Three-Dimensional Filial Piety Scale: Development and ...

Dual Filial Piety Scale (DFPS). Developed by Yeh and Bedford (2003), the 16-item DFPS is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging (1 = definitely ... DownloadArticle DownloadPDF ReadCube EPUB XML(NLM) Supplementary Material Supplementaldata totalviews ViewArticleImpact SHAREON DorisF.Chang NewYorkUniversity,UnitedStates FanliJia SetonHallUniversity,UnitedStates PeizhenSun JiangsuNormalUniversity,China Theeditorandreviewer'saffiliationsarethelatestprovidedontheirLoopresearchprofilesandmaynotreflecttheirsituationatthetimeofreview. Abstract Introduction Study1:ScaleConstructionandDevelopment Study2:ConfirmatoryFactoryAnalysisandValidityAssessment GeneralDiscussion Conclusion EthicsStatement AuthorContributions Funding ConflictofInterestStatement SupplementaryMaterial References Opensupplementaldata Exportcitation EndNote ReferenceManager SimpleTEXTfile BibTex Checkforupdates Peoplealsolookedat ORIGINALRESEARCHarticle Front.Psychol.,06September2019Sec.CulturalPsychology https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02040 Three-DimensionalFilialPietyScale:DevelopmentandValidationofFilialPietyAmongChineseWorkingAdults JuanShi1,2andFengyanWang1,2*† 1InstituteofMoralEducation,NanjingNormalUniversity,Nanjing,China 2SchoolofPsychology,NanjingNormalUniversity,Nanjing,China Theaimofthisinvestigationistodevelopathree-dimensionalfilialpietyscaleandexploreitspsychometricproperties.TwostudiesareconductedbasedonWang’sthree-dimensionalfilialpietymodel.Study1consistsofareviewofthecurrentliterature,in-depthinterviews,andfeedbackfromthetargetgroupandexperts.Aninitial36-itemscaleusingabipolarLikert6-pointratingscaleisdeveloped.Thenexploratoryfactoranalysisisconductedonworkingadults(n=617)toexplorethedimensionsandfinalitems,anda15-itemscalewiththreefactorsisobtained.Study2confirmsthefactorstructureofthenewthree-factorscaleobtainedfromStudy1usingaconfirmatoryfactoranalysiswithsample1(n=585).Next,thecriterionvalidityistestedwithsample2(n=248)andtest–retestreliabilitywithsample3(n=67).Theresultssupportthemodelonwhichthisscaleisbasedandshowthreedimensionsoffilialpiety,namelythebalanceofinterests,goodaffection,andfamilyrolenorms.Asavalid,reliablescale,thethree-dimensionalfilialpietyscalecanthereforebeusedintheChinesecontexttomeasurefilialpietyforworkingadultsofdifferentgendersandagesandindifferentcohabitationsituations. Introduction DuetotheaccelerateddevelopmentofanagingpopulationinChina,theproblemofprovidingfortheagedhasincreasinglybecomeahottopicofsocialconcern.ConsistentwiththeChineseconceptofhomesickness,afamilypensionisirreplaceableforold-agecareandalsohelpsreducetheburdenonthegovernmentpensionsystem(Fuetal.,2016;Hu,2017).Asaresult,ithasalwaysbeenthemainpensionmodeinChina,andisexpectedbythevastmajorityoftheelderly(Huangetal.,2017;LiuandHu,2017).AsacoreconceptofConfucianism,filialpietycontainsimportantideasaboutthewaychildrenshouldtreattheelderly,anditplaysanimportantroleinshapingintergenerationalrelationshipsbyprovidingethicalsupportforthefamilypension(YehandBedford,2003;LeeandKwok,2005).Adultchildren,especiallyworkingadults,aretheprimarysourceofoldagecarefortheelderlythroughafamilypension.Asanincreasingnumberoftheyoungergenerationandleavingtheirparentstostudyorearnaliving,theenvironmentandconditionsconducivetonurturingfilialpietyareincreasinglyabsent(Yan,2016).Youngpeoplearefacingincreasingpressuretobuyhouses,payforchildcare,andhavestressfulworkloads.Theseallcontributetoincreasingthedifficultyoffilialpractices(ZengandZou,2017).Underthissocialandfamilybackground,theconceptoffilialpietyforadultchildrenhasalsochanged.Therefore,itisextremelyimportanttoaccuratelygraspthepsychologyoffilialpietyforcontemporaryadultchildreninChina. PsychologicalMeasurementofFilialPiety Sincethebeginningofthepsychologicalresearchonfilialpietyinthe1970s,standardizedtoolsformeasuringfilialpietyhaveemerged(HoandLee,1974;Yangetal.,1989;Ho,1994;Sung,1995).Researchersinitiallydefinedandmeasuredfilialpietyfromaone-wayperspective,believingthatfilialpietyisanauthoritarianrelationship,requiringchildrentoabsolutelyobeytheirparents’wishes,repaytheirparents’sacrifices,safeguardfamilyhonor,andberesponsibleforthecontinuationofancestrallineage(HoandLee,1974). Withadvancesintheresearch,theemotionalfactoroffilialpietyhasincreasinglyattractedtheattentionofresearchers(Yangetal.,1989;Sung,1995).YehandBedford(2003)integratedauthorityandemotionalityandsuggestedadualfilialpietymodel(DFPM).TheDFPMandthedualfilialpietyscale(DFPS),developedonthebasisofthismodel,containtwodimensions:(a)reciprocalfilialpiety,akindofvoluntarysupport,care,andloveforone’sparents,whichismotivatedbythegoodnatureofhumanbeings,andentailsamorebalanced,two-wayparent–childrelationship,and(b)authoritativefilialpiety,whichismotivatedbycompliancetothenormsofsocialrolesandofteninvolvespassivesubmissionandabsoluteobediencetoauthorityandentailsanasymmetricparent–childrelationship(Yeh,2003;YehandBedford,2003;Yehetal.,2013).TheDFPMhasbeenthemostimportanttheory,andtheDFPShasbeenthemostwidelyusedscaleincurrentfilialpietyresearchthusfar.Bothofthememphasizeauthority,aswellasparentalindebtednessandunconditionalrepayment(Lumetal.,2015).However,amajorityofpeoplenolongerregardfilialpietyasanauthoritativeobligationinthe21stcentury(Chow,2006;Lumetal.,2015),butratherasanintergenerationalexchangeofcareneedsandcarecapacitiesinanegalitarianparent-childrelationship(LeeandKwok,2005;Lumetal.,2015).Peopleseethisasawaytoestablishacompromisedcommitmenttocare.Inthisview,children’sfilialpietytowardtheirparentsshouldbebasedontheirownabilitiesandresources(Whyte,2004;Zhan,2004;Lam,2006;Lumetal.,2015).Therefore,theDFPMhaslimitationsinreflectingthecharacteristicsofcontemporaryfilialpiety. Thedisappearanceofobedienceintheparent–childrelationshipeffectivelyredefinesthenormoffilialpiety(Yan,2016).Lumetal.(2015)developedanewscale,thecontemporaryfilialpietyscale(CFPS).TheCFPSnotonlysuggestsaparadigmshiftfromanauthoritariantoanegalitarianparent–childrelationshipincontemporaryfilialpiety,butalsohighlightsthatfilialcaregivingshouldbebasedontheabilitiesandresourcesoftheoffspring(Lumetal.,2015).ThesepointsreflectthemodernityofCFPS.Thisscalecontainstwodimensions,namely,compassionatereverenceandpragmaticobligations.Theformerisemotionalcaregivingandreasonablepursuitofparentalaspirations,whichisachievedthroughthesharingoflifeexperiencesandwisdomandisnotbasedonunquestionablehonorandglorification(Lumetal.,2015).Thelatterisaformofpracticalcaregivingandisachievedthroughopenexchangesofcareneedsandcarecapacitiesforestablishingacompromisedcommitmenttocare(Lumetal.,2015).Lumetal.(2015)arguedthatthisscalewasbasedon“highlightingtheconditionalandutilitariannuanceofcaregivingpracticesbasedonone’sabilitiesandresources.”Theitemsinthisscale,suchas“providefinancialsubsistencetoparentswhentheycannolongerfinanciallysupportthemselves”and“arrangeappropriatetreatmentforparentswhentheyfallill”underscoretheconditionalityoffamilycare.However,theconditionalityhereisfromtheperspectiveofparents,referringtotheconditionsofparents’need,suchas,“whentheycannolongerfinanciallysupportthemselves”and“whentheyfallill.”Inotherwords,theseitemslackdirectevaluationbasedonchildren’sownabilitiesandresources.Childrenarethemainpeoplepracticingfilialpiety.Theirownabilitiesandresourcesareimportantfactorsofaffectingthefilialmindandbehavior(Whyte,2004;Zhan,2004;Lam,2006;Lumetal.,2015).Tobettergrasptheconnotationofcontemporaryfilialpiety,thepsychologicalcharacteristicsoffilialpietybasedonchildren’sownresourcesandabilitiesshouldbeexamineddirectly. TheDFPS,CFPS,andotherscales,suchasthefilialbehaviorscale(Chenetal.,2007)andthefilialexpectationscale(Wangetal.,2010),areallbasedontheinteractionsbetweenparentsandchildren(YehandBedford,2003).However,filialpietyisnotsimplytheparent–childrelationship.Adultchildrenwhobearthemaindutyoffilialpietyusuallyhavethemultiplerolesofchild,husbandorwife,andparentinthefamily.Theirfamilyresourcesareallocatedamongthreegenerations,ratherthantwogenerations(DiandZheng,2016).Inaddition,adultchildrenalsoplayanumberofsocialroles(e.g.,employeeorleader).Accordingtoroleconflicttheory(GreenhausandBeutell,1985),itisdifficultforpeopletomeetthedifferentsocialexpectationsofdifferentinteractionobjectsatthesametime.Inthisway,thefulfillmentoffilialdutywillinevitablyaffectthefulfillmentoftheobligationsofanotherrole.Therefore,whenchildrenfacethechoiceoffilialpiety,theyneedtobalancevariousrolesandresponsibilities,whichisbeyondthescopeoftheparent–childrelationship. NewFeaturesofFilialPietyinContemporaryChina Thedevelopmentofinternettechnologyhasprovidedtheyoungergenerationwithamoreflexibleandautonomouswayofgainingemployment.Aconstantupdatingofknowledge,skills,andinformationhavereplacedthelifeandworkexperienceaccumulatedoverlongtimescalesandhandeddownfromgenerationtogeneration(ZengandZou,2017).Asaresult,theoldergeneration’sstatusandpowerinthefamilyhavebeengraduallydiminished.Underthebackgroundofthisera,peoplecontinuetopursueequality,freedom,independence,autonomy,dignity,andhappinessandrenewtheirconceptsoffilialpiety.Generallyspeaking,contemporaryfilialpietyhasthreecharacteristics: First,normativitystillexistsinfilialpiety.Thedeclineofauthoritativefilialpietydoesnotmeanthedeclineandextinctionoffilialpiety,butratherthetransformationofthefilialpietyparadigmanditsadaptabilityinresponsetosocialdevelopment.Thevalueoffilialpietyasamoralnormstillexists.Theaggravationofaging,theabsenceofasocialwelfaresystem,andthepersistenceoftheinterdependentparent–childrelationshipmeanthatthefamilyobligationsofchildrenwillstillplayanimportantroleinthepersonalwelfareofparentsforalongtimetocome(Qi,2015).Therefore,filialpiety,asafamilyethicbasedonanegalitarianparent–childrelationship,isstillwidelyadvocatedbythesocietyandhasabindingeffectonchildren(Sun,2017). Second,emotionalityinfilialpietyisemphasized.Thebasicfeelingoffilialpietyisbasedonthegoodnatureofhumanbeingsandcomesfromgratitudeforparentingandthedailyinteractionwithparents(Yeh,2009).Theemotionalnatureoffilialpietyhasnotdeclinedduringtheperiodofsocialtransformation.Peoplestillstronglyidentifywiththetraditionalfilialpietythatshowsone’struefeelingstoone’sparents,forexample,“respectingparents”and“caringforparents”(Wangetal.,2014).Meanwhile,anegalitarianparent–childrelationshiphasalsobeenvaluedbychildren.Peoplehavebeguntoattachimportancetotwo-wayideologicalandemotionalexchangesbetweenparentsandchildrenunderanequalintergenerationalrelationship(Yan,2016). Third,rationalityandautonomyinfilialpietyarestrengthened.Incontemporaryegalitarianintergenerationalrelations,filialpietyisincreasinglyregardedasanintergenerationalexchangebetweenupbringingfromparentsandsupportfromchildren,withrationalityandautonomy(LeeandKwok,2005;Lumetal.,2015).Childrencanbemorerationalbasedontheirownabilityandresourcestochoosetherightwaytoshowfilialpietytotheirparents.Facedwiththefactthatlivingawayfromparentshasbecomethenormalsocialsituation,childrennolongersticktotheoldmottoof“whenparentsarealive,childrenshouldnottraveltoofarafield,”butregard“oftenbringingtheirspouseandchildrenbackhometovisittheirparents,”whichwasneverapartoftraditionalfilialpiety,asoneofthemostimportantfilialbehaviors(Wangetal.,2014).Conversely,parentsregardthe“subcontractingfilialpiety”asanacceptableformoffilialpietyinwhichchildrenhirefamilycaregiversforparentsorplacetheminnursinghomes(Lan,2002;Zhanetal.,2008;LuoandZhan,2012).Inaddition,moreandmoreparentsacceptthefactthatadultchildrenmayviolatetheirparents’wishesandregard“caringandsupportivebutnotobedient”(xiaoerbushun)asanewunderstandingoffilialpiety(Yan,2016).Thesecharacteristicsnotonlyreflecttheincreasingvitalityandmodernityoffilialpietywiththedevelopmentofthetimes,butalsoconformstotheorthodoxConfucianideologyoffilialpiety.AswrittenintheClassicofFamilyReverence(Xiaojing)inasectionentitledOnRemonstrance(Jianzheng): Ifafatherhasasonwhowillremonstratewithhim,hewillnotbehavereprehensively(buyi).Thus,ifconfrontedbyreprehensiblebehavioronhisfather’spart,asonhasnochoicebuttoremonstratewithhisfather,andifconfrontedbyreprehensiblebehavioronhisruler’spart,aministerhasnochoicebuttoremonstratewithhisruler.Hence,remonstranceistheonlyresponsetoimmorality.Howcouldsimplyobeyingthecommandsofone’sfatherbedeemedfilial?(RosemontandAmes,2009,pp.113–114). Therefore,theviewthatparentsarealwaysrightandchildrenshouldabsolutelyobeytheirparentsisnottherighteousmeaningofgoodfilialpiety.ThecriterioninthesectionentitledOntheWayofSons(Zidao)byXunziistherighteousnessofConfucianfilialpiety.Itstatesthat“youmustcarefullyjudgethemannerofhis‘following’beforeitcanbedescribedas‘filial”’(Knoblock,1999,p.949).Specifically,“tofollowthedictatesoftheWayratherthanthoseofone’slordandtofollowtherequirementsofmoralityratherthanthewishesofone’sfatherconstitutethehigheststandardofconduct”(Knoblock,1999,p.945).Obviously,thecontemporaryChinesehaverealizedtheessenceoffilialpiety. TheThree-DimensionalFilialPietyModel TomakeupforthedeficiencyoftheDFPMandrevealthecharacteristicsofcontemporaryfilialpietymorecomprehensively,WangandZheng(2015,pp.262–305)conductedathoroughanalysisofthehistoricalchangesintheconnotationoffilialpiety,classifiedfilialpietysystematicallyintermsofdifferentlevels,andthenconstructedathree-dimensionalfilialpietymodel(TDFPM;Figure1).Eachdimensionofthismodelconsistsoftwooppositepoles:goodaffection(true–false),familyrolenorms(autonomy–heteronomy),andbalanceofinterests(reasonable–unreasonable).AccordingtoWangandZheng(2015,pp.269–272),thedefinitionsandcontentsofthethreedimensionsareasfollows:Goodaffectionreferstotheemotionsandfeelingsthatchildrenhavefortheirparents,includingtrueandfalsefilialpiety.Theformerreferstofilialpietythatembracestruefeelings,andthelatterreferstofilialpietyinvolvingfalsehypocrisy,whereoneonlywantstogetsomebenefitfromparentsortocreatetheimageofa“filialson/daughter”throughthecareandrespectforparents.Thefundamentaldifferencebetweenthetwoliesinthechildren’smotives:theformerisforthepurposeoftreatingparentsinakindandcaringway,whilethelatterisstronglyself-servingandinstrumental.Familyrolenormsrefertoanindividual’sbehaviorintentionandreactiontendencytofilialpietynormsbasedontheirownchildren’sroles.Children’sfilialintentionwillbedifferentwhentheyabidebyfilialpietynorms.Accordingly,filialpietycanbedividedintoautonomousandheteronomousfilialpiety.Theformerreferstochildrenwhoneedexternalmotivationtoshowfilialpietytotheirparents.Moresuccinctly,onlyafteranindividualperceivesatangibleorintangibleexternalpressurewilltheydisplayrecognition,emotion,andcorrespondingbehavioralintentionsorreactionpropensitysoastofulfilltheirfilialobligations.Thelatterreferstochildrenwhoconsciouslyshowtheirfilialattitudeandfilialbehaviortowardtheirparents.So,evenwhentheyareonlyguidedbytheirconscience,childrencanhavecognition,emotion,andcorrespondingbehavioralintentionsorreactionpropensitysoastofulfilltheirfilialobligations.Balanceofinterestsreferstothebalanceoflegitimateinterestsamongoffspring,parents,otherfamilymembers,andsocietyinthecontextoffilialpiety.Accordingly,filialpietycanbedividedintoreasonableandunreasonablefilialpiety,dependingonwhetherfilialpietywillinfringeontherightsandinterestsofallpersonsconcerned.Reasonablefilialpietycanbedefinedasmoderateobedienceofparentswithinone’sabilityandwithoutunderminingone’sownoranyoneelse’sinterests.Onthepremiseofvoluntariness,ifchildrenmoderatelysacrificetheirpersonalintereststoshowfilialpietytotheirparents,itisstillregardedasreasonablefilialpiety.Unreasonablefilialpietyincludesblinddevotiontoone’sparents(yuxiao)andone-wayfilialpiety.Theformerreferstoabsoluteobediencetothewillofparentsandsparingnoefforttomeetthedemandsofparents,whilethelatterreferstochildrenmakingeveryefforttohonortheirparentsregardlessofhowtheparentstreatthem. FIGURE1 Figure1.Thethree-dimensionalfilialpietymodel.AdaptedfromWangandZheng(2015).Copyright2018byF.Y.Wang(Reprintedwithpermission). TheTDFPMisanextensionoftheDFPM.Itmakesthedivisionofeachdimensionmorespecific.Intermsoftheemotionalaspect,theTDFPMmainlyconcernswhetherthechildren’semotionsandfeelingstowardtheirparentsaresincereornot.Previousstudiesonfilialpietyneglectedmotivationandconsideredfilialemotionsincerebydefault(YehandBedford,2003;Yang,2012;Lumetal.,2015).Motivationisregardedasthecentralprocessforthegenerationofbothmoraljudgmentandaction(Kaplan,2017).Individualswithhighlevelsofaffectionfortheirparentsmaygenuinelycarefortheirfathers,ortheymayjustwanttobenefitthemselves.Forexample,afterthedeathoftheelderly,thechildrenmayholdagrandfuneralinordertoobtaineconomicbenefitsbroughtbythecustomof“presentingmoneyforafuneral”(suifenzi)orthegoodreputationofa“filialson/daughter”(LiandFang,2018).Hence,inordertoaccuratelymeasurechildren’sfeelingstowardtheirparents,itisnecessarytoconsiderchildren’sfilialmotivation. TheTDFPMreplacesauthoritativefilialpietywiththedimensionoffamilyrolenorms.Thistransformationcorrespondstotheregressionofauthoritativefilialpietyincontemporarysocietyandpreservestheroleoffilialpietyasaculturalnormandmoralstandard.Underthetrendofpopulationaging,agreatdealofgovernmentattentionhasbeenfocusedoneldercareandfilialpractices(BedfordandYeh,2019).Therefore,thenormativityoffilialpietyisconducivetothenormaloperationofeldercare,especiallythefamilypension. Bydistinguishingreasonablefilialpietyfromunreasonablefilialpiety,themodelprovidestheoreticalguidanceforchildrentoengageinreasonablefilialpietyonthebasisoftheirabilitiesandresources.Inthiscase,filialpietycanoperatewithintheframeworkofmorality.Asforchildren’sreasonablerightsandinterests,economicinterestsareanimportantpart.Children’smultiplerolesinthefamilyandsocietymeanthattheireconomicincomehasmanyresponsibilities,suchassupportingtheirspousesandchildren.Inthisway,whentheygivefinancialsupporttoparents,adultchildrenneedtobalancemultipleroles.Opportunitycostisanotherimportantpartofchildren’sreasonablerightsandinterestsinallocatingparentalresponsibilities.Theresponsibilityofcaringforandaccompanyingparentsismainlybornebychildrenwitharelativelyloweropportunitycostofcaring(e.g.,lowerincome,lowereducation)(LiuandHu,2017). Furthermore,byincreasingthedimensionofbalanceofinterests,theexplanatoryscopeofthemodelisenlarged.Previousstudieshavefoundthatthedegreeoffilialcognitionamongcollegestudentsishigh(CaoandYeh,2014),whileinChina’spoorerareas,suchasLiVillageinHenanprovinceandtheimmigrantvillageofJingshancountyinHubeiprovince,filialpietyhascollapsed;insteadoffulfillingtheirobligationtosupporttheirparents,childrenhavemadenegativeclaimsabouttheirparents(Chen,2009;Li,2014).TheTDFPMcanexplainthesedifferencesasfollows:Collegestudents,whoseparentsaremostlyyoungandhealthy,havenotyetassumedtheresponsibilityofsupportingtheirparentsandhavenotrealizedthedifficultiesoffilialpiety.Theirparentsusuallydonotneedthemtoeithercontributetheirtimeormoney,orsacrificetheirpersonaldevelopmenttofulfillfilialpiety.Therefore,collegestudentsdonotgiveupfilialpietybecauseoftheirlimitedabilitiesorprotectionoftheirowninterests;thus,theirleveloffilialpietyisgenerallyhigh.Incontrast,childreninpoorfamiliesmaylovetheirparentsdeeplyandbeclearlyawareoftheirresponsibilityandobligationtosupporttheirparents,but,duetotherestrictionsofeconomicstrengthandwork,theycannotfulfillfilialpiety.Inotherwords,eventhoughtheyhavebothfilialaffectionandintention,theydonotfulfillfilialpietyduetotheirlackofpersonalabilityandlimitedresources. ThePresentResearch Inthisstudy,themethodofcombiningtheory-drivenanddata-driveninformationwasused.TheTDFPMwasthetheoreticalbasisandworkingadults,themainpractitionersoffamilycare,weretheparticipantsinthisstudy.Twosequentialstudieswereinvolvedinthecurrentresearchwiththeaimtocreateapsychometricallyvalidmeasureoffilialpiety.Study1detailsthedevelopmentoftheitempooltomeasurefilialpietyinworkingadults,andthefactorstructureobtainedbyexploratoryfactoranalysis(EFA).Study2examinedthevalidityofthefactorsidentifiedinStudy1viaconfirmatoryfactoranalysis(CFA).Then,thereliabilityandvaliditywerealsotested. Study1:ScaleConstructionandDevelopment Thisstudyaimedtodevelopanewscaletomeasurefilialpietyinworkingadults.Theoreticalanalysis,preexistingscalesanalysis,andin-depthinterviewswereusedcomprehensivelytodevelopaprimaryitempool.Thentheprimaryitempoolwasevaluatedbyboththeexpertsandthetargetinvestigationgroup,andthiswastheseconditempool.TheitemsintheseconditempoolwerethensubjectedtoEFA. ItemGeneration Togenerateitemsthatreflectedthecontentofcontemporaryfilialpiety,theprocessesshowninFigure2wereconducted.BasedontheTDFPMandaforementionedliterature,anin-depthinterviewoutlinewasdevelopedthat,includedthefollowingquestions:(1)“Whatdoyouthinkfilialpietyis?Pleasetalkaboutyourunderstandingoffilialpiety.Youcanexplainitbygivingexamplesof‘filialperson’and‘filialbehavior.”’(2)“Underwhatcircumstancesdoyouorthepeoplearoundyouusuallyactwithfilialpiety?”(3)“Whatmotivatesyouorthepeoplearoundyoutoshowfilialpietyinthesecircumstances?Subjectiveorobjectivereasons,orboth?”Individualinterviewswereconductedwithaconveniencesampleoftenparticipants.Alloftheparticipantswereworkingpeople,withagesrangingfrom31to52(M=39.1,SD=7.16,fivefemale).Amongthem,threeintervieweeslivedwiththeirparentsinthesamehouse;threeintervieweeslivedinthesamecityastheirparentsbutnotinthesamehouse;andtheotherfourintervieweeslivedindifferentcitiesthantheirparents.Thedistributionofage,gender,anddistancefromparentsofthese10intervieweeswassimilartothatofthesamplesusedintheEFA.Eachparticipantreceived10yuan(around1.44dollars)asareward.Theresultsofthein-depthinterviewswerecategorized.Forexample,“Helpingparentswhentheyneedit”wasclassifiedas“heteronomyfilialpiety”;“VisitingparentswhenIhavetime,withoutwaitingfortheirrequest”wasclassifiedas“autonomyfilialpiety.” FIGURE2 Figure2.Processofgeneratinginitial15itemsofTDFPS.Inthisfigure,“a”proposedthethree-dimensionalfilialpietymodelbasedonliteratureandpreexistingscalesanalyses;“bandc”formedin-depthinterviewsoutlinesbasedonliteratureandpreexistingscaleanalysesandthethree-dimensionalfilialpietymodel,respectively;“d,e,andf”generateditemsbasedonthemodel,theanalysesofliteratureandpreexistingscalesandthein-depthinterviews,respectively;“g”assessedtheseitemsbyexpertsandthetargetgroupwithloweducation;“h”conductedtheEFA;“i”conductedtheCFAtoverifythethree-factorstructure. Aprimaryitempoolwascreatedusingliteratureanalyses,in-depthinterviews,andrelatedfilialpietyscales,suchastheDFPS(YehandBedford,2003),thefilialbehaviorscale(Chenetal.,2007),andtheCFPS(Lumetal.,2015).Theseitemswerefurtherrefinedby(a)deletingambiguousitems,(b)deletingitemswithhighfacevalidity,and(c)classifyingitemswithsimilarmeanings.Finally,aprimaryitempoolwith42itemswasobtained(seeSupplementaryAppendix). Eachofthe42itemscontainedtwosentenceswithoppositemeanings;oneforautonomy,true,orreasonablefilialpiety,andtheotheroneforheteronomy,false,orunreasonablefilialpiety.Participantswereaskedtochooseoneofthetwostatementstheyidentifiedwithmoreandthentomarkthedegreeofconformitywiththeselectedstatementonathree-pointscale(1forslightlyidentify,2formoderatelyidentify,3forcompletelyidentify).Theoptionswererecodedforstatisticalanalysis.Forthosewhochosethesentencethatrepresentednegativefilialpiety(i.e.,heteronomy,unreasonable,andfalsefilialpiety),“completelyidentify”wasrecodedto1,“moderatelyidentify”wasrecordedto2,and“slightlyidentify”wasrecodedto3.Forthosewhochosethesentencebelongingtopositivefilialpiety(i.e.,autonomy,reasonable,ortruefilialpiety),“completelyidentify”wasrecordedto6,“moderatelyidentify”wasrecordedto5,and“slightlyidentify”wasrecordedto4.Inthisway,eachitemwasratedona6-pointbipolarLikertscale.Takeitem1asanexample,ifparticipantsthoughtthatthefirstsentence“Itakeinitiativetoaccompanymyparentsiftimepermits”ratherthanthesecondone“Ipassivelyaccompanymyparentsonlywhentheyask”wasmoreconsistentwiththeirownsituation,theyshouldchoosethefirstsentence.Iftheyweremoderatelyidentifiedwiththefirstsentence,theyshouldchoose2“moderatelyidentify,”andthefinalscorewasreassignedto“5.”ComparedwiththeunipolarLikertscale,thebipolarLikertscalecanreducethenumberofquestionsandmakesiteasierforsubjectstocooperatewiththetest(Tzengetal.,1991).The42itemsweredividedintothreedimensions,with14itemsforeachdimension. These42itemswerethenfurtherevaluated.First,anexpertassessmentwasconducted.Oneprofessorandfivedoctoralstudentsofpsychologywereinvitedtoevaluatethecontentvalidity.Thisincluded(a)evaluatingtheconsistencyofeachitemwiththeoperationaldefinitionofthesubordinatedimension;thatis,whethertheitemcanaccuratelyexpressthecontentdefinedbythedimension;(b)examiningtheaccuracy,comprehensibility,andredundancyofeachitem;and(c)assessingthesociallydesirableresponse.Accordingtotheaboveevaluation,theitemswerediscussedonebyone,anditemswithduplicatecontent,unclearexpression,obviousinconsistencywiththeoperationaldefinition,andhighlysociallydesirableresponseweredeleted.Second,theitemswereassessedbyatargetgroupwithaloweducation.Elevenpeople(fivemales,sixfemales)aged35–60years(M=48.91,SD=7.49)wereselectedforone-on-onetestingusingconveniencesampling.Allofthemhadlessthananundergraduatedegree.Everytimethesubjectscompletedaquestion,theyreportedtheirunderstandingofthequestiontotheinvestigator(thefirstauthorofthispaper)andgavefeedbackonwhethertheitemwasambiguousorinappropriate.Accordingtothefeedbackofthese11participants,theexpressionoftheitemswasmodified.Afterassessmentbyexpertsandthetargetgroup,sixitemsweredeleted,andtheseconditempoolwaseventuallyformed,whichcontained36items.Allofthese36itemswereratedona6-pointbipolarLikertscale.Amongthem,21itemslistedpositivefilialpietyfirstandnegativefilialpietylater,andtheother15itemsweretheopposite. ParticipantsandProcedure Scales,includingdemographicitemsandtheseconditempoolwith36items,werepublishedusingtheprofessionalonlineplatform“Wenjuanxing.”Atthebeginningofthesurvey,participantsneededtoreadtheinformedconsentandmakeachoicebetween“read,agree”and“read,disagree.”Onlythosewhochosetheformeronecouldcontinuetocompletethefollowingquestionnaire. Asampleof672workingadultscompletedthe36-itemscale.Participantswereexcludedformissingdataorprovidingobviouslyrepetitiveanswers(n=55,8.18%).Thus,617validrespondents,aged20–66(M=33.29,SD=6.97)(Table1),wereincludedinthefollowingstatisticalanalysis. TABLE1 Table1.Demographicinformationofparticipants. StatisticalAnalysis First,thecriticalratio(CR)anditem-totalcorrelationwasusedforitemanalysistotestwhethertheseitemshadenoughdiscriminationandwereconsistentwiththescale.ItemswithlowCR(t<3.00,p<0.01)weredeleted,astheymayhavelowdiscrimination,anditemswithanitem–totalscorecorrelationlessthan0.3werealsodropped,astheymayinconsistentwiththeentireconstruct(Wu,2013). Second,thefactorabilitywasassessedusingtheBartlett’stestofsphericity,theKaiser–Meyer–Olkin(KMO)test,andthemeasuresofsamplingadequacy(MSA).ItemswereconsideredappropriateforfactoranalysiswhentheresultofBartlett’stestwasstatisticallysignificant,andtheKMOandMSAvaluewas0.80orhigher(Kaiser,1974). Third,theprincipalcomponentsanalysisandvarimaxrotationwereusedtoexplorethelatentstructureofthescale.Thecriteriaforfactorsanditemreductionwereasfollows:(a)eigenvaluesgreaterthan1andthescreeplotwereusedtodeterminethenumberoffactors;(b)thefactorthatcontainedlessthanthreeitemswasdropped;(c)itemswithasecondaryfactorloadingof0.30orhigherweredefinedascross-itemsanddropped;(d)itemsthatloadedat≥0.50andwithacommunalityvalue≥0.4werefinallyretained(Bosworthetal.,1999;WorthingtonandWhittaker,2006).Factorialsimplicitywasevaluatedusingtheindexoffactorialsimplicity(IFS)andthescalefitindex(SFI).ItemswithIFS≥0.80wereconsideredmeritorious,andthosewithIFS≥0.60wereconsideredmediocre(Kaiser,1974).ItemswithSFI≥0.80wereconsidereddesirable(Fleming,2003). TheseanalyseswereconductedusingSPSS21.0. ResultsandDiscussion Basedontheitemanalysisofthe36items,theCRofallitemswasapplicable,andfouritemswereremovedduetotheiritem–totalscorecorrelationbeinglowerthan0.30.Theremaining32itemsweremovedtothenextanalysis. AnEFAwasconductedonthe32itemstodeterminetheunderlyingfactorstructureoftheitems.TheKMOvalue(=0.903)andBartlett’stestofsphericity(p<0.001),indicatedthattheseitemswereadequateforfactoranalysis.Then,accordingtotheaforementionedcriteria(a)through(d),theitemsthatdidnotmeettherequirementsweredeleted.Finally,15itemswithstrongloadingsontothreefactorswithoutcross-loadingwereretained(Table2).Boththeeigenvaluesandthescreeplotsuggestedathree-factorsolution,whichexplained55.83%ofthevariance.AlloftheindividualIFSvalueswereabove0.60,andtheSFIvaluesofthethreefactorswereabove0.8,indicatingdesirablefactorialsimplicity(Table2). TABLE2 Table2.Three-dimensionalfilialpietyscaleexploratoryfactoranalysis(n=617). Followinganappropriateprocess,Study1resultedina15-itemscalewiththreefactors.ThismodelwasconsistentwiththeTDFPM.Basedonthismodel,the15-itemscalewasnamedtheThree-DimensionalFilialPietyScale(TDFPS).Accordingly,thesethreefactorswerenamedgoodaffection(GA,fiveitems),familyrolenorms(FRN,fiveitems),andbalanceofinterests(BI,fiveitems).However,thisthree-factorstructureoffilialpietywasbasedononesample.Therefore,inStudy2,aconfirmatoryfactoranalysisandvalidityassessmentwereconductedinareplicationsample. Study2:ConfirmatoryFactoryAnalysisandValidityAssessment ThepurposeofStudy2wastoreplicatethethree-factorstructureandtestthevalidityandreliabilityofthe15-itemTDFPSusingnewsamples.ACFAwasconductedtotestthethree-factormodeloffilialpiety.Theinternalconsistencyreliability,test–retestreliability,structuralvalidity,criterionvalidity,andconvergentvaliditywerealsoconductedtotestthereliabilityandvalidityofthenewscale. ParticipantsandProcedure Measurementtools,includingdemographicitems,theTDFPS,andscalesusedforcriterionvalidity,werepublishedusingtheprofessionalonlineplatform“Wenjuanxing.”ThemeasurementprocesswasthesameasthatofStudy1.Threesampleswerecollected,ofwhichthelattertwowerefollowedupfromthefirstone.TheirdemographicinformationisshowninTable1. Sample1:Atotalof649adultscompletedthe15-itemTDFPS.Participantswereexcludedformissingdataorforprovidingobviouslyrepetitiveanswers(n=64,9.86%).Thus,585validrespondents,aged20–62(M=34,SD=8),wereincludedintheCFA,reliabilityanalysis,andvalidityanalysis.Duetotheneedforrepeatedtests,participantswereinformedattheendofthescalethatthesamesurveywouldbeconducted1monthlater.ParticipantswillingtocontinuetoparticipateinthestudywereinvitedtoleavetheirmobilephonenumberorWeChataccount. Sample2:Insample1,248participantscompletedtheDFPSandCFPSwhilecompletingTDFPS.These248participantswereexcludedformissingdataorforprovidingobviouslyrepetitiveanswers(n=17,6.85%).Thus,231validrespondents,aged20–60(M=34,SD=8.6),wereincludedinthecriterionvalidityanalysis. Sample3:4weeksafterthesurveyofsample1,theTDFPSwasusedtomeasurethe72participantswhobelongedtosample1andwerewillingtoparticipateinrepeatedmeasurementsandleavetheircontactinformation.Fiveparticipants(6.94%)wereexcludedformissingdataorforprovidingobviouslyrepetitiveanswers.Thus,67validrespondents,aged20–54(M=34,SD=8.6),wereincludedinthetest–retestreliabilityanalysis. Measures Three-DimensionalFilialPietyScale(TDFPS) The15-itemTDFPSwedevelopedwasused.Participantswereaskedtoratetheextentoftheiragreementwitheachitemusinga6-pointbipolarLikertscale. DualFilialPietyScale(DFPS) DevelopedbyYehandBedford(2003),the16-itemDFPSisratedona5-pointLikertscaleranging(1=definitelydisagree,and5=definitelyagree).Thescalecontainseightitemsonreciprocalfilialpiety(RFP)andeightitemsonauthoritarianfilialpiety(AFP).SeveralstudieshavesupportedthevalueandvalidityoftheDFPS(Leungetal.,2010;Jinetal.,2011;ChenandHo,2012).Inthecurrentstudy,theCronbach’salphacoefficientofDFPSwas0.711. ContemporaryFilialPietyScale DevelopedbyLumetal.(2015),the10-itemCFPShasstrongpsychometricpropertiesandcanassesscontemporaryfilialpietyinasimpleandefficientway.Thescalecontainssixitemsonpragmaticobligation(PO)andfouritemsoncompassionatereverence(CR).TheCFPSemploysa5-pointLikertscale(1=veryunimportant,5=veryimportant).Thescale’sCronbach’salphacoefficientwas0.88,andtheCFIwas0.95,indicatinghighgoodnessoffit(Lumetal.,2015).Inthecurrentstudy,theCronbach’salphacoefficientwas0.758. StatisticalAnalysis First,thefactorstructureexaminationofTDFPSwasconductedbyCFAusingMplus7.0withsample1,anewandindependentsample.Modelfitwasexaminedusingthefollowingindicators:(a)thenormedχ2,withavalueof<2considered“verygood”(Schreiberetal.,2006)and2–5considered“acceptable”(Wu,2013);(b)thestandardizedrootmeansquareresidual(SRMR),withavalueof0.08orlessindicativeofagoodfit(HuandBentler,1999);(c)therootmeansquareerrorofapproximation(RMSEA),withavalueof0.05orlessconsidereda“goodfit”and0.05-−0.08a“reasonablefit”(MacCallumetal.,1996);(d)thecomparativefitindex(CFI),withavalueof0.90ormoreconsideredas“good”(HuandBentler,1999);and(e)theTucker-LewisIndex(TLI),withavalueof0.90ormoreconsideredgreat.Ameasurementinvarianceacrossgender,age,andcohabitationsituationwasconducted.Inordertobeconciseandavoidconfusion,theconventionssetforthbySteenkampandBaumgartner(1998),includingconfigural,metric,andscalar,wereused.TheCFIandRMSEAchangevaluesof0.01orlesswereconsideredacceptable(CheungandRensvold,2002). Second,thereliabilityofthenewscalewastestedusingtheinternalconsistencyreliabilityandtest–retestreliabilityonSPSS21.0.Theinternalconsistenciesreliabilityofitems,dimensions,andtotalscaleweretested,respectivelyusingR2,compositereliability(CR),Cronbach’salphacoefficient,andsplit-halfreliabilityonsample1.ValuesofCR,Cronbach’salphacoefficient,andthesplit-halfreliabilityhigherthan0.7areindicativeofanacceptablefit,withvalueshigherthan0.8suggestingexcellentorgoodfit(Hairetal.,2006;Wu,2013).Thetest–retestreliabilitywastestedonsample3andexaminedviaatwo-tailedPearsoncorrelation. Third,thevalidityofthenewscalewasconductedusingstructuralvalidity,criterionvalidity,andconvergentvalidityonSPSS21.0.InadditiontotheCFA,thestructuralvaliditywasfurtherconductedusingcorrelationsbetweeneachitemanditscorrespondingdimensionandamongdifferentdimensions,aswellasbetweeneachdimensionandthetotalscaleonsample1.TheDFPSandCFPSwereusedtocalculatethecriterionvalidityonsample2.BoththeDFPSandtheCFPSareeffectivetoolsformeasuringfilialpiety,buttheydifferfromtheTDFPSinstructure.Therefore,theTDFPSwashypothesizedtohavelowtomediumpositiveassociationswiththeDFPSandCFPS.TheGAemphasizedtheemotionalelementsandgoodmotives,theFRNemphasizedtheconsciousnessandinitiative,andtheBIemphasizedrationalityandmorality.TheseareallconsistentwithRFP,PO,andCRtoacertainextent.Accordingly,itwasassumedthatGA,FRN,andBIwouldbepositivelycorrelatedwithRFP,PO,andCR.Inaddition,theBIemphasizesfilialpietywithinareasonablescope,whichisinconflictwithAFPthatadvocatesabsoluteobedience.Therefore,theBIwashypothesizedtohaveanegativecorrelationwiththeAFP.Theaveragevarianceextracted(AVE)wasusedtoevaluatetheconvergentvalidityonsample1.Avalueof0.50ormorewasconsideredas“accepted”(FornellandLarcker,1981). ResultsandDiscussion ConfirmatoryFactorAnalysisoftheTDFPS ACFAwasconductedtoverifythethree-factorstructureoftheTDFPSidentifiedintheEFA.Theabsolutevaluesoftheskewnesscoefficientsrangedfrom0.640(item1)to2.334(item29)(>2),andtheabsolutevaluesofthekurtosiscoefficientsrangedfrom0.206(item11)to9.351(item29)(>7)(Table3).Therefore,theMLMestimation,whichisrobustandsuitableforestimatingtheparametersofaskeweddistribution(Wang,2014,p.97),wasusedinthisstudy.Boththeone-factormodel,whichreferstoasimpleprimarymodelinwhichall15itemswereaffectedbythesamelatentvariable,andthethree-factormodelwhichwasdevelopedbasedontheEFAresults,weretested.Thegoodness-of-fitindicesofthetwomodels(Table4)showedthatthethree-factormodelfitbetterthantheone-factormodel.Inaddition,inthethree-factormodel,thenormedχ2(=2.275<5)wasacceptable,theSRMR(=0.048<0.08),RMSEA(=0.047<0.05),CFI(=0.955>0.90),andTLI(=0.946>0.90)alsofitwell.Consequently,thethree-factormodelwasfinallyaccepted.Allofthestandardizedfactorloadingsofthethree-factormodelwerestatisticallysignificant(p<0.001),andalloftheitemssignificantlyloadedontothesamefactorintheCFAastheyhadintheEFA(Figure3). TABLE3 Table3.Three-dimensionalfilialpietyscaledescriptiveandcorrelationinformationofCFA(n=585). TABLE4 Table4.Fittingindicesofmodels(n=585). FIGURE3 Figure3.ConfirmatoryfactoranalysisresultsonTFPS. Measurementinvarianceprovidesempiricalsupportforresearcherdecisionstointerpretbetween-groupcomparisonsasdifferencesindegreeratherthandifferencesinkind(GeldhofandStawski,2015).Aseriesofprogressivelymorestringentmultiple-groupCFAswereruntotestthemeasurementinvarianceacrossgender,age,andcohabitationsituations.Themeasurementinvarianceanalysesconductedinthecurrentstudyincludedthreelevels:(a)configuralinvariance:providesthebaselinevalueagainstwhichallsubsequentlyspecifiedequivalencemodelswerecomparedandtotesttheequivalenceofthefactorstructureacrossgroups;(b)metricinvariance:astrongertestoffactorialinvariancethantheconfigureinvariance.Itanalyzestheequivalenceofthefactorloadingsacrossgroups;and(c)scalarinvariance:examinestheequivalenceofthefactorloadingsanditeminterceptsacrossgroups(VandenbergandLance,2000;RensvoldandCheung,2001;Byrne,2008). Theresultsofthegenderinvarianceanalysesshowedthattheconfiguralinvarianceacrossgenderwassupported(CFI=0.953,TLI=0.943,RMSEA=0.048,andSRMR=0.055)(Table5).Againstconfiguralinvariance,thesubsequentlyspecifiedequivalencemodelswerefurthercompared.Differentvalueswerefoundbetweenthemetricandconfiguralinvariance(ΔCFI=0.002,ΔRMSEA=−0.002),indicatingthatthemetricinvariancewassupported.Changevaluesbetweenthescalarandmetricinvariance(ΔCFI=−0.001,ΔRMSEA=−0.001)supportedscalarinvariance.Theseresultsshowthatthethree-factorstructureoftheTDFPSdoesmeasurethesameconstructinmenandwomen. TABLE5 Table5.Testingmeasurementinvarianceofgender,age,andcohabitationform(n=585). Ageinvariancewasmeasuredusingthesamemethod.Participantsweredividedintothreegroupsaccordingtoage:agegroup1<31(n=248,M=27.64,SD=2.28),31≤agegroup2<40(n=223,M=34.19,SD=2.84),andagegroup3≥40(n=114,M=47.45,SD=4.27).Theresultsshowedthattheconfiguralinvariance(CFI=0.947,TLI=0.936,RMSEA=0.054,andSRMR=0.059)wassupported(Table5).Furthermore,thedifferentvaluesbetweenthemetricandconfiguralinvariancemodel(ΔCFI=−0.004,ΔRMSEA=−0.001),aswellasdifferentvaluesbetweenthescalarandmetricinvariance(ΔCFI=−0.004,ΔRMSEA=−0.001),separatelyindicatedtheacceptablemetricinvarianceandscalarinvariance.Thesefindingsindicatedthatthethree-factorstructureofTDFPSdoesmeasurethesameconstructindifferentagegroups. Theinvariancewasthenmeasuredacrosscohabitationforms(liveinthesamehousewithparents,liveinthesamecity/townbutinadifferenthousethanparents,andliveinadifferentcity/townthanparents).Theconfiguralinvariance(CFI=0.944,TLI=0.933,RMSEA=0.054,andSRMR=0.061)wassupported(Table5).Differentvaluesbetweenthemetricandconfiguralinvariancemodel(ΔCFI=−0.003,ΔRMSEA=−0.001)anddifferentvaluesbetweenthescalarandmetricinvariance(ΔCFI=−0.002,ΔRMSEA=−0.001)separatelydemonstratedthatthemetricinvarianceandscalarinvarianceweresupported.ThesefindingsindicatedthattheTDFPSdoesmeasurethesameconstructindifferentcohabitationsituations. ReliabilityoftheTDFPS Internalconsistencyreliability Theinternalconsistencyreliabilitywasthentested(Table6).TheR2ofeachitemrangedfrom0.370to0.569,whichwasgreaterthan0.25,reachingagoodlevel.TheCRofeachdimensionwasabove0.8,anacceptablelevel.Theseresultsshowedthattheintrinsicqualityofthemodelwasgood.TheCronbach’salphacoefficientofthetotalscalewas0.85,andthatofeachdimensionexceeded0.8.Thesplit-halfreliabilityofthetotalscalewas0.75,andthatofeachdimensionexceeded0.8.TheCronbach’salphaandthesplit-halfreliabilitymethighandveryhighmeasurementstandards,respectively.TheR2,Cronbach’salphacoefficient,andsplit-halfreliabilityresultsshowedthatthethree-dimensionalscaleofthefilialpietyhadgoodcross-itemstability. TABLE6 Table6.PsychometricpropertiesoftheTDFPS(n=585). Test–retestreliability Theresultsof4-weektest–retestreliabilityshowedthatthevaluesofboththescale(r=0.900,p<0.01)andthethreedimensions(rfrn=0.907,p<0.01;rbi=0.844,p<0.01;rga=0.816,p<0.01)wereverygood(Table6).Theseresultsindicatedthatthescalehadgoodcross-timestability.ValidityoftheTDFPS Structuralvalidity Thethree-factorstructureidentifiedintheEAFwasverifiedusingCFA.TheCFAresultsshowedstatisticallysignificantstandardizedfactorloadings(p<0.001)(Figure3)andacceptable(thenormedχ2)andevengreat(SRMR,RMSEA,CFI,andTLI),goodness-of-fitindices(Table4).Then,thecorrelationsbetweeneachitemanditscorrespondingdimension,amongdifferentdimensions,aswellasbetweeneachdimensionandthetotalscaleweretestedsuccessively(seeTable3).Theresultswereasfollows:(a)amoderatetohighpositivecorrelationbetweeneachitemandthecorrespondingdimension(0.74≤r≤0.80,ps<0.01),indicatingthattheconceptofeachitemwasconsistentwiththatofthecorrespondingdimension;(b)amoderatetolowpositivecorrelationamongthedimensions(ps<0.01,0.28≤r≤0.47),indicatingthatthefactorsrepresentedbythedifferentdimensionswerenotonlyinthesamedirection,butalsodifferentandcouldnotbesubstitutedforeachother;(c)highlypositivecorrelationsbetweenthedimensionsandthetotalscore(ps<0.01,0.71≤r≤0.82),indicatingthatthedimensionswereconsistentwiththeconceptofthetotalscale.Theseresultsdemonstratedthatthethree-factorstructurewasbothindependentandinterrelated,andhadgreatconsistencywiththeentirescale.Therefore,thethree-factortheoreticalstructureoftheTDFPSwasstrong. Criterionvalidity TheDFPSandCFPSwereusedtocalculatetheTDFPS’scriterionvalidity.First,thecommonmethodbiaseswereexaminedusingHarman’ssingle-factortest.Theresultsshowedthattheeigenvaluesof11factorsweregreaterthan1withoutrotation,andthevarianceexplainedbythefirstfactorwas19.55%,whichwaslessthanthecriticalstandardof40%(Podsakoffetal.,2003;Huangetal.,2016).Thisindicatedthatthedeviationsofthecommonmethodsinthisstudywerenotobvious.Thencorrelationanalyseswereconducted,andtheresultsshowedthattheTDFPShadstrongcriterionvalidity(Table7).TheTDFPSscoresweremodestlypositivelycorrelatedwiththeDFPSscores(r=0.14,p<0.05)andtheCFPSscores(r=0.34,p<0.01).Specifically,FRN,BI,andGAhadmodesttomoderatepositivecorrelationswithRFP,PO,andCR(ps<0.05).Inaddition,theAFPwasmodestlynegativelycorrelatedwiththeBI(p<0.01)andhadnocorrelationwiththeFRNorGA(ps>0.05). TABLE7 Table7.CorrelationsofTDFPSwithDFPSandCFPS(n=231). Convergentvalidity TheAVEwasconductedasameasureoftheconvergentvalidity.Inthecurrentstudy,theAVErangedfrom0.458to0.530(Table6)andwasgreaterthantherecommendedlevelof0.5.Thisindicatedadequatelevelsofconvergentvalidity(FornellandLarcker,1981). GeneralDiscussion ReliabilityandValidity Theaimofthepresentstudywastodevelopandvalidateanewmeasuretoassessfilialpiety.ThenewscalewasdevelopedwithreferencetotheTDFPMthatsuggeststhatfilialpietyincludesthreedimensions;namely,thebalanceofinterests,goodaffection,andfamilyrolenorms(WangandZheng,2015,pp.272–273).ThereliabilityandvalidityofthescalewasthenverifiedthroughempiricalanalysisusingdatafromfourinvestigationsofChineseworkingadults. Thethree-factorstructureoffilialpietyobtainedusingtheEFAwasinlinewiththeTDFPM.Furthermore,itwasfoundthatGAwasastrongerexplanatoryfactorthanFRNorBIinexplainingfilialpiety.Thiswasbasedonthefindingthat,comparedwiththeFNRandBI,theGAhadthehighest(a)eigenvalue(GA:5.427;FRN:1.717;BI:1.231),(b)percentvariance(GA:36.1795%;FRN:11.448%;BI:8.204%),(c)factortotalscore(GA:27.25;FRN:23.70;BI:24.88),and(d)itemaverage(GA:5.39–5.53;FRN:4.87–4.92;BI:4.69–5.21).TheseresultsindicatedthattheGAmadethehighestcontributiontothetotalvariance(resultsaandb),andparticipantshadthehighestagreementwithGAitems(resultscandd).Hence,itcanbeconcludedthatChineseworkingadults,growingupinConfuciancultureandinfluencedbyWesternindividualism,stillattachgreatimportancetothegoodaffectionaspectoffilialpiety.ThiscoincideswithYeh’s(2009)viewpointthatthebasicemotionoffilialpietyisbasedonthegoodnatureofhumanbeings. TheCFAwasusedinthisstudytoinvestigateandconfirmthethree-factorstructure.Thefindingsrevealedthatthethree-factormodelprovidedagoodfittothedata.Thereliabilityofthescale,evaluatedbycomputingR2,AVE,Cronbach’salphacoefficient,andsplit-halfreliability,showedthattheTDFPShadgoodcross-itemstability.Furthermore,thetest–retestreliabilityresultsindicatedthatthescalehadgoodcross-timestability.Thevalidationanalysesshowedthatthescalehadgoodpsychometricpropertiesandadequateconcurrentanddiscriminantvalidity. Theresultsofthemeasurementinvarianceshowedexcellentconfigural,metric,andscalarmeasurementequivalence,whichaffirmedthatthethree-factorstructureappliesequallywelltodifferentgenders,agegroups,andcohabitationsituations.Manystudieshavefocusedongenderandagedifferencesinfilialpiety(Matthews,1995;ChappellandKusch,2007),butlittleattentionhasbeenpaidtothecohabitationsituationsbetweenchildrenandtheirparents.However,infact,filialpiety,especiallyfilialbehavior,isvulnerabletothedistancebetweenchildrenandtheirparents.IncontemporaryChina,withanaggravationofinter-regionalpopulationflow,moreandmorepeoplenolongersticktotheoldmottoof“whenparentsarealive,childrenshouldnottraveltoofarafield”andliveindifferentcitiesthantheirparents.Theyregarditasanimportantactoffilialpietytooftentaketheirspouseandchildrenhometovisittheirparents(Wangetal.,2014).However,thisisnotnecessaryforchildrenlivinginthesamehousewiththeirparents.Peoplewholivewiththeirparentshavedifficultyandmaymakeconjectureswhentheyanswerquestionssuchas“IvisitmyparentsregularlyifIamnotlivingwiththem”(Lumetal.,2015).Therefore,thecharacteristicsoffilialpietyunderthethreemainlivingsituations(i.e.,liveinthesamehouse,liveinthesamecity/townbutinadifferenthouse,andliveinadifferentcity/town)werefullyconsideredtoensurethemeasurementinvarianceofthescale.Thus,theCFPScanbecomparedacrossdifferentgenderandagegroups,aswellasdifferentcohabitationsituations.Thesefindingsdemonstratetherobustnessofthethree-factorstructureoftheTDFPS. TheDFPSandCFPSwereusedtoevaluatecriterionvalidity.Theresultsofacorrelationanalysiswereconsistentwiththeexpectations:TheTDFPSwaspositivelycorrelatedwiththeDFPSandCFPS,withalowcorrelationcoefficient.Furthermore,allthreedimensions(FRN,BI,andGA)werepositivelycorrelatedwithRFP,PO,andCR,whileBIwasnegativelycorrelatedwithAFP.ThisindicatedthattheDFPShasgoodcriterionvalidity,andthattheTDFPSisnotamechanicalrepetitionoftheDFPSorCFPS,butratherafurtherexpansionofthefilialpietymeasurementbasedonpreviousstudies.BoththeRFPandCRemphasizeemotionalcaregiving.TheGAalsoincludesameasurementofemotionalmotivation,whichcandistinguishwhetherchildrenarefilialtotheirparentsoutofsincerity.ConsistentwithLumetal.(2015),itisbelievedthattheauthoritativefilialpietyintheDFPSisnolongerthemaincontentofcontemporaryfilialpiety,soitwasexcludedfromtheTDFPS.However,asanimportantculturaltradition,thevalueoffilialpietyasamoralnormstillexists.Therefore,theFRNdimensionisproposed.Lumetal.(2015)emphasizedintergenerationalequalityandfilialpietywithinthescopeofthechildren’sabilityandembodiedthisideainboththePOandCR.ThepresentresearchbuildsuponthatofLumetal.(2015)andusestheBIdimensiontomeasurethebalancebetweenrationalityandmoralityinfilialpiety. StrengthsandLimitations Incontrasttopreviousresearchonfilialpietyscales,thisstudyhasthreemainstrengths.First,thenewscalewasdevelopedusingacombinationoftheory-drivenanddata-driveninformation,whichisregardedasthebestwaytoproducerobustmodelsandmeasurescomparedwithusingtheory-drivenordata-driveninformationalone(Jiang,2004;Xiongetal.,2018).Inthisstudy,preliminaryitemsbasedontheTDFPMwerefirstgeneratedandthenrevisedthemaccordingtoempiricalresultsobtainedfromfoursamplesofChineseworkingadults.Second,thetargetgroupinthisstudywasworkingadults,whoaretheprimarysourceofsupportfortheelderlyincurrentChinesesociety.DuetotheinfluenceofthetraditionalfilialpietycultureandthelimitationsofthecurrentsocialsecuritysysteminChina,workingchildrenaretheprimarysourcetosupporttheelderly.Whethertheyhavefilialpietyconsciousnessandwhatkindoffilialpietytheyholdwillnotonlyaffectthesuccessorfailureofafamilyprovidingfortheaged,butalsoaffectthephysicalandmentalhealthandqualityoflifeoftheelderly.Therefore,itisextremelyimportanttoexplorethecharacteristicsoffilialpietyinworkingchildren. Third,theTDFPScannotonlybeusedtocompareindividuallevelsoffilialpietyonasingledimension,likeotherfilialpietyscales,suchastheDFPSandCFPS,butalsoitcanbedividedintoeighttypesaccordingtothethree-dimensionalhexapolarmodel.TheTDFPScanmeasurethedegreeofpreferenceforthepolarityofeachdimension.Inthisway,thesubtypesineachdimensioncanfirstbemeasuredandthensynthesizedwiththesubtypesofthethreedimensionstoobtaintheoverallfilialpietytype.Accordingtodifferentcombinationsofpreferencesinthethreedimensions,filialpietycanbedividedintoeighttypesasfollows:true-autonomy-reasonable,true-autonomy-unreasonable,false-autonomy-reasonable,false-autonomy-unreasonable,true-heteronomy-reasonable,true-heteronomy-unreasonable,false-heteronomy-reaonable,andfalse-heteronomy-unreaonable.Thethreedimensionsaresharedbyallindividuals.However,people’sidentificationofeachdimensionisdifferent.Theseeighttypesconstitutedbythethreedimensionsaresupposedtohavedifferentdistributionandinfluenceindifferentpopulations,whichneedstobeexploredinfuturestudies. Severallimitationsofthisstudyareworthnotingandmayprovidedirectionforfurtherresearch.First,theproportionofmiddle-agedpeopleover40yearsoldinthisstudywasrelativelysmall(14.54%forEFA,19.49%forCFA).Thesepeoplebelongtothe“sandwich”generationandhaveelderlyandchildrenintheirfamilytotakecareof.Somepeopleevenhavetofaceconflictsbetweencaringfortheirparentsandtheirgrandchildren.Anexaminationoftheirunderstandingofthemoralityandrationalityoffilialpietyandthebalanceofrightsandinterestsisalsovaluableforresearch.Second,theTDFPSisaself-evaluationscale,anditcanbedifficulttogainreliableself-insightinaglobaltendencyassessment.Thiscanleadtomemorybiasanddesirability-relateddistortionsinparticipantresponses(Kahnemanetal.,2004;Schwarzetal.,2009;Brienzaetal.,2018).Thisscalewascompletedanonymously.Participantswereremindedoftheconfidentialityoftheresearchresultsandaskedtorespondtothescaleaccordingtotheiractualsituation.Althoughitisnotpossibletoeliminateparticipantresponsebiases,theseproceduresmayreducethemtoacertaindegree(Xiongetal.,2018).Toimprovetheecologicalvalidityandreducethesocialdesirabilitybiases,astate-levelthree-dimensionalfilialpietyscalecanbecompiledbyutilizingtheeventreconstructionmethod(ERM)proposedbyKahnemanetal.(2004).TheERMprovidesgreateraccesstoepisodicmemorybyilluminatingdetails(Wagenaar,1986;RobinsonandClore,2002)andcanvividlyre-evokecertaineventsorepisodesfromthepast(Grubeetal.,2008).However,toachieveastablefilialpietymeasurementthroughtheERM,researchersneedtousethescaleforrepeatedmeasurementsoveraperiodoftime,suchas1monthor1year.Thisincreasesthedifficultyandcostofmeasurement. Conclusion Thetwomainconclusionsofthisstudyareasfollows:(1)TheTDFPMwassupported,andtheTDFPSdulyincludedthreedimensions;namelythebalanceofinterests,goodaffection,andfamilyrolenorms.(2)ThenewlydevelopedTDFPSisareliableandvalidmeasurementoffilialpietywithgoodpsychometricpropertiesandcanbeusedtomeasurefilialpietyacrossdifferentage,gender,andcohabitationsituations. EthicsStatement ThisstudywasconductedfollowingtheapprovalbytheEthicsCommitteeofthePsychologicalExperimentTeachingCenter,NanjingNormalUniversity.AllparticipantsgavetheirinformedconsentinaccordancewiththeDeclarationofHelsinki.Participantswereallowedtowithdrawfromthestudywhenevertheywanted,andthedatawerecollectedanonymously. AuthorContributions JScontributedtotheitemgeneration,datacollection,dataanalysis,andwritingofthemanuscript.FWcontributedinprovidingtheoreticalguidanceandwritingofthemanuscript. Funding ThisworkwassupportedbytheMOEProjectofKeyResearchInstituteofHumanitiesandSocialSciencesatUniversities(GrantNo.16JJD880026awardedtoFW)inChina,andthe2017PostgraduateResearch&PracticeInnovationProgramofJiangsuProvinceofChina(GrantNo.KYCX17_1019awardedtoJS). ConflictofInterestStatement Theauthorsdeclarethattheresearchwasconductedintheabsenceofanycommercialorfinancialrelationshipsthatcouldbeconstruedasapotentialconflictofinterest. SupplementaryMaterial TheSupplementaryMaterialforthisarticlecanbefoundonlineat:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02040/full#supplementary-material References Bedford,O.,andYeh,K.H.(2019).Thehistoryandthefutureofthepsychologyoffilialpiety:Chinesenormstocontextualizedpersonalityconstruct.Front.Psychol.10:100.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00100 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bosworth,K.,Espelage,D.L.,andSimon,T.R.(1999).Factorsassociatedwithbullyingbehaviorinmiddleschoolstudents.J.EarlyAdolesc.19,341–362.doi:10.1177/0272431699019003003 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Brienza,J.P.,Kung,F.,Santos,H.C.,Bobocel,D.R.,andGrossmann,I.(2018).Wisdom,bias,andbalance:towardaprocess-sensitivemeasurementofwisdom-relatedcognition.J.Personal.Soc.Psychol.115,1093–1126.doi:10.1037/pspp0000171 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Byrne,B.M.(2008).Testingformultigroupequivalenceofameasuringinstrument:awalkthroughtheprocess.Psicothema20,872–882.doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Cao,W.C.,andYeh,K.H.(2014).Theintergenerationalrelationshipunderpopulationaging:analysisonthechangesinfilialpietyinTaiwanSocietyfrom1994to2011.Sociol.Stud.2,116–144. GoogleScholar Chappell,N.L.,andKusch,K.(2007).Thegenderednatureoffilialpiety–astudyamongchinesecanadians.JCrossCult.Gerontol.22,29–45.doi:10.1007/s10823-006-9011-5 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Chen,B.F.(2009).ChangeofInter-generationalrelationsandtheelderlysuicide:anempiricalstudyinJingshancounty,HubeiProvince.Sociol.Stud.4,157–176. GoogleScholar Chen,S.X.,Bond,M.H.,andTang,D.(2007).Decomposingfilialpietyintofilialattitudesandfilialenactments.AsianJ.Soc.Psychol.10,213–223.doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2007.00230.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Chen,W.W.,andHo,H.Z.(2012).Therelationbetweenperceivedparentalinvolvementandacademicachievement:therolesofTaiwanesestudents’academicbeliefsandfilialpiety.Int.J.Psychol.47,315–324.doi:10.1080/00207594.2011.630004 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Cheung,G.W.,andRensvold,R.B.(2002).Evaluatinggoodness-of-fitindexesfortestingmeasurementinvariance.Struct.Equ.ModelingMultidiscip.J.9,233–255.doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Chow,N.W.S.(2006).Thepracticeoffilialpietyanditsimpactonlong-termcarepoliciesforelderlypeopleinAsianChinesecommunities.AsianJ.Gerontol.Geriatrics1,31–35. GoogleScholar Di,J.H.,andZheng,D.D.(2016).Ethicallapseorethicalchange:onruralChinafamilyresourceallocationfrommodernizationperspective.Society36,186–212.doi:10.15992/j.cnki.31-1123/c.2016.01.008 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Fleming,J.S.(2003).Computingmeasuresofsimplicityoffitforloadingsinfactoranalyticallyderivedscales.Behav.Res.MethodsInstrum.Comput.35,520–524.doi:10.3758/BF03195531 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Fornell,C.,andLarcker,D.F.(1981).Evaluatingstructuralequationmodelswithunobservablevariablesandmeasurementerror.J.Mark.Res.18,39–50.doi:10.2307/3151312 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Fu,X.R.,Wang,F.Y.,Chen,X.,andWei,X.D.(2016).Filialpiety:theories,measurements,variations,andrelationshipstorelatedvariables.Adv.Psychol.Sci.24,293–304.doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.00293 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Geldhof,G.J.,andStawski,R.S.(2015).“Invariance,”inEncyclopediaofAdulthoodandAging,ed.S.K.Withbourne,(Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons),1–6.doi:10.1002/9781118521373.wbeaa277 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Greenhaus,J.H.,andBeutell,N.J.(1985).Sourcesofconflictbetweenworkandfamilyroles.Acad.Manage.Rev.10,76–88.doi:10.2307/258214 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Grube,A.,Schroer,J.,Hentzschel,C.,andHertel,G.(2008).Theeventreconstructionmethod:anefficientmeasureofexperience-basedjobsatisfaction.J.Occup.Organ.Psychol.81,669–689.doi:10.1348/096317907X251578 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Hair,J.F.,Black,W.C.,Babin,B.J.,Anderson,R.E.,andTatham,R.L.(2006).MultivariateDataAnalysis,6thEdn.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall. GoogleScholar Ho,D.Y.F.(1994).Filialpiety,authoritarianmoralism,andcognitiveconservatisminChinesesocieties.Genet.Soc.Gen.Psychol.Monogr.120,349–365. PubMedAbstract|GoogleScholar Ho,D.Y.F.,andLee,L.Y.(1974).AuthoritarianismandattitudetowardfilialpietyinChineseteachers.J.Soc.Psychol.92,305–306.doi:10.1080/00224545.1974.9923111 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Hu,A.N.(2017).Diversityofchildren’ssupportfortheirparentsinthecontextofaging:ideasandbehavior.Soc.Sci.China3,77–95. GoogleScholar Hu,L.T.,andBentler,P.M.(1999).Cutoffcriteriaforfitindexesincovariancestructureanalysis:conventionalcriteriaversusnewalternatives.Struct.Equ.Modeling6,1–55.doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Huang,Q.B.,Du,P.,andChen,G.(2017).Thetypologyofintergenerationalrelationsbetweenadultchildrenandolderparents.Popul.J.39,102–112.doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu069 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Huang,S.L.,Han,M.Y.,Ning,C.F.,andLin,C.D.(2016).Schoolidentitypromotessenseofresponsibilityincollegestudents:themediatingroleofself-esteem.ActaPsychol.Sin.48,684–692. GoogleScholar Jiang,G.R.(2004).ClassenvironmentintheChineseschoolsystem:structureandmeasurement.Psychol.Sci.27,839–843.doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.12.019 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Jin,C.C.,Zou,H.,andYu,Y.B.(2011).Thetraitoffilialpietybeliefandtherelationshipoffilialpietybelief,attachmentandinterpersonaladaptionofmiddleschoolstudents.Psychol.DevEduc.6,619–624. GoogleScholar Kahneman,D.,Krueger,A.B.,Schkade,D.A.,Schwarz,N.,andStone,A.A.(2004).Asurveymethodforcharacterizingdailylifeexperience:thedayreconstructionmethod.Science306,1776–1780.doi:10.1126/science.1103572 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Kaiser,H.(1974).Anindexoffactorialsimplicity.Psychometrika39,31–36.doi:10.1007/BF02291575 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Kaplan,U.(2017).Moralmotivationasadynamicdevelopmentalprocess:towardanintegrativesynthesis.J.TheorySoc.Behav.47,195–221.doi:10.1111/jtsb.12116 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Knoblock,J.(1999).“Xunzi,”inLibraryofChineseClassics(Chinese-English),ed.M.Z.Yang,(Changsha:HunanPeople’sPublishingHouse). GoogleScholar Lam,R.C.(2006).ContradictionsbetweentraditionalChinesevaluesandtheactualperformance:astudyofthecaregivingrolesofthemodernsandwichgenerationinHongKong.J.Comp.Fam.Stud.37,299–312.doi:10.2307/41604074 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Lan,P.C.(2002).SubcontractingfilialpietyeldercareinethnicChineseimmigrantfamiliesinCalifornia.J.Fam.Issues23,812–835.doi:10.1177/019251302236596 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Lee,W.K.M.,andKwok,H.K.(2005).DifferencesinexpectationsandpatternsofinformalsupportforolderpersonsinHongKong:modificationtofilialpiety.AgeingInt.30,188–206.doi:10.1007/s12126-005-1011-1 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Leung,A.N.M.,Wong,S.S.F.,Wong,I.W.Y.,andChang,C.M.(2010).FilialpietyandpsychosocialadjustmentinHongKongChineseearlyadolescents.J.EarlyAdolesc.30,651–667.doi:10.1177/0272431609341046 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Li,H.W.(2014).DoesfilialpietyregeneratebyruralChristianity?——AcasestudyonLivillage.J.ChinaAgric.Univ.31,107–117.doi:10.13240/j.cnki.caujsse.20140928.003 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Li,S.,andFang,Z.(2018).Theanomieofthefilialpietycultureanddilemmaoffamilysupportfortheelderlyinthecontextofruralsocialstructure.Soc.Constr.5,62–73. GoogleScholar Liu,Y.F.,andHu,J.(2017).WhowillTakeCareofElderlyParents?Intra-householdLaborDivisionunderthePerspectiveofOpportunityCost.Popul.J.39,67–76. GoogleScholar Lum,T.Y.S.,Yan,E.C.W.,Ho,A.H.Y.,Shum,M.H.Y.,Wong,G.H.Y.,Lau,M.M.Y.,etal.(2015).Measuringfilialpietyinthe21stcentury:development,factorstructure,andreliabilityofthe10-itemcontemporaryfilialpietyscale.J.Appl.Gerontol.35,1235–1247.doi:10.1177/0733464815570664 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Luo,B.Z.,andZhan,H.Y.(2012).Filialpietyandfunctionalsupport:understandingintergenerationalsolidarityamongfamilieswithmigratedchildreninruralChina.AgeingInt.37,69–92.doi:10.1007/s12126-011-9132-1 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar MacCallum,R.C.,Browne,M.W.,andSugawara,H.M.(1996).Poweranalysisanddeterminationofsamplesizeforcovariancestructuremodeling.Psychol.Methods1,130–149.doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Matthews,S.H.(1995).Genderandthedivisionoffilialresponsibilitybetweenlonesistersandtheirbrothers.J.Gerontol.50,312–320.doi:10.1093/geronb/50B.5.S312 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Podsakoff,P.M.,MacKenzie,S.B.,Lee,J.Y.,andPodsakoff,N.P.(2003).Commonmethodbiasesinbehavioralresearch:acriticalreviewoftheliteratureandrecommendedremedies.J.Appl.Psychol.88,879–903.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Qi,X.Y.(2015).FilialobligationincontemporaryChina:evolutionoftheculture-system.J.TheorySoc.Behav.45,141–161.doi:10.1111/jtsb.12052 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Rensvold,R.B.,andCheung,G.W.(2001).Testingformetricinvarianceusingstructuralequationmodels:solvingthestandardizationproblem.Res.Manage.1,21–50. GoogleScholar Robinson,M.D.,andClore,G.L.(2002).Beliefandfeeling:evidenceforanaccessibilitymodelofemotionalself-report.Psychol.Bull.128,934–960.doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.6.934 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Rosemont,H.,andAmes,R.T.(2009).TheChineseClassicofFamilyReverence:APhilosophicalTranslationoftheXiaojing.Honolulu,HI:UniversityofHawai’IPress. GoogleScholar Schreiber,J.B.,Nora,A.,Stage,F.K.,Barlow,E.A.,andKing,J.(2006).Reportingstructuralequationmodelingandconfirmatoryfactoranalysisresults:areview.J.Educ.Res.99,323–337.doi:10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Schwarz,N.,Kahneman,D.,andXu,J.(2009).“Globalandepisodicreportsofhedonicexperience,”inCalendarandTimeDiary:MethodsinLifeCourseResearch,edsR.Belli,D.Alwin,andF.Stafford,(NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications),157–174. GoogleScholar Steenkamp,J.B.E.M.,andBaumgartner,H.(1998).Assessingmeasurementinvarianceincross-nationalconsumerresearch.J.Consum.Res.25,78–107.doi:10.1086/209528 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Sun,Y.(2017).Amongahundredgoodvirtues,filialpietyisthefirst:contemporarymoraldiscoursesonfilialpietyinurbanchina.Anthropol.Q.90,771–799.doi:10.1353/anq.2017.0043 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Sung,K.T.(1995).MeasuresanddimensionsoffilialpietyinKorea.Gerontologist35,240–247.doi:10.1093/geront/35.2.240 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Tzeng,O.C.S.,Ware,R.,andBharadwaj,N.(1991).Comparisonbetweencontinuousbipolarandunipolarratingsofthemyers-briggstypeindicator.Educ.Psychol.Meas.51,681–690.doi:10.1177/0013164491513019 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Vandenberg,R.J.,andLance,C.E.(2000).Areviewandsynthesisofthemeasurementinvarianceliterature:suggestions,practices,andrecommendationsfororganizationalresearch.Organ.Res.Methods3,4–70.doi:10.1177/109442810031002 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Wagenaar,W.A.(1986).Mymemory:astudyofautobiographicalmemoryoversixyears.Cogn.Psychol.18,225–252.doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90013-7 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Wang,D.H.,Laidlaw,K.,Power,M.J.,andShen,J.L.(2010).Olderpeople’sbeliefoffilialpietyinchina:expectationandnon-expectation.Clin.Gerontol.33,21–38.doi:10.1080/07317110903347771 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Wang,F.Y.,Xu,Z.M.,Sun,Y.J.,andZhou,L.(2014).TheFilialPietyMindofContemporaryChineseandIt’sTransition.Psychol.Explor.34,529–535. GoogleScholar Wang,F.Y.,andZheng,H.(2015).ChineseCulturalPsychology,5thEdn.Guangzhou:JinanUniversityPress. GoogleScholar Wang,M.C.(2014).LatentVariableModelingUsingMplus.Chongqing:ChongqingUniversityPress. GoogleScholar Whyte,M.K.(2004).“FilialobligationsinChinesefamilies:paradoxesofmodernization,”inFilialPiety:PracticeandDiscoursesinContemporaryEastAsia,ed.C.Ikels,(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress),106–127. GoogleScholar Worthington,R.L.,andWhittaker,T.A.(2006).Scaledevelopmentresearchacontentanalysisandrecommendationsforbestpractices.Couns.Psychol.34,806–838.doi:10.1177/0011000006288127 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Wu,M.L.(2013).QuestionnaireStatisticalAnalysisPractice-SPSSOperationandApplication.Chongqing:ChongqingUniversityPress. GoogleScholar Xiong,M.M.,Wang,F.Y.,andCai,R.X.(2018).DevelopmentandValidationoftheChineseModestyScale(CMS).Front.Psychol.9:2014.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02014 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Yan,Y.(2016).Intergenerationalintimacyanddescendingfamilisminruralnorthchina.Am.Anthropol.118,244–257.doi:10.1111/aman.12527 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Yang,K.S.(2012).“AnAnalysisoftheConceptofChineseFilialPiety,”inChinesePsychology,ed.K.S.Yang,(Beijing:ChinaRenminUniversityPress),32–59. GoogleScholar Yang,K.S.,Yeh,K.H.,andHuang,L.L.(1989).Social-psychologicalaspectsofChinesefilialpiety:conceptualizationandmeasurement.Bull.Inst.Ethnol.Acad.Sin.65,171–227. GoogleScholar Yeh,K.H.(2003).“Thebeneficialandharmfuleffectsoffilialpiety:anintegrativeanalysis,”inAsianSocialPsychology:ConceputualandEmpiricalContributions,edsK.S.Yang,K.K.Hwang,P.B.Pederson,andI.Daibo,(Westport,CT:Praeger). GoogleScholar Yeh,K.H.(2009).ThedualfilialpietymodelinChineseculture:retrospectandprospects.Indig.Psychol.Res.Chin.Soc.32,101–148. GoogleScholar Yeh,K.H.,andBedford,O.(2003).Atestofthedualfilialpietymodel.AsianJ.Soc.Psychol.6,215–228.doi:10.1046/j.1467-839X.2003.00122.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Yeh,K.H.,Yi,C.C.,Tsao,W.C.,andWan,P.S.(2013).FilialpietyincontemporaryChinesesocieties:acomparativestudyofTaiwan.HongKong,andChina.Int.Sociol.28,277–296.doi:10.1177/0268580913484345 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Zeng,J.P.,andZou,P.L.(2017).StudyonthechallengesandremediesoftraditionalChinesefilialpietyinChina.J.ofHubeiUniv.44,7–13.doi:10.13793/j.cnki.42-1020/c.2017.03.002 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Zhan,H.J.(2004).Willingnessandexpectations:intergenerationaldifferencesinattitudestowardfilialresponsibilityinChina.MarriageFam.Rev.34,175–200.doi:10.1300/J002v36n01_08 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Zhan,H.J.,Feng,X.,andLuo,B.(2008).Placingelderlyparentsininstitutionsinurbanchina:areinterpretationoffilialpiety.Res.Aging15,1695–1712.doi:10.1177/0164027508319471 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Keywords:filialpiety,workingadults,balanceofinterests,goodaffection,familyrolenorms,three-dimensionalfilialpietymodel,scaledevelopment Citation:ShiJandWangF(2019)Three-DimensionalFilialPietyScale:DevelopmentandValidationofFilialPietyAmongChineseWorkingAdults.Front.Psychol.10:2040.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02040 Received:05February2019;Accepted:21August2019;Published:06September2019. Editedby: DorisF.Chang,TheNewSchool,UnitedStates Reviewedby: FanliJia,SetonHallUniversity,UnitedStates PeizhenSun,JiangsuNormalUniversity,China Copyright©2019ShiandWang.Thisisanopen-accessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicense(CCBY).Theuse,distributionorreproductioninotherforumsispermitted,providedtheoriginalauthor(s)andthecopyrightowner(s)arecreditedandthattheoriginalpublicationinthisjournaliscited,inaccordancewithacceptedacademicpractice.Nouse,distributionorreproductionispermittedwhichdoesnotcomplywiththeseterms. *Correspondence:FengyanWang,[email protected] †ORCID:FengyanWang,orcid.org/0000-0002-2167-6830 Peoplealsolookedat Download