Understanding the Relationship Between Family Functioning and Social Cohesion in South Africa: A Mixed-Methods Study

Abstract

Understanding how family functioning shapes social cohesion in South African communities offers insight into relational dynamics that sustain neighborhood well-being. This convergent parallel mixed-methods study examined associations between family functioning and neighborhood social cohesion in Cape Town. Quantitative data (N = 662) were collected using the Family Functioning Questionnaire and the Neighborhood Social Cohesion Questionnaire. Correlations showed positive associations between family cohesion and trust (r = 0.20), expressiveness and tolerance/respect (r = 0.20), and democratic family style and neighborhood attachment (r = 0.21). Family disengagement showed a small negative association with tolerance/respect (r = −0.11) and a small positive association with practical help (r = 0.17), an unexpected pattern interpreted cautiously. Qualitative interviews (n = 20) provided contextual depth, describing how open communication, shared caregiving, and supportive family networks enhance trust, belonging, reciprocity, and responsibility. Thematic analysis produced five themes spanning cohesion, expressiveness, conflict/disengagement, democratic family functioning, and authoritarian parenting as adaptation. Triangulation indicated that cohesive, expressive, and democratic family processes align with stronger neighborhood connectedness, while conflict and strictness were often described as forms of regulation rather than uniformly harmful. Findings support strengthening family-based interventions, parenting programs, and community policies that reinforce both family well-being and social connectedness.

1. Introduction

The family is widely recognized as the primary social unit that individuals encounter early in life and plays a central role in shaping emotional, cognitive, and social development (Berk 2022). Family interactions—including communication patterns, shared activities, emotional expression, and approaches to conflict resolution—form the foundation for how individuals engage with others and participate in broader social contexts (Ishimaru 2019). Families that are cohesive, adaptable, and characterized by effective communication are more likely to foster children who demonstrate strong social skills, empathy, and a sense of belonging that extends beyond the home environment (Bogdan et al. 2023). In contrast, families that are disengaged, resistant to change, or marked by frequent conflict may struggle to establish trust, which can contribute to social isolation and weakened connections to the wider community (Chambers and Gracia 2021).

1.1. Linking Family Functioning and Social Cohesion

Functional family systems not only shape individual social competencies but also contribute to broader social cohesion through community involvement, reciprocal support, and local engagement (Bidandi and Roman 2020; Parekh et al. 2018). Chang et al. (2022) and Jiang et al. (2025) converge on the argument that family functioning supports well-being by strengthening adolescents’ relational capacities, while also showing that these effects operate through different but complementary pathways. In Chang et al. (2022), maternal involvement was the only family-level factor that significantly predicted positive psychological functioning in adolescence, and maternal involvement together with school connectedness and neighborhood social cohesion predicted stronger social skills, indicating that supportive caregiving works alongside broader relational contexts to promote resilience. Jiang et al. (2025) extend this family well-being account by showing that family cohesion and adaptability are associated with better adolescent adjustment, partly through interpersonal competence, specifically communication and emotion regulation skills. Together, these studies support an ecological interpretation in which supportive, cohesive family environments foster well-being both directly (through caregiver involvement) and indirectly (by cultivating interpersonal skills that extend to community relationships). Therefore, families that maintain positive interactions, provide emotional support, and engage in collaborative decision-making often extend these relational norms into their communities, thereby fostering trust and cooperation (Singerman 2020). Their confidence and openness can generate positive spillover effects that benefit the wider community (Orgad and Gill 2021). Socially integrated communities, in turn, support families by offering shared resources, emotional support, and opportunities for civic participation (Aldrich and Meyer 2015). This reciprocal relationship suggests that family functioning and social cohesion are interconnected processes that can mutually strengthen or undermine one another (Alexander and Robbins 2019; Baldassarri and Abascal 2020).

In the South African context, the relationship between family functioning and social cohesion is deeply interconnected. The country’s historical legacy of racial and spatial inequality continues to shape household structures, parenting practices, and community interactions (Mohapanele 2023; Tshishonga 2019). Decades of apartheid produced enduring disparities in income, education, and opportunity, which have influenced both family life and neighborhood solidarity (Bidandi and Roman 2020). Functional families characterized by effective communication, reciprocity, and emotional support can help mitigate these structural inequalities by fostering resilience and a strong sense of belonging among their members (Jenson 2019). By contrast, family dysfunction, neglect, or dissolution may erode social trust and contribute to social fragmentation and exclusion (Adams 2017). Noyoo (2025) further posits that while South African families contribute to cohesion, their functioning is shaped by state capacity, inequality, labor-market structure, social protection and the broader society. Accordingly, this study is grounded in a systemic and ecological theoretical lens in which internal relational dynamics within families can be influenced by broader social and structural contexts that shape family functioning and social cohesion (Eppler 2019; Ferguson and Evans 2019; Roman et al. 2025).

1.2. Theoretical Perspective

Family functioning is a multidimensional construct encompassing patterns of interaction, communication, and collaboration among family members that support individual and collective well-being (Falana et al. 2024; Booysen et al. 2021). It reflects a family’s capacity for adaptability, cooperation, resilience, and the ability to balance individual needs with the demands of the family system.

Similarly, Bowen’s (1978) family systems theory (FST) conceptualizes the family as an emotional and social unit in which patterns of interaction, communication, and cohesion shape individual behavior and broader relational functioning. Bowen (1978) argues that the family operates as an interdependent system, such that a change in one component of the system is likely to produce corresponding shifts in other components. When family systems are characterized by open communication, adaptability, and emotional responsiveness, they can strengthen individuals’ engagement with external social networks. Conversely, dysfunction within the family system may contribute to social disengagement, mistrust, or conflict at the community level (Bronfenbrenner 1979, 1986). Thus, the value of systemic theorizing lies in understanding how relational patterns within families are connected to wider social functioning, while also emphasizing that family processes both influence and are influenced by the broader sociocultural contexts in which they unfold (Asiimwe et al. 2026).

This perspective is further extended by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory (EST), which posits that human development occurs within a set of interrelated systems, ranging from the microsystem of the family to the macrosystem of broader societal norms and structures. The family, situated within the microsystem, directly shapes members’ capacity for social interaction and community participation, while the mesosystem—such as neighborhoods and local institutions—reciprocally influences family functioning (Saunders 1999). Empirical evidence shows that broader structural conditions (e.g., institutional environments and systemic disadvantages) shape lived experiences and developmental outcomes, underscoring the relevance of ecological approaches for contextualizing family functioning in settings marked by inequality (Gonçalves et al. 2026). This bidirectional relationship between family systems and community contexts forms the conceptual foundation of the present study.

1.3. Social Cohesion and Community Well-Being

Social cohesion refers to the strength of relationships, levels of trust, and a shared sense of belonging among members of a group or society (Aref and Al-Emadi 2023; Ware 2023). Often described as the “social glue” that binds societies together (Verneert et al. 2021), social cohesion encompasses interpersonal connections, civic engagement, trust, attachment, mutual assistance, and tolerance (Berger 2018; Orazani et al. 2023). It is grounded in families and networks of friends, which provide emotional security and foster a sense of belonging (Chipkin 2008). Participation in collective activities strengthens social capital and promotes inclusivity (Habermann et al. 2014; Painter 2013), while trust facilitates collaboration and mutual understanding (Baldassarri and Abascal 2020; Khaile et al. 2022). Neighborhood attachment and mutual aid represent tangible expressions of social cohesion, illustrating how relational trust is translated into concrete acts of support (Cramm et al. 2013; Elliott et al. 2014). In diverse societies, tolerance and respect are essential for sustaining peace and social harmony (Budiyono et al. 2018).

In South Africa, levels of social cohesion vary significantly across racial and geographic contexts. Persistent inequalities in housing, education, and public safety continue to hinder social integration (David et al. 2018; Bwalya et al. 2023). Research indicates that interracial trust remains low, particularly in formerly segregated urban areas (Bwalya et al. 2023). Moreover, while social media has the potential to bridge social divides, it can also intensify polarization and reinforce existing social boundaries (Matema and Kariuki 2022). In rural region communities, trust and collective engagement are essential yet precarious elements of social cohesion (Khaile et al. 2022).

1.4. The Relationship Between Family Functioning and Social Cohesion

A well-functioning family enhances not only the well-being of its members but also the broader social fabric. Families operate as microsystems of society contexts in which empathy, trust, and collaboration are cultivated (Roman et al. 2016). Research indicates that closely connected families contribute to the development of trust and cooperation within communities (Schiefer and Van der Noll 2017) and can buffer children from the adverse health effects of disadvantaged neighborhood conditions (Fan and Chen 2012; Sim and Georgiades 2022). At the level of parenting practices, democratic family environments characterized by parental warmth, autonomy granting, and open communication have been positively associated with adolescents’ endorsement of democratic values, suggesting that participatory family structures function as formative spaces for the internalization of civic norms and prosocial orientations that extend into community life (Miklikowska and Hurme 2011). Conversely, authoritarian parenting styles characterized by strict behavioral control, limited emotional responsiveness, and low autonomy-granting have been linked to weakened internal family bonds (Aloia and Strutzenberg 2023). Within socioeconomically constrained contexts such as South Africa, however, such disciplinary structures may function as adaptive responses to structural inequality and external risk, wherein strict behavioral boundaries serve as protective rather than purely punitive functions (Bronfenbrenner 2005). Conversely, Özkaya (2022) argues that diversification in family forms (e.g., delayed marriages, blended households and shifting parental roles) alongside evolving functions (e.g., caregiving and authority) can be accompanied by reduced communication and fragmented relational expectations. However, modern families retain a foundational capacity to generate social cohesion through civic participation, intergenerational solidarity and social trust when empathy and interconnectivity are actively cultivated and reinforced through aligned social institutions and responsive public policy. Socially integrated neighborhoods, in turn, strengthen family functioning by promoting safety, facilitating shared child supervision, and fostering a shared sense of responsibility (Barnhart et al. 2022; Erickson et al. 2016).

Within South Africa’s diverse socioeconomic contexts, examining the interplay between family functioning and community social cohesion provides critical insight into how micro-level interactions influence macro-level solidarity. Framing family functioning as a key determinant of social cohesion can, however, inadvertently individualize broader structural challenges and risk portraying families in low-resource communities as “deficient” rather than disadvantaged (David et al. 2018; Holborn and Eddy 2011; Palmary 2015). By positioning family functioning as central to cohesion, the current study adopts this perspective while understanding families not as isolated agents responsible for repairing social fractures, but as microsystems embedded within unequal neighborhoods and policy regimes (Bidandi and Roman 2020; Jenson 2019).

Prior research has linked cohesive family relationships to higher levels of community trust, reduced social isolation, and increased civic engagement (Schiefer and Van der Noll 2017). Despite the recognized interdependence between family functioning and social cohesion, empirical evidence from South Africa remains limited. Existing studies have often examined these constructs in isolation, thereby overlooking their reciprocal influence and contextual dimensions. This study therefore integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine how family functioning contributes to social cohesion among South African families.

Based on the theoretical frameworks of Bowen’s (1978) Family Systems Theory and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Ecological Systems Theory, and in light of the existing empirical literature, the following hypotheses were formulated to guide the quantitative component of the study:

H1. 

Higher levels of family cohesion will be positively associated with neighborhood social cohesion outcomes.

H2. 

Higher levels of expressiveness will be positively associated with participation in organized activities and tolerance of respect within the neighborhood.

H3. 

Family conflict and disengagement will be negatively associated with social trust outcomes.

H4. 

A democratic family style will be positively associated with social integration, trust, and attachment to the neighborhood.

H5. 

An authoritarian family style will be negatively associated with internal family ties.

The study aims to:

• Examine the relationship between dimensions of family functioning and social cohesion.
• Explore qualitatively how family dynamics, values, and lived experiences contribute to social cohesion.

By combining quantitative and qualitative data, the study seeks to understand how cohesive family systems function as a catalyst for fostering healthy, trustworthy, and inclusive neighborhoods in South Africa.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

A convergent mixed-methods methodology was employed, collecting quantitative and qualitative data concurrently to clarify the relationship between family functioning and social cohesiveness (Creswell and Inoue 2025). This approach enables the integration of quantitative findings with narrative transcripts, offering both a comprehensive scope and nuanced insight while incorporating methodological triangulation (Gibson 2017).

The quantitative component was anchored in the positivist paradigm, aiming to identify measurable relationships among variables via statistical analysis (Park et al. 2020). A cross-sectional, ex post facto correlational design was utilized to address the study’s first objective: to determine the relationship between dimensions of family functioning and social cohesion (Babbie 2020; Simon and Goes 2013).

The qualitative component, grounded in an interpretivist paradigm, offered deeper insight into the second objective: to explore how family dynamics, values, and experiences contribute to social cohesion. This phase expanded on and contextualized the quantitative findings through semi-structured interviews (Gibson 2017). Together, these two components constituted a two-phase triangulated design in which qualitative findings served to validate, enrich, and interpret the quantitative results (Creswell and Hirose 2019).

2.2. Research Context

The research was conducted in urban and peri-urban areas of Cape Town, South Africa. These neighborhoods represent a wide range of socioeconomic conditions, including both low- and middle-income groups. According to 2011 Census data from the City of Cape Town, many families in the Northern and Southern suburbs earn less than R4000 per month, reflecting persistent structural inequalities and economic vulnerability (City of Cape Town 2011a, 2011b). These social conditions shape family dynamics, parenting practices, and community relationships. Examining how families function and sustain cohesion amid social and economic pressures provides critical insight into familial resilience and community engagement, thereby informing the development of context-specific interventions and policies aimed at strengthening families and enhancing social cohesion (Olabiyi et al. 2025).

2.3. Sampling and Participants

2.3.1. Phase 1: Quantitative

Data were collected using purposive and convenience sampling techniques to recruit individuals aged 18 years and older from diverse family structures residing in Cape Town. The purposive sampling component ensured alignment between participant characteristics and the study’s objectives, thereby enhancing validity and precision (Campbell et al. 2020). The convenience sampling approach facilitated the recruitment of participants who were readily accessible and willing to participate.

2.3.2. Phase 2: Qualitative

The qualitative phase employed convenience and snowball sampling techniques to recruit participants, ensuring the inclusion of parents, guardians with children, and community stakeholders. Recruitment was conducted through door-to-door engagement and referrals from previous participants. Interviews were conducted with participants from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds in Cape Town, representing the same communities sampled during the quantitative phase.

Although the quantitative and qualitative samples comprised different participants, both represented the same communities and addressed the same scope of interest. This approach enhanced the depth of insight and allowed for cross-validation of findings. Drawing on overlapping but not identical participant groups enabled data triangulation (Gibson 2017).

2.4. Research Procedure

Measuring Instrument

Family functioning was assessed using the Family Functioning Questionnaire (FFQ) developed by Bloom and Naar (1994). The FFQ consists of 30 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Very Untrue) to 4 (Very True). The questionnaire measures six subscales: cohesion, expressiveness, conflict, disengagement, democratic family style, and authoritarian family style. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the FFQ subscales ranged from 0.47 to 0.74. It is acknowledged that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Conflict (α = 0.50) and Disengagement (α = 0.47) subscales fall below the conventional threshold. The FFQ has been used in diverse cross-cultural and low-resource settings, including the South African context (Roman et al. 2016; Botha and Booysen 2014). In the present study, questionnaires were administered in three languages: English, Afrikaans, and isiXhosa across participants from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds in Cape Town. Slight item-level variation in interpretation across these language groups may have contributed to attenuated alpha values. In addition, it should be noted that Cronbach’s alpha is sensitive to the number of items per subscale. Both the Conflict and Disengagement subscales comprise a small number of items, which may constrain the maximum attainable alpha value. Findings derived from the Conflict and Disengagement subscales should therefore be interpreted with appropriate caution. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the pattern by excluding the Conflict and Disengagement subscales; the result revealed that it remains stable in direction and magnitude of the remaining subscales.

Neighborhood social cohesion was assessed using the Neighborhood Social Cohesion Questionnaire (N-SCQ) developed by Stafford and Marmot (2003). The N-SCQ consists of 29 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores (5) indicating greater agreement. The questionnaire assesses both structural aspects of social cohesion and cognitive aspects of social interaction (Stafford and Marmot 2003). The N-SCQ measures seven subscales: friendship ties, participation in organized activities, integration into wider society, trust, neighborhood attachment, practical help, and tolerance of respect. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.93).

Questionnaires were administered at times and in locations convenient for participants, including community centers and local meeting spaces in the Northern and Southern suburbs of Cape Town. All questionnaires were administered in participants’ preferred languages (i.e., English, Afrikaans, or isiXhosa) to ensure inclusivity and cultural sensitivity (Li and Miao 2025).

Data were collected concurrently through one-on-one semi-structured interviews. All interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and subsequently transcribed verbatim by the researcher. This process ensured the accurate and authentic representation of participants’ lived experiences (Busetto et al. 2020).

2.5. Ethical Considerations

Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the University of the Western Cape’s Research Ethics Committee (HS20/2/13). Participants were provided with informed consent forms explaining the purpose, procedures, and voluntary nature of the study. They were assured of anonymity, confidentiality, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Data were securely stored and accessible only to the research team. All ethical principles, including those of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, were upheld throughout both phases of the study (Hasan 2023).

3. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27 to generate descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation coefficients, examining relationships between family functioning and social cohesion subscales. Conversely, qualitative data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis framework. This process involved coding, categorization, and theme development to capture participants’ lived experiences. The final themes were aligned with the quantitative subscales to facilitate integration and triangulation.

4. Results

This section presents findings from both the quantitative and qualitative phases of the study, in line with the convergent mixed-methods design. Quantitative results, guided by Objective 1, provide a statistical analysis of the relationship between family functioning and neighborhood social cohesion. Qualitative findings, aligned with Objective 2, offer insight into the lived experiences of family functioning and social cohesion.

4.1. Quantitative Findings

4.1.1. Demographic Characteristics

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of quantitative and qualitative participants.

	Quantitative			Qualitative
Demographic	Female N (%)	Male N (%)	Total N (%)	Female N (%)	Male N (%)	Total N (%)
Gender	444 (67.07)	218 (32.93)	662 (100%)	11 (55)	9 (45)	20 (100)
Age
Mean age (years)	39 (SD = 15.05)	35 (SD = 13.83)	38 (SD = 14.77)	37	43	39
Range	16–79	17–75	16–76	22–70	22–70
Employment Status
Yes	163 (36.71)	109 (50.00)	272 (41.09)	8 (40)	9 (45)	17 (85)
No	279 (62.84)	109 (50.00)	388 (58.61)	3 (15)	0	3 (15)
Missing	2 (0.45)		2 (0.30)
Type of Area
Rural	72 (16.22)	30 (13.76)	102 (15.41)	-	-	-
Urban	369 (83.11)	188 (86.24)	557 (84.14)	11 (55)	9 (45)	20 (100)
Missing	3 (0.68)		3 (0.45)
Family Structure
Nuclear Family	171 (38.51)	113 (51.83)	284 (42.90)	2 (18.18)	3 (33.33)	5 (25)
Extended Family	70 (15.76)	27 (12.38)	97 (14.65)	4 (36.36)	4 (44.44)	8 (40)
Single Parent Family	155 (34.90)	49 (22.47)	204 (30.81)	5 (45.45)	2 (22.22)	7 (35)
Child-headed Family	4 (0.90)	2 (0.91)	6 (0.90)	-	-	-
Step Family	4 (0.90)	1 (0.45)	5 (0.75)	-	-	-
Grandparent Family	13 (2.92)	7 (3.21)	20 (3.02)	-	-	-
Live alone	-	1 (0.45)	1 (0.15)	-	-	-
Others	19 (4.27)	17 (7.79)	36 (5.43)	-	-	-
Missing	8 (1.80)	1 (0.45)	9 (1.35)
Marital Status
Married	157 (35. 36)	83 (18.69)	240 (36.25)	4 (36.36)	5 (55.55)	9 (45)
Domestic partner	12 (2.70)	4 (0.90)	16 (2.41)	0	1 (11.11)	1 (5)
Divorced	31 (6.98)	11 (2.47)	42 (6.34)	2 (18.18)	0	2 (10)
Separated	13 (2.92)	1 (0.22)	14 (2.11)	0	0	0
Single, never married	190 (42.79)	109 (24.54)	299 (45.16)	5 (45.45)	2 (22.22)	7 (35)
Widowed	31 (6.98)	6 (1.35)	37 (5.58)	0	1 (11.11)	1 (5)
Others	5 (1.12)	4 (0.90)	9 (1.35)	-	-	-
Missing	5 (1.12)	-	5 (0.75)

, which displays both the quantitative and qualitative data components.

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, were used to summarize participants’ demographic characteristics. As shown in Table 1, the total quantitative sample comprised 662 participants, of whom 67.07% were female and 32.93% were male. The majority of participants (84.14%) resided in urban areas. The qualitative sample consisted of 20 participants, of whom 55% were female and 45% were male.

4.1.2. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, were computed for variables related to social cohesion and family functioning among South African family participants. As shown in

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the FFQ and NSCQ variables.

Variables	Min.	Max.	Mean	Standard Deviation	Cronbach Alpha
Family Functioning
Cohesion	1.00	4.00	3.15	0.61	0.65
Expressiveness	1.00	4.00	3.04	0.61	0.61
Conflict	1.00	4.00	2.02	0.62	0.50
Disengagement	1.00	4.00	2.15	0.86	0.47
Democratic Family Style	1.00	4.00	2.83	0.79	0.66
Authoritarian Family Style	1.00	4.00	2.51	0.82	0.63
Social Cohesion
Family Ties	1.00	5.00	3.53	1.26	0.68
Friendship Ties	1.00	5.00	3.56	1.24	0.73
Participation in Organized Activities	1.00	5.00	2.68	1.07	0.77
Integration into Wider Society	1.00	5.00	3.25	1.17	0.68
Trust	1.00	4.00	3.64	0.96	0.78
Attachment to Neighborhood	1.00	4.00	3.74	1.05	0.83
Practical Help	1.00	4.00	2.72	1.18	0.78
Tolerance of Respect	1.00	5.00	3.68	0.90	0.76

, participants reported above-average mean scores on the family functioning subscales of cohesion (M = 3.15, SD = 0.61), expressiveness (M = 3.04, SD = 0.61), and democratic family style (M = 2.83, SD = 0.79). In contrast, lower mean scores were observed for conflict (M = 2.02, SD = 0.62) and disengagement (M = 2.15, SD = 0.86).

With respect to the neighborhood social cohesion subscales, participants reported above-average mean scores on most variables. Higher mean scores were observed for neighborhood attachment (M = 3.74, SD = 1.05), tolerance of respect (M = 3.68, SD = 0.90), and trust (M = 3.64, SD = 0.96). The lowest mean score was recorded for participation in organized activities (M = 2.68, SD = 1.07). Overall, the mean scores across the neighborhood social cohesion subscales suggest that participants in this study demonstrated relatively high levels of social cohesion.

4.2. Relationship Between Family Functioning and Neighborhood Social Cohesion

Bivariate Pearson correlations were computed to examine the relationships between Family Functioning and Neighborhood Social Cohesion sub-variables. The observed correlations across FFQ and NSCQ subscales ranged from (r = −0.11) to (r = 0.28). These associations are consistent with the broader empirical literature, in which family-level variables typically yield correlations with neighborhood social cohesion outcomes (Schiefer and Van der Noll 2017; Cheng et al. 2021). This is unsurprising, as social cohesion is a multidimensional construct shaped by structural, historical, and socioeconomic factors, including income inequality, residential stability, and access to public services that extend well beyond family-level processes (David et al. 2018; Baldassarri and Abascal 2020). It is therefore theoretically expected that individual family functioning variables would account for only a portion of variance in neighborhood-level social cohesion outcomes. Importantly, even small correlations within large community samples (N = 662) can signal meaningful population-level relationships and carry practical implications for family-based and community interventions (Ferguson 2009). To aid interpretive precision, 95% confidence intervals were computed and reported alongside the correlation values in

Table 3. Relationship between FFQ and NSCQ variables.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
Cohesion	-
Expressiveness	0.60 *** [0.55, 0.65]	-
Conflict	−0.23 *** [−0.30, −16]	0.27 *** [0.20, 0.34]	-
Disengagement	−0.29 *** [−0.36, −0.22]	0.34 *** [0.27, 0.41]	0.36 *** [0.29, 0.42]	-
Democratic Family Style	0.43 *** [0.37, 0.49]	0.27 *** [0.20, 0.34]	−0.16 *** [−0.23, −0.08]	−0.24 *** [−0.31, −0.17]	-
Authoritarian Family Style	0.06 [−0.02, 0.14]	0.25 * [0.18, 0.32]	0.22 *** [0.15, 0.29]	0.24 *** [0.17, 0.31]	0.07 [−0.01, 0.15]	-
Family Ties	0.25 ** [0.18, 0.32]	0.24 *** [0.17, 0.31]	−0.09 * [−0.17, −0.01]	−0.09 * [−0.17, −0.01]	0.07 [−0.01, 0.15]	−0.09 * [−0.17, −0.01]	-
Friendship Ties	0.15 *** [0.0007, 0.22]	0.14 *** [0.06, 0.21]	−0.04 [−0.12, 0.04]	−0.11 ** [−0.18, −0.03]	0.27 *** [0.20, 0.34]	0.03 [−0.05, 0.11]	0.47 *** [0.41, 0.53]	-
Participation in Activities	0.08 * [0.00, 0.16]	0.16 *** [0.08, 0.23]	0.06 [−0.02, 0.14	0.02 [−0.06, 0.10]	0.16 *** [0.08, 0.23]	0.17 *** [0.10, 0.24]	0.25 *** [0.18, 0.32]	0.27 *** [0.20, 0.34]	-
Integration in Society	0.13 *** [0.05, 0.20]	0.12 *** [0.04, 0.19]	−0.07 [−0.15, 0.01]	0.10 ** [0.02, 0.17]	0.22 *** [0.15, 0.29]	0.20 *** [0.13, 0.27]	0.31 *** [0.24, 0.38]	0.34 *** [0.27, 0.41]	0.45 *** [0.39, 0.51]	-
Trust	0.20 *** [0.13, 0.27]	0.16 *** [0.08, 0.23]	−0.05 [−0.13, 0.03]	−0.07 [−0.15, 0.01]	0.28 *** [0.21, 0.35]	0.11 ** [0.03, 0.18]	0.27 *** [0.20, 0.34]	0.27 *** [0.27, 0.41]	0.20 *** [0.13, 0.27]	0.43 *** [0.37, 0.49]	-
Attachment to Neighborhood	0.21 *** [0.14, 0.28]	0.17 *** [0.10, 0.24]	0.01 [−0.07, 0.09]	0.07 [−0.01, 0.15]	0.27 *** [0.20, 0.34]	0.15 *** [0.07, 0.22]	0.29 *** [0.22, 0.36]	0.25 * [0.20, 0.34]	0.25 *** [0.18, 0.32]	0.50 *** [0.44, 0.56]	0.67 *** [0.63, 0.71]	-
Practical Help	0.07 [−0.01, 0.15]	0.08 [0.00, 0.16]	0.14 *** [0.06, 0.21]	0.17 *** [.10, 0.24]	0.16 ** [0.08, 0.23]	0.15 *** [0.07, 0.22]	0.23 *** [0.16, 0.30]	0.16 *** [0.08, 0.23]	0.27 *** [0.20, 0.34]	0.42 *** [0.36, 0.48]	0.38 *** [0.31, 0.44]	0.50 *** [0.44, 0.56]	-
Tolerance of Respect	0.20 *** [0.13, 0.27]	0.14 *** [0.06, 0.21]	−0.07 [−0.15, 0.01]	−0.11 ** [−0.18, −0.03]	0.22 *** [0.15, 0.29]	0.02 [−0.06, 0.10]	0.21 *** [0.14, 0.28]	0.17 *** [0.10, 0.24]	0.10 * [0.02, 0.17]	0.31 *** [0.24, 0.38]	0.55 *** [0.49, 0.60]	0.52 *** [0.46, 0.57]	0.31 *** [0.24, 0.38]	-

* p < 0.5, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; 1 = Cohesion; 2 = Expressiveness; 3 = Conflict; 4 = Disengagement; 5 = Democratic; 6 = Authoritarian; 7 = Family Ties; 8 = Friendship Ties; 9 = Participation in Organized Activities; 10 = Integration into Wider Society; 11 = Trust; 12 = Attachment to Neighborhood; 13 = Practical Help; 14 = Tolerance of Respect. CI = 95% confidence interval in brackets.

.

As shown in Table 3, Family Cohesion demonstrated weak to moderate positive correlations with several social cohesion variables, including Trust (r = 0.20, p < 0.001), Tolerance and Respect (r = 0.20, p < 0.001), and Attachment to Neighborhood (r = 0.21, p < 0.001). Family cohesion was also positively correlated with other family functioning dimensions, namely Family Expressiveness (r = 0.60, p < 0.001) and Democratic Family Style (r = 0.43, p < 0.001). In contrast, it was negatively associated with Family Disengagement (r = −0.29, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that higher levels of Family Cohesion are linked to better social cohesion outcomes, especially trust (r = 0.20), tolerance of respect (r = 0.20), and attachment to the neighborhood (r = 0.21). However, although Family Cohesion was statistically associated with Participation in Organized Activities (r = 0.08, p < 0.05), this association is weak. Additionally, higher Family Cohesion was related to stronger family functioning characteristics, such as increased Family Expressiveness and stronger relational ties.

Similarly, Family Expressiveness was positively associated with Family Ties (r = 0.24, p < 0.001), indicating that higher levels of Family Expressiveness were related to greater participation in family-related activities.

Conversely, Conflict showed negative correlations with Democratic Family Style (r = −0.16, p < 0.001) and Family Ties (r = −0.09, p < 0.001). In contrast, positive correlations were observed between Family Disengagement (r = 0.36, p < 0.001) and Authoritarian Family Style (r = 0.22, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that as family conflict increases, levels of Family Disengagement also increase.

Similarly, Family Disengagement showed negative relationships with Tolerance of Respect (r = −0.11, p < 0.001), indicating that as Family Disengagement increases, social bonding and respect decrease. In contrast, Family Disengagement showed a small positive correlation with Practical Help (r = 0.17, p < 0.001). This suggests that those who scored higher on Family Disengagement reported higher levels of practical help in their neighborhood. Parenting styles such as the Democratic Style showed positive correlations with Trust (r = 0.28, p < 0.001) and Attachment to Neighborhood (r = 0.27, p < 0.001). This indicates that a more democratic family environment is associated with stronger social integration, trust, a sense of belonging, social bonding and levels of respect.

Lastly, Authoritarian Family Style displayed a negative correlation with Family Ties (r = −0.09, p < 0.01), indicating that stronger authoritarian family environments are associated with weaker family ties. However, a positive correlation was found with Integration into Society (r = 0.20, p < 0.01), suggesting that families following an Authoritarian Family Style may exhibit increased socially cohesive forms of conduct.

4.3. Integrating Qualitative Findings

The qualitative analysis identified five main themes aligned with the family functioning and social cohesion subscales. Although the qualitative themes generally aligned with the overall direction of the quantitative associations, the study does not assume that the themes explain correlations; instead, qualitative data are used to contextualize patterns and to highlight areas where integration is partial or inconsistent.

4.3.1. Theme 1: Family Cohesion and Social Trust

The first theme presents qualitative findings aligned with the quantitative results, which found that family cohesion was positively associated with trust, tolerance of respect, and neighborhood attachment. Participants in the qualitative phase similarly described cohesive family norms as an extension expressed through mutual aid and routine interactions that foster local trust and a sense of belonging:

“[F]amily teaches you that you don’t have to be alone, and how to be there for the next person, family teaches us patience and how to work with one another to achieve a greater goal.”

(P 8, Male, 22)

“We have lived there for very long, so everyone knows us and comes to us when in need of advice or help. Our house has an open-door policy, so people (family/friends in the area) frequently move in and out on a daily basis.”

(P 10, Female, 30)

“[F]amily is going through a tough time. And, for example, my sister, being the cheerleader, she that encouraged us to push through and be strong for one another. Because things will get better…I can speak about anything, because I trust her.”

(P 20, Female, 22)

Families that valued transparent dialogue and emotional openness extended these communication patterns into the community, thereby cultivating mutual trust and understanding. Participants consistently described communication as both an emotional and social bridge, supporting Bowen’s (1978) framework of open family systems that promote adaptability and relational health.

4.3.2. Theme 2: Family Expressiveness and Neighborhood Participation

The second theme relates to quantitative findings that indicated modest yet statistically significant correlations between family expressiveness and participation in activities, as well as tolerance of respect. These associations suggest that families who encourage open dialogue, emotional expression, and mutual understanding are more likely to contribute to social participation. Quantitatively, this pattern reflects a consistent but moderate association, indicating that expressiveness functions as a facilitating rather than a determining factor in the development of social cohesion. The qualitative findings further deepened and complicated this relationship by revealing that expressiveness is not a uniform or static trait, but a relational and developmental process embedded in everyday family interactions. Although these correlations were statistically significant, their modest strength suggests that emotional openness contributes to but does not solely determine civic participation or respect.

In the quantitative findings, participation referred to neighborhood involvement, collective activities, or helping behaviors. Qualitatively, participation was often expressed in communication-based forms, such as sharing information, offering emotional encouragement, or providing mutual aid, such as:

“One of the family members could be considered a black sheep… he would tend to isolate or hide himself in his bedroom and not really participate… I am often the one to mediate and get discussions flowing in a more constructive way.”

(P 2, Female, 28)

“… I think mostly the guys in the family feel like they can’t be open about their feelings. my sister and I would actually speak about it and say how we feel.”

(P 20, Female, 22)

Family expressiveness—including communication, encouragement, and emotional warmth—extended into forms of participation such as volunteering, helping, and collaboration, which were often understood as moral obligations rather than formal civic activities. These qualitative findings illustrate how participants expressed care and a sense of collective belonging. This is reflected in the following:

“We have a strong volunteer network with the neighborhood watch and the caring/helping network on Facebook.”

(P 10, Female, 30)

Similarly, tolerance of respect—understood as attitudes of acceptance and empathy—was qualitatively expressed by families as relational practices rooted in daily rituals of moral conduct, such as greeting others, listening attentively, and demonstrating empathy.

“Yes, greeting each other is important, you don’t have to visit or know their lives, just see and respect each other.”

(P 1, Female, 49)

“…how I conduct myself, example always treating others with kindness and respect…”

(P 4, Female, 27)

Qualitative narratives support the quantitative findings, indicating that families who express emotions openly tend to demonstrate higher levels of participation and respect; however, these are not direct causal outcomes. Family expressiveness is understood as a social mechanism through which empathy is cultivated and extended into community participation and respect. In this way, expressiveness promotes social cohesion indirectly through empathy, with respect and participation emerging as ecological outcomes of expressive family moral attitudes.

4.3.3. Theme 3: Conflict, Disengagement, and the Function of Emotional Difference

The third theme integrates quantitative correlations showing that family conflict and disengagement co-occur and are associated with weaker relational indicators, particularly reduced family ties and lower tolerance/respect. Although the quantitative results also showed a small positive association between disengagement and reported practical help (r = 0.17, p < 0.001), this was not clearly reflected in participants’ narratives, and therefore, the qualitative data do not directly confirm this specific pattern. As the quantitative correlations found, family conflict and disengagement co-occur, reducing family ties while increasing practical help structures. This contrasting result between the quantitative and qualitative findings suggests that conflict may weaken relational closeness yet still preserve functional unity, as family members may argue but continue to act collectively. For example, qualitatively, participants reframed conflict and disengagement as normal and relationally meaningful, serving as ways to express difference without threatening belonging. Thus, rather than indicating dysfunction, conflict, and disengagement within these families may reflect adaptive emotional regulation that balances autonomy and connection.

“Yes, in a household of five it can be hard at times and disagreements do happen… usually something small, and receiving some stern words from my parents.”

(P 8, Male, 22)

“We do argue, but because we’re family, we always just sweep it under the rug.”

(P 16, Male, 41)

Although disagreements were common, most participants framed them as integral to relational vitality. One participant emphasized that a complete absence of conflict would signal emotional suppression:

“If you never argue, then there is something wrong either you don’t want to raise your opinion or you’re not free to. I believe there must be some sort of disagreement; you can’t agree always on everything.”

(P 19, Male, 45)

The next theme focuses on family styles and collective efficacy.

4.3.4. Theme 4: Democratic Family Style and Collective Efficacy

The fourth theme encompasses findings related to democratic family style, which showed strong positive associations with integration into society, trust, and neighborhood attachment. Similarly, qualitative findings revealed that participants valued open communication, shared decision-making, and joint responsibility within their families, as these practices fostered greater internal unity and external social connectivity. Democratic parenting practices were framed as pathways toward mutual understanding and moral growth, for example:

“Definitely, I apply the same parenting approach and evaluate the situation to determine the behavior. I do however engage my daughter to get [an] understanding of her interpretation of the situation and ensure that she understands what influences my response to the situation—whether it be strict or flexible. I think it contributes to us having an open relationship where she is free to discuss matters no matter how difficult or embarrassing, they may be. I encourage her to express herself and communicate on even those matters that were taboo when I was growing up.”

(P 3, Male, 48)

“It is a mutual agreement… if I have a problem, we talk–all three; I want to hear what he says, and what the child also says, because sometimes we overlook the child[‘s] perspective.”

(P 1, Female, 49)

The positive quantitative findings linking democratic family practices to integration into society and respect extend beyond the household into civic life, a pattern that is supported by the qualitative findings. Qualitative narratives of democratic parenting practices illustrate a balance between autonomy and belonging, achieved through responsiveness, which creates spaces where differences are tolerated and emotional safety is maintained.

4.3.5. Theme 5: Authoritarian Parenting and Contextual Adaptation

The final theme integrates the quantitative findings showing that authoritarian parenting was negatively correlated with family ties and positively associated with social integration, participation, and practical help. This pattern suggests that while authoritarian parenting may weaken emotional bonds within families, it can reinforce civic participation and practical assistance beyond the household. However, qualitative findings revealed that participants acknowledged strict discipline while also contextualizing it as a protective structure:

“My Parents were authoritative as they used to give us strict tasks but would still support us with whatever chores they gave us. We had a routine we had to follow.”

(P 5, Male, 34)

These perceptions indicate that authoritarian norms were interpreted as care through control, with rules and structured expectations—though restrictive—viewed as moral and safety boundaries.

“I’d say they’re quite strict… we had a curfew… I think it was a good thing… keeping us safe.”

(P 20, Female, 22)

Participants expressed how authoritarian parenting could lead to decreased family ties and increased participation in activities outside the home.

“Being too strict could push us as kids into doing what we wanted outside the house with the wrong friends.”

(P 6, Female, 45)

However, these parenting practices were also noted to have an adaptive nature, as family members develop and transition into adulthood, often shifting toward more democratic parenting practices after being raised in disciplined environments characterized by authoritarian family approaches:

“…my father believed that hitting a child solves everything, he believed in corporal punishment. I don’t believe in that because that made me a nervous wreck and I don’t want my child to be as nervous…I have improved on that so that my child doesn’t go through what I had to go through.”

(P 19, Male, 42)

These findings align with the quantitative results, indicating that authoritarian practices influence both family relationships and community participation and integration. Contextual narratives demonstrate that rule-based structures are often combined with care, situational judgment, and moral and safety rationales for boundaries, reflecting both cultural and ecological adaptation. Bronfenbrenner’s contextual framework helps elucidate this duality: rigid rules may protect against external risks while simultaneously limiting internal emotional warmth. Participants’ gradual movement toward more authoritative or democratic parenting styles reflects a chronosystemic shift—a temporal evolution in parenting philosophy—consistent with transitions toward relational autonomy.

Overall, the qualitative themes support and extend the quantitative correlations. Families that emphasized communication, emotional responsiveness, and shared responsibility reported stronger levels of community trust, belonging, and mutual support. Participants portrayed the family as the foundation of society, where everyday relational practices within the home serve as a training ground for community life.

5. Discussion

This mixed-methods study examined the relationship between family functioning and social cohesion among South African families by integrating quantitative and qualitative data to explore the systemic and ecological interplay between micro-level family processes and macro-level community connectedness. The following hypotheses were studied:

H1: Higher levels of family cohesion will be positively associated with neighborhood social cohesion outcomes. H1 was supported. Family cohesion showed small positive associations with key neighborhood social cohesion indicators, including trust (r = 0.20), tolerance/respect (r = 0.20) and attachment to neighborhood (r = 0.21). Qualitative narratives reinforced this pattern by describing how cohesive families extend relational practices into everyday community trust and support, suggesting that cohesion at the family microsystem aligns with stronger neighborhood connectedness. The second hypothesis stated that Higher levels of expressiveness will be positively associated with participation in organized activities and tolerance of respect within the neighborhood. H2 was partially supported. Family expressiveness was positively associated with participation in organized activities (r = 0.16) and tolerance/respect (r = 0.14), indicating small but statistically significant relationships. However, these modest findings should be interpreted with caution. Qualitative findings linked expressiveness to respect, listening and supportive communication. Narratives on participation were described as informal helping and information sharing than formal civic engagement. The third hypothesis, predicting that Family conflict and disengagement will be negatively associated with social trust outcomes, was not supported. In the quantitative results, conflict was not significantly associated with trust (r = −0.05) and disengagement showed small non-significant associations with trust (r = −0.07). Qualitative findings nevertheless indicated that conflict can be interpreted as normative and sometimes constructive when managed within an ongoing connection, which may explain why conflict did not translate into lower neighborhood trust in a simple linear way. The fourth hypothesis states that A democratic family style will be positively associated with social integration, trust, and attachment to the neighborhood. H4 was supported. Democratic family style showed the strongest and most consistent positive associations with neighborhood social cohesion indicators, including integration into wider society (r = 0.22), trust (r = 0.28) and attachment to neighborhood (r = 0.27). Qualitative narratives aligned with the findings supporting shared decision-making, responsiveness and respectful communication as practices that foster internal unity and extend to social participation and neighborhood belonging.

Lastly, the fifth hypothesis states that An authoritarian family style will be negatively associated with internal family ties. H5 was supported. Authoritarian family style was negatively associated with family ties (r = −0.09), indicating a small relationship. Qualitative accounts framed strictness as sometimes protective or adaptive contexts of perceived risk, extending that authoritarian practices may reduce emotional closeness while serving safety or order functions. Thus, conflict and strictness, typically viewed as negative dynamics, were found to play a role in maintaining order and regulating emotions within families. Bowen’s (1978) systems perspective helps explain these processes, suggesting that families capable of managing internal conflict constructively can transfer stability into their communities, thereby fostering cohesion and collective efficacy.

Taken together, the findings depict family functioning and social cohesion as mutually reinforcing processes. Families characterized by emotional openness, effective communication, and fairness cultivate trust and empathy that extend beyond the household, thereby strengthening neighborhoods. Conversely, cohesive communities provide social support that reinforces family unity, reflecting what Bronfenbrenner (2005) described as reciprocal mesosystemic influence. Overall, the findings highlight the family as a moral and emotional foundation for civic engagement and social empathy.

5.1. Families as a System for Social Cohesion

The findings indicating positive levels of family cohesion and expressiveness align with Bowen’s (1978) concept of differentiation of self, the ability to maintain emotional closeness while upholding one’s individuality. Participants’ descriptions of “open-door homes” and “being there for the next person” demonstrate how familial empathy can be extended to wider social networks, thus fostering social capital. This perspective is consistent with Green and Janmaat’s (2011) claim that interpersonal trust within families forms the foundation for cohesion at the community level. Empirical research further demonstrates that robust family networks contribute to neighborhood solidarity and reinforce informal social regulation (Wickes et al. 2017).

Quantitative findings indicate a positive correlation between family cohesion and variables such as trust, tolerance of respect, and neighborhood connection, suggesting that emotionally integrated families are predisposed to forming strong social bonds.

Qualitative data reveal that participants highlighted reciprocity and moral responsibility, thereby aligning with Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) concept of bidirectional interaction within micro- and mesosystems. Harmonious families both mirror and foster collective efficacy and mutual aid within their communities. However, excessive family enmeshment may limit autonomy and reduce external engagement, particularly in collectivist contexts where interdependence is the norm (Chuang et al. 2018). In the South African context, although ubuntu “a person is a person through other persons” (Matahela 2025, p. 2) values social interconnectedness, scholars caution that overly cohesive family structures can result in dependence and reduced civic agency (Waghid 2024). Adopting a critical ecological perspective therefore acknowledges that cohesion is always contested, partial, and influenced by power dynamics, rather than representing a fixed or absolute state.

5.2. Expressiveness and Social Engagement

Furthermore, quantitative findings revealed that family expressiveness was modestly associated with civic participation and tolerance, suggesting that emotional openness may facilitate empathy and social engagement, though the correlations were small and warrant cautious interpretation. In particular, the association between expressiveness and participation in organized activities, while statistically significant, was small in magnitude (r = 0.08). Conversely, qualitative data demonstrated that expressiveness is reflected in mutual listening and support. Such findings correspond to what Ho (2009) describes as ‘emotional citizenship’. Expressive families cultivate empathy and respect for diversity, fostering micro-level tolerance that extends to broader civic coexistence.

From an ecological systems perspective, emotional expressiveness constitutes a proximal process within the family microsystem that exerts influence on mesosystemic dynamics, including neighborhood trust and civic engagement (Bronfenbrenner 1979, 2005). Empirical evidence indicates that family cohesion and expressiveness contribute to increased social trust and tolerance (Cheng et al. 2021; Ye et al. 2024). Furthermore, families characterized by stronger communication patterns report a greater sense of neighborhood attachment and belonging (Campbell et al. 2022). In South Africa, the increasing emotional openness among families suggests adaptive responses to evolving norms and socio-economic pressures (Jacobs 2023). Nevertheless, cultural factors continue to shape these forms of expression; in more patriarchal contexts, emotional restraint may exist alongside expressions of solidarity (Morrell 2011).

5.3. Conflict and Disengagement as Forms of Regulation

Although conflict exhibited a negative correlation with cohesion and a democratic style, qualitative accounts reconceptualised it as an adaptive process rather than a dysfunction. Contrastingly, the quantitative finding of the study found that disengagement was positively associated with practical help, which was not clearly evident in the qualitative accounts, which emphasized emotional meaning-making around conflict and distance. In this sense, practical help may reflect community responses to family strain (e.g., support mobilized when difficulties are visible rather than disengagement functioning as a pathway to cohesion. Families considered disagreement an integral component of relationship health, consistent with Bowen’s (1978) concept of difference and the emotional security hypothesis of Cummings et al. (2015), which recognizes mild conflict as crucial for emotional development. Likewise, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) notion of ‘proximal processes’ suggests that family conflict cultivates negotiation and tolerance, skills applied later in community engagement. Evidence from South Africa substantiates this perspective; for example, Botha and Booysen (2014) found that balanced family functioning, characterized by adaptability, open communication, and constructive management of differences, was strongly associated with higher life satisfaction and happiness.

In a similar vein, Saleem (2017) noted that individuals from functional families demonstrate significantly greater emotion regulation and social competence, closely linked to secure parental bonding, whereas members of dysfunctional families display weaker emotional control and social adjustment due to insecure or inconsistent parental relationships. These findings indicate that moderate relational tension, when managed constructively, facilitates emotional regulation and well-being instead of dysfunction. Thus, moderate relational tension, when approached effectively, serves as a catalyst for emotional regulation, resilience, and communal involvement, reaffirming the systemic importance of family processes in fostering social trust and cohesion (Walsh 2016).

5.4. Democratic Functioning and Collective Efficacy

In addition, quantitative findings indicated that a democratic family style exhibited the strongest correlations with social trust, neighborhood attachment, and civic integration. Qualitative data further showed that families employed meetings and shared decision-making as strategies to promote fairness and unity. These results are consistent with Miklikowska and Hurme (2011), who found that adolescents raised in families characterized by democratic functioning marked by parental warmth, autonomy provision, and limited psychological control display a greater endorsement of democratic values, even when accounting for variables such as gender, political experience, and authoritarianism.

Empathy was found to partially mediate this association, suggesting that democratic parenting cultivates democratic orientations by fostering empathic abilities and participatory socialization within the family context. Employing a systems perspective, participatory interactions within families reduce anxiety and help to maintain family equilibrium (Walsh 2016). From an ecological perspective, such democratic practices reside within the mesosystem, influencing collective community behavior (Becvar 2013). The findings indicate that the parenting context shapes the way “democracy” within families contributes to social cohesion. Democratic families function as micro-foundations for civic learning, thereby transforming intra-family communication and practices into collective trust and social participation.

5.5. Authoritarian Parenting and Contextual Adaptation

In contrast to democratic parenting styles, authoritarian parenting demonstrated a negative correlation with emotional ties; however, it was positively associated with participation and practical support, suggesting adaptive control under conditions of socio-economic stress. Qualitative accounts portrayed strictness as “care-through-control”, serving to protect family members from external threats. Such findings reflect Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) exosystemic adaptation, in which parenting strategies evolve in response to contextual demands. The present study proposes that, within this context, authoritarianism constitutes adaptive endurance rather than dysfunction, illustrating how families self-regulate within ecological constraints to preserve cohesion and ensure safety. These findings diverge from recent research that identifies a negative association between authoritarian parenting marked by rigidity and control and family cohesion, particularly when levels of conscientiousness are high (Aloia and Strutzenberg 2023). It follows that an authoritarian approach may undermine family cohesion, especially in environments that value autonomy and self-discipline.

Overall, the findings demonstrate how Bowen’s FST and Bronfenbrenner’s EST aided this study in illuminating the interconnectedness between family processes and neighborhood conditions. From a critical ecological perspective, these theories can present structural forces as either neutral or unchangeable. While both frameworks delineate the broader systems impacting families, they do not consistently elaborate on how factors such as racism, apartheid, the labor market, and social policy directly shape the allocation of resources among families (Houston 2017). Drawing on Bourdieu’s concept of economic, social, and cultural capital, family cohesion and neighborhood cohesion may be understood not only as indicators of ‘good functioning’, but also as outcomes of unequal access to financial resources, stable housing, supportive networks, and broader opportunities. This approach suggests that the positive associations identified between cohesion, trust, and attachment to neighborhood in this study may in part reflect the circumstances of families with sufficient capital to invest in social relationships, whereas families facing poverty and insecurity may aspire to similar relationships, yet are systematically impeded from realizing them.

6. Limitations

There are several limitations to this study that should be acknowledged when interpreting the results. The cross-sectional, correlational design and reliance on self-report questionnaires permit the identification of associations but do not allow for causal inferences. Responses may also have been affected by social desirability and common-method bias. Additionally, the use of purposive and convenience sampling within specific urban and peri-urban neighborhoods in Cape Town limits the generalizability of the findings to other South African contexts, especially those in more remote or rural areas. As such, the use of convenience and snowball sampling may have introduced self-selection and referral-network bias, particularly in low-income or high-mobility areas. Participants who were more available, socially connected or already engaged in local community structures may have been more likely to participate, while individuals facing family functioning and social cohesion challenges may have been under-represented. These dynamics could have inflated perceptions of cohesion, trust or reciprocity and limited the visibility of more socially excluded families. Future studies should consider probability or stratified sampling where feasible to reduce bias and strengthen representativeness across socioeconomic contexts. Measurement constraints are also relevant, as certain family functioning subscales on the FFQ demonstrated limited internal consistency, potentially affecting the strength of the observed relationships.

The qualitative component of the study is inherently limited. Qualitative interviews are designed to yield rich, context-dependent insights rather than statistically generalizable outcomes, and the themes developed in this study reflect the experiences of a specific group of participants from selected neighborhoods. Therefore, the qualitative findings should be seen as illustrative and exploratory, offering a deeper understanding of how certain families and communities perceive social cohesion, rather than providing a definitive account applicable to all South African families or contexts.

7. Recommendations

The current study demonstrates an association between family functioning factors and aspects of social cohesion. However, as the study utilized correlation analysis to examine relationships, other factors may also contribute to the link between family functioning and social cohesion. Future research should involve all family members in studies assessing individual perceptions of daily family functioning and neighborhood social cohesion to provide a more comprehensive understanding of these variables. Both internal and external influences within family and neighborhood environments require consideration, as they can shape family functioning across rural and urban settings.

Furthermore, longitudinal research designs are necessary to identify additional variables affecting family functioning and neighborhood social cohesion. Recognizing factors that contribute to family functioning and social cohesion is essential for explaining variability in developmental and family health outcomes, and for identifying actionable targets for intervention and policy development. Efforts aligned with social development strategies could integrate household-level support with neighborhood-level capacity building. Such integrated approaches may help families and communities co-produce more inclusive and connected environments. Therefore, insights from future research should inform policies and interventions designed to enhance family functioning and social cohesion, with adaptations to address the diverse needs present across family and neighborhood contexts.

Implementing these recommendations will allow future research to deepen insight into the intricate relationship between family functioning and social cohesion, thereby fostering enhanced family health outcomes and more resilient community bonds.

8. Conclusions

This study confirms the interdependence and reciprocity between family functioning and social cohesion. However, while qualitative findings broadly supported quantitative findings, these findings were used to contextualize associations. Positive family functioning, characterized by cohesion, open communication, and democratic interaction, establishes the psychological and moral groundwork necessary for cultivating community trust and civic engagement in South African societies.

Quantitative findings showed small positive associations between family cohesion, expressiveness and democratic family style with neighborhood trust, tolerance/respect and attachment, while conflict and disengagement were linked to lower scores on relational indicators (e.g., tolerance/respect, friendship ties and family ties). Qualitative narratives clarified that open communication, shared caregiving and moral responsibility translate family relational norms into everyday acts of trust, reciprocity and mutual aid in neighborhoods. Interpreted through the theoretical lens of the FST and EST, the findings suggest that family interactions operate as key processes that may support relational capacities and that families may adapt caregiving, discipline and support practices in response to perceived contextual risks and constraints.

The study shows that links between family functioning and neighborhood social cohesion are significant but modest, reinforcing that social cohesion is influenced by factors beyond family processes, including structural and socioeconomic conditions. Additionally, the qualitative findings show how these small associations may still matter in everyday community life. Overall, the study positions family functioning and social cohesion as interconnected and shaped by context, with family-level relational strengths aligning with neighborhood trust and connectedness in South African society.

Furthermore, a lack of connection between family functioning and social cohesion within neighborhoods may impede families’ capacity to establish meaningful rituals, maintain effective communication, manage conflicts, and shape both parenting approaches and sibling relationships. As a result, social cohesion within neighborhoods emerges as a crucial factor in fostering constructive, effective, and beneficial family dynamics in the South African context.