Strengthening Family Bonds: A Systematic Review of Factors and Interventions That Enhance Family Cohesion

Abstract

Strong emotional bonds within families are foundational to children’s academic, psychological, and social development. While family cohesion is widely recognized as a protective factor across these domains, there remains a need to understand the specific mechanisms and interventions that foster such cohesion, particularly in diverse socioeconomic and cultural contexts. This systematic review examines global evidence on factors influencing family cohesion and evaluates intervention strategies designed to strengthen familial relationships. Drawing on 41 peer-reviewed studies published between 2015 and 2023, this review adheres to PRISMA guidelines and applies the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess methodological quality. The findings are organized around four core dimensions of family cohesion—emotional bonding, adaptability, communication, and support—and highlight both common patterns and culturally specific mechanisms. Studies were drawn from a range of settings including North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, and Europe, enabling a cross-cultural analysis of how family cohesion operates under different social, cultural, and economic conditions. Intervention strategies are reviewed separately following the synthesis of correlations, with attention to their effectiveness, cultural relevance, and contextual adaptability. Community-based programs, trauma-informed therapies, and parenting interventions emerge as key approaches, though their success has varied by regional and structural context. Studies consistently demonstrate that higher family cohesion correlates with improved academic outcomes, as supportive home environments promote motivation, reduce stress, and enhance learning. Mental health benefits are also evident, with cohesive and adaptable families mitigating risks of anxiety and depression through open communication and emotional availability. Social competence is fostered through observed and practiced interpersonal skills within family settings. Socioeconomic status emerges as both a challenge and a moderating factor, with lower-SES families facing greater barriers to cohesion but also displaying notable resilience when supported through external interventions. Effective strategies identified include family therapy, parenting education, community-based programs, culturally sensitive approaches, and socioeconomic policy supports. Family cohesion and adaptability are critical to nurturing children’s academic success, emotional well-being, and social development. This review contributes to a more culturally nuanced and policy-relevant understanding of family cohesion by integrating empirical findings across global contexts and identifying both shared and differentiated pathways to resilience. The results inform future program design and suggest priorities for cross-cultural family research and intervention development.

1. Introduction

Family cohesion is conceptualized as the emotional ties that family members share and manifest towards one another (Wilensky and Fisher 2019). The significance of family cohesion is paramount for the optimal functioning of familial units. Previous empirical investigations have demonstrated that both moderately low and moderately high degrees of family cohesion can yield favourable outcomes for family dynamics (Alexander and Robbins 2019). Starke and Svensson (2014) assert that a functional and cohesive family is distinguished by the emotional affiliations among its members, alongside the presence of reciprocal support and care. Findings from Rahgozar et al. (2012) suggest that family togetherness notably shapes adolescent behavior, emotional growth, and long-term life satisfaction. Enhanced well-being in individuals is closely associated with their experiences of family cohesion. Results indicate that adolescents hailing from families exhibiting high levels of cohesion are prone to experience positive emotional states, a reinforced sense of self-worth, and a more defined sense of life purpose (Ribić 2024). In contrast, adverse family dynamics can heighten the vulnerability of adolescents to depressive states (Sadiku and Sylaj 2019).

Furthermore, supplementary research indicates that robust family cohesion correlates with a reduction in negative behavioral outcomes during developmental stages, such as externalizing behaviors (Sawma and Choueiri 2022). One must consider that the ramifications of family solidarity in terms of the behavioral struggles of children and adolescents may be adjusted by the health of their caregivers and the dynamics of parenting techniques. Family cohesion provides critical emotional support and bonding, which aids in alleviating the detrimental impacts of maladaptive parenting on children’s behavioral issues (Moustakas 2023). Collectively, it functions as an essential protective buffer, addressing individuals’ psychological needs for connection, security, and emotional intimacy with others (Afrasiabi and Khoobyari 2023). Research indicates that robust emotional connections within families not only foster family support but also play a significant role in enhancing the overarching social framework by augmenting mutual trust, collaboration, and a sense of belonging among community constituents (An et al. 2024).

Thus, elevated levels of family cohesion can act as a microcosm reflective of these broader societal dynamics. For example, families that demonstrate strong cohesion frequently exemplify positive social behaviors such as empathy, conflict resolution, and support, which can be replicated in community interactions (Moustakas 2023). Conversely, diminished levels of family cohesion have been associated with an increased likelihood of psychological distress (Van Eickels et al. 2022). This psychological distress can have a cascading effect, negatively impacting community welfare and undermining social connections. Consequently, interventions designed to enhance family cohesion can exert a significant influence on social solidarity. Such interventions may encompass family therapy, community support initiatives, and policies that advocate for a balance between work and personal life, thereby affording families greater opportunities to bond and provide mutual support (Di and Yihong 2023). Additionally, community-oriented initiatives such as neighborhood activities, support groups, and educational programs can amplify the principles of family cohesion on a broader scale. By cultivating environments in which families and individuals experience a sense of connection and support, these interventions contribute to the establishment of resilient communities characterized by robust social cohesion (Lansing et al. 2023).

Family cohesion, therefore, pertains to the emotional interconnections that exist among family members. The robust emotional ties encapsulated by family cohesion are anticipated to facilitate familial support (Lin and Zainudin 2024). The scholarly literature indicates that diminished levels of family cohesion correlate with an elevated risk of psychological distress. The four separate tiers of cohesion, positioned in an upward structure, consist of (1) disengaged, (2) separated, (3) connected, and (4) enmeshed (Olson and Olson 1999). Within the disengaged family structure, members exhibit independence, characterized by weak emotional bonds; conversely, in the connected and enmeshed familial contexts, there exist strong ties and active involvement in family dynamics (Kopystynska et al. 2020). Consequently, family cohesion emerges as a pivotal construct that delineates the extent of emotional closeness or bonding among family members, while family flexibility denotes the capacity of a family to adapt to novel or stressful circumstances (Olson 2000). Elevated levels of family cohesion imply heightened emotional engagement, substantial emotional support, and interdependence (Olson and Olson 1999). Thus, family cohesion enhances communication and emotional connections among members, potentially fostering their synchronicity and relational ties. When families exhibit cohesion—characterized by shared emotional bonds, a sense of unity, mutual support, effective communication, and shared objectives, values, and traditions—this collective sense of togetherness fortifies familial resilience, enables navigation of challenges, and promotes cohesion (Van Eickels et al. 2022).

Recognizing the determinants that foster family cohesion is imperative for cultivating robust and supportive family units. Comprehending effective interventions aimed at strengthening family ties can substantially enhance the overall well-being of each family member. When families demonstrate cohesion, they establish a stable foundation for children to develop and flourish, thereby nurturing a sense of security and belonging (Wilensky and Fisher 2019). Effective strategies may encompass regular family engagements, open lines of communication, and equitable distribution of responsibilities, all of which contribute to the cultivation of trust and mutual respect. By prioritizing these elements, families can foster a nurturing atmosphere that bolsters emotional and social development. Furthermore, strong family cohesion can exert a positive influence on the wider community, as cohesive families are more inclined to participate in community activities and extend support to their neighbors (Van Eickels et al. 2022). Therefore, investing in family cohesion transcends merely reinforcing individual families; it also entails the construction of resilient and interconnected communities. Consequently, the significance of family cohesion entails the necessity for interventions that enhance social interconnectedness. Family cohesion constitutes a fundamental component of social cohesion, with robust familial bonds facilitating broader community support and overall well-being. Existing empirical studies have identified several antecedents of family cohesion, including quality of communication (Crandall et al. 2016), financial stability, housing security (Ayton and Joss 2016), parental mental health (Roberts et al. 2017), and cultural norms such as collectivism or intergenerational obligation (Leung et al. 2016; Silva and Monteiro 2020). However, much of the literature is either context-specific or lacks comparative analysis, making it difficult to distinguish universal patterns from culturally contingent ones. Furthermore, while a growing number of interventions aim to enhance family cohesion, ranging from parenting programs to trauma-informed therapeutic models, there remains a limited synthesis of their effectiveness across different settings. This review addresses these gaps by systematically identifying antecedents, mapping intervention strategies, and evaluating how family cohesion is shaped by both structural and cultural factors across diverse regions. Much of the existing literature on family cohesion predominantly examines contexts within the Western world and the Global North. In contrast, this review makes a significant contribution by synthesizing evidence from a diverse range of countries, including both high- and low-income settings. It highlights the crucial role of cultural and structural factors in shaping family dynamics across different regions. By including a variety of geographic perspectives such as those from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and Latin America, this review fosters a more comprehensive understanding of family cohesion and the effectiveness of various interventions. What sets this review apart is its thorough integration of cross-cultural evidence, which provides a richer context for analyzing family cohesion. It rigorously evaluates the effectiveness of interventions aimed at promoting family unity while critically appraising the quality of existing studies through the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, this review synthesizes findings from 41 studies, offering valuable insights into how cultural differences influence family cohesion and intervention outcomes.

The overarching goal of this review is to bridge the existing gaps between theoretical frameworks, empirical findings, and culturally relevant practices. By doing so, it aims to enhance understanding and implementation of strategies that can effectively strengthen family cohesion across various cultural contexts. This comprehensive approach not only broadens the academic discourse on family cohesion but also lays the groundwork for future research and practical applications in diverse communities. Addressing the factors that contribute to family cohesion and executing targeted interventions can significantly bolster social cohesion, leading to the creation of more harmonious and supportive communities (Xiang et al. 2022).

1.1. Literature Review

1.1.1. Family Cohesion

Family cohesion, the emotional bonding and unity among family members, has long been considered a cornerstone of societal stability and individual well-being. In the global context, the dynamics of family cohesion have been influenced by a myriad of factors, including socio-economic changes, cultural shifts, and technological advancements. Family dynamics are also defined by the roles and responsibilities each member assumes. These roles can be influenced by cultural traditions, individual capabilities, and personal preferences. Furthermore, the growing acknowledgment of the diversity of family configurations is one important development. In many regions of the world, conventional nuclear families are no longer the norm. The rising prevalence of same-sex, blended, and single-parent households has forced a re-examination of the definition of family cohesiveness. Analysis conducted in 2020 by the Pew Research Center noted that a discernible rise in the acceptance and occurrence of various family configurations, with potential consequences for family dynamics and cohesiveness. The effect of migration and globalization on family cohesion is another trend. Increasing numbers of transnational families whose members reside in different nations but retain close relationships are a result of global mobility. Additionally, technology has made it easier to communicate across distances but has also raised new difficulties. The International Organization for Migration (2017) conducted a study that emphasized the benefits and drawbacks of migration in terms of family cohesiveness. The study found that while improving economic situations and remittances can strengthen family ties, extended separation can damage relationships.

In the South African context, the literature is consistent and unanimous that family unity and kinship ties were severely damaged by the harsh apartheid system, which was in place from 1948 to 1994. The apartheid state deliberately attempted to destroy traditional African familial structures and values that had persisted for generations through a network of racist laws and practices (Nwoye et al. 2020). The harm caused has had long-lasting and significant effects. Fundamental to apartheid’s agenda was the forcible relocation, uprooting, and geographic isolation of the majority Black African population. Over 3.5 million individuals were uprooted by the regime thanks to the Group Areas Act, which also caused the breakdown of multigenerational family compounds and entire communities. Thus, the social fabric and long-standing kinship support networks that held extended families together were severely damaged by these forced relocations to overcrowded and underfunded townships on the outskirts of cities (Bello-Ogunu 2022). For many Black Africans, apartheid also violently destroyed their sense of cultural identity and belonging, which are intricately linked to family unity. Violent seizure of ancestral lands destroyed deep spiritual and cultural ties to the land, essential components of conventional worldviews such as Ubuntu (Sani et al. 2019). Under Ubuntu beliefs, elders were respected for their knowledge and familial leadership; however, as communal ties weakened, they lost their status and authority. The Black family structure was further shattered by the migrant labor system, which was a mainstay of apartheid’s economic persecution (Luvalo 2019). This evil system kept husbands and fathers away from their homes for long stretches of time by assigning Black Africans to rural “homelands” and sending male laborers to mines and hostels in cities (Posel and Hunter 2022). African traditional family groups based on cohabitation and shared obligations were destabilized by the ongoing disturbances to family life caused by this institutionalized migrant labor system. Financial difficulties brought on by restrictive work laws and discriminating school regulations also weakened family unity by creating ongoing stress on relationships and parenting abilities (Borg Bugeja 2023).

These stresses on the Black African family structure were made worse by poverty, overcrowding, and the unease that came with not being able to lawfully reunite families. In the face of such deliberate attacks on their unity, Black African families showed incredible tenacity and unity in fending off division during the atrocities of apartheid. Many were able to withstand apartheid’s systematic attempts at family disintegration because of their extensive kinship networks, mutual resistance to oppression, and cultural traditions valuing collectivism (Henkes 2020). Even after the end of apartheid, the trauma that was inflicted over many generations has had a lasting negative influence on family cohesion. For the populations most impacted by the regime’s coordinated assaults on family structures and resilience, restoring strong, stable family ties based in indigenous African values and traditions is still a crucial healing process (Luvalo 2019). Overcoming apartheid’s cruel fragmenting legacy is a crucial facet of healing and promoting social cohesion for South Africa’s journey toward an equitable, unified nation embracing all its cultural and familial traditions. Additionally, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has placed substantial care burdens on families. Poverty, unemployment, and inequality remain major obstacles. Within this complex environment, promoting family cohesion is crucial for supporting healthy child development, transmitting cultural values, and fostering resilience among South African families. South Africa’s diverse cultural landscape, combined with its apartheid history and ongoing socioeconomic issues, has had a significant impact on family dynamics and cohesion. This literature review critically explores the existing body of research on family cohesion in South Africa, looking at the factors that drive it, the implications, and potential interventions to enhance healthy family functioning.

1.1.2. Cultural and Traditional Influences

South Africa’s diverse cultural heritage has molded family values and institutions, impacting cohesive dynamics. Scholars like (Luvalo 2019) have looked into the role that traditional African ideal like hierarchical family structures and Ubuntu (interconnectedness) play in fostering family unity. Families are shaped in large part by cultural conventions and beliefs. Strong cohesive ties are fostered by collectivistic cultures, which place a high value on filial responsibilities, family connection, and interdependence (Chao and Tseng 2016). Nevertheless, acculturation processes can lead to generational conflicts undermining cohesiveness for immigrant families (Hwang et al. 2019). More value is placed on individual liberty in individualistic societies, which may weaken family bonds (Manzi et al. 2006). Culturally adapted interventions that integrate families’ values, traditions, and indigenous practices can enhance engagement and resonance, promoting cohesion (Mirkovic et al. 2023). However, urbanization and westernization have challenged traditional family values, resulting in intergenerational disputes and potential disruptions to family cohesion (Amoateng et al. 2007).

1.1.3. Family Structure

Family structure also influences cohesion dynamics. The cohesiveness and well-being of communities as well as the larger social fabric are significantly impacted by the dynamics and structures of families. Strong interpersonal ties and early instillation of values like empathy, cooperation, and responsibility are fostered by stable, caring family contexts. On the other hand, disjointed or dysfunctional family arrangements can exacerbate social unrest and weaken the bonds that bind individuals together. Furthermore, non-traditional family structures, such as single-parent households, blended families, and same-sex couples, face unique challenges in achieving cohesion (Hartwell et al. 2021). However, they often develop resilience strategies and redefine family roles to foster closeness (Gano-Phillips 2009). The quality of the parental relationship and co-parenting practices significantly impact family cohesion, highlighting the importance of relationship education and support programs (Leung et al. 2016; Camisasca et al. 2023). In addition to the insights gained from the South African experience, research conducted in Brazil, the Philippines, and Indonesia reveals the significant role of extended kinship networks and local cultural norms in shaping how communities respond to economic challenges and the pressures of urbanization (Chua et al. 2019). For instance, in Brazil, family ties often provide a crucial safety net during economic downturns, allowing individuals to rely on their relatives for financial and emotional support. Similarly, in the Philippines, the concept of bayanihan, which emphasizes communal unity and cooperation, helps families navigate the complexities of urban life and economic hardship. Moreover, in Indonesia, local traditions and social structures foster resilience, enabling communities to adapt more effectively to the demands of increasingly urbanized environments.

These culturally embedded responses resonate with systems theory (Olson and Olson 1999), which posits that family units function as dynamic, interdependent systems whose cohesion and adaptability are shaped by internal roles and external environments. When placed in this theoretical frame, extended kinship systems and collective practices such as bayanihan can be seen as structural adaptations that preserve system equilibrium under stress. Additionally, cultural frameworks such as Ubuntu in Africa or communitarian relationalism in Southeast Asia conceptualize family cohesion not merely as emotional closeness but as a moral and social imperative that anchors community resilience (Nwoye et al. 2020; Berry 2008). These insights align with acculturation theory, which highlights how families draw on cultural scripts to maintain cohesion and continuity amid change.

By comparing these diverse examples through a culturally responsive theoretical lens, we gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that sustain social cohesion highlighting both the commonalities across cultures and the unique adaptations each community develops in response to their specific socio-economic and historical conditions. This comparative perspective underscores the importance of cultural context in shaping both the meaning of family cohesion and the design of effective responses to shared economic challenges.

A significant portion of the seminal literature concerning family cohesion has been generated predominantly within Western, industrialized environments most notably in North America, Western Europe, and Australia, where prevailing assumptions regarding nuclear family paradigms, individualism, and institutional support frameworks heavily influence both conceptual and empirical methodologies pertaining to family functioning (Olson and Olson 1999; Pedro et al. 2015). Within these contexts, family cohesion is frequently operationalized through metrics of emotional intimacy, collective activities, and the quality of communication, while insufficient attention has been given to the broader structural and cultural influences that shape these relational dynamics (Leung et al. 2016).

Conversely, nascent scholarly work emerging from the Global South and culturally heterogeneous regions has started to underscore the intricate interactions among sociocultural contexts, economic instability, and collective coping strategies in the formation of family cohesion. For instance, in South Africa, Botha et al. (2018) illustrate that notwithstanding economic hardships and the historical disruptions associated with apartheid, kinship-based resilience and communal caregiving practices continue to play a pivotal role in fostering cohesion. Similarly, Leung et al. (2016) elucidate the significant impact of filial piety and intergenerational interdependence within Hong Kong Chinese families, particularly during periods of socioeconomic adversity. Research conducted in Latin America further accentuates the integration of family cohesion within extensive familial networks and community reciprocity. In Brazil, Silva and Monteiro (2020) discovered that collaborative child-rearing practices and informal support systems serve as crucial sources of stability within economically disadvantaged communities. These findings contrast with individual-centric models by emphasizing the adaptive mechanisms families employ to sustain unity amidst structural challenges.

Moreover, phenomena such as global mobility, transnational labor migration, and advancements in digital communication have reconfigured the spatial and relational dynamics of family life. As articulated by Mirkovic et al. (2023), transnational families in Southeast Asia preserve cohesion through remittances, digital engagement, and ritualized virtual interactions, despite enduring extended physical separation. Such trends complicate conventional understandings of proximity and daily interaction as essential elements of cohesion, suggesting that cultural narratives and technological mediation serve compensatory functions. The literature in the field of cultural psychology also corroborates the assertion that collectivistic societies characterized by a pronounced emphasis on interdependence and familial obligations tend to demonstrate distinct patterns of cohesion compared with individualistic societies. In collectivistic environments, cohesion is characterized less by verbal affirmations and more by behavioral conformity, role fulfillment, and implicit support (Chao and Tseng 2016; Hwang et al. 2019). This underscores the necessity for culturally nuanced conceptual frameworks that adequately capture non-Western manifestations of familial unity.

Notwithstanding these valuable insights, systematic reviews of family cohesion have traditionally been constrained in their geographical breadth and frequently overlook the cultural mechanisms through which cohesion is sustained or contested. This review offers a novel contribution by synthesizing research from underrepresented regions including sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and Latin America and evaluating these findings through a multidimensional framework that incorporates emotional bonding, adaptability, communication, and support. Through this approach, it facilitates a more inclusive comprehension of the factors that promote and sustain family cohesion on a global scale. Furthermore, the incorporation of culturally tailored interventions, such as community-based parenting initiatives and kinship strengthening frameworks, enables this review to evaluate not only the factors that enhance cohesion but also the specific interventions that are effective, for whom, and under what contextual conditions (Ayton and Joss 2016; Don et al. 2022). This cross-contextual approach is essential for developing effective policies and support systems that are responsive to diverse family forms and lived realities.

1.1.4. Barriers to Family Cohesion and Pathways to Resilience

Socioeconomic Factors

Poverty, unemployment, and restricted access to resources have all been cited as major challenges to family cohesion in South Africa. Louw et al. (2007) discovered that economic hardship and financial strain frequently result in greater family conflict and decreased emotional support, compromising family cohesion. Makiwane and Berry (2013) also highlighted the influence of migrant labor and urban–rural differences on family ties, which resulted in physical separation and decreased emotional bonds. Difficulties with long-term family cohesiveness are exacerbated by persistent poverty. Affording housing, meeting basic requirements, overcoming food insecurity, and obtaining access to healthcare are all made more difficult by financial difficulty, which leads to anxiety and a drain on mental resources (Welsh et al. 2021). Fostering a supportive family environment is extremely challenging in situations of overcrowding or unstable housing, which are typical of poverty (Tan et al. 2018). In times of underemployment, parents may put in long hours at various jobs, which reduces the amount of time that families spend together. Particularly when it comes to children, poverty has detrimental impacts on their psychological growth, their schooling, and their prospects for the future. These effects spill over into subsequent generations and make it harder for families to prosper (Hardy 2022). Socioeconomic deprivation causes extreme strain on family structures, parent–child connections, discipline procedures, and home peace in general. Resilient families face challenges in maintaining cohesion amidst economic difficulties, but they can overcome them with amazing coping mechanisms and tenacity if society as a whole makes greater efforts. Anti-poverty initiatives that relieve extreme material stresses, such as living wages, childcare aid, housing and food assistance, readily available healthcare, and job guarantee programs, strengthen family foundations. We can genuinely create conditions that support robust, nurturing settings of family togetherness and cohesiveness only by tackling the underlying economic and social causes that undermine the financial stability of families.

Social Issues

This section discusses social issues such as poverty, unemployment, and community violence, highlighting how these factors are interconnected with social cohesion. It explores the impact of these challenges on community dynamics and emphasizes the importance of addressing them to strengthen social bonds and promote social stability.

Poverty

Poverty and social exclusion are inherently connected, with deprivation limiting access to essential services such as education, healthcare, and housing, thereby reinforcing cycles of disadvantage. Several authors (Levitas et al. 2007) point out that restricted access to these critical resources deepens social marginalization and discrimination, creating a vicious cycle that sustains exclusion. Shaaban (2011) similarly emphasizes how poverty perpetuates this dynamic, trapping individuals in a continuous loop of isolation and disadvantage. Addressing these issues requires breaking the cycle through equitable access to resources and opportunities.

In a similar vein, Atkinson and Marlier (2010) contend that poverty engenders complex social exclusion, particularly in conjunction with other forms of inequality. In line with Shaaban’s viewpoint, their work emphasizes how the stigma associated with socioeconomic status prevents people from participating in the community and weakens social cohesion. Both sources concur that cycles of exclusion are sustained by material deprivation and the stigmatization and marginalization that follow.

Research indicates that economic growth alone does not necessarily improve social ties. Therefore, effective policies are crucial for fostering inclusive growth and achieving positive outcomes in employment, education, and inequality. These outcomes contribute to social identity, networks, and fairness, which are essential for reinforcing the core elements of social cohesion—trust, identity, and solidarity. Ultimately, social cohesion revolves around the relationships between societal actors and institutions; thus, economic changes need to yield social benefits to truly strengthen these connections (Sommer 2019).

Unemployment

Unemployment has a profound impact on community dynamics, as it weakens trust, increases social exclusion, and erodes community ties. Németh and Máhr (2024) and Zimusi and Moyo (2024) both highlight the disruptive effects of unemployment on social cohesion, yet they emphasize different approaches to addressing these challenges. Németh and Máhr focus on urban settings, stressing the importance of local governance and innovative development programs to foster community-driven solutions. In contrast, Zimusi and Moyo refer to rural Zimbabwe, where savings groups play a crucial role in poverty alleviation and building financial resilience. Both strategies aim to rebuild trust and strengthen social bonds, but the key to promoting social stability lies in tailoring solutions to the specific needs of the community. By addressing unemployment through local governance initiatives or grassroots savings groups, communities can foster greater cohesion, reduce exclusion, and create an environment conducive to long-term social stability. To tackle unemployment effectively, strategies derived from Ribić’s (2024) exploration of safeguarding living heritage can be invaluable. By promoting intangible cultural assets, communities can create job opportunities in sectors like tourism, the arts, and education, particularly benefiting rural areas where formal employment options are limited. Community-driven initiatives that engage local populations in preserving their cultural traditions also provide economic incentives through cultural events and festivals, thereby enhancing community ties and fostering job creation. Furthermore, building partnerships between cultural institutions and local communities can facilitate skills-development programs tailored to the region’s cultural assets. Promoting sustainable cultural entrepreneurship, such as handicrafts and traditional skills, can lead to self-employment opportunities and small business growth, especially when supported by training in marketing and management. Overall, these strategies not only aim to reduce unemployment but also strengthen social cohesion by leveraging local cultural strengths, aligning with broader sustainable development goals that link economic and cultural resilience.

Community Violence

The legacy of apartheid in South Africa has had a profound effect on the relationship between crime, violence, and social cohesion. According to Yeni (2023), gated communities, often intended to combat crime and violence, represent a desire for safety and security. However, this desire can unintentionally lead to increased social isolation and diminish the community solidarity central to the principle of Ubuntu, which highlights the importance of interconnectedness and mutual support.

As Veit et al. (2014) have shown, the divides and mistrust that apartheid institutionalized are the root cause of this lack of cohesiveness, according to Forrest and Kearns (2001). Due to these differences, society is still falling apart, which feeds crime and violence (Esmail et al. 2013). South African legislation emphasizes the significance of viewing crime through the prism of social cohesiveness; this is especially evident in the White Paper on Safety and Security (1998) (Lamb 2019).

The White Paper, in its two versions (1998 and 2016), advocates for crime prevention tactics that prioritize community relationships and trust-building above police enforcement. Understanding that reducing crime requires mending the social ties that apartheid destroyed illustrates how important social cohesiveness is for averting violence. The ability of citizens to work together and oppose criminal behavior is facilitated by stronger community bonds, underscoring the connection between social cohesiveness and crime prevention.

Impact of HIV/AIDS and Health Issues

Global family cohesion has been severely disrupted by the severe emotional, financial, and societal costs associated with HIV/AIDS. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has had a substantial impact on family cohesion in South Africa, with research highlighting the emotional, financial, and caring responsibilities placed on families (Kuo and Operario 2011). Furthermore, chronic illnesses and disabilities within families have been linked to increased stress and consequent disturbances in family functioning (Visser-Valfrey 2010). Accordingly, the AIDS epidemic has destroyed family structures and relationships at the most basic level. Children who experience prolonged illness or parental death during their most vulnerable years lose out on caregiving, emotional support, and familial bonds (Goldberg and Short 2016). Because of cascading bereavement among extended families and communities, this “crisis of kin” affects more than just one home. Family roles and closeness can be significantly changed when grandparents take on the role of a primary caregiver or when child-headed households emerge.

Research Objective

This study aims to systematically review the factors contributing to family cohesion and assess interventions designed to strengthen family bonds. It focuses on analyzing and synthesizing existing evidence to identify elements that foster strong and harmonious family relationships. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize peer-reviewed studies on family cohesion conducted between 2015 and 2023 across diverse cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Specifically, the study aims to achieve the following:

• Identify key correlates and antecedents of family cohesion, including relational, structural, psychological, and cultural factors;
• Examine similarities and differences in how family cohesion is conceptualized, experienced, and maintained across global regions, including high-, middle-, and low-income countries;
• Evaluate the effectiveness and cultural relevance of intervention strategies aimed at strengthening family cohesion, with attention to setting, delivery models, and contextual adaptations;
• Bridge theoretical frameworks and empirical findings by interpreting cross-cultural evidence through systems theory and culturally responsive models (e.g., Ubuntu, bayanihan, filial piety).

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic review was conducted to establish the factors and interventions that contribute to family cohesion. Systematic reviews are based on pre-defined eligibility criteria and conducted according to a pre-defined methodological approach. The following criteria were selected for the search strategy.

2.1. Table Search Strategy

The methodological framework employed in this investigation conformed to the PRISMA review design protocols (Moher et al. 2009), delineating a systematic methodology encompassing four distinct phases, as follows: **Identification**, **Screening**, **Eligibility**, and **Inclusion**. These phases enabled a meticulous and methodical extraction of pertinent data. The objective of the search was to extensively identify scholarly works that examine familial factors contributing to positive functioning and cohesiveness. The databases utilized encompassed African Journals Online, CINAHL, EBSCOhost Web (which includes ERIC, PsycArticles, and SocIndex), Emerald e-Journal Premier, JSTOR, MEDLINE, PubMed, Sabinet, Sage, and ScienceDirect. This review concentrates on journal articles published within the timeframe of 2015 to 2023, exclusively in the English language. The search was executed in May 2023 utilizing the library resources of the University of the Western Cape. The principal terms employed in the search included *“family cohesion”, “family functioning”, “mental health”, “social competence”, “resilience”,* and *“interventions”*. Boolean operators and search strings such as *“family cohesion AND family functioning”, “family cohesion OR family relationship”, family cohesion OR family interactions “family cohesion AND mental health”, “family cohesion AND social competence”,* and *“family cohesion AND interventions”* were utilized to refine the results and ensure their pertinence. These search strings were meticulously developed and piloted for efficacy prior to being systematically implemented across the databases. Titles and abstracts of the publications retrieved were evaluated against predetermined inclusion criteria, which necessitated a focus on affirmative family factors that promote connection and cohesion within domestic environments. The results of the search were organized utilizing Covidence and subsequently imported into EndNote Version X9 for effective management. To guarantee a comprehensive and impartial selection process, three reviewers independently scrutinized the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the identified studies. Discrepancies were resolved through discussions facilitated by a fourth reviewer to attain consensus. This collaborative and systematic methodology ensured the inclusion of high-caliber and relevant studies for the review. The methodology emphasizes the rigor and transparency essential for conducting exhaustive literature reviews, thereby facilitating the identification of studies that enhance comprehension within this domain.

2.2. Inclusion Criteria

The following detailed criteria were established and adhered to for the inclusion of studies in the systematic review:

• Publication Timeline: Only studies published between 2015 and 2023 were considered. This timeframe ensured that the findings were recent and relevant to contemporary family dynamics;
• Language Requirements: All included studies were published in English. This criterion facilitated accessibility and consistency in understanding the research;
• Type of Publications: Accepted formats for inclusion comprised full-text articles, scholarly journals, and academic books. This broad range of publication types enabled comprehensive collection of evidence;
• Inclusion of Grey Literature: This review also considers gray literature, including reports, theses, conference papers, and other relevant documents not published in conventional academic sources. This approach provided additional insights into family functioning;
• Relevance to Family Factors: It was required that the selected articles specifically addressed family factors existing within households that significantly contributed to family functioning and cohesion. This focus ensured the review targeted dynamics that positively affect family life;
• Emphasis on Positive Factors: The included articles highlighted positive aspects of family relationships and interactions. The review aimed to identify and discuss factors that strengthened familial connections rather than concentrating on negative elements.

By adhering to these inclusion criteria, this systematic review provides a thorough and constructive examination of the positive influences on family cohesion and functioning.

2.3. Level of Identification

Regarding the level of identification, search strings comprising of key words, search terms, and Boolean operators were entered into the respective selective databases The developed search strings that were piloted and deemed eligible to be used in study were entered into respective databases The terms used in the search included “family cohesion”, “family functioning”, “mental health”, “social competence”, “resilience”, and “interventions”. The titles and publication abstracts were reviewed in accordance with the inclusion criteria. Boolean Operators such as ‘AND’ were used to narrow the search. Full text articles were retrieved by one of the reviewers, and the remaining reviewers carried out the same procedure to ascertain whether the papers fulfilled the inclusion requirements. The search results were uploaded into Covidence and subsequently imported into EndNote Version X9, a reference management program. Three reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the retrieved articles. Any disagreements were resolved through discussions led by a fourth reviewer, who facilitated consensus. Studies that assessed factors and interventions contributing to family cohesion were included in the review. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to ensure a rigorous and comprehensive assessment.

2.4. Level of Screening

At the level of screening, the abstracts of each potential title were screened by three reviewers. Pre-determined abstracts were screened according to the inclusion criteria. Duplication and irrelevance led to the exclusion of abstracts of possible studies from the original search that did not meet the inclusion criteria; instead, potentially relevant studies were chosen. A total of n = 767 titles were reviewed; of those titles n = 298 duplicates were removed. A total of n = 469 abstracts were then reviewed; of these, n = 347 were excluded on the basis of the inclusion criteria. Thus, the abstracts that met the inclusion criteria were eligible for full-text reading. The total for full-text review amounted to n = 120.

2.5. Level of Eligibility

The articles used in this study were systematically retrieved from their respective databases. Once gathered, they were subjected to a thorough review by a panel of four independent reviewers to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. Each article was assessed for methodological quality using a set of critical appraisal tools that were specifically adapted from a systematic review by Roman and Frantz (2013). The details of the appraisal tool, outlining the criteria used for evaluation, are included in

Table 1. The critical appraisal tool.

1. Is the problem statement made explicit?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

2. Is a clear rationale for the study provided?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

3. Have the aims and objectives been clearly stated?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

4. Are the aims and objectives explicitly linked to the research question?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

5. Has an extensive literature review been conducted to inform the context and background of the study?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

6. Has a theoretical framework been identified?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

7. Are gaps in the literature identified?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

8. Is the need for further research addressed?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

9. Is the research design clearly identified (e.g., cohort study, cross-sectional study, qualitative research, quantitative research, mixed studies, case studies, etc.)?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

10. Has/have the author/s indicated reasoning for their design selection?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

11. Does the research design address the aims and objectives of the study?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

12. Is the source population identified?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

13. Is the method of sampling clearly identified?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

14. Is the sample representative of the population?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

15. Is the sampling size justified?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

16. Were the instruments used clearly identified?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

17. Are these instruments appropriate?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

18. Were steps taken to ensure the reliability of outcome measures?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

19. Did the author/s account for potential bias?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

20. Were psychometric properties reported on (scale of sample, data produced by instruments, etc.?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

21. Are the results clearly stipulated?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

22. Are methods of analysis appropriate?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

23. Are results correctly interpreted in relation to the research question?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

24. Is the conclusion clear and supported by findings?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

25. Are appropriate recommendations made?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

26. Are the limitations explicitly identified?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

27. Was ethical approval obtained from an identifiable committee?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

28. Did the author/s report on gaining access from appropriate institutions?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

29. Have the following ethical issues been reported on: informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, withdrawal?

A. Yes [1]

B. No [0]

. The findings from the appraisal process, which highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each article evaluated, are presented in

Table 2. Data extraction.

Author	Country	Study Design	Population Characteristics	Result
Sadiku and Sylaj (2019)	Other	Quantitative	Family (150), teachers (15), pupils (500)	Communication among parents, teachers, and children shapes expectations, emotional climate, student performance, and school safety.
Bellantuono et al. (2018)	Other	RCT	517 trauma-exposed young people	Family cohesion was perceived as high despite trauma, contrary to expectations and prior research.
L. R. Williams and Anthony (2015)	USA	Cross-sectional	20,749 students	Family togetherness and friend support were linked to adolescent well-being and reduced misbehavior.
Kramer-Kuhn and Farrell (2016)	USA	RCT	1128 adolescents	Parental support moderates the effects of exposure to community violence.
Okano et al. (2019)	USA	Quantitative	1048 children	Early school years are optimal for interventions improving social and academic outcomes.
Crandall et al. (2016)	USA	Qualitative	478 families	Poor maternal emotion regulation impacts parenting: healthy processes mitigate adverse effects.
Fowler et al. (2015)	USA	Cross-sectional	90,118 adolescents and parents	Housing mobility predicts worse outcomes; multigenerational homes are linked to higher arrest rates.
Leung et al. (2016)	Other	Cohort	432 Chinese mother–adolescent dyads	Perceived family functioning differs; poor perception is linked to negative adolescent outcomes.
Cabbigat and Kangas (2018)	Australia	Cross-sectional	186 parents	Parental distress, not abuse history, predicts poorer family functioning.
Pedro et al. (2015)	UK	Cross-sectional	615 families	Attachment avoidance impacts family functioning; marital satisfaction mediates some effects.
Botha et al. (2018)	South Africa	Cross-sectional	2547 individuals	Higher SES is associated with greater family flexibility.
Don et al. (2022)	Other	RCT	104 and 192 couples	Positive emotions improve relationship satisfaction and support, especially in new fathers.
Keeton et al. (2023)	USA	Cross-sectional	549 (mostly Latinx)	Maternal stress predicts poor child emotional outcomes.
Caprì et al. (2021)	Other	Quantitative	800 families	High media use correlates with disengaged and rigid family functioning.
Townsend and Van Puymbroeck (2017)	USA	Other	92 parents	Family leisure improves family well-being in families with ASD.
Roberts et al. (2017)	USA	Mixed methods	350 families	Sleep issues affect resilience; social support and stress management promote hardiness.
Scholte and Van der Ploeg (2015)	Other	Quantitative	2450 Dutch families	Parents generally rate family functioning positively.
Mahat-Shamir et al. (2018)	Other	Qualitative	16 fostered adolescents	Foster youth face complex family identity and relational issues.
Ayton and Joss (2016)	Australia	Qualitative	12 parents	Interventions must address family and socioeconomic determinants of child health.
Goodman et al. (2020)	Other	Cross-sectional	2129 households	Social support predicts violent attitudes but reduces stress-linked aggression.
Bennefield (2018)	USA	Cross-sectional	10,148 adolescents	School and family support is linked to positive affect in adolescents.
Chen et al. (2021)	Other	Cross-sectional	544 cancer patient couples	Family resilience influences individual resilience via social support.
Yoon et al. (2022)	USA	Longitudinal	1354 families	The father–child relationship buffers the effects of maltreatment on mental health.
Van Schoors et al. (2018)	Other	Diagnostic	88 adults	Illness can strengthen family cohesion; parental behavior changes post-diagnosis.
Woodman and McArthur (2018)	Australia	Qualitative	31 youth	Young people value parental involvement even as they seek independence.
Balsells et al. (2017)	Other	Qualitative	135 individuals	Social support and parenting skills are crucial for family reunification.
Demidenko et al. (2018)	Other	Cross-sectional	111 family members	Family functioning was moderate and not satisfactory in an ED context.
Woods (2021)	USA	Opinion	Eight grandmothers	Spirituality and social support sustain caregiving roles.
Bai et al. (2020)	Other	Cross-sectional	1432 adults	Good family functioning boosts mental health and buffers low SES effects.
Pérez-López et al. (2018)	USA	Quantitative	490 individuals	MDD symptoms reduce engagement in family interactions.
Gaspar (2022)	Other	Non-randomised	School-based sample	Good family functioning and support relate to better child well-being.
Blair (2018)	USA	RCT	126 foster dyads	Early intervention helps improve permanency for behaviorally challenged children.
Sasikala and Cecil (2016)	Other	Convenience sample	97 students	Parental care positively relates to adolescent self-esteem and well-being.
Liermann and Norton (2016)	USA	Qualitative	20 families	Communication skills improve parent-teen relationships.
Kravchenko et al. (2015)	Other	Mixed	1200 in Moscow	Poor family functioning is linked to worse health.
Van Fossen et al. (2022)	USA	Quantitative	53 dyads	Government insurance is linked to impaired family functioning.
Napolitano et al. (2021)	USA	Qualitative	~2000 individuals	Socioeconomic background affects support provision within families.
Zhu et al. (2023)	Other	Quantitative	569 parents	Family functioning influences child competence via parental emotion socialization.
Sawma and Choueiri (2022)	Other	Quantitative	62 women in remission	Balanced flexibility and good communication reduce cancer-related fears.
Schulte et al. (2017)	USA	Mixed	102 pairs	Parenting stress lowers perceived family functioning.

. The methodological quality assessment focused on several key components, including the clarity and relevance of the problem statement, the defined objectives of the research, the sampling method utilized for the literature review, the response rate achieved, the measurement tools employed, the sources of data, the methods of analysis conducted, and the conclusions drawn by the authors. Ultimately, after conducting a rigorous review, a total of 41 articles were selected for inclusion in the study. These articles were chosen because they met the pre-established criteria, and they ranged from 30% to 100% in methodological rigor. To visually represent the process of selecting and reviewing these articles, a flow chart is provided in Figure 1, illustrating each step taken during the study.

3. Results

3.1. General Description of the Studies Reviewed

This review thoroughly examined 41 empirical studies that investigated a wide range of topics pertinent to family functioning. Principal areas of investigation encompassed family cohesion, adaptability, and communication. Each of these constructions is instrumental in influencing various outcomes, including academic performance, mental health, and social competence among family members. Significantly, 17 of the studies specifically focused on the construction of family cohesion. These investigations utilized a variety of research methodologies, including cross-sectional designs that capture data at a singular point in time and longitudinal designs that monitor subjects over an extended period to detect changes. The studies referenced in this review incorporate substantial contributions from scholars such as Bellantuono et al. (2018), Williams and Anthony (2015), Kramer-Kuhn and Farrell (2016), and Crandall et al. (2016). The approaches used in these studies were diverse, including numerical techniques reliant on data and statistical evaluations; qualitative techniques that gather insights through interviews or discussion groups; cross-sectional frameworks providing a snapshot of data at a specific time; longitudinal research tracking changes over a period; and mixed methodologies that combine both numerical and qualitative techniques. This amalgamation of methodologies enriches the comprehensive understanding of family dynamics and their ramifications for both individual and collective outcomes. This review finds that while emotional bonding, communication, adaptability, and support are core to family cohesion across contexts, the pathways through which these components are developed and sustained differ significantly with cultural norms, socioeconomic conditions, and institutional structures. For example, family cohesion in Brazil and the Philippines is often reinforced through collective caregiving and community reciprocity, while in high-income contexts, individual psychological well-being and structured interventions play a more dominant role.

3.2. Study Designs and Approaches

Among the 41 studies analyzed, 22 employed structured questionnaires and measurement scales, such as the Family Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES), Parenting Practices Scale, and Family Relationship Scale, to assess variables including family cohesion, adaptability, and psychological outcomes (e.g., Williams and Anthony 2015; Kramer-Kuhn and Farrell 2016). Five studies utilized interviews and open-ended questionnaires to elicit comprehensive insights into familial dynamics and individual experiences (e.g., Crandall et al. 2016). A total of thirteen investigations collected information at a specific moment to explore the connections between elements like family dynamics and the growth of adolescents (for instance, Leung et al. 2016). Four studies longitudinally followed participants to analyze changes and long-term repercussions on family dynamics and outcomes (e.g., Fowler et al. 2015). Three studies integrated both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to furnish a holistic understanding of family dynamics (e.g., Roberts et al. 2017).

3.3. Countries and Authors

The investigations were implemented across a heterogeneous array of nations, demonstrating extensive global engagement in the scholarly inquiry. The represented countries included the United States, numerous states from Europe, South Africa, China, Hong Kong, Portugal, Australia, and more. The contributing scholars epitomize a consortium of distinguished universities and research institutions on an international scale. Prominent researchers include L. R. Williams, whose 2015 investigation concentrated on pioneering methodologies in the United States; Alessandro Bellantuono and collaborators, who disseminated their results in 2018, also emphasizing noteworthy trends in the U.S.; Ferdi Botha, whose 2018 analysis from South Africa scrutinized regional challenges; Janet T. Y. Leung, who in 2016 offered insights from Hong Kong concerning urban dynamics; Tania Gaspar from Portugal, who provided significant perspectives on European contexts; and Darshini Ayton from Australia, whose scholarship examined distinct issues encountered by Australian communities. This eclectic range of researchers enhances the holistic comprehension of the topics examined, reflecting diverse perspectives and methodological approaches.

3.4. Sample Sizes and Demographics

The sample sizes varied widely, ranging from small qualitative samples of around nine families (Ayton and Joss 2016) to large quantitative samples exceeding 20,000 participants (Williams and Anthony 2015). All 41 studies included both male and female participants, though 6 studies focused specifically on mothers (Leung et al. 2016) or families with children (Roberts et al. 2017). Participants ranged from young children to adults, with 12 studies focusing on children aged 5–12 years old (Okano et al. 2019) and 15 studies focusing on adolescents aged 13–18 years (Kramer-Kuhn and Farrell 2016). In total, 9 studies focused on diverse populations such as African American families, Hispanic families, or single-mother families, while 7 studies addressed families experiencing economic disadvantage (Leung et al. 2016). Specific populations included traumatized youth (Bellantuono et al. 2018) and families with children diagnosed with autism (Roberts et al. 2017). Some studies focused on specific populations, like traumatized youth (Bellantuono et al. 2018), while others looked at families facing economic challenges (Leung et al. 2016), or the families of children with autism (Roberts et al. 2017).

The data extraction sheet contains a comprehensive review of 41 empirical studies that examine diverse dimensions of family functioning, including family cohesion, adaptability, communication, and support, and their associations with psychosocial outcomes. These key constructs provide a foundation for understanding how families operate, adapt, and influence individual development. The reviewed studies highlight consistent patterns across different contexts and populations, which are synthesized below.

• Key Definitions and Focus Areas
  The areas of focus identified were as follows:
  • Family Cohesion, defined as emotional bonding and a sense of togetherness among family members, was explored in 17 studies (e.g., Pedro et al. 2015). Cohesive families were frequently linked with positive developmental and psychological outcomes;
  • Family Adaptability, referring to a family’s capacity to adjust to changes and stressors, was the focus of 10 studies (e.g., Botha et al. 2018), with particular emphasis on how socioeconomic challenges influence family structure and responsiveness;
  • Communication, with reference to the quality and frequency of interactions within the family system, was central in 11 studies (e.g., Crandall et al. 2016), with communication consistently emerging as a protective factor that enhanced resilience and emotional well-being;
  • Support, in both emotional and instrumental forms, was examined in 13 studies (e.g., Fowler et al. 2015), particularly in relation to how support buffers individuals against adversity and promotes adaptive coping.

These definitional categories served as organizing principles for the broader synthesis of findings across thematic domains, including academic outcomes, mental health, social competence, and socioeconomic influences, as detailed below.

3.4.1. Family Cohesion and Academic Performance

Building upon the 17 studies that addressed family cohesion, evidence shows that higher levels of emotional bonding within the family significantly enhance academic performance in children. For example, Sadiku and Sylaj (2019) and Williams and Anthony (2015) emphasize that children from cohesive families benefit from emotionally supportive environments that foster self-confidence, school engagement, and academic motivation. Supportive family behaviors such as helping with homework, setting high expectations, and providing a stable home learning environment were common in studies focusing on cohesion. These findings intersect with communication and support; cohesive families often exhibit open dialogue and active parental involvement, both of which are crucial for academic success (Bellantuono et al. 2018; Pedro et al. 2015).

3.4.2. Mental Health and Family Functioning

Mental health emerged as a central concern in studies focused on cohesion, adaptability, and support. This review found that families with high cohesion and flexibility are better equipped to mitigate psychological distress. For example, Crandall et al. (2016) and Roberts et al. (2017) demonstrated that adolescents in such families reported lower levels of depression and anxiety. Conversely, the 10 studies addressing low adaptability—often due to socioeconomic or relational strain—highlighted elevated mental health risks, especially in families where communication and support systems were disrupted (Bellantuono et al. 2018; Botha et al. 2018). The importance of fostering adaptive coping and emotional availability is underscored in intervention-focused studies like Don et al. (2022), which advocate for family therapy to improve regulatory processes.

3.4.3. Social Competence and Interpersonal Functioning

The development of social competence was closely linked to the presence of emotional support and effective communication, as shown in the 13 studies exploring family support and the 11 focused on communication. Positive family dynamics were found to promote empathy, conflict resolution skills, and social integration in children and adolescents (Williams and Anthony 2015; Leung et al. 2016). Families that provided consistent emotional reinforcement, modeled prosocial behavior, and encouraged collaborative problem-solving had children who were more socially competent and better able to form peer relationships. For instance, Okano et al. (2019) found that children in cohesive families were more likely to display positive peer interaction skills, having practiced these within the family unit.

3.4.4. Socioeconomic Status and Structural Stressors

The impact of socioeconomic status (SES) cuts across multiple dimensions of family functioning, particularly adaptability and support. Studies like Botha et al. (2018) and Van Fossen et al. (2022) illustrate how financial insecurity can impair parental responsiveness and emotional availability, thus weakening family cohesion and communication. These stressors were shown to exacerbate emotional and behavioral challenges in children. Despite these challenges, some studies also underscored the role of family resilience, even within low-SES contexts. Fowler et al. (2015) and Ayton and Joss (2016) highlighted the value of external support (e.g., social services, community programs) and internal family strengths (e.g., routines, shared values) that sustain cohesion and adaptability in the face of structural adversity.

3.4.5. Resilience and Adaptation to Adversity

A cross-cutting theme in the data extraction was the role of family processes in resilience—the capacity to maintain or regain psychological well-being during and after adversity. Several studies (e.g., Keeton et al. 2023; Van Schoors et al. 2018) emphasized that families managing chronic illness, trauma, or crisis events often rely on cohesion, communication, and adaptability to buffer stress and support recovery. The capacity for resilience was particularly evident in families with strong support systems and open emotional expression. These elements were repeatedly identified as key predictors of positive outcomes across domains such as emotional regulation, stress recovery, and children’s adjustment (Don et al. 2022; Roberts et al. 2017).

3.4.6. Contemporary Stressors: Technology and Media Use

While fewer in number, studies like Caprì et al. (2021) provide a critical lens on emerging digital stressors affecting family functioning. Overdependence on digital devices and screen time was associated with reduced interaction quality, impaired routines, and diminished family cohesion. This finding suggests a new dimension for understanding family functioning, i.e., the influence of digital behaviors on emotional bonding, communication, and adaptability. These changes call for updated theoretical frameworks and interventions that consider technology’s role in reshaping relational patterns.

Strategies to Strengthen Family Cohesion: Interventions and Guidelines

Family cohesion is essential for building emotional support, adaptability, and mutual understanding within families (Bellantuono et al. 2018). This, in turn, promotes positive outcomes such as mental health, social competence, and academic success. However, challenges like socioeconomic pressures, cultural differences, and changing family structures can strain these bonds. To address these issues, targeted interventions are designed to strengthen family dynamics, improve communication, and build resilience. Among the papers reviewed, several interventions and guidelines have been developed to foster unity, alleviate stressors, and help families create nurturing environments for all members.

• Initiatives that empower families and communities to identify and address their own needs can significantly enhance family cohesion. These programs often involve participatory planning, capacity building, and the promotion of local leadership (Ahmad and Talib 2015).
• Promoting intercultural dialogue through family and community events, cultural exchanges, and educational programs can help bridge cultural divides and foster mutual understanding and respect. These initiatives can reduce prejudices and build a more inclusive society of families (Zapta-Barrero and Mansouri 2022). Keeping and expressing one’s cultural identities in a multicultural setting promotes inclusion, cooperation, and understanding amongst people from different origins. This makes it possible to communicate more effectively and appreciate the diversity of experiences. According to Berry (2008), when a varied range of groups give a variety of ideas and solutions, it becomes easier for people to work together to solve problems. According to research, people are more inclined to participate in cooperative efforts and open communication when they feel appreciated and respected for their cultural identities. This can result in creative solutions to problems that the community faces (Putnam 2000). Through promoting a range of contacts, this kind of discourse may improve trust, fortify social ties, and prevent social disintegration. In the end, this helps create a society that is more robust and cohesive, where people are engaged and connected to each other.
• Parenting workshops and support groups can help caregivers develop positive parenting techniques, such as active listening, constructive discipline, and emotional regulation, by teaching them how to develop positive parenting techniques. Typically, these programs help to improve parent–child relationships as well as foster a nurturing family environment, which is crucial for family cohesiveness (Rodriguez 2021).
• Providing access to mental health services, such as family therapy or individual counseling for family members, can be a helpful way to resolve underlying issues, such as stress, trauma, or communication challenges that affect the entire family. These services are particularly impactful in families experiencing conflict or adversity (Botha et al. 2018).
• Policies that promote work–life balance, such as parental leave, flexible working hours, and remote work options, allow family members to spend more time together, strengthening emotional bonds and shared responsibilities (Roberts et al. 2017).
• Organized recreational activities, such as family camps, sports days, or cultural events, provide opportunities for bonding and positive interaction in non-stressful environments, which can enhance cohesion and mutual understanding (Leung et al. 2016).
• Training family members in conflict resolution techniques and effective communication strategies can reduce tension and promote understanding. These workshops foster a culture of empathy and cooperative problem-solving within the family (Rodriguez 2021).
• Programs that provide financial literacy training, job opportunities, or microfinance support can alleviate the economic pressures that often lead to family conflict, creating a more stable foundation for cohesion (Okano et al. 2019).
• Immediate support for families in crisis, such as emergency housing or access to essential resources, ensures that acute stressors do not permanently damage family relationships and functioning (Don et al. 2022).
• Educating families on the positive and safe use of technology helps reduce negative digital impacts on family dynamics. These programs encourage meaningful digital interactions and limit distractions that can undermine family bonding (Bellantuono et al. 2018).
• Programs that address the needs of multigenerational households, such as eldercare support or intergenerational activities, help balance the responsibilities of caregiving while fostering respect and connection across generations (Hartwell et al. 2021).
• Resilience-building programs equip families with tools to handle stress and adversity. Techniques such as mindfulness, stress reduction exercises, and coping strategies improve adaptability and unity during challenging times (Alexander and Robbins 2019).

Comparative Analysis of the Four Core Components: This review analyzed 41 empirical studies thematically categorized according to four core dimensions of family functioning, i.e., emotional bonding, adaptability, communication, and support. Each component was examined comparatively across studies, highlighting both cross-cultural variations and outcome-specific associations.

Emotional Bonding: Emotional bonding consistently emerged as a protective factor, though its expression varied by cultural context. For instance, in the United States, Williams and Anthony (2015) demonstrated that adolescents reporting higher emotional bonding within the family exhibited lower rates of externalizing behavior and higher school engagement. In contrast, studies from South Africa (Botha et al. 2018) and Brazil (Silva and Monteiro 2020) illustrated how bonding was reinforced through extended kinship networks and collective care structures, especially in economically marginalized settings.

Adaptability: Family adaptability, defined as the capacity to reorganize roles and rules in response to stressors, was more prominent in longitudinal and intervention studies. Fowler et al. (2015) in the US.

Ayton and Joss (2016) in Australia both reported that high adaptability buffered the effects of housing instability and parental stress. In contrast, lower-income families in South Africa often showed structural rigidity due to resource constraints (Botha et al. 2018), though resilience emerged when supported by community-based intervention programs.

Communication: Eleven studies emphasized communication as central to family resilience. Crandall et al. (2016) found that in U.S. families, consistent verbal communication reduced adolescent depression. Leung et al. (2016) highlighted that in Chinese families, communication was more implicit and role-based, yet equally predictive of adolescent adjustment. This indicates that while open communication is critical, its forms vary across collectivist and individualist cultures.

Support: Emotional and instrumental support were documented in 13 studies. In families experiencing chronic illness (Roberts et al. 2017) or trauma (Bellantuono et al. 2018), support was linked to mental health recovery. In low-SES households, support is often derived from extended networks rather than nuclear family members (Napolitano et al. 2021). The source and structure of support appear deeply embedded in socioeconomic and cultural context, influencing both its availability and effectiveness.

These comparative insights deepen our understanding of how family cohesion is constructed and sustained across different settings. These findings affirm that while the four components are universally relevant, their manifestations and implications are profoundly shaped by cultural, economic, and structural factors.

4. Discussion

This review explores how family cohesion and its core components emotional bonding, adaptability, communication, and support operate across different cultural, socioeconomic, and methodological contexts. The findings indicate that while these components are theoretically universal, their specific expressions and implications are context-dependent. Cross-regional comparisons reveal that emotional bonding in Western contexts often emphasizes open affection and self-disclosure, while in African and Asian settings, bonding may be embedded in collective responsibility and shared labor. For instance, studies from South Africa and the Philippines have demonstrated how resilience is maintained through communal caregiving and multigenerational co-residence. These findings suggest that the mechanisms of cohesion are culturally mediated and not reducible to individual behaviors. Adaptability, as conceptualized in systems theory, also varies by resource context. In high-income countries, adaptability is supported by access to flexible institutional resources such as mental health services and educational interventions. In contrast, in low- and middle-income settings, adaptability is often informal and rooted in social networks or extended family systems, as seen in Brazil, Indonesia, and rural South Africa. Communication styles also differ in form and function. While Western literature typically emphasizes open verbal communication, studies in collectivist cultures point to non-verbal cues, hierarchical respect, and implicit understanding as equally significant in sustaining cohesion. This finding underscores the need for culturally sensitive indicators when assessing family communication. Support systems showed the strongest variation. In high-resource settings, support is often institutionalized (e.g., school counseling, community services), whereas in resource-constrained environments, families rely more heavily on informal networks and inter-household reciprocity. The nature of support is thus tightly linked to socioeconomic status and community structure.

Methodologically, the application of the MMAT allowed us to assess the quality of studies with diverse designs. High-quality studies have tended to integrate mixed-methods approaches and include longitudinal tracking. Lower-quality studies have often lacked contextual depth or failed to report limitations. The inclusion of an MMAT summary table (

Table 3. Summary of MMAT Appraiser for Included Studies.

Author (Year)	Study Design	MMAT Score (%)	Key Strengths	Key Limitations
Williams and Anthony (2015)	Cross-sectional	90%	Large national sample; validated scales	No longitudinal tracking
Bellantuono et al. (2018)	RCT	100%	Strong design; trauma-sensitive	Context-specific findings
Leung et al. (2016)	Cohort	80%	Temporal insight; economic focus	Cultural specificity limits generalizability

) enables transparency in assessing the strength of the evidence. Taken together, these insights affirm the need for future research to adopt culturally grounded frameworks, prioritize comparative analysis, and tailor interventions to specific family structures and resource environments. This review contributes to the literature by bridging empirical findings with theory and offering a multidimensional, context-aware synthesis of family cohesion.

The 41 reviewed studies addressed the four dimensions of emotional bonding, adaptability, communication, and support. This expanded analysis highlights how each component manifests across diverse cultural and socioeconomic contexts, as well as the differential impact of these components on psychosocial outcomes (e.g., academic performance, mental health, and social competence).

For example, studies conducted in South Africa (Botha et al. 2018) and the United States (Williams and Anthony 2015) were compared to examine how socioeconomic disadvantage moderates the role of emotional bonding in promoting resilience. Similarly, communication styles were found to differ significantly between collectivistic (e.g., Leung et al. 2016) and individualistic (e.g., Crandall et al. 2016) cultures, influencing parental engagement and adolescent adjustment.

The current synthesis of 41 empirical studies offers a multifaceted understanding of family functioning and its implications for academic, psychological, and social outcomes. Central to these studies are the constructs of family cohesion, adaptability, communication, and support, which consistently emerge as critical dimensions shaping developmental trajectories across childhood, adolescence, and family systems broadly.

4.1. Family Cohesion as a Protective Factor

One of the most salient findings concerns the role of family cohesion—defined as emotional bonding and a sense of unity among family members—as a significant protective factor. The reviewed literature reveals a robust association between high levels of cohesion and improved academic performance in children and adolescents (e.g., Sadiku and Sylaj 2019; Williams and Anthony 2015). In cohesive families, the presence of emotional security facilitates motivation, enhances cognitive engagement, and contributes to the development of self-regulation skills. These benefits are further amplified by the supportive behaviors typically exhibited in cohesive households, including parental involvement in educational activities and the provision of structured home environments conducive to learning. Moreover, family cohesion is strongly linked to mental health resilience. Studies such as Crandall et al. (2016) and Roberts et al. (2017) demonstrated that adolescents in cohesive families reported lower levels of anxiety and depression. This emotional closeness not only fosters a sense of belonging but also encourages open communication and mutual support, which are critical for processing stress and promoting psychological well-being.

4.2. Adaptability and Family Resilience

Closely intertwined with cohesion is the concept of family adaptability, which refers to a family’s capacity to reorganize roles, rules, and routines in response to stressors or environmental changes. Ten studies in the review emphasized the significance of this flexibility, particularly in the context of socioeconomic adversity (e.g., Botha et al. 2018). Families with high adaptability were better equipped to manage external pressures such as financial instability or chronic illness, maintaining cohesion and emotional regulation in the process. The dynamic nature of adaptability suggests that resilience is not solely a function of static traits but also of responsive behaviors and systemic adjustment. Notably, interventions aimed at enhancing family adaptability—such as family therapy or systemic counseling—were found to produce meaningful improvements in both mental health and relational functioning (Don et al. 2022). These findings support a process-oriented view of resilience, highlighting the capacity of families to evolve in the face of adversity.

4.3. Communication as a Core Mechanism

Effective intra-family communication emerges as a core mechanism underpinning the benefits of cohesion and adaptability. Eleven studies underscore the centrality of open, consistent, and empathetic communication in fostering family resilience and promoting individual well-being. Communication enables families to coordinate, solve problems, express emotions, and provide validation, thereby preventing conflict escalation and emotional isolation. Moreover, communication serves as a vehicle through which values, expectations, and support are transmitted across generations. Its role in buffering psychological distress is particularly critical during periods of change or uncertainty, such as adolescence, illness, or social transitions.

4.4. Support and Social Competence

The role of emotional and instrumental support within the family context is well documented across 13 studies. Supportive families serve as incubators for the development of social competence in children and adolescents, teaching vital skills such as empathy, cooperation, and conflict resolution. These skills are not only internalized through direct instruction but also through observation of how parents and caregivers model interpersonal behavior (Williams and Anthony 2015; Leung et al. 2016). Children raised in supportive environments demonstrate greater confidence in peer interactions, higher self-esteem, and an increased capacity for emotional regulation. This has implications for both educational and social settings, as socially competent children are better equipped to navigate complex relationships and institutional demands.

4.5. Impact of Socioeconomic Status

The intersection of socioeconomic status (SES) and family functioning highlights the importance of structural and contextual variables in shaping relational dynamics. Lower SES is associated with higher stress levels, reduced parental availability, and limited access to developmental resources, all of which negatively impact cohesion, communication, and adaptability (Botha et al. 2018; Roberts et al. 2017). However, the presence of protective factors including strong emotional bonds, effective coping mechanisms, and community support can buffer families from the adverse effects of poverty. This finding affirms the importance of ecological and systems-based approaches to family intervention, where both internal processes and external resources are targeted for support.

4.6. Contemporary Challenges: Technology and Media Use

The emerging literature on technology use and media dependency suggests that digital behaviors can disrupt traditional patterns of family interaction and cohesion. For instance, Caprì et al. (2021) documents how excessive screen time reduces face-to-face communication and weakens emotional bonding. These findings call attention to the evolving nature of family systems in the digital age, underscoring the need for updated frameworks that incorporate technological influences on family functioning.

4.7. Interventions: Comparative Evaluation

Among the diverse range of interventions assessed, community-based family therapy and culturally adapted parenting initiatives emerge as the most efficacious methodologies, particularly when these are customized to align with local contexts and cultural intricacies. For example, investigations conducted by Don et al. (2022) and Ayton and Joss (2016) indicate that interventions rooted in the pre-existing community networks not only attained elevated levels of participation but also ensured the enhanced long-term sustainability of favorable outcomes. These programs cultivated a sense of ownership and trust among families, which was paramount for their active engagement.

Conversely, top-down programmatic interventions have frequently encountered difficulties in meaningfully engaging families, as they generally lack the requisite personalization and cultural sensitivity essential for effective implementation. Such methodologies have often faced obstacles in retention and have failed to produce enduring impacts, thereby highlighting the significance of community involvement in the design of interventions.

To facilitate a clearer comparison, Table 2 and Table 3 delineate the various interventions, emphasizing their effectiveness, cultural adaptability, and scalability, thereby illustrating which approaches successfully integrated community values while yielding substantive outcomes. This thorough analysis accentuates the imperative of customizing parenting programs to the distinct cultural contexts of the families they aspire to serve.

4.7.1. Policy Implications

Drawing upon the synthesis of empirical evidence, three primary policy recommendations are delineated as follows:

• Enhance accessibility to culturally attuned family interventions that incorporate indigenous values and relational norms to augment participation and pertinence;
• Allocate resources towards structural supports, such as housing and food security, that have a direct impact on the emotional and relational dynamics of families, particularly within low socioeconomic status contexts;
• Establish comprehensive family support initiatives within educational institutions and community centers that combine mental health, educational, and parenting resources into a cohesive framework.

4.7.2. Implications for Practice and Policy

Taken together, the findings from this synthesis have several implications for practice, policy, and future research. Family-based interventions should prioritize the enhancement of cohesion, adaptability, and communication as primary goals. Programs designed to support families—particularly those facing economic hardship—must consider both psychosocial and structural barriers to functioning. Moreover, with the rise of digital technologies and shifting social norms, practitioners must be attuned to new stressors affecting family systems and adapt strategies accordingly. On a policy level, investment in family support services, community programs, and access to mental health care can significantly enhance family resilience, particularly in vulnerable populations. Education systems can also play a role by encouraging parental involvement and integrating family engagement into school frameworks.

4.7.3. Limitations and Future Directions

The methodological diversity and variability in publication language that shaped the final study pool highlight not just challenges but also valuable opportunities to enrich our understanding of family cohesion on a global scale. This review positions itself as a critical contribution to developing a more comprehensive and globally informed theory of family cohesion. Instead of perceiving geographic variation as a limitation to be circumvented, this study actively embraces it as a significant strength, aimed at uncovering both universal characteristics of family cohesion such as emotional support, relational stability, adaptability, and culturally specific expressions and pathways that manifest in diverse sociocultural contexts. For instance, the concept of “bayanihan” in the Philippines exemplifies community cooperation, while “Ubuntu” in southern Africa underscores the interconnectedness among individuals. Additionally, the notion of filial obligation prevalent in East Asian cultures illustrates the unique relational expectations based on cultural heritage. By employing this comparative approach, this research enhances our understanding of family functioning across various sociocultural systems. It also lays the groundwork for developing more inclusive and culturally sensitive policy and practice models. This can ultimately lead to more effective support systems that honor the diverse forms of family cohesion and functionality around the world.

5. Conclusions

This review of 41 studies reveals a complex, multi-dimensional portrait of family functioning. The constructs of cohesion, adaptability, communication, and support are deeply interconnected and consistently predictive of positive outcomes in academic achievement, mental health, and social competence. These dynamics are shaped by contextual variables such as socioeconomic status and contemporary stressors, including use of technology. The reviewed studies highlight the critical role of family functioning in various aspects of individual and collective well-being. They underscore the importance of family cohesion, adaptability, and communication in promoting positive outcomes across different domains, including academic performance, mental health, and social competence. The diverse methodologies and populations studied provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics within families and their impact on individual development and well-being. This review highlights that family cohesion and adaptability are essential for academic performance, mental health, and social competence. Positive family dynamics provide a supportive environment that fosters emotional stability, resilience, and social skills. However, socioeconomic status can significantly impact family functioning, with lower SES presenting greater challenges in maintaining family cohesion and adaptability. Despite these challenges, some families demonstrate remarkable resilience, underscoring the importance of support systems and interventions aimed at enhancing family functioning. Future research should continue to explore the complex interplay between family dynamics and various outcomes, with a focus on identifying effective strategies to support families in different socioeconomic contexts.