The Influence of Family Stability on Self-Control and Adjustment

Jennifer Weil Malatras and Allen C. Israel

University at Albany, State University of New York
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to replicate previous evidence for a model in which
self-control mediates the relationship between family stability and internalizing symptoms, and to
evaluate a similar model with regard to externalizing problems. Method: Participants were 155
female and 134 male undergraduates—mean age of 19.03 years. Participants completed measures
of stability in the family of origin (Stability of Activities in the Family Environment), self-control (Self-
Control scale), current externalizing (Adult Self-Report), and internalizing problems (Beck Depression
Inventory II and Beck Anxiety Inventory). Results: Multiple regression analyses largely support the
proposed model for both the externalizing and internalizing domains. Conclusions: Family stability
may foster the development of self-control and, in turn, lead to positive adjustment.  C 2012 Wiley

Periodicals, Inc. J. Clin. Psychol. 69:661–670, 2013.

Keywords: family stability; self-control; externalizing problems; depression; anxiety

Contemporary views of psychological development and adjustment appreciate the interplay of

the social environment and factors intrinsic to the individual such as capacities for and strategies
of self-regulation (Cole & Deater-Deckard, 2009). Self-control, a construct closely related to self-
regulation, may be defined broadly as the ability to alter one’s inner responses and exert control
over behavior (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Terms such as self-control, self-regulation,
and self-management are often used interchangeably. For the purpose of clarity, this article will
predominantly use the term self-control, while recognizing that the broad use of these terms and
related constructs has sometimes been criticized (Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004).
More narrowly, self-control is often described as the individual’s ability to control his or her
own behavior and act autonomously, as well as the ability to inhibit impulses and behaviors
(Eisenberg et al., 2001). Likewise, self-control is often discussed in relation to the ability to delay
gratification and assess short-term and long-term consequences of behavior (Mischel, Shoda,
& Rodriguez, 1989), the ability to regulate attention, particularly to complete tasks that one
does not necessarily enjoy (Eisenberg et al., 2001; Tangney et al., 2004), and is often part
of discussions of the concept of emotion regulation (Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004). As Tangney
and colleagues (2004) describe, a central component of self-control is “the ability to override or
change one’s inner responses, as well as to interrupt undesired behavioral tendencies and refrain
from acting on them” (p. 275).
Thus, self-control broadly involves the ability to change and adapt to produce a more op-
timal fit between the self and the world (Tangney et al., 2004). Accordingly, self-control has
been associated with outcomes in various domains, such as academic performance (Feldman,
Martinez-Pons, & Shaham, 1995), social functioning (Eisenberg et al., 1997), and substance
use (Wills, Ainette, Stoolmiller, Gibbons, & Shinar, 2008). Self-control also is posited to play
an important role in other aspects of psychological adjustment, such as anxiety, depression,
obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and somatic complaints (Tangney et al., 2004). In addition,
poor self-control has been associated with higher rates of aggressive and delinquent behavior
(Tremblay, Boulerice, Arsenault, & Niscale, 1995) and affiliation with deviant peers (McGloin
& Shermer, 2009). While many problems of adjustment are purported to stem from deficits in
self-control, either too little or too much control are thought to have the potential to result
in psychological difficulties. Regardless of the pathway of effect, a growing body of literature
suggests self-control is related to adjustment in systematic ways.

Please address correspondence to: Jennifer Weil Malatras, Department of Psychology, SS 399, 1400 Wash-
ington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222. E-mail: jmalatras@[Link]

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 69(7), 661–670 (2013) 

C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library ([Link]/journal/jclp). DOI: 10.1002/jclp.21935

662 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2013

Context is thought to play an important role in the complex process of acquisition of self-
control skills (Denham, 1998). In particular, the family environment is thought to be a main
contextual factor influencing both the development of self-control and adjustment. In fact, it
has been suggested that fostering children’s ability to regulate their own behavior and emotions
may be a major goal of parenting (Grolnick & Farkas, 2002). As part of the socialization
process, parents are thought to contribute to children’s emotional development and acquisition
of self-control skills through processes such as modeling appropriate behavior, being responsive
to children’s emotions and needs, assisting in problem solving, encouraging autonomy and
responsibility, implementing rules and standards of behaviors, and communicating, as well as
through other factors such as training and contingencies (Bronson, 2000; Denham, 1998).
Several parenting variables, including parental warmth, involvement, caring, and expressivity
have also been linked to the development of self-control and adjustment (Grolnick & Farkas,
2002). Moreover, a family environment that has clear rules and guidelines as well as an au-
thoritative parenting style, characterized by granting psychological autonomy and exercising
firm parenting control, also have been linked with both self-control and adjustment (Grolnik &
Farkas, 2002). Overall, responsive parenting is generally thought to facilitate social and emo-
tional development (Landry, Smith, & Swank, 2006), whereas harsh parenting practices and
parent-child conflict are typically thought to negatively affect self-control (Brody & Ge, 2001).
However, it is important to note that the effect of discipline practices may be moderated by cul-
tural variables (Lansford et al., 2005). Nevertheless, positive family environments are thought to
positively affect the development of self-control and adjustment throughout the developmental
course (Tangney et al., 2004). Moreover, self-control may mediate the relationship between fam-
ily variables and adjustment outcomes (Brody & Flor, 1998; Brody & Ge, 2001). For example,
a study by Bradley and Corwyn (2005) indicates a stimulus-rich environment, one that affords
opportunities for productive activity, can promote a child’s development of self-control, which,
in turn, reduces likelihood of externalizing behaviors.
As highlighted above, the family environment figures prominently in the literature on envi-
ronmental influences on self-control and psychosocial adjustment. One particular aspect of the
family environment, family stability, often emerges in the discussion of children’s adjustment.
Until recently however, the term family stability has lacked clarity; the definition was often
conceptualized only in terms of global aspects of the family environment or family structure,
such as divorce, parental death, or changes in household composition (e.g., Bures, 2003; Vander-
Valk, Spruijt, de Goede, Maas, & Meeus, 2005). Yet a growing body of research illustrates such
dichotomous definitions of family stability may fail to account for other important influences
on child adjustment, as research indicates that the outcomes for children raised in single parent
homes are not uniform (e.g., Wolchik, Ruehlman, Braver, & Sandler, 1989). In the attempt to
better conceptualize the construct of family stability (Israel & Roderick, 2001; Israel, Roderick,
& Ivanova, 2002) have delineated a model of family stability encompassing two components.
The first component, global stability, refers to the occurrence of changes in family structure,
such as divorce, remarriage, or parental death, as well as family life changes, such as changes in
residence, non-normative changes in schools, or changes in household composition. The term
global is used to describe these family changes as they are deemed more distal from an individ-
ual’s daily experiences, are less easily controlled by the child or parent, and are thus thought to
be less amenable to psychological intervention.
Molecular family stability, on the other hand, refers to the predictability and consistency
of daily family activities and routines (Israel & Roderick, 2001; Israel, Roderick, & Ivanova,
2002). This may include consistent daily routines, such as those that occur at meal or bed
times, as well as activities that children engage in with family, such as weekend activities or
religious observance, or activities arranged and supported by the family but that occur without
immediate family members, such as participation in extracurricular activities or time spent with
friends (Israel et al., 2002; Ivanova & Israel, 2005). Defining the construct of molecular family
stability in this way embraces the notion that any one family may achieve stability in multiple
ways, and the method of one family may differ from that of another (Israel et al., 2002).
Furthermore, Israel and colleagues’ conceptualization of stability as including the regularity of
day-to-day family routines and activities incorporates a more proximal aspect of stability, which
 Family Stability and Self-Control 663

may be more accessible to intervention (Israel & Roderick, 2001). Although family life changes,
such as changes in parental employment or household composition, may not necessarily be
subject to control, molecular family stability can be conceptualized as a parenting skill subject
to intervention.
Molecular family stability has been shown to predict both internalizing and externalizing
problems in samples of children, adolescents, and young adults, with greater stability associated
with fewer problems (Israel & Roderick, 2001; Israel et al., 2002; Ivanova & Israel, 2005) and
to serve as a protective factor in the face of family adversity (Ivanova & Israel, 2005; Ivanova &
Israel, 2006). Research also has evaluated control as a mechanism through which the association
between family stability and adjustment may operate. This line of research largely supported
a model in which self-control mediates the relationship between molecular family stability and
internalizing problems (Sokolowski, 2005), as well as a model in which perceived anxiety control
mediates the relationship between family stability and both depression and anxiety (Sokolowski
& Israel, 2008). These findings suggest molecular family stability may play a role in facilitating
the development of control, which, in turn, leads to positive adjustment.
The identification of mechanisms through which family stability is related to adjustment as
well as protective factors that may buffer youth from the development of problem behavior is
important, particularly because the effect of those behaviors may be considerable. Pinpointing
the factors that put children at risk for maladjustment or the mechanisms by which family
factors affect child adjustment will undoubtedly contribute to our understanding of children’s
psychological development and opportunities to facilitate intervention.
To that end, the present study sought to add to the body of research examining the association
between family stability and psychological adjustment and to elucidate potential mechanisms
through which molecular family stability may be associated with adjustment. Specifically, the
present study attempted to replicate previous findings with regard to the relationship between
family stability and internalizing symptoms and to investigate the association between family
stability and externalizing problems, a relationship less extensively explored. Moreover, self-
control was explored as a potential mediator of the relationship between molecular family
stability and adjustment, including both internalizing symptoms of anxiety and depression and
externalizing problems of aggressive and rule-breaking behavior.

Method
Participants
Participants were 289 undergraduates from a state university in a mid-sized northeastern city.
Students participated either as part of an introduction to psychology course requirement or for
extra credit in another course. The sample comprised 134 men (46.4%) and 155 women (53.6%),
from 18 to 25 years of age (mean [M] = 19.03 years). The majority identified as White (69.2%),
while 10.7% identified as Hispanic, 10.0% as Black or African American, 11.1% as Asian, 1.0%
as American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.3% as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 8.0% as
other ethnicity. Because participants were permitted to select more than one ethnicity, ethnicity
groupings sum to more than 100%. Finally, all but four participants reported annual income
of their families prior to their entrance into college: 6(2.1%) $0 to $14,999; 26(9.1%) $15,000
to $29,999; 32(11.2%) $30,000 to $44,999; 40(14.0%) $45,000 to $59,999; 44(15.4%) $60,000 to
$74,999; 48(16.8%) $75,000 to $89,999; 89(31.2%) $90,000 or more.

Procedure
All procedures followed guidelines for the protection of human subjects and were approved by the
university’s institutional review board. A computer-based software system was used to collect
participants’ responses. Participants provided basic demographic information and completed
measures of family stability, self-control, and adjustment either in groups of approximately
eight participants or individually in a research laboratory supervised by trained graduate and
undergraduate students.
664 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2013

Measures
Stability of Activities in the Family Environment (SAFE-R). Molecular family sta-
bility was measured with the SAFE-R (Israel et al., 2002), a 23-item self-report questionnaire
that assesses the level of regularity with which family activities occurred during the time in which
participants were growing up. These activities include daily family routines, such as those that
occur at meal and bed times, as well as activities children engage in with family, such as weekend
activities or spending time with extended family, or activities with others but that require the
support of family members, such as extracurricular activities or spending time with friends.
Participants rate items on a 7-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely) regular.
Scores for all the items are summed to produce a total score (SAFE-R Stability), with higher
values indicating greater reported stability. Previous research utilizing the SAFE-R has shown
it has good internal consistency and test-retest reliability, as evidenced by Cronbach’s alphas of
.84 and Pearson correlation coefficients of .86, respectively (Israel et al., 2002). Furthermore,
validity of the SAFE-R is indicated by meaningful relationships with other family measures
(Israel et al., 2002; Israel & Roderick, 2001) and expected associations with measures of ad-
justment (Ivanova & Israel, 2005; Sokolowski & Israel, 2008). Responses for the present sample
demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .89).

Self-Control scale (SCS). The SCS, a 36-item self-report measure of self-control, as-
sesses participants’ ability to override or change inner responses, refrain from acting on unde-
sirable impulses, and regulate behavior (Tangney et al., 2004). Participants are asked to rate the
degree to which items reflect their typical behavior on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all)
to 5 (very much). A total score is obtained by summing the ratings on all items with appropriate
items reverse-scored, such that higher scores reflect greater self-control. Internal consistency
of the SCS, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, is reported as α = .89, and 1-week test-retest
reliability as r = .89 (Tangney et al., 2004). Internal consistency for the current sample was also
good (Cronbach’s α = .88).

Adult Self-Report (ASR). The ASR is a self-report questionnaire that assesses aspects of
adaptive functioning and problems for individuals aged 18 to 59 years (Achenbach & Rescorla,
2003). Participants rate 123 problems on a 3-point scale 0 (not true) to 2 (very true or often
true), which yields scores for two broad problem syndromes (Internalizing and Externalizing),
as well as eight narrow-band syndromes. For the purpose of this study, only items from the
Aggressive Behavior and Rule-Breaking Behavior narrow-band syndromes were included as
they were thought to be the indices of externalizing problems most consistent with the focus
of the present study. The ASR has been shown to have good psychometric properties (Achen-
bach & Rescorla, 2003). Test-retest reliability for the syndrome scales included in this study
are reported to be .87 and .79 for the Aggressive Behavior and Rule-Breaking Behavior syn-
dromes, respectively, and reported internal consistency scores of Cronbach’s alpha are .83 and
.86, respectively. Good internal consistency for Aggressive Behavior and Rule-Breaking Be-
havior syndrome scales was also found for the present sample (Cronbach’s α = .89 and .80,
respectively).

Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II). The BDI-II is a well-established, 21-item, self-

report measure of the presence and severity of depressive symptoms (Beck, Steer, & Brown,
1996). Each item contains four statements reflecting differing degrees of severity of a spe-
cific type of depressive symptom, and participants are asked to endorse one of the four
statements with regard to their experience of symptoms over the previous 2 weeks. In ad-
dition, the relative severity of each statement is indicated by a number, ranging from 0 to
3, which accompanies each statement. A total score is obtained by summing the numbers
corresponding with each selected statement, with higher scores indicating greater depressive
symptomatology. In college samples, the BDI-II has reported Cronbach’s alpha scores of in-
ternal consistency of .91 and .93 (Beck et al., 1996). Cronbach’s alpha was .89 for the present
sample.
 Family Stability and Self-Control 665

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Measures of Family Stability, Self-Control, and Adjustment

Men Women Total

N = 134 N = 155 N = 289

Family Stability (SAFE-R) 84.95 (18.21) 93.43 (19.71) 89.49 (19.46)

Self-Control (SCS) 112.86 (16.26) 111.55 (18.29) 112.16 (17.36)
Depression (BDI-II) 2.08 (4.41) 2.86 (4.18) 2.50 (4.30)
Anxiety (BAI) 9.16 (10.13) 11.27 (10.97) 10.29 (10.63)
Aggressive Behavior (ASR-A) 56.17 (7.81) 56.93 (7.62) 56.58 (7.70)
Rule-Breaking Behavior (ASR-RB) 57.66 (7.23) 57.02 (7.49) 57.32 (7.37)

Note. Measures used were Stability of Activities in the Family Environment (SAFE-R), Self-Control Scale
(SCS), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Adult Self-Report
Aggressive Behavior (ASR-A) and Rule-Breaking Behavior (ASR-RB) narrowband syndromes (T scores).

Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). The BAI is a 21-item self-report inventory used to assess
the severity of common anxiety symptoms (Beck, Epstein, Brown, & Steer, 1988). Items on the
BAI are rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (severely—I could barely
stand it), and indicate the degree to which a participant has been bothered by specific anxiety-
related symptoms. Higher scores indicate greater anxiety symptomatology. One-week test-retest
reliability for the BAI is reported as .75 and Cronbach’s alpha as .92 (Beck et al., 1988). Internal
consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was .93 in the present sample.

Results
Preliminary Analyses
The data were screened for missing data and outliers. Six cases were excluded due to missing
data. Cases were removed if more than two items were missing from the SAFE-R, SCS, BDI-II,
or BAI. In cases where one or two items were missing from the SAFE-R, SCS, BDI-II, or BAI,
means for the subject’s remaining items for that measure were imputed for the missing values
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In addition, cases were dropped from the analysis if they were
missing four or more items from the ASR. Achenbach and Rescorla (2003) recommend scoring
the ASR problem scales if no more than eight items are missing, not counting socially desirable
items. Since this study included only a portion of the ASR problem scale items, this rule was
adjusted to account for a corresponding proportion of missing items. In cases where missing
items met this criterion, mean scores were generated. No cases were identified as multivariate
outliers as indicated by the Mahalonobis distance (critical value, χ2 , 2 degree of freedom [df] =
13.816).

Descriptive Statistics
Means and standard deviations of study measures are presented in Table 1. These represent raw
scores for all measures except the ASR, where T scores are presented for ease of interpreta-
tion. However, as recommended, all analyses were conducted using raw scores (Achenbach &
Rescorla, 2003).
For each measure of adjustment, the level of clinical significance of scores was examined.
According to Beck and colleagues’ (1996) cut scores and interpretative labels, 281 (97.2%) of
current participants scored in the “minimal depression” range (0–13), five (1.8%) in the “mild
depression” range (14–19), one (.3%) in the “moderate depression” range (20–28), and two
(.7%) in the “severe depression” range (29–63). With regard to anxiety, 150 (51.9%) participants
scored in the “minimal” range (0–7), 66 (22.8%) in the “mild” range (8–15), 46 (16%) in the
“moderate” range (16–25), and 27 (9.3%) in the “severe” range (26–63) based on cut scores
and interpretative labels provided by Beck and Steer (1993). Following guidelines provided by
Achenbach and Rescorla (2003), 246 (85.1%) participants scored in the “normal” range (below
666 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2013

Table 2
Correlations Among Measures of Family Stability, Self-Control, and Adjustment

1 2 3 4 5

1. Family Stability (SAFE-R)

2. Self-Control (SCS) .24∗∗
3. Depression (BDI-II) −.21∗∗ −.41∗∗
4. Anxiety (BAI) −.15∗∗ −.34∗∗ .46∗∗
5. Aggressive Behavior (ASR-A) −.23∗∗ −.57∗∗ .51∗∗ .38∗∗
6. Rule-Breaking Behavior (ASR−RB) −.24∗∗ −.64∗∗ .29∗∗ .33∗∗ .58∗∗

Note. Measures used were Stability of Activities in the Family Environment (SAFE-R), Self-Control Scale
(SCS), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Adult Self-Report
Aggressive Behavior (ASR-A) and Rule-Breaking Behavior (ASR-RB) narrowband syndromes.
∗∗ p < .01.

the 93rd percentile), 31 (10.7%) in the “borderline clinical” range (93rd to 97th percentile), and 12
(3.8%) in the “clinical” range (above the 97th percentile) on the Aggressive Behavior narrow-band
syndrome scale. With regard to Rule-Breaking Behavior, 241 (83.4%), 27 (9.3%), and 21 (7.3%)
participants scored in the “normal,” “borderline clinical,” and “clinical” ranges, respectively.
Regression analyses were conducted on those demographic variables with sufficient variability
to consider potential covariate relationships with variables included in the mediational model.
Among demographic variables, both household income and age emerged as significant predic-
tors. Specifically, significant relationships were found between household income and aggressive
behavior (B = .361, p < .05), age and depression (B = −.471, p < .05), age and aggressive behav-
ior (B = −.738, p < .01), and age and rule-breaking behavior (B = −.529, p < .01). Therefore,
household income and/or age were included as covariates in analyses testing the mediational
model for the indicated indices of adjustment. Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations among
study measures. All correlations are significant and in the expected direction.

Multiple Regression Analyses Testing the Mediation Model

A series of multiple regression analyses was used to test the proposed model in which self-control
is hypothesized to mediate between family stability and adjustment. A set of three multiple
regressions, based on the recommendations of Baron and Kenny (1986), was performed for each
adjustment variable (see Table 3). Following each set of regressions, the Sobel test (Preacher
& Leonardelli, 2003) was conducted to test the significance of the reduction of the association
between family stability and the adjustment variable.

Family stability, self-control, and depression. In the first regression, SAFE-R signifi-
cantly predicted BDI-II (β = −.206, p < .001). In the second, SAFE-R significantly predicted
SCS (β = .230, p < .001). In the third, SCS significantly predicted BDI-II (β = −.371, p < .001)
while SAFE-R was controlled. Moreover, the relationship between SAFE-R and BDI-II was
reduced approximately 42% (β = −.121, p < .05) when SCS was included in the regression equa-
tion, and this reduction was significant as indicated by the Sobel test (z = −3.43, p < .001). Thus,
the model in which self-control mediates the relationship between molecular family stability and
depression appears to be supported.

Family stability, self-control, and anxiety. In the first regression, SAFE-R significantly
predicted BAI (β = −.153, p < .01). In the second, SAFE-R significantly predicted SCS
(β = .236, p < .001). In the third, SCS significantly predicted BAI (β = −.318, p < .001)
while SAFE-R was controlled. Moreover, the relationship between SAFE-R and BAI was re-
duced approximately 49% (β = −.078, p = .17), from one of significance to nonsignificance, when
SCS was included in the regression equation. Furthermore, the reduction of this relationship
was significant as indicated by the Sobel test (z = −3.32, p < .001). As a result, the model in
 Family Stability and Self-Control 667

Table 3
Tests of Mediational Relationships

Standardized Beta Coefficients (β)/

Variance Explained (R2 )

Sobel’s test of the

significance of
Mediational chain: IV→MV→DV IV→MV IV→DV IV→DV|MV mediation (z)

1. Depression (BDI) .230*** /.070 −.206*** /.060 −.121* /.188 −3.34***

2. Anxiety (BAI) .236*** /.056 −.153** /.024 −.078/.119 −3.32***
3. Aggressive Behavior (ASR-A) .258*** /.087 −.257*** /.102 −.127* /.337 −4.10***
4. Rule−Breaking Behavior (ASR-RB) .230*** /.070 −.229*** /.079 −.089/.422 −3.85***

Note. DV = dependent variables (depression, anxiety, aggressive behavior, rule-breaking behavior); IV =

independent variable (family stability); MV = mediator variable (self-control). Measures used were Stability
of Activities in the Family Environment (SAFE-R), Self-Control Scale (SCS), Beck Depression Inventory-II
(BDI-II), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Adult Self-Report Aggressive Behavior (ASR-A) and Rule-
Breaking Behavior (ASR-RB) narrowband syndromes.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

which self-control mediates the relationship between family stability and anxiety appears to be
supported.

Family stability, self-control, and aggressive behavior. In the first regression, SAFE-
R significantly predicted ASR-A (β = −.257, p < .001). In the second, SAFE-R significantly
predicted SCS (β = .258, p < .001). In the third, SCS significantly predicted ASR-A (β = −.508,
p < .001) while SAFE-R was controlled. Moreover, the relationship between SAFE-R and ASR-
A was reduced approximately 51% (β = −.127, p < .05) when SCS was included in the regression
equation, and this reduction was significant as indicated by the Sobel test (z = −4.10, p < .001).
Thus, the model in which self-control mediates the relationship between family stability and
aggressive behavior appears to be supported.

Family stability, self-control and rule-breaking behavior. In the first regression, SAFE-
R significantly predicted ASR-RB (β = −.229, p < .001). In the second, SAFE-R significantly
predicted SCS (β = .230, p < .001). In the third, SCS significantly predicted ASR-RB (β =
−.607, p < .001). The relationship between SAFE-R and ASR-RB was reduced approximately
61% (β = −.089, p = .06), from one of significance to nonsignificance, when SCS was included
in the regression equation. Additionally, this reduction was significant as indicated by the Sobel
test (z = −3.85, p < .001). As a result, the model in which self-control mediates the relationship
between family stability and rule-breaking behavior appears to be supported.

Discussion
The goal of the present study was to build upon evidence of the relationships between fam-
ily variables, self-control, and adjustment. The study attempted to replicate previous research
examining self-control as a mediator of the relationship involving internalizing symptoms and
expand upon that model to evaluate self-control as a mediator between family stability and
externalizing problems. The proposed mediational models were largely supported by the results.
Self-control was supported as a mediator of the relationships between family stability and
all proposed aspects of adjustment, including depression, anxiety, aggressive behavior, and rule-
breaking behavior. Findings were most clear in testing the models in which self-control mediates
the relationships between anxiety and rule-breaking behavior. The inclusion of self-control in
these regression equations reduced the relationships between family stability and outcome vari-
ables from ones of significance to ones of nonsignificance, suggesting strong mediational effects
668 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2013

of self-control. Parallel reductions of the relationships between family stability and depression
and aggressive behavior were also significant. Findings suggest family stability may play an
important role in self-regulatory behavior, aiding in the development of self-control, which, in
turn, may lead to positive adjustment.
Several explanations may be proposed to account for these associations. For example, the
security and predictability associated with a stable family environment may provide an optimal
environment for the developing youth to practice and refine emerging self-control skills, thus
leading to the development of or enhanced mastery of skills and, in turn, positive adjustment.
A chaotic family environment, on the other hand, may not afford youths the opportunity to
effectively practice and refine self-control skills, hindering emotional development and increasing
adjustment difficulties.
Additionally, a stable family environment may offer relevant information about potential
consequences of behavioral options, which may assist the youth in making informed decisions
for his or her behavior. For example, a youth may observe a parent take steps to ensure regularity
of the mealtime routine (e.g., prepare a grocery list, shop for food, prepare meals, set table, gather
family members), learning how to manage time, and prioritize and organize behavior in pursuit
of a goal. This may enhance the youth’s likelihood to exert control over his or her behavior, as he
or she learns it is possible to influence the responses of others and situational outcomes. It could
also be posited that parents who are able to maintain regularity in daily activities and routines
may themselves be more likely to possess effective self-regulation skills. As a result, parents
may model self-control strategies or may be more likely to directly cultivate their offspring’s
development of self-control skills through strategies such as coaching or behavioral discourse.
In addition to meditational findings, the present study provides further support for the as-
sociation between family stability and internalizing problems and adds to the understanding
of the relationship between family stability and adjustment by demonstrating a relationship to
externalizing problems. Together, findings of this study provide not only additional evidence of
the association between family stability and adjustment but also support for the role of family
stability in the development of self-control, a particularly important construct in psychosocial
adjustment and functioning.
Some limitations of the current study should be noted. Specifically, while measures of self-
control and adjustment reflected current experiences, the present study relied on a retrospective
report of family stability. Because of the correlational nature of the present study and lack of
information about temporal relationships, causal conclusions based on observed relationships
cannot be made. For example, it cannot be determined whether family stability leads to the
development of self-control or adjustment problems, or, conversely, whether those variables
potentially affected the regularity of routines and activities in the family environment or rec-
ollection of that regularity. Future studies utilizing child and adolescent samples would allow
for concurrent reporting of family functioning, self-control, and adjustment, enhancing our
understanding of mechanisms through which family stability impacts adjustment. Moreover,
longitudinal research would allow for increased confidence in causal inferences and conclusions
with regard to the effect of family stability on adjustment.
In addition, this study utilized a college student sample, which may limit variability on all
or some of the measures, affecting the strength of the relationships observed. Additionally, al-
though the measures of adjustment utilized are widely employed and well validated, another
potential limitation of the study it its reliance on brief symptom-based assessments of depres-
sion and anxiety, as opposed to the problem item scale used to assess externalizing problems.
This could make comparisons between the two aspects of adjustment more challenging. Fur-
thermore, the measure utilized to assess depression has been criticized for not being sensitive
to subclinical levels of depression. The low levels of depressive symptomatology noted in the
present study places a limitation on generalizing the findings to clinical populations. The mea-
sures of depression and anxiety were selected in this study not only because of their extensive
application in clinical research but also to allow for comparison to previous findings. Never-
theless, future research could incorporate corresponding internalizing problem scale items to
make inferences regarding associations between family stability and aspects of adjustment more
comparable.
 Family Stability and Self-Control 669

Conclusion
Support was found for the role of self-control as a mediator of the relationships between
family stability and symptoms of depression and anxiety and aggressive and rule-breaking
behavior. This information may prove to have important implications in the development of
interventions for youths and families based on the construct of family stability. Treatments aimed
at enhancing family stability may aid in promoting development of self-control skills, in turn,
enhancing adjustment outcomes. As agents in the socialization process, parents shape children’s
development and, in turn, influence their social and emotional competence and development
of self-regulation skills and prosocial behavior. When disruptions in the stability of the family
environment occur, youths’ ability to develop adequate self-control skills may be compromised,
leading to both internalizing and externalizing problems. Understanding the associations and
dynamic interplay of the family environment and one’s ability to self-regulate and develop
self-control skills provides insight into factors that may be protective or even foster positive
adjustment in youth and adulthood.

References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2003). Manual for ASEBA Adult Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT:
University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycholog-
ical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety:
Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 893–897.
Beck, A. T. & Steer, R. A. (1993). Beck Anxiety Inventory Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory Manual (2nd ed.). San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corporation.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2005). Productive activity and the prevention of behavior problems.
Developmental Psychology, 41, 89–98.
Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1998). Maternal resources, parenting practices, and child competence in rural,
single-parent African American families. Child Development, 69, 803–816.
Brody, G. H., & Ge, X. (2001). Linking parenting practices processes and self-regulation to psychological
functioning and alcohol use during early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 82–94.
Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Bures, R. M. (2003). Childhood residential stability and health at midlife. American Journal of Public
Health, 93, 1144–1148.
Cole, P. M., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2009). Emotion regulation, risk, and psychopathology. The Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 1327–1330.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Method-
ological challenges and directions for children development research. Child Development, 75, 317–
333.
Denham, S. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Reiser, M., . . . Guthrie, I. K.
(2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem
behavior. Child Development, 72, 1112–1134.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C., Guthrie, I. K., Jones, S., . . . Maszk, P. (1997).
Contemporaneous and longitudinal prediction of children’s social functioning from regulation and
emotionality. Child Development, 68, 642–664.
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child Devel-
opment, 75, 334–339.
Feldman, S. C., Martinez-Pons, M., & Shaham, D. (1995). The relationship of self-efficacy, self-regulation,
and collaborative verbal behavior with grades: Preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 77, 971–
978.
670 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2013

Grolnick, W. S., & Farkas, M. (2002). Parenting and the development of children’s self-regulation. In M. H.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Practical issues in parenting (Vol. 5, 2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Israel, A. C., & Roderick, H. A. (2001). A measure of the stability of family activities: An initial examination.
Assessment, 8, 417–424.
Israel, A. C., Roderick, H. A., & Ivanova, M. Y. (2002). A measure of the stability of activities in the family
environment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24, 85–95.
Ivanova, M. Y., & Israel, A. C. (2005). Family stability as a protective factor against the influences of
pessimistic attributional style on depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 243–251.
Ivanova, M.Y., & Israel, A. C. (2006). Family stability as a protective factor against psychopathology for
urban children receiving psychological services. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
35, 564–570.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2006). Responsive parenting: Establishing early foundations
for social communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Child Development, 42, 627–642.
Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Bacchini, D., Zelli, A., Chaudhary, N., . . . Quinn, N.
(2005). Physical discipline and children’s adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child
Development, 76, 1234–1246.
McGloin, J. M., & Shermer, L. O. (2009). Self-control and deviant peer network structure. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46, 35–72.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933–938.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool
for mediation tests. Retrieved from [Link]
Sokolowski, K. L. (2005). Self-control and perceived anxiety control as mediators of the relationship between
molecular family stability and adjustment (Unpublished master’s thesis). University at Albany, New
York.
Sokolowski, K. L., & Israel, A. C. (2008). Perceived anxiety control as a mediator of the relationship between
family stability and adjustment. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 1454–1461.
Tabachnik, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Edu-
cation, Inc.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less
pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–322.
Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., Arseneault, L., & Niscale, M. J. (1995). Does low self-control during
childhood explain the association between delinquency and accidents in early adolescents? Criminal
Behavior and Mental Health, 5, 439–451.
VanderValk, I., Spruijt, E., de Goede, M., Maas C., & Meeus, W. (2005). Family structure and problem
behavior of adolescents and young adults: A growth-curve study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
34, 533–546.
Wills, T. A., Ainette, M. G., Stoolmiller, M., Gibbons, F. X., & Shinar, O. (2008). Good self-control as a
buffering agent for adolescent substance use: An investigation in early adolescence with time varying
covariates. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 459–471.
Wolchik, S. A., Ruehlman, L. S., Braver, S. L., & Sandler, I. N. (1989). Social support of children of divorce:
Direct and stress buffering effects. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 485–501.