of perceived normative values in the ethnic society, β_3j
Intercept, γ₃₀	0.08 (.03)	.01
Length of residence, γ₃₁	0.00 (.00)	.68
Plans related to the ethnic society, γ₃₂	0.02 (.01)	.01
u_3j	0.02	<.001
Study 2
Intercept, β_0j
Intercept, γ₀₀	1.67 (.14)	<.001
Length of residence, γ₀₁	−0.03 (.01)	.07
u_0j	0.89	<.001
Slope of personal values, β_1j
Intercept, γ₁₀	0.31 (.03)	<.001
Length of residence, γ₁₁	0.00 (.00)	.15
u_1j	0.03	<.001
Slope of perceived normative values in the settlement society, β_2j
Intercept, γ₂₀	0.13 (.03)	<.001
Length of residence, γ₂₁	0.00 (.00)	.74
Plan related to the settlement society, γ₂₂	0.03 (.01)	.001
National identity, γ₂₃	0.00 (.01)	.55
u_2j	0.02	.001
Slope of perceived normative values in the ethnic society, β_3j
Intercept, γ₃₀	0.08 (.03)	.006
Length of residence, γ₃₁	0.00 (.00)	.35
Plan related to the ethnic society, γ₃₂	0.00 (.01)	.91
Ethnic identity, γ₃₃	0.02 (.01)	.05
u_3j	0.03	<.001

Study 2

Method

Sixty-seven ethnic minority mothers in Hong Kong participated. Their ethnic origin included Pakistan (32 participants; 47.76%) and Thailand (35; 52.25%). Eight participants (11.94%) were born in Hong Kong, and the remaining ones (88.96%) were born in the ethnic society. Their length of residence in Hong Kong ranged from 1 to 40 years (M = 15.99 and SD = 9.43). Their age ranged from 21 to 69 years (M = 42.02 and SD = 10.91). The number of children they had ranged from one to six (M = 2.52 and SD = 1.25). In terms of the highest education level obtained, 23 participants (34.33%) reported primary school, 24 (35.82) middle school, 15 (22.39%) college/university, one (1.49%) a master’s degree, and one (1.49%) a doctoral degree. Three participants (4.48%) did not report their education level.

Initial discussion with the helping organizations revealed that some prospective participants might not understand English. Thus, the participants were allowed to choose the language of their preference. The Pakistani and Thai versions were constructed through the standard translation and back-translation procedures. Because identity measures were added to this study, to avoid lengthening the questionnaire, a shorter, 20-item list of values was used. For each of the 10 value types, two values that had most consistent meaning across cultures were selected (see Schwartz, 1994).⁴ The participants reported their personal values, perceived norms in the settlement society, perceived norms in the ethnic society, and value socialization preference. The participants provided their responses on a 5-point scale (0 = not important at all to 4 = extremely important). The participants also responded to four items regarding their plans about their children’s future. Two items were about the settlement society: “I want my children to stay in Hong Kong when they have grown up” and “Considering the reality, I guess my children will most likely stay in Hong Kong when they have grown up” (α = .89). The other two items were about the ethnic society (α = .91). The participants responded on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The participants’ ethnic identity was measured with nine items (α = .95). Three items concerned centrality of the identity to the self: “In general, being a Pakistani/Thai is an important part of my self-image,” “When I introduce myself to others, I would say I am a Pakistani/Thai,” and “Being a Pakistani/Thai is an important reflection of who I am.” Three items concerned evaluation of the identity: “In general, I am glad to be a Pakistani/Thai,” “I am proud to be a Pakistani/Thai,” and “I feel good about Pakistanis/Thais.” Three items concerned commitment and attachment to the ethnic group: “I have a strong sense of belonging to other Pakistanis/Thais,” “I feel connected to other Pakistanis/Thais,” and “I feel close to other Pakistanis/Thais.” These items were written with reference to past studies on ethnic identity and collective identity (e.g., Cameron, 2004; Sellers et al., 1997). The participants responded to these items on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The participants also responded to these items with reference to national identity (α = .92).

Results and Discussion

Table 1 shows the inter-correlations of the participants’ characteristics. Most significant correlations concerned the demographic variables. The negative correlation between the two plans regarding children’s future found in Study 1 was again observed. Also, ethnic identity was positively correlated with both plans.

A random-coefficient model was constructed to test Hypotheses 1 and 2. The results replicate those in Study 1 (see Table 2). The slope of personal values was significant. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the slope of perceived norms in the settlement society was significant. In addition, in line with Hypothesis 2, the slope of perceived norms in the ethnic society was also significant. These three sets of values together explained 35.09% of the variance in value socialization preference. In all, as in Study 1, our participants on average constructed their value socialization preference with reference to not only their own values but also values they considered to be prevalent in the settlement society and the ethnic society.

Again, the variances of the slopes of the two sets of perceived norms were significant (see Table 2), indicating that the importance of these norms varied across parents. Age, education level, and number of children did not explain such variations, so these variables were not further considered. A slopes-as-outcomes model was constructed to test whether these variations can be explained by parents’ plans about their children’s future (Hypotheses 3a and 3b), their ethnic identity (Hypothesis 4), and national identity. The Level-2 equations for the slopes of the two sets of perceived norms contained parents’ plan and identity related to the respective society. For all Level-2 equations, length of residence in the settlement society was included as a control (see Tam, Lee, et al., 2012).

Level-2 equations:

β_{0 j} = γ_{00} + γ_{01} {(length of residence)}_{j} + u_{0 j},

β_{1 j} = γ_{10} + γ_{11} {(length of residence)}_{j} + u_{1 j},

β_{2 j} = γ_{20} + γ_{21} {(length of residence)}_{j} + γ_{22} {(plan related to the settlement society)}_{j} + γ_{23} {(national identity)}_{j} + u_{2 j},

β_{3 j} = γ_{30} + γ_{31} {(length of residence)}_{j} + γ_{32} {(plan related to the ethnic society)}_{j} + γ_{33} {(ethnic identity)}_{j} + u_{3 j} .

Table 3 shows the results. For the slope of perceived norms in the settlement society, plan was a positive and significant predictor, whereas national identity was non-significant. For the slope of perceived norms in the ethnic society, ethnic identity was a positive and significant predictor, whereas plan was non-significant. The two variables together explained 24.34% of the variance in the slope of perceived norms in the settlement society and 18.37% of the variance in the slope of perceived norms in the ethnic society. These findings show that for participants who to a larger extent planned that their children would stay in the settlement society, perceived norms in that society became more influential in their value socialization preference. This is consistent with Hypothesis 3a and replicates what we found in Study 1. However, parents’ plan regarding the ethnic society was not significant; unlike Study 1, Hypothesis 3b was not supported. For participants who had a stronger ethnic identity, perceived norms in the ethnic society became more influential. This supports Hypothesis 4. National identity appeared to be unimportant, consistent with some past findings (Knight, Bernal, Cota, et al., 1993a; Romero et al., 2000).

General Discussion

Our proposed extension of the intersubjective model of value transmission suggests that when socializing children, ethnic minority parents refer to not only their personal values but also values they perceive to be normative in the settlement society and the ethnic society, respectively (Hypotheses 1 and 2). This suggestion receives robust support in both studies. Furthermore, we argue that the role of these two sets of perceived norms is moderated by parents’ plans about their children’s future (Hypotheses 3a and 3b). Indeed, as shown in both studies, our participants were more likely to emphasize values of the settlement society when they to a larger extent agreed that their children would stay in this society in future. Also, these parents were more likely to transmit values of the ethnic society when they more strongly agreed that their children would return to this society; this pattern appears to be less robust, however, as it was found in Study 1 only. Parents’ ethnic identity plays a significant role too (Hypothesis 4). Specifically, the role of perceived normative values in the ethnic society was particularly pronounced among participants who strongly identified with the ethnic group. As in some past studies (e.g., Romero et al., 2000), we found that national identity is unimportant. It seems that parents’ chief concern in transmitting values that are normatively important in the mainstream culture is to help children adapt to the settlement society; their own sense of identification or belonging toward that society is not relevant.

In conclusion, our proposed extension of the intersubjective model is mostly supported, as summarized in Figure 1. In the following, we discuss the contributions of this extended model to the understanding of value socialization and the psychology of culture. We also propose some future research directions and discuss some limitations of the present research.

Contributions to Understanding Value Socialization

As the world is increasingly globalized, more and more families now face a bicultural situation. The value socialization practice in these families involves dual cultural orientations—adapting to the mainstream culture and maintaining the heritage culture (Padilla, 2009). A model that aims at understanding this possibility of bicultural value socialization needs to incorporate values in both cultures into the analysis. The extended intersubjective model of value transmission satisfies this requirement. To the best of our knowledge, the present research is the first investigation that simultaneously examines bicultural parents’ personal values and values of both cultures in explaining their value socialization practice.

As noted, the prevalent focus in past value socialization studies was the influence of parents’ own values. This view, or the “fax” model, is incomplete in understanding bicultural value socialization because it overlooks the differentiation between parents’ personal values and their value socialization preference, and does not explicitly consider the dual cultures bicultural families face. What this model can offer is to examine whether the role of parents’ personal values is disrupted or not by their bicultural status (see Knafo & Schwartz, 2001). Assuming that bicultural parents’ personal values represent the prevalent values in their original culture, any disruption in the influence of personal values might be interpreted as an indicator of lessened socialization of the original culture’s values. In this interpretation, the role of values in the mainstream culture is not explicitly identified.

Nevertheless, it is questionable whether the value system of an individual can really be taken as representation of a certain culture because most people are influenced by the cultures of multiple groups simultaneously (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). It seems more reasonable to differentiate personal values from cultural values (Chiu et al., 2010; Fischer et al., 2009; Zou et al., 2009). With such differentiation, the influence of bicultural parents’ personal values can be isolated from the influence of values in their heritage culture. The extended intersubjective model makes this needed differentiation and thereby explicitly introduces the dual cultures of bicultural families into the analysis. In this model, parents are considered to be cultural middlemen. They are cognizant of what values are normatively important in the society that is relevant to their children’s future and accordingly transmit these values to their children so as to help them become an adaptive society member. They are also cognizant of what values are normative in their heritage society and accordingly emphasize these values when they socialize their children to preserve the heritage culture in the next generation.

The comprehensiveness of the extended intersubjective model allows researchers to directly estimate the contribution of every set of values that is relevant. Researchers can flexibly modify the model for any bicultural or even multicultural situation. For instance, prevalent values could vary across regions within the same country. Accordingly, a researcher might investigate the influence of different regional cultures on value socialization in families who migrate from one area to another (e.g., rural region and urban region in China; Chen, Bian, Xin, Wang, & Silbereisen, 2010) by measuring parents’ perceptions of normative values in these different regions. Besides, to understand value socialization in families with intercultural couples, a researcher can investigate the importance of participants’ perceptions of values that are normative in the mother’s culture and the father’s culture, respectively.

The extended intersubjective model also allows researchers to test any factors that might enhance or inhibit parents’ emphasis of normative values in their socialization practice. This can be achieved by measuring such factors and testing their moderating effects as Level-2 predictors. Thus far, the effects of parents’ personality, ethnic identity, and plans about children’s future destination have been identified. It is noteworthy that in both Studies 1 and 2, the variances of the slopes of the dual sets of perceived norms were still significant after taking the participants’ plans about children’s future destination and ethnic or national identity into account. This implies that there is a need for future studies to identify the role of other factors. For instance, families that are more resourceful (e.g., wealthier families) may enjoy a higher level of residential mobility. Past studies have shown that residential mobility is associated with the primacy of the personal self over the collective self (Oishi, 2010). Thus, parents in these families might be less interested in transmitting culturally normative values to their children and instead emphasize their own values to a larger extent. Besides, past acculturation studies have shown that when acculturating individuals experience rejection from the settlement society, they are likely to reject them in return and become more oriented toward their heritage group (Berry et al., 2006). This reaction might manifest in how parents socialize their children too. For bicultural parents who experience discrimination, they may become less interested in transmitting values that are normative in the settlement society and emphasize values of their original culture to a larger extent. Future studies may utilize the multi-level analytic approach to examine these factors or other hypothesized factors alike.

Contributions to the Psychology of Culture

Informed by the normative approaches in cultural psychology (Chiu et al., 2010; Fischer et al., 2009; Gelfand et al., 2011), various studies have shown that perceived norms influence a range of behaviors and explain cross-cultural differences in such behaviors (e.g., Tam, Leung, et al., 2012; Zou et al., 2009). The present research adds to these recent theoretical advances by showing that perceived cultural norms influence parents’ value socialization practice too. Furthermore, it affirms the notion that the influence of perceived norms is goal directed. Parents refer to their perceptions of norms so as to attain certain goals, such as to help their children adapt to society, to preserve their heritage culture in a new cultural environment, and to affirm their sense of pride and belonging toward the ethnic group.

Parent-to-child value transmission is a channel of cultural transmission (Schönpflug, 2001). Thus, the extended intersubjective model contributes to the understanding of cultural transmission too. Three contributions are worth mentioning. The first one concerns the selectivity behind cultural transmission. It is widely accepted that cultural transmission is selective; not all cultural ideas are transmitted (Campbell, 1975). However, what are the criteria for this selectivity? Viewed from the cultural self perspective (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991), ideas that are widely internalized by cultural members are transmitted to other members and thus retained in the culture. The extended intersubjective model demonstrates an additional basis of selectivity: Ideas that are widely perceived to be normative by cultural members persist in the culture (see Chiu et al., 2010). Second, the extended intersubjective model testifies to the view that cultural transmission is not bounded by geographical boundaries (see Berry, 2008). Cultures flow across borders. Ideas of a culture can persist across generations even in a locale that is outside its original soil as long as its members who reside at that locale are motivated to preserve it. The third contribution concerns other forms of cultural transmission. Cultural transmission could be vertical, horizontal, or oblique (Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman, 1981). Up to date, works derived from the intersubjective model have examined vertical, parent-to-child transmission only. Future extension of the intersubjective model should examine the other forms. Take the context of schools as an example. Some studies showed that school types or teachers’ values do not have any significant effect on students’ values (e.g., Astill, Feather, & Keeves, 2002), while there is significant peer influence (e.g., Solomon & Knafo, 2007). One may conclude from these findings that in schools there is little or even no oblique transmission but only horizontal transmission. Nevertheless, according to the intersubjective model, this conclusion seems premature. The values held by school teachers or administrators may differ from the values they want to transmit to students. It is possible that they construct their teaching with reference to their perceptions of cultural norms rather than their own values because they consider social adaptation or cultural preservation as an important goal of their teaching.

The extended intersubjective model bears implications for understanding globalization too. This model implies that international migrations as a globalization force do not necessarily extinguish ethnic cultures (see Hermans & Kempen, 1998). Undoubtedly, globalization gives rise to more and more cross-border migrations, and most of these migrations are from developing countries to Westernized regions (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2013). For these migrations to really extinguish cultures of migrants’ origin, one has to assume that the migrant populations are concerned solely about assimilation to the Western culture. This assumption has been disputed in acculturation studies already, however (Arnett, 2002; Berry, 2008). Migrants do show concern about the maintenance of their heritage culture and identities. The extended intersubjective model provides an empirical instrument that allows researchers to observe directly migrants’ endeavors in transmitting and upholding their heritage culture. In addition, if we assume that migrant parents are in general successful in influencing their children’s values through their socialization practice (see Tam, Lee, et al., 2012), then we should expect to see in the younger generation cultural hybridization rather than cultural homogenization (Arnett, 2002). Children in migrant families might possess a multicultural mind that embodies both the settlement society’s culture and elements of their ethnic cultures (see Hong, Wan, No, & Chiu, 2007).

Limitations

One limitation of the present research is the relatively small sample size. This limitation raises three issues. First, although the two samples comprised parents of multiple ethnic groups, the number of participants in each ethnic group was too limited to allow a powerful test for any systematic difference across the groups. It is uncertain whether the importance of perceived norms varies across these groups. It is also unclear whether members of these different groups perceive the norms in the settlement society in the same way. In addition, because all but one participant originated from Southern and Central Asian countries, we cannot examine whether our findings apply to ethnic minorities from other Asian regions or other continents. Second, the small sample size means that we have to be cautious about the risk of Type II errors (see Green, 1991). For example, although we found that age, education, and number of children did not moderate the importance of perceived norms, we cannot conclude that these variables are unimportant at all. Third, as Nezlek (2008) noted, when the sample size is small, adding many predictors into a multi-level model may tax the carrying capacity of the data set and thereby generate inaccurate estimates. Thus, for small-sample studies, he advised against including a large number of predictors and suggested that the norm is to build tight, parsimonious models. Following his advice, in both studies, in our Level-2 models, we included the hypothesized factors and controlled for length of residence in the settlement society only. In all, to address these three issues, future studies with much larger, ethnically more diverse samples are obviously needed.

The present research is focused on parents’ preference; it is uncertain how parents actually transmit their preferred values to children. In particular, how do they transmit values that they do not personally endorse but regard as important in the culture and therefore important to be emphasized to children? Future studies may address this question by collecting data regarding parents’ actual socialization behavior. Such data enable us to test a variety of hypotheses. One hypothesis concerns the possibility of collaborative efforts between parents and other socialization agents (e.g., schools, grandparents). As past studies have shown, parents are cognizant of the influence of other socialization agents and they may rely on these agents in socializing their children (Knafo, 2003). It is possible that for values that parents personally endorse, they teach their children mainly by themselves, whereas for values that they see as normatively important but do not personally endorse, they rely on other agents. Another hypothesis concerns parents’ word-deed consistency (Knafo & Schwartz, 2003). For example, when parents do not endorse environmentalism but emphasize its importance when socializing their children (as they consider it to be normatively important), word-deed inconsistency may arise. Such inconsistency may contribute to a low level of acceptance by children (see Knafo, 2003). Testing this hypothesis requires not only data about parents’ socialization behavior but also inclusion of child participants in the study.

Including child participants allows us to assess how effective ethnic minority participants are in transmitting their preferred values to their children and to what extent these children accept these values. Collecting data from children can serve another purpose. Past studies on socialization among acculturating families suggest that parents who emphasize teaching their children things about their ethnic group tend to produce children with better psychosocial outcomes (e.g., academic performance, self-concept, ethnic affirmation, resilience; see Hughes et al., 2006; Neblett, Rivas-Drake, & Umaña-Taylor, 2012). These findings are in line with the link between ethnic orientation and psychological adjustment observed in acculturation studies (Berry et al., 2006). Including child participants in future studies allows researchers to investigate the psychosocial implications of bicultural parents’ value socialization preference. One may test whether bicultural parents’ emphasis on normative values in the ethnic culture is associated with positive adjustment outcomes in their children. Supportive findings to this hypothesis could generate practical suggestions. For examine, if orientation toward the heritage culture in parents’ value socialization practice really generates positive psychosocial outcomes in their children, then public policies should adjust accordingly. For example, the government should encourage the public in the settlement society to be open and show respect toward these families’ cultural maintenance efforts through changes in educational (e.g., intercultural training in schools) and welfare (e.g., intercultural contact programs) institutions.

Focused on parents’ socialization value preference, the present research addresses the influence from parents to children only. It is noteworthy that influence from children to parents is important too (Taris, 2000). For example, Benish-Weisman et al. (2013) found that parents may acknowledge that their children have a unique set of values that differ from their own and they may therefore be willing to adapt their socialization practice in a way that fits their children’s values. Accordingly, future studies may consider further expanding the intersubjective model by including this additional determinant (e.g., parents’ perception of their children’s values) into the analysis. With a longitudinal design, such studies could even examine the very possibility that parents’ value socialization preference and children’s actual values mutually shape each other.

Although the hypothesized pattern was found consistently in both studies, it appears that there are some subtle differences across these studies too. First of all, the slope of personal values seems larger in Study 1 than in Study 2, and the slope for perceived norms in the settlement society seems larger in Study 2 than in Study 1 (see Table 2). These differences were found to be statistically significant in a supplementary analysis that used a combined data set (including only the 17 values that had been used in both studies) and treated Study as a dummy predictor (0 = Study 1 and 1 = Study 2) at Level-2. The slope of personal values was indeed larger in Study 1 (γ = −.09, SE = .04, p = .007), and the slope of perceived norms in the settlement society was indeed larger in Study 2 (γ = .08, SE = .03, p = .02). The slope of perceived norms in the ethnic society did not differ across the two studies (γ = .01, SE = .04, p = .89). To what extent are these differences attributable to the fact that more educated individuals (e.g., Study 1 participants) are less reliant on norms (see Tam, Lee, et al., 2012), or the fact that males (e.g., Study 1 participants) in general are more independent than females (see Cross & Madson, 1997)? Is it possible that Thais in Hong Kong, who were more represented in Study 2, are more concerned about norms as compared with other ethnic groups? Another difference observed across the two studies is that the moderating role of parents’ plan about their children’s future with regard to the ethnic society was significant in Study 1 but not in Study 2 (see Table 3). To what extent is this difference attributable to the fact that Study 2 participants were in general much weaker in this plan (see Table 1)? What account for the difference in this plan across the two samples in the first place? Unfortunately, at the moment, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact reason for the cross-study differences just named because the two samples differed in multiple respects (education, gender, ethnic group composition, etc.). Identifying the exact explanation requires not only a much larger sample, as noted earlier, but also more systematic sampling (so as to obtain enough observations from each ethnic group and each education level and to have both mothers and fathers from the same families as participants and their independence measured).

In the present research, our interest was on parents’ transmission preference regarding a broad spectrum of values. We believe that it would be interesting to explore if our results are moderated by value types (i.e., if the importance of personal values or perceived normative values is stronger for certain value types than others).⁵ For example, one may hypothesize that parents’ personal endorsement plays a more significant role for the socialization of individualistic or agentic value types (e.g., achievement) than collectivistic or communal ones. To test this hypothesis, one needs to construct a multi-level model for each value type and then observe whether the pattern differs across value types. A prerequisite for this analysis is that for each value type, there are sufficient observations within each participant. Unfortunately, this prerequisite cannot be met in the present studies, as each value type was represented by just very few items. To pursue this direction, we suggest that future studies focus on just a few value types, and for each value type include a large number of items.

Conclusion

Parents are cultural middlemen. Bicultural parents understand that they need to socialize their children with reference to not only their personal values but also values that are important in the dual cultures. We believe that this perspective represents a useful tool for researchers to examine the intricate dynamics in bicultural and even multicultural families’ socialization practice. It also offers insights for the understanding of various culture-related psychological issues, including behavioral influence of perceived cultural norms, cultural transmission, and effects of globalization.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The work described in this article was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. HKUST641513).

Notes

References

Alwin

(1988). From obedience to autonomy: Changes in traits desired in children, 1924-1978. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 33-52.

Arnett

J. J.

(2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57, 774-783.

Astill

B. R.

Feather

N. T.

Keeves

J. P.

(2002). A multilevel analysis of the effects of parents, teachers and schools on student values. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 345-363.

Benish-Weisman

Levy

Knafo

(2013). Parents differentiate between their personal values and their socialization values: The role of adolescents’ values. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 614-620.

Bernard

M. M.

Gebauer

J. E.

Maio

G. R.

(2006). Cultural estrangement: The role of personal and societal value discrepancies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 78-92.

Berry

J. W.

(2008). Globalisation and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 328-336.

Berry

J. W.

Georgas

(2009). An ecocultural perspective on cultural transmission: The families across cultures. In Schönpflug

(Ed.), Cultural transmission (pp. 95-126). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Berry

J. W.

Phinney

J. S.

Sam

D. L.

Vedder

(2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55, 303-332.

Cameron

J. E.

(2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239-262.

10.

Campbell

D. T.

(1975). On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition. American Psychologist, 30, 1103-1126.

11.

Cavalli-Sforza

L. L.

Feldman

M. W.

(1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

12.

Chen

Bian

Xin

Wang

Silbereisen

R. K.

(2010). Perceived social change and childrearing attitudes in China. European Psychologist, 15, 260-270.

13.

Chiu

C.-Y.

Gelfand

M. J.

Yamagishi

Shteynberg

Wan

(2010). Intersubjective culture: The role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 482-493.

14.

Cialdini

R. B.

Kallgren

C. A.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 1-243.

15.

Cross

S. E.

Madson

(1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.

16.

Fischer

Ferreira

M. C.

Assmar

Redford

Harb

Glazer

Achoui

(2009). Individualism-collectivism as descriptive norms: Development of a subjective norm approach to culture measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 187-213.

17.

Gelfand

M. J.

Lun

Lyons

Shteynberg

(2011). Descriptive norms as carriers of culture in negotiation. International Negotiation, 16, 361-381.

18.

Green

S. B.

(1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499-510.

19.

Grolnick

W. S.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In Grusec

J. E.

Kuczynski

(Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135-161). New York, NY: Wiley.

20.

Hermans

H. J.

Kempen

H. J.

(1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53, 1111-1120.

21.

Hogg

M. A.

(2003). Social identity. In Leary

M. R.

Tangney

J. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 462-479). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

22.

Hong

Y.-Y.

Wan

Chiu

C.-Y.

(2007). Multicultural identities. In Kitayama

Cohen

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 323-345). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

23.

Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. (2012). Thematic report: Ethnic minorities. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

24.

Hughes

Rodriguez

Smith

E. P.

Johnson

D. J.

Stevenson

H. C.

Spicer

(2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747-770.

25.

Knafo

(2003). Contexts, relationship quality, and family value socialization: The case of parent-school ideological fit in Israel. Personal Relationships, 10, 371-388.

26.

Knafo

Schwartz

S. H.

(2001). Value socialization in families of Israeli-born and soviet-born adolescents in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 213-228.

27.

Knafo

Schwartz

S. H.

(2003). Parenting and adolescents’ accuracy in perceiving parental values. Child Development, 74, 595-611.

28.

Knight

G. P.

Bernal

M. E.

Cota

M. K.

Garza

C. A.

Ocampo

K. A.

(1993). Family Mexican-American identity and behavior. In Bernal

M. E.

Knight

G. P.

(Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 105-129). New York: State University of New York Press.

29.

Knight

G. P.

Bernal

M. E.

Garza

C. A.

Cota

M. K.

Ocampo

K. A.

(1993). Family socialization and the ethnic identity of Mexican-American children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 99-114.

30.

Kuczynski

Marshall

Schell

(1997). Value socialization in a bidirectional context. In Grusec

J. E.

Kuczynski

(Eds.), Parenting and the internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 23-50). New York, NY: Wiley.

31.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

32.

Neblett

E. W.

Jr. Rivas-Drake

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2012). The promise of racial and ethnic protective factors in promoting ethnic minority youth development. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 295-303.

33.

Nezlek

J. B.

(2008). An introduction to multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 842-860.

34.

Oishi

(2010). The psychology of residential mobility: Implications for the self, social relationships, and well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 5-21.

35.

Padilla

A. M.

(2009). Developmental processes related to intergenerational transmission of culture: Growing up with two cultures. In Schönpflug

(Ed.), Cultural transmission (pp. 185-211). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Phinney

J. S.

Ong

A. D.

(2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 271-281.

37.

Roccas

Brewer

M. B.

(2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88-106.

38.

Rohan

M. J.

Zanna

M. P.

(1996). Value transmission in families. In Seligman

Olson

J. M.

Zanna

M. P.

(Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 253-276). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

39.

Romero

A. J.

Cuéllar

Roberts

R. E.

(2000). Ethnocultural variables and attitudes toward cultural socialization of children. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 79-89.

40.

Schönpflug

(2001). Intergenerational transmission of values: The role of transmission belts. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 174-185.

41.

Schönpflug

(2009). Cultural transmission. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York, NY: Academic Press.

43.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.

44.

Sellers

R. M.

Rowley

S. A.

Chavous

T. M.

Shelton

J. N.

Smith

M. A.

(1997). Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 805-815.

45.

Solomon

Knafo

(2007). Value similarity in adolescent friendships. In Rhodes

T. C.

(Ed.), Focus on adolescent behavioral research (pp. 133-155). New York, NY: Nova Science.

46.

Tam

K.-P.

Lee

S.-L.

(2010). What values do parents want to socialize in their children: The role of perceived normative values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 175-181.

47.

Tam

K.-P.

Lee

S.-L.

Kim

Y.-H.

Chao

M. M.

(2012). Intersubjective model of value transmission: Parents using perceived norms as reference when socializing children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1041-1052.

48.

Tam

K.-P.

Leung

A. K. Y.

Kim

Y. H.

Chiu

C. Y.

Lau

I. Y. M.

A. K.

(2012). The better-than-average effect in Hong Kong and the United States: The role of personal trait importance and cultural trait importance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 915-930.

49.

Taris

T. W.

(2000). Quality of mother-child interaction and intergenerational transmission of sexual values: A panel study. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161, 169-181.

50.

Trommsdorff

(2009). Intergenerational relations and cultural transmission. In Schönpflug

(Ed.), Cultural transmission (pp. 126-160). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

51.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2013). International migration report 2013. New York, NY: United Nations.

52.

Whitbeck

L. B.

Gecas

(1988). Value attributions and value transmission between parents and children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 829-840.

53.

Zou

Tam

K.-P.

Morris

M. W.

Lee

S.-L.

Lau

I. Y. M.

Chiu

C.-Y.

(2009). Culture as common sense: Perceived consensus versus personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 579-597.