Family bonds are important in all human societies, but the ways of expressing value for family are culturally variable. Familism is the term used for a cultural ideal that family relationships be warm, close, supportive, and that family be prioritized over self (e.g., Campos et al., 2008; 2014; Hooker et al., 2025; Sabogal et al., 1987; Steidel & Contreras, 2003). Familism is central to U.S. Latino culture, and is most studied in this population, but familism is increasingly recognized to be relevant to many other groups, including African Americans, Asian Americans, and, under specific socioeconomic conditions, European Americans (e.g., Campos et al., 2014; Chiang et al., 2019; Hooker et al., 2025; Schwartz et al., 2010). Familism is relevant to many stress-related processes and outcomes in which relationships play an important role.

 

Background

Familism was first conceptualized in the early 20th century. In the 1970-80’s, the term was used to describe observed differences in the family relationships of Americans of Latino heritage (primarily Mexican) and European heritage. The distinct patterns observed among Americans of Latino heritage included greater willingness to engage in behaviors that met family obligations, preferring family members as sources of social support, and taking family members into consideration when making individual life decisions more so than Americans of European heritage (e.g., Sabogal et al., 1987).

​

Currently, familism is considered one of several family-related constructs prevalent in collectivist cultures (e.g., Hooker et al., 2025; Schwartz et al., 2010). For example, familism in Latino cultures and filial piety in Asian cultures are both associated with living in close proximity or shared households with family, contributing to family financial well-being through work and career choices, and dividing time more evenly between peers and family than is normative among Americans of European heritage (e.g., Fuligni et al., 1999).

​

Familism is particularly relevant to family and close-relationship processes, prosocial behavior, experience in educational settings, and health (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011; Campos et al., 2016; Campos et al., 2008; Chiang et al., 2019; Stein et al., 2014). As stress is relevant to these processes, familism is relevant to stress. 

​

The term “familism” is often used interchangeably with “familialism” and “familismo.” 

​

Measurement

Familism is a multidimensional construct comprised of attitudinal, behavioral, and structural components (e.g., Sabogal et al., 1987). Attitudinal familism refers to beliefs regarding how family relationships should be and is the most commonly studied, and most commonly measured, dimension of familism. Strong agreement that family members should be close, assist each other when needed, and be taken into consideration when one is making important life decisions are indicators of attitudinal familism. Behavioral familism refers to actions that prioritize family. For example, integrating family members into one’s everyday life via frequent visits or other forms of communication is an indicator of behavioral familism. Structural familism, while not an individual difference level variable, refers to aspects of one’s physical or social context that facilitates attitudinal and/or behavioral familism.

​

Attitudinal familism is typically measured through self-report scales that reflect the extent to which an individual endorses: (a) that family obligations should be met, (b) that family should be a first source of emotional support, (c) that interconnectedness among family members should be highly valued, (d) that family should be taken into account when making important decisions, (e) that behavior should be managed to maintain family honor, and (f) one should willingly subordinate individual preferences for the benefit of family (Knight et al., 2010; Sabogal et al., 1987; Steidel & Contreras, 2003).

​

Behavioral familism is typically measured via questions about frequency of spending time with family, level of warmth expressed, and parental monitoring (e.g., Hernández & Bámaca‐Colbert, 2016).

Cahill et al. (2021, Table 1) provides a useful list of attitudinal familism scales, including the Sabogal et al. (1987) 14-item measure that is the most widely cited. Sabogal et al. (1987) describes the development of the scale. Campos et al. (2019) describes the scale’s measurement properties, including factor structure, factorial invariance, convergent and discriminant validity, and internal consistency in a study of U.S. Latinos from six national heritage backgrounds. Hooker et al. (2025) used confirmatory factor analysis in a racially and ethnically diverse U.S. sample and found that four items had to be dropped to allow for analytic comparison of Latino, African, and European heritage groups. Overall, the Sabogal et al. (1987) scale has been administered in English and Spanish with U.S. samples of various ages and ethnic/race backgrounds as well as with adult samples in Spain. Researchers using familism measures should take care to follow the recommendations of recent examinations of the psychometric properties of their measure and plan to conduct psychometric analyses as needed in their studies. 

​

Limitations/strengths

Research on familism brings needed attention to the relevance of culturally-shaped beliefs about how family relationships should be for health. These beliefs are relevant to stress processes and outcomes in which stress plays a role. Familism is increasingly recognized to be health protective, a finding that dovetails with much evidence that high-quality relationships are health protective. Established measures of familism can be reliably used in research with U.S. Latinos, African American, Asian American, and European American samples. 

​

As research on familism moves forward, more psychometric studies of the properties of familism are needed, and care must be taken when using measures with new samples that have not yet been studied in terms of their familism. It is also possible that aspects of familism that are core to its most widely studied form—U.S. Latino familism—may not generalize to other groups, or that some aspects may generalize (e.g., support) but not others (e.g., considering family opinions in one’s important decision-making).

​

Future research can contribute by advancing understanding of the reach of familism’s relevance by group, psychological process, and outcome, particularly in populations that remain underrepresented in psychological research.

​​

Author(s) and Reviewer(s): Prepared by Belinda Campos, PhD., Rodolfo Medina Ceballos, & Nicole M. Froidevaux, PhD. Reviewed by Karina M. Cahill, PhD. Please direct suggestions and feedback to Dr. Campos (bcampos@uci.edu).

​

Version date: July 2025.

 

References (* indicating selected citations)

*Cahill, K. M., Updegraff, K. A., Causadias, J. M., & Korous, K. M. (2021). Familism values and adjustment among Hispanic/Latino individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(9), 947–985. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000336

​

Calderón-Tena, C. O., Knight, G. P., & Carlo, G. (2011). The socialization of prosocial behavioral tendencies among Mexican American adolescents: The role of familism values. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021825

​

Campos, B., Perez, O. F. R., & Guardino, C. (2016). Familism: A cultural value with implications for romantic relationship quality in U.S. Latinos. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514562564

​

Campos, B., Roesch, S. C., Gonzalez, P., Hooker, E. D., Castañeda, S. F., Giachello, A. L., Perreira, K. M., & Gallo, L. C. (2019). Measurement properties of Sabogal’s Familism Scale: Findings from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) sociocultural ancillary study. Journal of Latinx Psychology, 7(4), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000126

​

Campos, B., Schetter, C. D., Abdou, C. M., Hobel, C. J., Glynn, L. M., & Sandman, C. A. (2008). Familialism, social support, and stress: Positive implications for pregnant Latinas. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.14.2.155

​

*Campos, B., Ullman, J. B., Aguilera, A., & Dunkel Schetter, C. (2014). Familism and psychological health: The intervening role of closeness and social support. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034094

​

*Campos, B., Yim, I. S., & Busse, D. (2018). Culture as a pathway to maximizing the stress-buffering role of social support. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 40(3), 294-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318772490

​

*Chiang, J. J., Chen, E., Leigh, A. K. K., Hoffer, L. C., Lam, P. H., & Miller, G. E. (2019). Familism and inflammatory processes in African American, Latino, and White youth. Health Psychology, 38(4), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000715

​

Fuligni, A. J., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70(4), 1030-1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00075

​

Hernández, M. M., & Bámaca‐Colbert, M. Y. (2016). A behavioral process model of familism. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(4), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12166

​

Hooker, E. D., Corona, K., Guardino, C. M., Schetter, C. D., & Campos, B. (2025). What predicts interdependence with family? The relative contributions of ethnicity/race and social class. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 31(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000593

​​

Knight, G. P., Gonzales, N. A., Saenz, D. S., Bonds, D. D., Germán, M., Deardorff, J., ... & Updegraff, K. A. (2010). The Mexican American cultural values scale for adolescents and adults. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(3), 444-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609338178

​

*Sabogal, F., Marín, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marín, B. V., & Perez-Stable, E. J. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn't? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(4), 397-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863870094003

​

*Schwartz, S. J., Weisskirch, R. S., Hurley, E. A., Zamboanga, B. L., Park, I. J. K., Kim, S. Y., Umaña-Taylor, A., Castillo, L. G., Brown, E., & Greene, A. D. (2010). Communalism, familism, and filial piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather? Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(4), 548–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021370

​

Steidel, A. G. L., & Contreras, J. M. (2003). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(3), 312-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986303256912

​

*Stein, G. L., Cupito, A. M., Mendez, J. L., Prandoni, J., Huq, N., & Westerberg, D. (2014). Familism through a developmental lens. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 2(4), 224–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000025