Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pakistan Journal of Social Research
ISSN 2710-3129 (P) 2710-3137 (O)
Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2023, pp. 905-913.
https://doi.org/10.52567/pjsr.v5i02.1203
www.pjsr.com.pk
905
FAMILY FUNCTIONING AND SOCIAL COMPETENCE IN ADOLESCENTS:
MEDIATING ROLE OF EMOTIONAL REGULATION
Hira Shafiq
National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad
Rubina Hanif
National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad
Sameera Shafiq
*
PhD Scholar, Department of Psychology, University of Gujrat, Gujrat
sameerashafiq@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
The present study aimed at investigating the mediating role of emotion regulation in relationship
between family functioning and social competences in adolescents. ICPS Family Functioning Scale
(Noller, Seth-Smith, Bouma, & Schweitzer, 1992), Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Children and
Adolescents (Gullone & Taffe, 2012) and Social Competence Scale (Smart & Sanson, 2003) were used
on 621 adolescents, selected by purposive sampling technique to measure the study variables. Results
revealed that family functioning has significant positive relationship with cognitive reappraisal (r=.17,
p<0.01), emotional regulation (r=.14, p<0.01) and social competence (r=.36, p<0.01). Social
competence has significant positive correlation with suppression (r=.14, p<0.01), cognitive
reappraisal (r=.39, p<0.01), and emotional regulation (r=.34, p<0.01). Family functioning (β=.31,
p<0.01) and emotional regulation (β=.29, p<0.01) have significantly and positively predicted social
competences in college students. Intimacy (β=.39, p<0.01) and conflict (β=.11, p<0.01) have
significantly and positively predicted social competences in college students. Cognitive reappraisal
(β=.38, p<0.01) has significantly and positively predicted social competences in college students.
Cognitive reappraisal has partially mediated between family functioning and social competences of the
adolescents. Implications are discussed in the light of the results.
Keywords: Adolescents, Intimacy, Parenting Style, Reappraisal, Social Competence.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most important protective factors, necessary for adaptive social development is social
competence which is socially relevant and learned behaviors that help a person to act appropriately with
other individuals and refers to the person’s ability to show social desirable responses. In addition, skills
like cooperation, assertion, self-control, responsibility and empathy make extensive dimensions of
social competence (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Social competence contributed in many areas of
adolescence such as in academics, in forming intimate relationships, stable careers, adaptive marital
relations, academic competence and better mental and social wellbeing (Clausen, 1991). These new
areas prove to be fruitful for further development and improvement of social skills. It has been reported
that less attention is given to investigate the social competence at developmental stage of adolescence
as compared to young children and its contribution to wellbeing and adaptation (Smart & Sanson, 2003).
Social relationships considered as a crucial factor that influence social development of
adolescents is family. Noller (1995) stated that positive family relationships help adolescents to get
through the major transition from childhood to adulthood and determine the competence and confidence
of adolescents. Adaptive family functioning is essential for adolescents to deal with major task of
adolescence successfully and smoothly and help them to solve problems effectively that are associated
with this stage of life in developing close interpersonal relationships.
*
Corresponding Author
Shafiq, Hanif, & Shafiq
906
Family also provides a context for socialization of emotional expression as individual first
communicates and states his emotional needs and desires within family milieu. The ways in which
family members interact and deal with emotions, affects how adolescents will experience, express and
control their own emotions (Carpenter & Halberstadt, 2000). Therefore, family factors prove to be
important in social and emotional functioning of adolescents. Silberberg (2001) conceptualized family
functioning as about how families interact with each other, communicate information, make decisions
regarding family matters, solve everyday problems and to maintain harmony in relationships. Noller,
Seth-Smith, Bouma, and Schweitzer (1992) identified three main components of family functioning
while studying interpersonal processes related to families of adolescents. These characteristics include
intimacy, conflict and parenting style. Intimacy indicates sharing problems, closeness, commitment,
open communication and emotional expressions. Conflict is characterized by misunderstandings,
difficulties in problem solving, interference in other’s matter and inability to make a plan. Lastly, the
opinion of all family members is considered in taking important decisions regarding family matters if
parents demonstrate democratic parenting style (Sheehan & Noller, 1998).
Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers and Robinson (2007) proposed a Tripartite Model to explain the
impact of family context on children’s emotion regulation and adjustment of social capability.
According to the model, family context affects emotion regulation in three ways. Firstly, children learn
emotion regulation through modeling in their families. Secondly, parenting behaviors provide a basis
for emotional socialization which is important in influencing emotion regulation such as parents
respond to emotions of their children, educate them, train them to express and experience emotions.
Thirdly, emotional climate of the family influence emotion regulation. Emotional climate includes
factors such as secure parent-child attachment, parenting style, and positive marital relations without
conflicts.
The Tripartite Model proposed that family context influence children’s psychosocial
development indirectly through emotion regulation (Eisenberg et al., 2003). Eisenberg, Cumberland
and Spinrad (1998) proposed that emotion regulation act as a mediator between parenting style and
children’s social competence. Thus, parents who are sensitive, show support, warmth and express
appropriate emotions in the home are likely to have children with adaptive emotion regulation skills, in
turn these children are less likely to develop problem behaviors and are more likely to develop social
competence. Spinrad et al. (2007) found that effortful control mediated the relation between maternal
supportive behavior, warmth and low emotional problems and high social competence in young
children. Additionally, poor behavioral regulation mediated the relationship between destructive and
constructive marital conflict and psychological adjustment, social and emotional competence (Kayfitz,
2011). Besides, Tripartite Model proposed that there are direct effects of family context on social
competence. Kopko (2007) reported that democratic parents are more willing to consider and pay
attention to their adolescents’ viewpoint which help adolescents to develop outlook that their opinions
are valued and in turn make them more socially competent, responsible, and autonomous. Other studies
suggest that negative family functioning including high levels of conflicts (Cummings, Goeke-Morey,
& Papp, 2003), lack of parental support and warmth (Sheeber, Hops, Alpert, Davis, & Andrews, 1997)
and negative communication among family members (Dekovic, Wissink, & Meijer, 2004). Negative
communication has a significant and negative effect on the development of social skills in children such
as the capacity to identify constructive solutions to interpersonal and social problems (Demaray &
Malecki, 2002) or to empathize with others and to take the perspective of other person, thus resulting
in social incompetence. In contrast, positive family functioning such as supportive relations, sharing
and conflict resolution skills as well as democratic parenting style foster feelings of higher self-esteem
as well as increased social competence (Rubenstein & Feldman, 1993).
Empirical evidence indicates that adolescents who lack skills related to problem solving,
decision making, dealing with negative emotions and stress have decreased overall psychosocial
competence. Besides, their families have negative characteristics such as use of psychological control
by parents, social aloofness, absence of benefits and resources and rejection at home (Ayub & Masood,
2013). In contrast, families that showed open pattern of communication, collaboration and support were
likely to instill relational and social competence in children (Hajizadeh, Refahi, Bordbar, & Haghighi,
2012; Cigala, Venturelli, & Fruggeri, 2014).
Family Functioning and Social Competence in Adolescents…
907
Though Tripartite Model (Morris et al., 2007) has focused on the development of emotion
regulation and adjustment in the family context, little research has carefully examined differential
emotion regulation strategies according to specific outcomes, i.e., positive and negative outcomes for
reappraisal and expressive suppression. Previous researches have seldom focused on positive aspects
of adjustment such as social competence. Instead more attention has been paid to negative aspects i.e.,
internalizing and externalizing problems (Stocker, Richmond, Rhoades, & Kiang, 2007; Dagne
& Snyder, 2011). Previous researches including Tripartite Model focused on toddlers, preschoolers,
children and early adolescents as targeted population while studying the impact of family context
variables on emotion regulation and social competence (Eisenberg et al., 1997; Eisenberg, Vaughan &
Hofer 2009; Morris el al., 2007) ignoring adolescents having age range of 17 to 21 years. The resultant
consequence is that little is known about how emotion regulation and social competence has been
influenced within family context among this age group. Besides, in Pakistan, limited data exist on
family functioning and its impact on emotion regulation and social competence of adolescents. Those
who have studied focused on single component of family functioning in relation to adjustment, emotion
regulation, aggression (Jabeen, Anis-ul-Haque & Riaz, 2013; Sana & Masood, 2013: Sikandar &
Younas, 2013).
To fill gaps in the existent literature, the present study examined mediating role of differentiated
emotion regulation strategies in relationship between family functioning and social competence.
Therefore, the aim of the present research is to test the hypotheses that 1) Family functioning is
positively associated with emotional regulation and social competence among adolescents. 2) Social
competency in adolescents is predictable by the family functioning and emotional regulation. 3)
reappraisal and suppression will mediate the relationship between family functioning and social
competence among adolescents.
Previous researches established cultural differences in consequences of using emotion
regulation strategies (Matsumoto, Yoo, Hirayama, & Petrova, 2005; Yeh & Inose, 2002). Thus, the
present study highlights the cultural differences with respect to emotion regulation strategies. Present
study proves to be helpful in developing understanding of family functioning of collectivistic cultures
like Pakistan. These cultures tend to emphasize family obligations and respect for the parents and a
sense of obedience for elders which may have positive consequences for social adaptation among
adolescents.
METHODS
Sample
The sample consisted of 621 adolescents (boys= 319 and girls=302) who were approached from
Government Post Graduate College for Women Satellite Town Rawalpindi (for girls n = 151),
Government Postgraduate College Asghar Mall Rawalpindi (for boys n= 104), Quaid-e-Azam
University Islamabad (for girls n= 151 and for boys n = 106) and Islamabad College for Boys Islamabad
(for boys n =109). The inclusion criterion was that age of the participants ranged from 17 to 21 years
(M=18.91, SD=1.09). Convenient sampling technique was applied for data collection. The mean
education of participants was 12.77 years that is equivalent to intermediate level. No other particular
inclusion criteria were specified other than age.
Measures
ICPS Family Functioning Scale
It consists of 30 items which measures parenting style (democratic), intimacy and conflict (Noller et
al., 1992). Parenting style consisted of 8 items, intimacy comprised of 12 items and conflict included
10 items. No items need reversing. All items are measured on a 6-point, Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). On present data, reliability coefficients of intimacy, parenting
style and conflict are .80, .69 and .60 respectively. Less than 2 value of skewness and 7 for kurtosis
indicate data is normally distributed (as per criteria given by West, Finch & Curran, 1995).
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (ERQ–CA)
10 items (Gullone & Taffe, 2012) was used to assess individual differences in the use of emotion
regulation styles: Cognitive reappraisal and suppression. Participants are asked to rate their emotions
using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). On present data, reliability coefficient of
expressive suppression is .54 and for cognitive reappraisal is .63. In addition, the values of skewness
Shafiq, Hanif, & Shafiq
908
and kurtosis for expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal are less than 2 and 7 respectively
indicating data is normally distributed (as per criteria given by West et al., 1995).
Social Competence Scale
It consists of 17 items which comprises four sub-scales: Assertiveness, empathy, responsibility, and
self-control (Smart & Sanson, 2003), response categories ranging from never (1) to always (5). On
present data, reliability coefficient for Social Competence Scale is .81. Less than 2 value for skewness
and 7 for kurtosis indicate data is normally distributed (as per criteria given by West et al., 1995).
Procedure
First, permission was taken from the authority of the academic institutions. Informed consent was taken
from participants and they were given brief introduction about the objective of the study and its
importance. A booklet comprising of demographic sheet along with questions were handed over to the
participants. The verbal instructions were also given to respondents by the researcher. Respondents
were assured about the confidentiality of the information being provided by them. The valuable
cooperation of the participants was acknowledged and thanked in the end.
RESULTS
The results are obtained on the sample of 621 students by analysis conducted in SPSS version 21.
Table No. 1
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Inter-correlation among Scales of Family Functioning Scale,
Emotional Regulation (ER), and Social Competence (SC) among Students (n=621)
Scales/subscales
M
SD
ER
Suppression
Reappraisal
SC
Family Functioning
130.17
15.09
.14**
.06
.17**
.36**
Emotional Regulation
34.56
5.63
-
.75**
.84**
.34**
Suppression
12.69
3.17
-
.278**
.14**
Cognitive Reappraisal
21.87
3.86
-
.39**
Social Competence
64.03
9.92
-
Note: M=Mean; SD= Standard Deviation; **p<0.01.
Table 1 shows Pearson product moment correlation of family functioning, with emotion
regulation and social competence. Results revealed that family functioning has significant positive
relationship with cognitive reappraisal (r=.17, p<0.01), emotional regulation (r=.14, p<0.01) and social
competence (r=.36, p<0.01). Social competence has significant positive correlation with suppression
(r=.14, p<0.01), cognitive reappraisal (r=.39, p<0.01), and emotional regulation (r=.34, p<0.01).
Table No. 2
Multiple Regression for Predicting Social Competence from ICPS Family Functioning Scale and
Emotional Regulation among the students (n = 621).
Model
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
p
1
(Constant)
19.444
3.526
5.51
.000
FF
.205
.024
.311
8.61
.000
ER
.520
.064
.295
8.16
.000
Table 2 shows role of family functioning and emotional regulation in predicting social
competence. Results revealed that that 21% of variance in social competence is accounted by family
functioning and emotional regulation strategies of the adolescents [R2=.21, F (2, 618)= 83.23, p<0.01].
Family functioning (β=.31, p<0.01) and emotional regulation (β=.29, p<0.01) have significantly and
positively predicted social competences in college students.
Table No. 3
Multiple Regression for Predicting Social Competence from subscales of ICPS Family Functioning
Scale and Emotional Regulation among the students (n = 621).
Model
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
p
1
(Constant)
32.385
3.321
9.75
.000
intimacy
.394
.057
.343
6.95
.000
parenting style
.112
.071
.077
1.58
.114
conflict
.110
.045
.092
2.43
.015
Family Functioning and Social Competence in Adolescents…
909
Table 3 shows role of subscales of family functioning (intimacy, parenting style, and conflict)
in predicting social competence. Results revealed that that 15% of variance in social competence is
accounted by family functioning and emotional regulation strategies of the adolescents [R2=.15, F (3,
617) = 37.14, p<0.01]. Intimacy (β=.39, p<0.01) and conflict (β=.11, p<0.01) have significantly and
positively predicted social competences in college students. Parenting style has nonsignificant role in
social competence of the adolescents.
Table No. 4
Multiple Regression for Predicting Social Competence from Subscales of Emotional Regulation
among the students (n = 621).
Model
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
p
1
(Constant)
41.457
2.310
17.95
.000
Reappraisal
.976
.099
.380
9.85
.000
Suppression
.097
.121
.031
.80
.423
Table 4 shows role of subscales of emotional regulation (cognitive reappraisal and suppression)
in predicting social competence. Results revealed that that 15% of variance in social competence is
accounted by family functioning and emotional regulation strategies of the adolescents [R2=.15, F (2,
618) = 55.35, p<0.01]. Cognitive reappraisal (β=.38, p<0.01) has significantly and positively predicted
social competences in college students. Suppression of emotions has nonsignificant role in social
competence of the adolescents.
Figure 1
Mediating Effect of Emotional Regulation between Family Functioning and Social Competence (N =
621)in AMOS-24
Figure 1 shows that structure equation model for mediating role of emotional regulation
(suppression and cognitive reappraisal) between family functioning and social competence in
adolescents. The direct impact of family functioning in social competence of the adolescents is
significant (β=.20, p<0.01). However, the indirect effect of family functioning through cognitive
reappraisal is significant (β=.85, p<0.01) but insignificant for suppression in social competences of the
adolescents. Therefore, cognitive reappraisal has partially mediated between family functioning and
social competences of the adolescents.
DISCUSSION
The present study has examined the relationship and impact of family functioning and emotion
regulation on social competence among adolescents. Family functioning is a positive predictor of social
competence (Saleem, & Gul, 2016; Newhart, 2019). Moreover, it was found that correlation between
expressive suppression and reappraisal is higher in Eastern than in Western culture thus indicating the
individuals of collectivistic culture have balanced use of both strategies and may benefit from use of
suppression (Matsumoto, Yoo & Nakagawa, 2008). These individuals do not use expressive
suppression completely and strictly but that they move to other emotion regulation strategies i.e.,
cognitive reappraisal when they perceive suppression would have a negative consequence (Butler, Lee,
& Gross, 2007). In contrast, people of individualistic culture use one emotion regulation strategy at a
Shafiq, Hanif, & Shafiq
910
time and they frequently use reappraisal as Matsumoto et al., (as cited in Matsumoto, 2006) found that
Americans have higher scores on reappraisal and the Japanese having higher scores on suppression than
Americans. This may be reason that adolescents use reappraisal and suppression as emotion regulation
strategies at a time and both strategies may together mediate the relationship between family functioning
and social competence instead separately.
Intimacy is positive predictor of social competence. Prior studies suggested that indicators of
intimacy contribute in social competence. Smith, Prinz, Dumas, and Laughlin (2001) reported that
family order, cohesiveness in family, communication, organization, rules and regulations were
positively related to children’s social competence and with emotional and behavioral outcomes.
Families with higher in positive attributes of cohesiveness, open and positive expression of emotions,
and lower attributes of conflicts and disagreement, autonomy, order and control showed significant role
in determining socio-emotional adjustment of adolescents (Deepshikha & Bhanot, 2011).
Results of present study revealed that democratic parenting does not significantly predict social
competence. Previous finding showed the same similar findings. Vijila, Thomas and Ponnusamy (2013)
found that authoritative parenting style is non-significant predictor of social competence. Moreover,
numerous studies found that collectivistic cultures that promote interdependence and harmony (e.g.,
Turkish, Chinese, Indian, Latin American, Asian, and Puerto Rican) commonly use higher level of
psychological control for children that is a characteristic of authoritarian parenting style (Wu et al.,
2002; Yaman et al., 2010; Rudy & Grusec, 2001). Grusec, Rudy and Martini (1997) rationalize for
difference in use of authoritarian parenting style between individualistic and collectivistic culture. They
argue that in collectivist groups, individuals are encouraged to suppress their own wants and needs and
respond to the needs of others that belong to their own group i.e., family. For this reason, parents use
authoritarian parenting style for controlling the behavior of their children as parents believe that by
using authoritarian parenting style, they are able to foster social adaptation in their children during
interpersonal interaction. Thus, in collectivistic culture like our own, authoritarian parenting style is
commonly endorsed which has different consequences for adolescents in terms of social competence as
compared to democratic parenting style. This may be the reason that democratic parenting style has no
impact on social competence in collectivistic culture.
Conflict (as component of family functioning) is a predictor of social competence. Results of
current study indicate that conflict is significantly positively predicting social competence, although the
variance explained by conflict in social competence is 1% which is low as compared to intimacy. Amato
and Ochiltree (1986) suggested that adolescents are less vulnerable to family conflict as compared to
young children as they are cognitively superior to young children and can understand the causes of
family conflicts due to which conflicts may not negatively affect their social competence. Furthermore,
Grych and Fincham (1990) proposed if a conflict occurs in families where already existing relationships
are positive and supportive, it has less threatening impact on social outcome of children because they
perceive that conflicts may not harm the synchronization and steadiness of the family. Therefore,
negative impact of family conflict on social competence depends upon existing family relationships.
Warm and supportive relationships in the family may act as a buffer against negative consequences of
conflict.
It was hypothesized that reappraisal and expressive suppression (as strategies of emotion
regulation) predict social competence among adolescents. Results revealed that reappraisal significantly
predict social competence. The findings of current study highlighted partial support for tripartite model.
There is recent evidence that people of collectivistic culture use balanced coping strategies which enable
them to express and suppress emotions. Similarly, Miyamoto and Ryff (2010) found that individuals of
collectivistic culture use both up and down emotion regulation strategies in order to experience balance
of positive and negative emotions, thus resulting in better mental health among themselves.
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that intimacy is the strongest predictor of social competence among. Moreover, family
functioning is indirectly related to social competence through mediation of reappraisal only among
adolescents.
Limitations and Suggestions
Shortcoming of the study was the reliance on self-report data. Because this study relied only on
adolescents’ perceptions of family functioning, emotion regulation and social competence, it is not clear
Family Functioning and Social Competence in Adolescents…
911
whether these phenomena were depicted accurately. The generalizability of the findings is limited to
adolescents. The extent to which the results characterize to other population is a matter of debate. A
negative family functioning resulted in emotion dysregulation, but an adolescent’s emotion
dysregulation may itself worsen the family functioning, therefore causal inferences should not be
inferred.
Some directions for future research include developmental or longitudinal studies which
examine the sequence and characteristics of changes in family relationships, emotion regulation and
social competence during adolescence with a more diverse adolescent population. For example,
minority groups, different ethnic groups and working class samples might be included in the study.
Future research may include siblings, grandparents living in the home to investigate extensive family
impact on emotion regulation and social competence among adolescents in the context of the relatives.
Implications
Emotion regulation indicate early prevention of social maladjustment in adolescents. Indeed, prevention
programs that target adolescents’ emotion regulation skills have shown to be associated with
improvements in adolescents’ social competence. The current findings have important implications for
preventive interventions and suggested techniques inclusion that promote adaptation of positive
emotions and intonation of negative emotions. The results of this study have implication for preventive
programs to improve family communication and family dynamics. Moreover, parents’ education and
family counseling may be viable mechanisms by which to educate their impact in adolescence and
adulthood. The current findings highlight the importance of family involvement in intervention for
adolescent’s emotional and behavioral problems resolution.
The findings of current study proved to be fruitful at the policy level, government might need
to advocate policies more on family functioning issues. Current laws relating to families, included the
ingredient of adolescent social enhancement into educational polices and measure educational laws to
protect and help adolescents with deficiency in social competence, and endorsed parenting skills for
this matter of fact.
REFERENCES
Amato, P., R. (1989). Family processes and the competence of adolescents and primary school children.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18(1), 39–53.
Ayub, W., & Masood, A. (2013). Parenting styles, family environment and academic performance.
Abstract retrieved from pu.edu.pk/images/image/Departments/appsy/Psychological-Abstract-
2011-13.pdf
Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: Are the social
consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific? Emotion, 7(1), 30–48.
Carpenter, S., & Halberstadt, A., G. (2000). Mothers’ reports of events causing anger differ across
family relationships. Social Development, 9(4), 458–477.
Cigala, A., Venturelli. V., & Fruggeri., L. (2012). Family functioning in microtransition and socio-
emotional competence in preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 184(4), 1-18.
Clausen, J. S. (1991). Adolescent competence and the shaping of the life course. American Journal of
Sociology, 96, 805-842.
Cummings, M. E., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Papp, L. M. (2003). Children’s responses to everyday
marital conflict tactics in the home. Child Development, 74(6), 1918–1929.
Dagne, G. A., & Snyder, J. (2011). Relationship of maternal negative moods to child emotion regulation
during family interaction. Development and Psychopathology ,23, 211–223.
Deepshikha & Bhanot, S. (2011). Role of family environment on socio-emotional adjustment of
adolescent girls in rural areas of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Psychology, 2 (1),
53-56.
Dekovic, M., Wissink, I., & Meijer, A. (2004). The role of family and peer relations in adolescent
antisocial behavior: Comparison of four ethnic groups. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 497–514.
Demaray, M. P., & Malecki, C. K. (2002). The relationship between perceived social support and
maladjustment for students at risk. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 305–316.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Journal of
Psychological Inquiry, 9, 241–273.
Shafiq, Hanif, & Shafiq
912
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C, Guthrie, I. K., Jones, S., … Maszk, P. (1997).
Contemporaneous and longitudinal prediction of children's social functioning from regulation
and emotionality. Child Development, 68, 642-664.
Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Morris, A. S., Fabes, R. A., Cumberland, A., Reiser, M.,...Losoya, S.
(2003). Longitudinal relations among parental emotional expressivity, children’s regulation, and
quality of socioemotional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 39, 3–19.
Eisenberg, N., Vaughan, J., & Hofer, C. (2009). Temperament, self-regulation, and peer social
competence. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer
interactions, relationships, and groups, pp. 473-489. New York: Guilford Press
Gresham, F.M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System (SSRS). Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Grusec, J. E., Rudy, D., & Martini, T. (1997). Parenting cognitions and child outcomes: An overview
and implications for children’s internalization of values. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.),
Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp.
259–282). New York: Wiley.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children's adjustment: A cognitive
contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 267-290.
Gullone, E., & Taffe, J., (2012). The emotion regulation questionnaire for children and adolescents
(ERQ–CA): A psychometric evaluation. Psychological Assessment, 24(2). 409–417.
Hajizadeh, A., H., Refahi, Z., Bordbar, F., T., & Haghighi, H. (2012). Family communication patterns
with creativity and the sense of competence of the pre university male students in Bandar Abbas.
Journal of Life Science and Biomedicine, 2(5), 260-266.
Jabeen, F, Anis-ul-Haque, M., & Riaz, M., N. (2013). Parenting styles as predictors of emotion
regulation among adolescents, Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 28(1), 85-105.
Kayfitz, A., D. (2011). Marital Conflict, Emotional Security, and Young Children's Social and
Emotional Competence. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Windsor, Ontario). Retrieved from
http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar t cle=14 75 & context=etd
Kopko, K. (2007). Parenting style and adolescents. Cornell University, USA. Retrieved from
http://www.human.cornell.edu/pam/outreach/parenting/research/upload/Parenting-20Sty le s-
20and-20Adolescents.pdf
Matsumoto, D. (2006). Are cultural differences in emotion regulation mediated by personality traits?
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(4), 421-437.
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Hirayama, S., & Petrova, G. (2005). Validation of an individual-level
measure of display rules: The display rule assessment inventory (DRAI). Emotion, 5, 23–40.
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Nakagawa, S. (2008). Culture, emotion regulation and adjustment.
Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 94(6), 925-937.
Miyamoto, Y., & Ryff, C. D. (2010). Cultural differences in the dialectical and non-dialectical
emotional styles and their implications for health. Cognition and Emotion, 25(1), 22-39.
Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family
context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16, 361–388.
Newhart, S. (2019). The Influence of Family Functioning on Social Competence, Social Support, and
Mental Health Among College Students. Virginia: The College of William and Mary.
Noller, P. (1995). Parent-adolescent relationships. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. Vangelisti (Eds.)
Explaining family interactions. Sage: California.
Noller, P., Seth-Smith, M., Bouma, R., & Schweitzer, R. (1992). Parent and adolescent perceptions of
family functioning: A comparison of clinic and non-clinic families. Journal of Adolescence, 15,
101–114.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–
891.
Rubenstein, J. L., & Feldman, S. S. (1993). Conflict resolution behavior in adolescent boys:
Antecedents and adaptational correlates. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 41- 66.
Rudy, D., & Grusec, J., E. (2001). Correlates of authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist
cultures and implications for understanding the transmission of values. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 32(2), 202-212. doi: 10.1177/0022 022101032002007
Family Functioning and Social Competence in Adolescents…
913
Saleem, T., & Gul, S. (2016). Family dysfunctioning and social competence in adolescents: a
comparative study of family structure. Pakistan Journal of Physiology, 12(3), 19-22.
Sana, S. & Masood., A. (2013). Perceived inter-parental conflicts and family functioning as predictor
of adjustment problems in late adolescence. Abstract retrieved from http://pu.edu.pk/im
ages/image/Departments/appsy/Psychological-Abstracts-2010-2012.pdf
Sheeber, L.B., Hops, H., Alpert, A., Davis, B., & Andrews, J. A. (1997). Family support and conflict:
Prospective relations to adolescent Depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25,
333–344.
Sheehan, G., & Noller, P. (1998). Adolescents’perceptions of parental favoritism. Family Matters, 49,
17-19.
Sikandar, S., & Younas, F. (2013). Parents-child conflicts and aggression level in secondary school
children. Abstract retrieved from http://pu.edu.pk/images/image/Departments/ap
psy/Psychological-Abstract-2011-13.pdf
Silberberg, S. (2001). Searching for family resilience. Family Matters, 58, 52–57
Smart, D. & Sanson, A. (2003). Social competence in young adulthood, its nature and
antecedents, Family Matters, 64, 4-9.
Smith, E. P., Prinz, R. J., Dumas, J. E., & Laughlin, J. (2001). Latent models of family processes in
African American families: Relationships to child competence, achievement, and problem
behavior. Journal of Marriage & Family, 63, 967-980.
Spinrad, T., L., Eisenberg, N., Gaertner, B., Popp, T., Smith, C. L., Kupfer, A., …Hofer, C. (2007).
Relations of maternal socialization and toddlers’ effortful control to children’s adjustment and
social competence. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1170–1186.
Stocker, C. M., Richmond, M., K., Rhoades, G., K., & Kiang. L. (2007). Family emotional processes
and adolescents' adjustment. Social Development, 16(2), 310-325. doi:10.1 111/j.1467-
9507.2007.00386.x
Vijila.Y., Thomas, J., & Ponnusamy. A. (2013). Relationship between Parenting Styles and Adolescent
Social Competence. Journal of Humanities and Social Science,17(3). 34-36.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables:
Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues
and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wu, P., Robinson, C. C., Yang, C., Hart, C. H., Olsen, S. F., Porter, C. L., ...Wu, X. (2002). Similarities
and differences in mothers' parenting of preschoolers in China and the United
States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(6), 481-491.
Yaman, A., Mesman, J., Van I., J., Zendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Linting, M.
(2010). Parenting in an individualistic culture with a collectivistic cultural background: The case
of Turkish immigrant families with toddlers in the Netherlands. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 19(5), 617-628.
Yeh & Inose. (2002). Difficulties and coping strategies of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean immigrant
students. Adolescence, 37(145), 69-82.
