Family Change Theory: Modernization Synthesizes Eastern & Western Family Models

Families evolve at multiple levels.

At least, that’s what Kagitcibasi’s (2007) family change theory suggests.

These levels are defined by cultural orientations, living conditions, and family structures.

Before we delve into this recent research, let’s define the levels of Family Change Theory.

Levels of Family Change Theory

  • Level 1: The first level involves the overall cultural orientation and socio-ecological conditions. Whether it’s individualism versus collectivism or the urban-rural divide, these factors shape the very fabric of family structures (i.e. the close-knit extended families of collectivist societies or the independent nuclear families of individualistic cultures).
  • Level 2: The second level is the heart of family change theory. Here, the structure of families, according to their cultural and socio-economic factors, is centric. From high or low fertility rates to the presence of material and emotional interdependencies, these aspects create certain cultural family dynamics.
  • Level 3: The third level involves the family systems. Here, parents’ socialization values and practices sculpt the developing self and value orientations of their children. The essential distinction between material and emotional interdependencies becomes apparent. In this model, emotional closeness and relationship orientation remain the same, while personal autonomy, no longer a threat, rises according to the modern work environment.

The Study & the Model of Emotional Interdependence

This study focuses on the last level of Family Change Theory: the model of emotional interdependence.

In independent Western cultures, autonomy reigns supreme.

Material and emotional interdependencies are de-emphasized, as modern social security systems offer economic independence.

Meanwhile, across the vast non-Western, collectivist territories, the family model of (total) interdependence thrives. 

Here, extended families and high fertility levels abound. 

Children are valued for both emotional and utilitarian reasons, shouldering the responsibility of supporting the family and caring for their elders. 

Material and emotional interdependencies reign, as personal autonomy takes a backseat.

The model of emotional interdependence, on the other hand, is a synthesis of these contrasting models.

As modernization processes sweep through interdependent family cultures, material interdependencies wane, and traditional hierarchies crumble. 

Yet, emotional closeness and relationship orientation remain, fostering a balance where personal autonomy coexists harmoniously with family bonds.

Results

Using these models, researchers studied two generations of three diverse cultures – Germany, Turkey, and India.

A total of 919 mother-adolescent dyads were submitted to the study.

Three distinct clusters were revealed, each representing a distinct family model: independence, interdependence, and the synthesis of the two, emotional interdependence. 

The discovery of this emotionally interdependent value pattern was an empirically groundbreaking validation of family change theory.

The second significant revelation came from the comparisons across cultures, social strata, and regions within Turkey and India. 

As anticipated by family change theory, the preferences for these family models differed significantly among the three cultures and even within regions and generations. 

The allure of specific family models appeared to be influenced by cultural backgrounds and the ever-evolving societal landscape.

The third key insight emerged from the examination of intergenerational value similarity within families. 

The study revealed that while there was significant similarity in family models across cultures, the level of generational resemblance was not extraordinarily high. 

This suggests that family models are subject to relative transmission within individual families, offering insights into the complexities of cultural stability and change.

However, what truly captivated the researchers was the family model of emotional interdependence. 

It blended emotional and material interdependencies, presenting a compelling transitional phenomenon. 

In this model, family members emphasized strong emotional bonds, while material interdependencies (and traditional hierarchies) seemed to wane due to the impact of modernization processes. 

This balance of emotional closeness and rising autonomy orientation challenged conventional assumptions, hinting at the possibility of evolving family dynamics.

While the cross-sectional design of the study presented some limitations, it offered a fascinating glimpse into the cultural traditions and societal changes within families. 

The intriguing question of whether the family model of emotional interdependence might eventually lead to the independent family model opens up new horizons for future research.

Cultural Mirrors: Behaviors and Self-Views Across Borders

What shapes us?

Self-construal theory (Markus and Kitayama, 1991) poses that our feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are shaped by the tapestry of cultural self-views. 

Two dimensions emerge: the independent and interdependent self-construals.

These construals are the basis for this cross-cultural comparison of behaviors of Japanese, Australian, and Canadian university students.

These three groups were asked to complete an independent and interdependent cultural self construal scale.

After a week, they rated their past behavior.

The findings reveal a compelling pattern.

Cultural Heritage

The interdependent behavior score exhibits a positive correlation with interdependent self-construal scores, while displaying a negative correlation with independent self-construal scores.

Japanese participants, true to their cultural heritage, report a greater inclination toward interdependent behaviors than their Canadian and European Australian counterparts. 

Yet, within the Canadian context, the plot thickens. 

Asian Canadians, with their unique fusion of cultural influences, exhibit a stronger tendency toward interdependence than their European Canadian peers. 

These revelations support Markus and Kitayama’s cultural self-construal hypothesis.

However, there’s a twist. 

The self-view measures, while expected to follow suit, defied the study’s hypothesis. 

European Canadians and European Australians, as anticipated, perceive themselves as more independent than their Japanese counterparts. 

Yet, surprisingly, Canadians lean toward interdependence more than their Japanese counterparts.

However, the study’s authors believe the divergence lies within the very structure of their questionnaires. 

Potential Flaw in the Study

The behavioral measure, rooted in tangible actions and future probabilities, stands as a reflection of actual performance. 

It requires no comparison against others, delivering a raw and authentic portrayal. 

Conversely, the self-construal measures ask participants to assess the extent to which they embody certain tendencies, lacking an objective reference point. 

To top it off, social comparison creeps in, complicating matters.

For instance, in a situation of conflict-avoidance: How can one respond without drawing upon the comparisons embedded within their own social fabric? 

A statement such as “I avoid having conflicts with members of my group” demands a comparison of one’s conflict-avoidance against others’. 

When the behaviors of others differ across cultures, biases infiltrate our cross-cultural means of self-rating scales. 

Such is the nature of the “reference group effect.”.

The Self

Still, the results pertaining to the self-construal scales may indeed reflect genuine perceptions of how the self is viewed in different cultures. 

Levine and colleagues discovered that Westerners showcased greater independence than their East Asian counterparts, though the level of interdependence did not follow the anticipated trajectory.

Japan in a national-level transition is a collision of individualism and collectivism, tradition and modernity. 

While the Japanese continue to behave in interdependent ways, their self-view rebels against the interdependence they embody. 

How Does Personal Control & Relationship Strain Affect Well-Being in Independent/Interdependent Cultures

Do you feel personal control contributes most to your health and well-being?

How does relational strain come into play?

To investigate the relationship between culture and well-being, a cross-cultural survey was conducted, focusing on two hypotheses and the two very different cultures of Japan and America

The Hypotheses

The first hypothesis suggests that individuals are influenced by the predominant cultural norms of either independence (emphasizing personal control) in the United States or interdependence (emphasizing relational harmony) in Japan.

The second hypothesis proposes that individuals attain well-being and health by aligning with the cultural mandates of their respective societies. 

Ethnocentricity & Previous Studies

Previous studies, predominantly conducted in North America, have consistently found that personal control and mastery are strong predictors of well-being and health (Lachman and Weaver, 1998; Schneiderman et al., 2001). 

However, this may be a somewhat ethnocentric view.

The present research, utilizing diverse age groups from both the United States and Japan, reveals that the impact of these factors is contingent on cultural context

While biological factors certainly play a role in health, this survey highlights the significant influence of culture-specific psychological variables, such as personal control and relational harmony or strain, on various health outcomes.

The Results

Consistent with the first hypothesis, it was found that Americans who felt their personal control was compromised and Japanese individuals experiencing strained relationships reported higher levels of perceived constraint.

As expected, the study revealed that the strongest predictor of well-being and health in the United States was personal control, whereas in Japan, the absence of relational strain played a significant role.

The data revealed relatively small but statistically significant effects of relational harmony or relational strain on wellbeing and health among Americans. 

The overall results highlight the existence of culturally distinct pathways to achieving positive life outcomes.

In the United States, personal control emerges as a crucial factor, whereas in Japan, the absence of relational strain is key. 

These findings underscore the influence of cultural values on individual well-being and emphasize the importance of understanding cultural nuances when studying and promoting positive life outcomes.

Does Emotional Support Positively Benefit Well-Being? That May Depend on Culture

When you hear “emotional support,” you might think of positive actions like understanding, encouragement, compassion, and comfort.

Emotional support is commonly seen as essential for forming and maintaining friendships, providing a sense of help, tangible support, and self-worth. 

Existing studies have highlighted the positive impact of emotional support on health and well-being, emphasizing its role in combating loneliness and improving overall health outcomes.

Interestingly, some researchers have found that the perception of emotional support does not always lead to positive effects on subjective well-being and can even have adverse effects. 

According to Fisher et al. (1982)

“Recipients of support often ‘experience negative consequences including feelings of failure, inferiority, and dependency’ and thus ‘in many instances “[they] bite the hands that feed them”’ (p. 27).”

This apparent contradiction prompted this study published by sage, exploring the cultural underpinnings of the benefits or absence of benefits associated with perceived emotional support.

Independence-Interdependence Theory

Drawing on the independence-interdependence theory of cultural self, the researchers argue that in cultures that value independence, the direct link between perceived emotional support and well-being may be compromised. 

This is because perceiving oneself as dependent on support can conflict with the importance placed on independence. 

On the other hand, in cultures that prioritize interdependence, perceived emotional support is expected to have clear and positive effects on well-being.

To test this hypothesis, the study examines subjective well-being and reported physical health among college students (Study 1) and nonstudent adults (Study 2). 

By considering different cultural contexts, the research aims to shed light on the role of culture in shaping the effectiveness of perceived emotional support in promoting well-being.

The Study

Study 1 found that among Euro-American college students, the positive effect of perceived emotional support on subjective well-being was weak and virtually nonexistent once self-esteem was taken into account. 

On the other hand, in testing Japanese and Filipinos in Asia, even after controlling for self-esteem, perceived emotional support positively predicted subjective well-being

Study 2 extended the research by examining Japanese and American adults in midlife. 

The results supported Study 1.

The evidence suggests that cultural orientations towards independence or interdependence influence the way individuals perceive and benefit from emotional support. 

Those cultures that are more interdependent are more likely to benefit from perceived emotional support in terms of well-being and physical health.

These findings have implications for understanding the role of cultural context in shaping social support processes and interventions to promote well-being.

Does Individualism Corrode Social Capital? Find Out Here

Would you require more social capital and cultural capital to succeed in an individualist country? Or less?

Do you think the individualist system or the collectivist system is more conducive to social cohesion?

There is a debate among theorists about whether individualism poses a threat to a society’s cohesion and communal association or whether it aids the development of social solidarity and cooperation

Some argue that the growth of individuality, autonomy, and self-sufficiency is essential for a healthy society, while others argue that excessive individualism undermines social ties and leads to a breakdown of community.

This study by Anu Realo and Jüri Allik suggests the opposite is true. 

Let’s take a look.

Individualism-Collectivism & Social Capital

Social capital and individualism-collectivism (IC) are two important constructs that have been studied extensively in the social sciences. 

As we outlined in a previous post, social capital refers to the networks, norms, and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation among individuals and groups.

We’ve also extensively discussed IC – the degree to which people prioritize their own goals and interests versus those of the group.

Despite the seemingly contradictory nature of individualism and social ties, research on the relationship between social capital and IC suggests that there is a positive association between the two constructs. 

Individualism & Trust

Countries with higher levels of social capital are more individualistic, which suggests that independence and freedom to pursue one’s personal goals are of value to social capital. 

This is because social capital is based on trust, and trust is more likely to form in societies that value individual autonomy and self-determination.

Those societies in which trust is limited to only nuclear family or kinship have lower levels of social capital. 

Social capital is not evenly distributed within societies and can vary depending on the size of social networks and the degree of trust within them.

Social Capital Not at Odds with Individualism

To put it simply, social capital and individualism are not necessarily at odds. 

Instead, promoting social capital through policies that strengthen relationships and trust – such as investments in education, infrastructure, and community development – can help to build stronger communities, even in societies that value individual autonomy.