3 PSYCHOLOGY

”l
e56 in Singapore also shows the
)hfi6d in parental teachings about Chapter 1
it of the sun/eyed parents agreed
:irnacy in front of their children.
their Children for their behaviour
z Singaporean Chinese parents.
Filial Piety and Its Psychological
Consequences
ON David Y. F. HO

ialization in China, Taiwan, and

irents, despite geographical sepa—
many basic values and practices. Confucian filial piety provides an example of culturally defined intergenera—
avelop a moral Character, such as tional relationships par excellence. Although some of its component ideas
hing harmonious social relations. (obedience, for example) are shared by other cultures, filial piety surpasses all
school, and expect adults to set other ethics in its historical continuity, the proportion of humanity under its
g parents today may not be harsh governance, and the encompassing and imperative nature of its precepts. The
t to obey, to act on parents’ com— attributes of intergenerational relationships governed by filial piety are struc—
tural, enduring, and invariable across situations Within Chinese culture. They
that Chinese parents in Honolulu may be generalized to apply to authority relationships beyond the family, and
aration Chinese—Americans) main- they are thus potent determinants of not only intergenerational but also supe—
tildren to obey and respect their rior—subordinate interactions.
ch findings from Los Angeles are For centuries, filial piety has served as a guiding principle governing gener—
groups of parents, ethnic Chinese al Chinese patterns of socialization, as well as specific rules of intergenerational
evidence, answers to 57 survey conduct, applicable throughout the length of one’s life span (D. Y. F. Ho, 1987).
‘acculturation’
g both the subjects’ It prescribes how children should behave towards their parents, living or dead,
:e’ of Chinese traditions. Despite as well as towards their ancestors. It makes stringent demands: that one should
1g with their European—American
provide for the material and mental well—being of one’s aged parents, perform
rto socialization remains quite dif— ceremonial duties of ancestral worship, take care to avoid harm to one’s body,
zsearcher‘s discovered that in Los ensure the continuity of the family line, and in general conduct oneself so as to
:uration of child—rearing attitudes bring honour and avoid disgrace to the family name.
)ort that they value doing well for Filial piety justifies absolute parental authority over children and, by exten-
ss and discipline that support par— sion, the authority of those senior in generational rank over those junior in
rank. The veneration of the aged, for which Chinese society has long been
common belief that Chinese tradi— renowned, also owes its ethical basis to filial piety. Filial obligations, both
rl continuity (see Bond, 1988-, Hsu, material and spiritual, are overriding in importance, rigidly prescribed, and are
Jation makes an important point: binding from the time one is considered old enough to be disciplined to the
more salient from the Chinese tra— end of one’s life.
lf (1988, p. 1010). Our research on To be sure, the Confucian classics do not advocate yu xz’ao (foolish filial
se emigrants shows that overseas
piety), such as blind obedience to one’s parents. On the contrary, it is a filial
: elements of Chinese culture and, obligation to remonstrate with them, with unfailing patience, when questions
ion, believe that childhood social— of unr‘ighteous conduct on the part of parents arise. Nevertheless, rebellion or
:ntity. outright defiance against parental authority, except under the most unusual
.hood and prescribed socialization circumstances, can in no way be condoned. In real life, the pressure to submit
'orld. We have drawn from histori-
to parental demands, backed by the weight of cultural tradition, typically
:al research, and from comparative leaves one with little choice but to accede. It is thus important to recognize that,
he characteristic patterns of social— as a cornerstone of Confucianism, filial piety goes far beyond the requirement
l in Chinese societies.
 ’I’Hli
1‘36 l [ANDHOOK ()l’ CHINESE PSYCI [OLOGY

that one 111crcly obey and honour 0116‘s parents. This point is critical to [he dis—
cussion of conccptunl and in€thodological issues that follows.
Scholars have long recognized the central imponance of filial piety as the
basic ethic governing intergeneratk)nal and, hy extension, interpersonal rela—
tionships in Chinese society. For the most pan, however, they have shown little
interest in studying l‘ilial piety from a psychological perspective. One reason for
this lack of interest is academic compa1tmentalizati<)n, Traditionally sinology is
a discipline dominated by historians, philologists, and philosophers, who have
largely ignored the behavioural science literature on Chinese society. Another
reason is that psychological research on filial piety began only recently. Not
until the 1970s did empirical studies appear in the psychological literature.
That the psychological study of filial piety should have seen such a belated
beginning is deplorable, as it is indispensable for a deeper understanding of
the instrumental role that filial piety plays in shaping personality, social behav—
iour, and socio—political institutions. The knowledge derived from psychologi~
cal research can no longer be ignored if sinology is to be invigorated by the
cross—disciplinaiy fertilization of ideas. Beyond the reach of sinology proper,
the study of filial piety also contributes to a body of knowledge about the cul~
tural definition of intergenerational relationships, of crucial importance to
understanding the transmission of culture from one generation to the next.
Viewed in this light, the growing volume of psychological research on filial
piety in recent years is an encouraging development.
The present chapter is an attempt to assess the current status of psychologi—
cal research on filial piety. We review the research literature and endeavor to
integrate findings into a coherent body of ltnouledge, paying particular atten—
tion to the influence of filial piety on parental attitudes, child training, person-
ality formation, and cognitive functioning. The wider implications for
socio—political processes are also explored. A central theme is that internal psy—
chological and external socio—political processes, both rooted in filial piety, are
mutually reinforcing. Two theoretical constructs. authoritarian moralism and
cognitive conservatism. seive as conceptual linkages between cultural values
and psychological functioning. Finally. we will discuss the cross~cultural signif—
icance of research on filial piety,

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

We turn first to a discussion of approaches to the measurement of filial piety,
before reviewing research findings grouped according to the following head—
ings: determinants of filial attitudes, continuities and departures from tradition,
and filial attitudes and filial behaviour.

Approaches to Measurenrzem‘
A survey of empirical studies reveals two broad approaches to the measur‘e‘
ment of filial piety, each addressed to different research questions.

Use of moral dilemmas to study filial cognition

The first approach to measurement. prompted by Kohlberg‘s theory of mOml
development, uses stories of filial piety involving moral dilemmas to study filial
iE PSYCHOLOGY FILIAL PIETY AND ITS PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES 157

ants. This point is critical to the dis— cognition. One advantage of this approach is that it enables the researcher to
SSues that follows. study the processes of moral reasoning involved in the excercise of filial piety.
'al impomnce of filial
piety as the Lee (1974) delineated five stages of development in filial cognition, wherein fil-
, by extension, inteipersonal rela— ial piety is respectively regarded as: first, giving material benefits to parents or
it, however, they have shown little ancestors; then, any behaviour beneficial to parents or ancestors, with an
ogical perspective. One reason for understanding that emotional or spiritual support is more important than mate—
talization. Traditionally, sinology is rial support; recognition that filial piety is instrumental in realizing parent—child
>gists, and philosophers, who have relationships based on mutual expectations regarding caring, love, and obedi—
‘ature on Chinese society, Another ence; recognition that it is instrumental to realizing ideal relationships founded
ial piety began only recently. Not on mutual caring and love, not merely to maintain harmony within the family;
in the psychological literature. and finally, that filial piety is the most suitable route for Chinese people to actu—
y should have seen such a belated alize their ethical ideals. The results showed that age correlated highly (.70)
ble for a deeper understanding of with the stages of filial cognition. Lee’s stages of filial cognition correlated high—
shaping personality, social behav— ly (.70) with Piaget’s stages of cognitive development; the partial correlation
3wledge derived from psychologi— was .49, with age being controlled. Lee contends that Piaget’s stages are neces—
nology is to be invigorated by the sary, but not sufficient, conditions for the development of filial cognition. For
0nd the reach of sinology proper, example, he argues, the stage of formal operations must be reached for the last
body of knowledge about the cul— two stages of filial cognition to emerge.
)nships, of crucial importance to Yeh and Yang ( 1989, 1990) proposed a conceptual framework for analyzing
from one generation to the next. filial behaviour, comprising six elements: the actor, usually a son or daughter,
3f psychological research on filial normative principles followed by the actor; the object of interaction, usually a
:loprnent. parent; instigating or motivational factors; relational attributes (for example,
ss the current status of psychologi— unequal—unidirectional versus equal—bidirectional) of the actor—object dyad;
esearch literature and endeavor to and the goals of filial actions (material versus spiritual). Yeh and Yang (1989)
nowledge, paying particular atten— reported that, with increasing age, filial cognition tends to shift: from other—reg—
:al attitudes, child training, person— ulated to self—regulated normative principles, from filial acts directed toward
ng. The wider implications for parents or ancestors to those directed toward a larger domain of objects (for
A central theme is that internal psy— example, one’s country and society), from inequality—unidirectionality to
3sses, both rooted in filial piety, are equality—bidirectionality, and from material to spiritual goals. These changes
tiucts, authoritarian moralism and occur at about the time when children enter senior middle school (equivalent
.l linkages between cultural values to grades 10 to 12). Additionally, older children tend to be less absolutist and
vill discuss the cross—cultural signif— do not rely on a single bipolar dimension (such as filial—unfilial) in their judge—
ments of filiality.
The studies by Lee (1974) and Yeh and Yang ( 1989, 1990) illustrate the great
variability with which individuals construe what it means to be filial. As expect—
.ITERATURE ed, the moral maturity of that construal is a function of cognitive development.
to the measurement of filial piety, The question arises, however, if we can still regard aspects of the more mature
d according to the following head— construals by older children as Confucian. To construe the parent—child dyad
as an equal relationship, for instance, clearly deviates from the Confucian tra-
ities and departures from tradition,
dition and probably from most other cultural traditions.
Psychometric measures of filial attitudes
The second approach to measuring filial piety relies on the development of
)road approaches to the measure— scales or questionnaires as instruments to measure attitudes or beliefs toward
ent research questions. filial piety. Typically this approach has been used when the object is to investi—
gate the determinants, psychological implications orcorrelates (for example,
cognition personality traits) of filial attitudes, to compare the strength Of filial attitudes
)ted by Kohlberg’s theory of moral among various groups, or to measure changes in filial attitudes between
gen—
>lving moral dilemmas to study filial erations.
HS THE HANDBOOK OF CIVIINI‘ZSF. I’SYCHCHLXH'

Following :1 psychomaric approach, Y. F Ho and Lee ( 1974) devdoped the

Filial Piety Scale as a measure of traditional filial attitudes rooted in
Confucianism. Subsequently, using modified versions of this scale, researchers
investigated the effect of parents‘ filial attitudes on their children‘s cognitive
in the strength of filial atti—
performance (\Boey, 1976)7 the extent of change
tudes between generations (Di Y. F. Ho and Kang, 1984), filial piety and its rela—
tions to family care for the elderly (Yeung, 1989). family—matrimonial
traditionalism (D. Y. F. Ho, Hong, and Chiu, 1989), and child training, authori—
tarian moralism. and cognitive consewatism (D. Y. F. Ho, 1994). D. Y. F. Ho
(1993) assembled. analysed, and integrated available data collected with the
Filial Piety Scale on the determinants and correlates of filial attitudes. The data
suppoit the Claim that the scale is a suitable instrument for research. with suffi—
cient reliability and validity.
From a methodological point of view, developing a measure of traditional
filial piety. such as the Filial Piety Scale, has strategic importance for research. It
enables researchers to gauge the direction, extent, and momentum of change
Within a geopolitical location, as well as variation across locations. This is
important because continuities with and departures from tradition may differ
widely as a function of location. There are undeniable variations among main—
land China. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas Chinese communities, repre—
senting divergent departures from tradition. No assumption should be made
that traditionalism is necessarily the opposite of modernism (see Yang. this vol;
ume). Traditional and modern filial attitudes may coexist and may be better
represented on more than one continuum

Determinants ofFz'lzial Attitudes

The determinants of attitudes toward traditional filial piety were systematically
investigated by D. Y. F. Ho (1993). In the results of that study. education
emerges as the most potent predictor, and one which is negatively related to fil—
ial attitudes, Other determinants. with rather small effect sizes, are sex, age.
membership of a subgroup within the culture. and exposure to Western and
Christian influences. Women. older people. and people in Taiwan tend to
affirm filial attitudes more strongly than do men. younger people. and people
in Hong Kong respectively. Exposure to Western. and especially Christian.
influences is associated with a weakening, though rather mild. of filial atti—
tudes, Family structure and sibship variables have no predictive power. Similar
results have been reported by D. Y. F. Ho et al. (1989).
Of great theoretical import is the finding that attitudes toward filial piety are
more strongly held among people, both young and old, with a lower socio—
economic status. and in both Hong Kong and Taiwan (D. Y. F. Ho. 1995; D. Y.
F. Ho et al., 1989). This pattern contrasts diametrically with that in traditional
Chinese society, where members of the scholar—gently were expected to be
models of filiality. If indeed ’alues held more strongly by low—status than by
high-status people tend to wane in time, we may expect a decline of tradition-
al filial piety. The association of filial attitudes with lower socio—economic sta—
tus is in line with a general pattern linking the endorsement of
conformity-obedience values to lower socio—economic status in different soci—
eties (Kohn. Naoi, Schoenbach. Schooler, and Slomczynski. I990).
SE PSYCHOLOGY FILIAL PIETY AND ITS PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES 159

i Ho and L66 (1974) devdoped the Commuzfies and Departuresfrom Tradition

.itional filial attitudes rooted in
Undoubtedly, filial beliefs and actions among contemporary Chinese differ
d versions of this scale, researchers
from those of their forebears. Nevertheless, the significance of filial piety, so
:udes on their Children’s cognitive
'hange in the strength of filial atti— deeply rooted in Chinese society, remains evident. Some studies suggest that
filial piety, although not unchallenged or unchanged, remains a durable ethic
Kang, 1984), filial piety and its rela—
in Taiwan (Hwang, 1977; E. S. H. Yu, 1974), in Singapore (Thomas, 1989), and
iung, 1989), family—matrimonial
among Chinese immigrants in the United States (Lin, 1985). A study of word—
1989), and Child training, authori—
7
frequency counts (Liu, Chuang, and Wang, 1975) gives an illustration of how
m (D. Y. F. Ho, 1994). D. Y. F. Ho
d available data collected with the pervasive the ethic of filial piety remains in Taiwan. The investigators sampled
airelates of filial attitudes. The data printed passages containing one million words from newspapers, magazines,
works of fiction and nonfiction, primary and secondaiy school textbooks, and
instrument for research, with suffi—
non-educational reading materials. The frequency count of Chinese com—
leveloping a measure of traditional pound words that include the roots filial, loyal, and official far exceeded those
of English words related to the same three roots, based on counts included in
strategic importance for research. 1t
the teacher’s word book by Thorndike and Lorge ( 1944).
extent, and momentum of change
variation across locations. This is However, there is evidence that filial piety is on the decline and no longer
epaitures from tradition may differ commands the same degree of absolute observance it once did (D. Y. F. Ho,
.1ndeniable variations among main- 1995; D. Y. F. Ho, Hong, and Chiu, 1989; D. Y. F. Ho and Kang, 1984). Some
rseas Chinese communities, repre— core filial obligations (for example, ancestral worship and repaying one’s
a. No assumption should be made indebtedness to parents) continue to be affirmed. Other filial demands (such
:e of modernism (see Yang, this vol— as absolute obedience and subjugation of individual needs and interests to
les may coexist and may be better those of parents) tend to be negated. This finding is consistent with patterns
reported by Hwang (1977) and Chuang and Yang (1990). The most direct evi—
dence pointing to a decline of filial piety, which is measurable even between
only two generations, may be found in the study by D. Y. F. Ho and Kang
(1984).
ional filial piety were systematically The apparent inconsistency in empirical results may arise from differences
ie results of that study, education in the ways in which filial piety is defined and measured. D. Y. F. Ho and his
)ne which is negatively related to fil— associates used the Filial Piety Scale to measure traditional filial attitudes. In
her small effect sizes, are seX, age, Hwang’s (1977) study, a questionnaire was used to survey filial attitudes
ture, and exposure to Western and among students in Taiwan. He found that the students overwhelmingly
)1e, and people in Taiwan tend to responded in the affirmative to the question: ‘In modern society, how neces—
i men, younger people, and people
sary is it for children to be filial toward their parents?’ This result is hardly sur—
Western, and especially Christian,
prising, simply because Chinese children are expected to be filial sons and
g, though rather mild, of filial atti— daughters. However, when the same students were asked to list specific
3s have no predictive power. Similar aspects of filiality they regarded as ‘incompatible with modern life, hard to put
3t al. (1989). into practice, and most disagreeable to myself per‘sonally’, the most frequently
g that attitudes toward filial piety are listed included those essential to traditional prescriptions (for example,
young and old, with a lower socio— absolute obedience, continuation of the family line, and living together with
1nd Taiwan (D. Y. F. Ho, 1993; D. Y. one’s parents). Clearly, to say that one would remain filial toward one’s parents
diametrically with that in traditional does not necessarily imply that one would want to act so in the traditional
cholar—gentry were expected to be sense.
aore strongly by low-status than by
re may expect a decline of tradition— Fz'lz'al Attitudes and Filial Behaviour
des with lower socio—econornic sta—
rn linking the endorsement of A related question concerns the extent to which filial attitudes are reflected in
'io—economic status in different soci— filial behaviour, the distance between what one believes ought to be done and
and Slomczynski, 1990). What one in fact does or intends to do. L. Ci Yu (1983) reported that the level of
 'l'Hl",
160 HANDBOOK ()l" Cl IINI‘TSF l’SYCHOMX‘yY

filial behaviour did not correspond to that of filial belief among Chinese-
Americans. D. Yr Ft Ho (1990) reponed that filial attitudes were significantly
correlated (at the .05 level) with the Traditional Behavior Index. a self—reported
measure of traditional behaviour. However, the magnitude of the correlations
was rather small (around .25 for two samples of subjects from Hong Kong and
Tainan) An item analysis showed that correlations with filial attitudes were
generally no higher for items pertaining to filial behaviour ( for example ances—
tral worship and remembering parents‘ birthdays or dates of death) than for
other items of traditional behaviour (such as obseiying formalities during
Chinese New Year). That filial attitudes may not t‘anslate into filial behaviour
was driven home by another result obtained: a group ofyoung male offenders
in Hong Kong, by and large, said that they subscribed to the precepts of filial
piety. Each had been convicted and was serving a sentence in an institution for
juvenile delinquents. thus bringing disgrace to his family. a decidedly unfilial
behaviour in Chinese society.
D, Y. F. Ho (1990, see also 1993) compared the filial attitudes and filial
behaviours of a traditional and a non—traditional group of Hong Kong sec—
ondary school students. As expected, the traditional group showed much
stronger filial attitudes than did the non-traditional group. However. an item
analysis of the Traditional Behavior Index revealed no significant differences in
filial behaviour between the two groups. Such results suggest that differences
in filial attitudes may not be reflected in actual differences in behaviour,
Yeung (1989) reported that elderly people in Ilong Kong held attitudes
toward filial piety that were negatively correlated with measures of the medical
care. social support, and psychological support they received. The author sug—
gested that those holding stronger filial attitudes tended to have higher expec—
tations of suppoit from their family members, and would hence experience
greater disappointment when their expectations were not met. Indeed, a neg—
ative correlation was found between filial attitudes and self-repoited life satis-
faction. Yeung‘s study reveals the strain of societal changes in Hong Kong: it is
ironic that the more strongly the elderly hold onto traditional filial values, the
less likely they are to find life satisfactory.
Chuang and Yang ( 1990) attempted to measure the distance between filial
beliefand filial behaviour in Taiwan. Filial beliefwas regarded as an attitudinal
component, measured by the degree to which respondents agreed that vari—
ous aspects of filial piety ought to be observed. Filial behaviour was a self~
reported measure of the degree to which one had actually observed them.
Filial beliefs that were still strongly held included remembering and worship—
ping one‘s deceased parents, minimizing parents worries, bringing glory to
one‘s parents, and treating ones parents with respectful propriety, Staying
close to serve one‘s parents, continuing the family line, and obedience were
less strongly held. The extent to which filial beliefs were reported to be actual—
ly observed varied according to how strongly they were held. For filial beliefs
that were strongly held, mean scores tended to be higher than were those for
filial behaviour; the reverse was found for filial beliefs that were less strongly
held. Thus, the distance between belief and behaviour varied according to the
particular beliefs concerned.
ESE PSYCHOLOGY FILIAL PIETY AND ITS PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES 161

Lat of filial belief among Chinese— In sum, the research results reviewed point to two broad generalizations,
xat filial attitudes were significantly both of which reinforce the View that filial piety no longer commands absolute
)nal Behavior Index, a self—reported observance as it did in the past. First, the extent to which traditional filial atti-
1‘, the magnitude of the correlations tudes are reflected in actual behaviour seems rather limited. Second, present—
es of subjects from Hong Kong and day Chinese are becoming selective in their filial beliefs and actions.
>rre1ations With filial attitudes were
ilial behaviour (for example, ances—
ithdays or dates of death) than for THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS AND CROSS—CULTURAL
:h as obsewing formalities during CONSIDERATIONS
1y not translate into filial behaviour
d: a group of young male offenders Two constructs, azat/aorz’tmian mamlz'sm and cognitive conseruatz‘sm, serve as
I subscribed to the
precepts of filial linkages between filial piety as a Confucian value external to the individual and
wing a sentence in an institution for the corresponding psychological functioning internal to the individual (D. Y. F.
:e to his family, a decidedly unfilial Ho, 1994).

1pared the filial attitudes and filial Autbom‘tam’an Moralism

ditional group of Hong Kong sec—
D. Y. F. Ho (1995, 1994) argues that authoritarian moralism is a central charac—
e traditional group showed much
‘aditional teristic of Chinese patterns of socialization guided by filial piety. This construct
group. However, an item
embodies two salient features of Confucian societies: a hierarchical ranking of
evealed no significant differences in
authority in the family, in educational, and in socio—political institutions and a
Such results suggest that differences
:ual differences in behaviour. pervasive application of moral precepts as the primary standard against which
:ople in Hong Kong held attitudes people are judged.
The absolute authority of parents and teachers is both a symptom and a
elated with measures of the medical
)pOit they received. The author sug—
cause of authoritarianism. Moralism puts overriding emphasis on the develop-
tudes tended to have higher expec—
ment of moral character through education. It predisposes parents to be moral—
bers, and would hence experience
istic, rather than psychologically oriented: to treat their children in terms of
ations were not met. Indeed, a neg— whether their conduct meets some external moral criteria, rather than in terms
attitudes and self—reported life satis— of sensitivity to their internal needs, feelings, and aspirations. Children are to
societal changes in Hong Kong: it is be transformed into adults who exercise impulse control, behave properly,
old onto traditional filial values, the and fulfill their obligations—above all, filial obligations (D. Y. F. Ho, 1987).
Data assembled by D. Y. F. Ho (1994; see also Boey, 1976) show that atti—
measure the distance between filial tudes toward filial piety tend to be moderately associated with traditional
belief was regarded as an attitudinal parental attitudes and child training: overcontrol, overprotection, and harsh—
vhich respondents agreed that vari— ness; placement of emphasis on proper behaviour; and neglect, even inhibi—
seived. Filial behaviour was a self— tion, of the expressing of opinions, of independence, and of self—mastery,
1 one had actually observed them. creativity, and all—around personal development in the child. They support the
1cluded remembering and worship— view that filial piety underlies socialization characterized by authoritarian
moralism, putting the accent on obedience and indebtedness to parents, not
, parents’ worries, bringing glory to
; with respectful propriety. Staying self—fulfillment, on impulse control, not self—expression, and on moral correct-
he family line, and obedience were ness, not psychological sensitivity.
rl beliefs were reported to be actual— Such a pattern of socialization is in line with the demands of Confucian soci—
igly they were held. For filial beliefs eties. The emphasis on internal impulse control prepares children to meet the
led to be higher than were those for strong demands of external social control. The insistence on obedience at
r filial beliefs that were less strongly home prepares children to function in the hierarchical social order later in life.
rd behaviour varied according to the Not surprisingly, the Filial Piety Scale is found to be correlated with measures
of traditional Chinese attitudes pertaining to authority relations, status
162 THE HANDBOOK OF CHINESE PSYCHOLOGY

distinctions, and politics (D. Y. F. H0. 1993). That is, filial attitudes are closely
associated with Views of a socio-political order predicated on hierarchical
authority relations, sharp social—status distinctions, and faith in the moral char—
acter of the leader rather than in institutions, the rule of law, and political par—
ticipation. Thus, filial piety is instrumental to the definition of authority
relations not only Within but also beyond the family.
Clinical observations of the reactions of Chinese children to absolute
parental authority reveal typical patterns: emotional distancing from parents,
especially the father; a generalized tendency to fear authority figures; a ten—
dency to adopt silence, negativism, or passive resistance as a behavioural style
in dealing With authority’s demands; a tendency to turn aggression inward;
and a dissociation between affect and roles. D. Y. F. Ho (1987) suggests that
affect—role dissociation is a psychological mechanism in response to filial pre—
scriptions. The mechanism makes it possible for children to remain filial sons
and daughters, while performing their acts of filiality with emotional detach—
ment.
Of all human relationships, that between father and son is the most impor—
tant in the Confucian social fabric. Tu (1985) explains that the father—son rela-
tionship is ‘absolutely binding’ (p. 257); it ‘provides a context and an
instrumentality for self—cultivation’ (p. 248) and spiritual development. Tu is
aware of the assault on Confucian values by Chinese intellectuals since the turn
of the present century, and seems to be concerned with defending
Confucianism against this assault. He concerns himself exclusively with the
ethical question of what ought to be, and completely ignores the scientific
question of what is. He makes no reference to the relevant behavioural science
literature. After reviewing the empirical evidence, D. Y. F. Ho ( 1987) concludes
that the Chinese father—son relationship tends to be marked by affective dis—
tance, perhaps even tension and antagonism.
Thus a basic contradiction is addressed: psychological distance rather than
closeness has been found to characterize the relationship idealized by
Confucians. At rock bottom, this is a contradiction between cultural prescrip-
tion and the psychological reaction to it. Until most recently, it has not been
addressed, let alone recognized, in the culture. Filial piety itself acts to repress
awareness of the contradiction, and in this sense engenders cultural
blindspots.

Cognitive Conservatism
Cognitive conservatism is a psychological construct described by Greenwald
(1980) that refers to a disposition to preserve existing knowledge structures.
Greenwald argues for a conception of the ego as an organization of knowl—
edge, characterized by three cognitive biases: egocentricity (self as the focus of
knowledge), beneffectance (perception of responsibility for desired, but not
undesired, outcomes), and cognitive conservatism (resistance to cognitive
change). His psychological portrait of what he calls the totalitarian ego bears a
striking correspondence to the portrayal of totalitarian political systems by
political scientists.
ESE PSYCHOLOGY FILIAL PIETY AND ITS PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES 163

i). That is, filial attitudes are Closely Research results are summating to an impressive body of evidence that
l order pr€dicated on hierarchical implicates filial piety in the development of cognitive conservatism. Boey
idioms, arid faith in the moral Char— (1976; see also D. Y. F. Ho, 1994) administered a battery of psychological te'sts
.s, the mle of law, and political par— measuring rigidity and cognitive complexity to college students in Hong Kong.
ltal to the definition of authority It was found that the students own attitudes toward filial piety were not corre-
1e family. lated with any of the tests. However, the subject’s father’s attitude toward filial
; of Chinese children to absolute piety was positively correlated with some of the child‘s scores on tests of rigid—
emotional distancing from parents, ity, and both the fathers and mother’s attitudes toward filial piety were nega—
ncy to fear authority figures; a ten— tively correlated with some of the child’s scores on tests of cognitive
ive resistance as a behavioural style complexity. The consistency of results was striking: in all instances, correla—
adency to turn aggression inward; tions with tests of rigidity (ranging from -. 19 to —.65) were negative, and corre—
3s. D. Y. F. Ho (1987) suggests that lations with tests of cognitive complexity (ranging from .14 to .49) were
nechanism in response to filial pre— positive. These results have causal implications, because it is reasonable to
)le for children to remain filial sons assume that parents are instrumental in the development of children, rather
s of filiality with emotional detach— than the other way around. They provide the strongest evidence yet that
parental attitudes toward filial piety have an adverse effect on cognitive devel—
n father and son is the most impor— opment.
Data assembled by D. Y. F. Ho (1994, see also 1993) indicate that people
5) explains that the father—son rela—
'); holding filial attitudes tend to adopt a passive, uncritical, and uncreative orien—
it ‘provides a context and an
tation toward learning; to hold fatalistic, superstitious, and stereotyped beliefs;
l) and spiritual development Tu is
and to be authoritarian, dogmatic, and conformist—a constellation of attrib—
1 Chinese intellectuals since the turn
utes pointing toward cognitive conservatism. They are also more likely to
) be concerned with defending
engage in superstitious practices, such as consulting an almanac or fortune—
icerns himself exclusively With the
tellers in making decisions (D. Y. F. Ho, 1990).
i completely ignores the scientific
D. Y. F. Ho (1993, see also 1994) reported that filial attitudes are strongly
: t0 the relevant behavioural science
associated with traditionalism and culturocentrism. Both constructs express a
dence, D. Y. F. Ho (1987) concludes ‘orienta-
conservative ideology. Traditionalism reinforces what D. Y. F. Ho calls
:nds to be marked by affective dis—
tion toward the past‘ or ‘past orientation’, both culturally and psychologically.
;m. ‘the
: psychological distance rather than
Chinese people refer to their forebears as people ahead’ and future gener—
‘the
ize the relationship idealized by
ations yet unborn as people behind‘. The moral implication is that we are
'adiction between cultural to follow the footsteps of our forebears. Psychologically speaking, the past is in
prescrip— front of us and the future behind us, directly opposite to the Western concep—
Jntil most recently, it has not been “a
tion. Culturocentrism refers to world—view based on a firm belief in the per—
ture. Filial piety itself acts to repress
manence, centrality, and perhaps even superiority of one’s culture in
n this sense engenders cultural comparison with others.
Taken together, the evidence supports a conclusion that Chinese patterns of
socialization that are guided by filial piety are biased toward the development
Of cognitive conservatism. Jt also establishes a linkage between external cul—
tural values and internal individual cognition: cognitive conservatism operat—
construct described by Greenwald ing within the individual mirrors the ideological conservatism of Confucianism
:rve existing knowledge structures.
governing human relationships and social institutions. 1n short, filial piety
e ego as an organization of knowl— underlies both ideological and cognitive conservatism.
es: egocentricity (self as the focus of The causal sequence through which Chinese culture exerts its influence on
rf responsibility for desired, but not individual cognition may be conceptualized as follows: filial piety constitutes
aservatism (resistance to cognitive the ideological basis for parental attitudes, which translate into child—training
.t he calls the totalitarian ego bears a
practices and, more generally, socialization patterns characterized by authori—
of totalitarian political systems by tarian moralism. In turn, these patterns exert their influence on cognitive devel—
opment.
MM THE I IANDBOOK ()1: (:1 HNESF, I’SYCI IOLUGY

Cross—c1 tlz‘u ml Consz'demz‘z’o n5

Cross—adtuml studies‘ of filial piety 31‘6 Vimlzilly nonexistent‘ One obvious real—
son is that filial piety is indigaious to China. It is an cmic concept to which
there is no real conceptual equivalent. to my knowledge. in non—Confucian
cultures. Accordingly, an endorsement offilial piety cannot be equated with an
endorsement of filial values that are common to other cultures, such as suh—
mission to parental authority. Rather, the definition of intergenerata)nal rela-
tionships hased on filial piety assumes a culture—specific, and rather extreme,
form. Neveltheless, research has established an empirical hase for linking filial
piety t0 authoritarian moralism and cognitive conseiyatism, constructs that
have an etic significance. Such a linkage suggests that components of filial
piety shared by other cultures and their psychological correlates require cross~
cultural study.
Filial piety was included as 1 of40 items in the Chinese Culture Connection
(1987), a sutyey of Chinese values in 22 countries around the world One
methodological difficulty encountered in this study was that the filial piety item
(translated into English) was presented as: 'filial piety (obedience to parents,
respect for parents, honouring ofancestors. financial suppon of parents)‘. The
expressions within the parentheses were regarded as synonyms for the main
term. Certainly, the item contains some key components of filial piety; howev—
er, as l have taken pains to point out. filial piety is an encompassing ethic. much
more than What the item expresses. This methodological point should be
borne in mind paiticularly when research on filial piety is conducted outside
Confucian cultural contexts.
The filial piety item was found to be negatively related both to the factor
Integration in an ecological or culture-level factor analysis (Chinese Culture
Connection. 1987). and to the bipolar factor Social Integration versus Cultural
In\\t'ardness in an individual~level factor analysis (Bond, 1988), This result
implies that key components of filial piety are negatively related to ‘pro—social
\‘irtues that enhance cohesiveness with others in general‘. and are among
those Virtues concerning 'loyalty to more narrowly defined groups ( family, cul—
ture) along with their defining habits and customs‘ (Bond. 1988, p. 10H). Such
an implication would be unsettling to Confucians. who have always regarded
the maintenance of harmony within the family as a basis for attaining wider
social harmony.
It is also instructive to place the association of filial piety with traditionalism
and culturocentrism, an intracultural finding in Ho‘s (199%) study, in the coir
text of cross—cultural research. Given the argument above about cognitive con—
servatism. a similar conflation of constructs may be found in other cultures as
well. Indeed, Bond (1988) finds that the filial piety item is associated with
‘respect for tradition‘ and ‘a sense of cultural superiority in his multicultural
study. This result supports the contention of a universal linkage between sub—
mission to parental authority, a key component of filial piety, and cognitive
conservatism.
More recently, in a study of university students in Hong Kong. 1i. 1". K. Ho
( 1994) reports that filial piety has a high loading on Agreeableness and, to a
lesser extent, Conscientiousness. two of the ‘Big Five‘ personality factors
(McCrae and John. 1992). This result is difficult to interpret for both method—
SE PSYCHOLOGY FILIAL PIETY AND ITS PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES 165

ological and theoretical reasons. To begin With, the author provides no theo~
retical reasoning or explanation for the result obtained. Filial piety (more pre—
ally nonexist€r1L One obvious rea— cisely, filial behaviour) was measured by a factor comprising only five items,
m. It is an emic concept to which hardly adequate in terms of content validity; its reliability was modest (.65). It
my knowl€dge, in non—Confucian ‘imported’ facets compris—
was among 4 ‘indigenous’ factors, together with 3O
ial pi€ty cannot be equated with an ing the Big Five factors, included in a factor analysis, The aim was to determine
10n to other cultures, such as sub— if the indigenous factors could be incorporated into the five—factor model of
lefinition of intergenerational rela—
personality. Because no new factor emerged, the author concluded that the
llture—specific, and rather extreme, five—factor model provided a ‘defensible and conservative interpretation of the
:1 an empirical base for linking filial result obtained.
tive conservatism, constructs that This conclusion is unwarranted, however. The indigenous factors would be
suggests that components of filial dwarfed merely on account of their numeric disproportion to the imported
chological correlates require cross— facets, and be easily absorbed into the Big Five factor stlucture. More impor—
tantly, the facets within imported factors were correlated, but the factors them—
in the Chinese Culture Connection selves were orthogonal and hence uncorrelated. (Data on the intercorrelations
countries around the world. One among indigenous factors are not provided.) Thus, the result of the factor
is study was that the filial piety item analysis could be nothing more than a mathematical artefact that has no clear
‘filial
piety (obedience to parents, psychological meaning, especially if the intercorrelations among indigenous
, financial support of parents)’. The factors are low. These considerations invite a further study of the linkages
egar‘ded as synonyms for the main between filial piety and imported personality factors.
components of filial piety; howev—
ety is an encompassing ethic, much
methodological point should be CONCLUSION
on filial piety is conducted outside
Two salient impressions emerge from the literature review and discussion
:gatively related both to the factor above. First, traditional filial piety is on the decline, as can be seen in the
el factor analysis (Chinese Culture change in filial attitudes between generations, the negative relation between
tr Social Integration versus Cultural the strength of filial attitudes and socio—economic status, and the reduced
analysis (Bond, 1988). This result extent to which filial precepts command observance. This decline signifies a
are negatively related to ‘pro—social radical change in the Chinese definition of intergenerational relationships,
)thers in general’, and are among leading to a liberalization of traditional constraints on the development of indi—
rrowly defined groups (family, cul— viduality. Authority relations between generations are altered, necessitating
lstoms’ (Bond, 1988, p. 1011). Such new approaches to the resolution of intergenerational conflicts (cf. D. Y. F. Ho,
ircians, who have always regarded 1987).
tmily as a basis for attaining wider Second, the research evidence consistently points to negative psychological
consequences of filial piety from a contemporary perspective on human
on of filial piety with traditionalism development. Authoritanan—moralistic personalities, having been inculcated
With filial precepts in childhood, would find it congenial to function in author—
rg in Ho’s (1993) study, in the con—
itarian institutions. Similarly, cognitive conservatism is adaptive to living in a
gument above about cognitive con— society governed by a conservative ideology. The internal psychological and
r may be found in other cultures as
the external socio—political processes go hand in hand. Thus, the psychological
filial piety item is associated with
research on filial piety compels us to be cognizant of the ancient cultural root
rral superiority’ in his multicultural
that frustrates democratization in modern China. It now demands rightful
)f a universal linkage between sub-
ronent of filial piety, and cognitive attention from scholars of Chinese culture and society.

tudents in Hong Kong, E. F. K. Ho NOTES

)ading on Agreeableness and, to a
the ‘Big Five’ personality factors The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support for the preparation of the pre—
sent chapter from the University of Hong Kong.
ficult to interpret for both method-