CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 127Intergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesDiaspora, migration, transnational identity

The Gendered Nature of Filial Piety — A Study among Chinese Canadians

Chappell, Neena L., Kusch, Karen·2007·Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology
DOI 10.1007/s10823-006-9011-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper examines the modern face of filial piety enactment among Chinese families living away from their homeland. It empirically assesses filial piety practices among a random sample of diasporic Chinese Canadians, by studying the role of sons, daughters and spouses in providing assistance with basic activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living and perceptions of support; the relative contribution of the traditional Chinese caring unit (son plus daughter-in-law) with assistance provided; whether source of assistance changes when amount of care is taken into account, when the gendered nature of tasks is taken into account and when controlling for other factors in multivariate analyses. N = 2,272 Chinese seniors (age 55+) living in seven cities across Canada. The findings reveal that, among these diasporic Chinese, patterns found in other Chinese societies are evident in their tendency to live with children, even when the spouse is still living, and the involvement of sons and the son/daughter-in-law unit in providing care. However, similar to recent findings for China, daughters and spouses are involved in all 3 areas of support examined and importantly, their involvement increases as more assistance is provided while that from sons decreases, notably in terms of IADL. The participation of daughters-in-law tends to be lower than that of either sons or daughters. The involvement of spouses increases for perceived or emotional support. The findings suggest a blending of Chinese and Canadian patterns of care and are discussed in terms of the changing but still gendered nature of care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10823-006-9011-5

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Chan, M. R. W. W. (2001). Chinese Canadian festivals: Where memory and imagination converge for diasporic Chinese communities in Toronto (Ontario). PhD Dissertation. Toronto: York University.
  2. Chen, S. (1997). Being Chinese, becoming Chinese-American: The transformation of Chinese identity in the United States, 1910–1928. PhD Dissertation. Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
  3. Chen Y. (1998). An analysis of living arrangements and environment of rural elderly: A case study of a Guangdong rural community. Northwest Population Journal, 72(2), 36–38.
  4. Cheng, E., Horn, G., & Hong, M. J. (1978). A cross-cultural study of minority elders in San Diego. San Diego University: Centre on Aging.
  5. Martin Matthews, A., & Campbell, L. (1995) Gender roles, employment and informal care. In S. Arber & J. Ginn (Eds.), Connecting gender and aging: A sociological analysis (pp. 129–143). Buckingham: Open University Press.
  6. McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1996). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires: Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
  7. Unger, J. (1993). Urban families in the eighties. In D. Davis & S. Harrell (Eds.), Chinese families in the Post-Mao Era (pp. 25–49).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chappell, N. L., & Kusch, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Victoria (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Chappell, Neena L.
ORCID
Chappell, Neena L.
Venue
Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2006-10-12
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
29-45
ISSN
  • 0169-3816 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0719
DOI
10.1007/s10823-006-9011-5
OpenAlex
W1978587908
Cited by
127
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Aging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Diaspora, migration, transnational identity
Keywords
filial piety, Chinese Canadians, Chinese diaspora, gendered care, family caregiving, instrumental activities of daily living, activities of daily living, daughters-in-law, sons, daughters, spouses, older adults, living arrangements, intergenerational support
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Canada, Cultural Characteristics, Family Characteristics, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Parent-Child Relations, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Housing for the Elderly, Intergenerational Relations, Caregivers, Sex Distribution, Moral Obligations, Adult Children, Asian People

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review