Social Competence in Children and the Subsequent Effects of Social Competence on Parenting. By Isaiah Doub APSY !

"# $"%"$%$& 'ni(ersity of Cumbria

Abstract )his essay attempts to in(estigate the research surrounding the de(elopment of social competence in children* and social competencies subsequent effects on parenting. )o do so* a definition of social competence +as first established. After the definition +as discussed and established* a loo, into the de(elopment of social competence in children and it-s potential ad(antages and disad(antages in early and later life in terms of academic* mental and emotional +ell.being* +as conducted. /ollo+ing the discussion on child de(elopment* an attempt +as made to in(estigate the role that a good%poor de(elopment of social competence +ould ha(e on parenting and ho+ it +ould consequently affect the methods of parenting and the de(elopment of children. 0o+e(er* after researching for a significant period of time* e1tremely little research +as found on the topic. All of the findings agreed that there is (ery little empirical e(idence in that area of psychology. An attempt +as made to then in(estigate the intergenerational

continuity of social competence* but the findings bet+een psychologists +ere in disagreement. In the end* a conclusion +as dra+n that the de(elopment of social competence in children is significantly important* and that more research is required in the area of social competence in parents.

Introduction

Society2 a3 the community of people li(ing in a particular country or region and ha(ing shared customs* la+s and organi4ations* b3 [mass noun] the situation of being in the company of other people. Competence2 [mass noun] the ability to do something successfully or efficiently. )hese are t+o definitions of society and competence according to the 51ford Dictionary. Simply by definition* society is a community or a situation of being in the company of other people* and competence is the ability to do something successfully. )herefore* social competence* by definition of the con6unction of these t+o +ords is the ability to successfully or efficiently be in the company of other people. )hat is the fundamental basis of social competence* ho+e(er* to claim this as social competence +ould be reductionistic in philosophy and methodology. Defining social competence in terms of psychological theories is more difficult as it attempts to include many (arying factors of the human psyche. )his report +ill attempt to define social competence and then proceed to unpac, the (arying le(els of social competence in terms of child de(elopment and the dangers of poor social competence de(elopment* and then attempt to unpac, the subsequent affects of social competence on parenting.

Defining Social Competence Social competence is an important area of human beha(iour and psychology as it has significant contributions to cogniti(e and social de(elopment 0artup* 7$##$3. According to 0artup 7$##$3 the single strongest childhood predictor of adult adaptation is the adequacy +ith

+hich a child interacts +ith and de(elops friendships +ith other children. 0artup 7$##$3 identifies se(eral functions of friendship +hich help to stabili4e the de(elopment of children. )he first of these functions is emotional resources* +hich aid in e1periencing fun and adapting to stress8 the second use is as a cogniti(e resource* aiding the indi(idual in de(eloping problem sol(ing8 the third is that friendships pro(ide the required en(ironment for the de(elopment or impro(ement of basic social s,ills* oft through trial and error8 and the fourth and final use of friendships in childhood is that they act as forerunners for future friendships. Considering these four functions of friendship as defined by 0artup 7$##$3 a child +ho fails to de(elop adequate friendships in +hich these functions can be e1perienced* +ould de(elop poor social s,ills and beha(iours. 0o+e(er useful it is to brea, do+n the comple1ity of social competence as effecti(ely as 0artup 7$##$3 has done* it still does not go so far as to define +hat social competence is. 0o+e(er as Dodge 7$#9:3 once mused* it appears that there are as many definitions of social competence as there are psychologists attempting to define it. )hough perhaps comical in nature* Dodge 7$#9:3 may not ha(e been (ery far off. 5(er the years* a large collection of such definitions ha(e emerged through years of study* and though most of the definitions seem (ery similar* they differ on se(eral factors. ;hite 7$#:#3 defined social competence as <an organism-s capacity to interact effecti(ely +ith its en(ironment.= )his definition* though (ague in detail* quite adequately describes social competence especial in terms of any semi.intellectual organism. )his definition seems to be intended for Dar+inism* clearly dra+ing no differentiation bet+een +hat organisms are being described. )his perhaps is one of the greatest limitations to this definition* as it is not specifically discussing human interaction* but rather* any interaction of any organism +ith its en(ironment. )o define human social interactions +ith such a general term* is to run the ris, of

being too reductionistic. Also* it does not identify the social aspect required to define social competence. >igler 7$#?&3 defined social competence as @an indi(idual-s e(eryday effecti(eness in dealing +ith his en(ironment.@ )his definition remains true to the Dar+inism of ;hite 7$#:#3 but incorporates the term indi(idual. )hough more humanistic in definition* it still lac,s the specification of social en(ironment. )his is a (aluable aspect of the definition of social competence as many areas of science obser(e the interactions of sub6ect +ith en(ironment* though that en(ironment could be any number of non.social factors* such as a 4ero.gra(ity en(ironment. It has (ery little to do +ith social interaction. Ac/all 7$#9"3 defined social competence as @a 6udgement by another that an indi(idual has beha(ed effecti(ely.@ )his definition perhaps grasps the fullness of social competence* clearly identifying the social aspect* beha(iours* and the interpersonal aspect* of an indi(idual +ith another. 0o+e(er* this definition steps to a third person perspecti(e* relying on the personal interpretation of ho+ others percei(e the -norms- of beha(iour to be. Bather than loo,ing at the specific interactions of one +ith a social en(ironment* this definition attempts to incorporate the importance of society and ho+ -social competence- may (ery from society to society* thus an adequate description +ould allo+ for the socio.cultural (ariable of defining social competence. Perhaps* one of the most adequate definitions of social competence in current psychology comes from Bubin and Bose.Crasnor 7$##"3. )hey analysed and dre+ definitions from Attili 7$#9#3* Dodge 7$#9 3* Strayer 7$#9#3 and other psychologists to construct the follo+ing definition of social competence. Social competence is2 <)he ability to achie(e personal goals in social interaction +hile simultaneously maintaining positi(e relationships +ith others o(er time and across situations.= )his definition clearly identifies se(eral important factors of social

competence. /irstly* it defines the social aspect2 <the ability to achie(e personal goals in social interaction.= It clearly states the en(ironment it is in* a social one* and further than focusing on the interpersonal relations of social interactions* it also defines the intrapersonal aspect +hich is almost as important as the interpersonal interactions. 5n top of this* it incorporates the comple1ity of maintaining relationships* and goes so far as to add the (arious socio.cultural aspects required to complete the definition. ;ith this definition as the basis* +e +ill re(ie+ the de(elopment of social competence in children along +ith it-s functions as defined by 0artup 7$##$3.

)he Importance of Social Competence in Children Social competence is one of the most important factors in a child-s life as it can ha(e se(ere impacts upon de(elopment and relationships in adulthood. As noted by Bierman and ;elsh 7$##?3* children +ho ha(e beha(ioural problems also ha(e a tendency to ha(e a (ariety of social.emotional s,ill defects. 0a(ing social.emotional s,ill defects as +ell as suffering from poor language s,ills puts children at ris, for (arious difficulties such as lo+er academic achie(ement* negati(e relationships +ith peers* and general difficulties entering school 7Ale1ander* Ent+isle* D Dauber* $##&8 Eagnon* Craig* )remblay* >hou* D Fitaro* $##:8 0uffman et al.* "!!!8 5GHeil* ;elsh* Par,e* ;ang* D Strand* $##?3. As Iones and 0arcourt 7"!$&3 summarise* <children +ith reduced social competence are at a disad(antage both academically and socially and are more prone to school e1clusions* peer re6ection* isolation and future disad(antage.= Social competence* as aforementioned* is important in the de(elopment of a child-s life. 0o+e(er* the comprehension of its importance* though (aluable* is of no significance if the

,no+ledge is not efficiently implemented. Se(eral inter(ention programs ha(e been de(eloped* +hich ha(e attempted to aid in the de(elopment of social competence* though their efficacy may ha(e been in question. 5ne such inter(ention practice is ,no+n as PA)0S. PA)0S stands for Promoting. Alternati(e.)hin,ing.Strategies. PA)0S has attempted to teach children* from preschool to the elementary grades 7'SA3 age about peaceful conflict resolution* positi(e emotion regulation* empathy and responsible decision ma,ing. )hey also try to aid the de(elopment of the children-s brain in building e1ecuti(e functions. )hese include the training in things such as problem sol(ing* reasoning* planning* impulse control and e1ercising the +or,ing memory. PA)0S suggests that these factors help math and reading competence and claim that this is more important for school readiness than other factors li,e IJ scores. 0o+e(er* due to the question of +hether or not the inter(ention programs +ere ha(ing a significant positi(e effect on the de(elopment of social competence in children* Domitro(ich* Cortes* and Ereenber* 7"!!?3 conducted a three year study +here they obser(ed the de(elopment of "K preschool aged children in four dimensions* 7emotional ,no+ledge* inhibitory control* attention* and problem sol(ing3 through the Preschool PA)0S 7Promoting Alternati(e )hin,ing Strategies3 program. )he aim of the study +as to e(aluate the efficacy of a Preschool PA)0S programme* based upon the four dimensions. )he results found that Preschool PA)0S and 0ead Start can <effecti(ely deli(er a uni(ersal social.emotional curriculum and impro(e childrenGs emotional ,no+ledge* self.regulation* social interaction le(el and social s,ills in less than one preschool year.= )his empirical support along +ith se(eral others has helped identify PA)0S as the one of the most successful programmes and it is the only uni(ersal programme to achie(e the highest

rating according to elite Blueprints Pro6ect of the Centre for the Study and Pre(ention of Fiolence* 'ni(ersity of Colorado. 5(er the last &! years* o(er K! studies ha(e been conducted in(estigating PA)0S and ha(e found it to ha(e a positi(e influence on the de(elopment of children. 5(er "?!*!!! participants +ere gathered through PA)0S for a large scale study +hich sho+ed that the participants of PA)0S sho+ed an $$L gain in academic achie(ement 7Channing Bete Company* Inc. 7M"!$K33. As 0emmeter* 5stros,y D /o1 7"!! 3 report* social competence has been sho+n to ha(e many long term protecti(e traits for children-s +ell.being* from higher school retention rates* lo+er mental health disorder rates and greater academic achie(ements. As sho+n abo(e* there is a lot of empirical e(idence to support the theory of social competence and its importance on the de(elopment of children. It can aid the de(elopment of the children in an emotional* social and mental areas* leading to a more social.emotional stable indi(idual. Briefly* there has been mention of the negati(e implications of poor social competence* and the positi(e influence of secure social competence. 0o+e(er* one fact to notice +hich is quite simple but e1tremely important* is the fact that society today is no+ ha(ing to rely upon an educational third party to educate children in some basic human interaction s,ills. )he question that arises from this is -+hyN- In the past there has either been no need for teachers to instruct children in the beha(ioural patterns e1pected of them* or the need +as not ,no+n. Either +ay* it appears that in some form* parents may be failing their children in this aspect* and not raising them in a secure en(ironment in +hich the natural de(elopment of social competence can be e1perienced* and are therefore turning to teachers to instruct their children in the de(elopment of social competence. Due to this apparent change in the socio.cultural norms of family dynamics* it +as decided that a closer loo, +as required into the dynamics of modern day parenting in terms of the intergenerational continuity of social competence.

Social Competence in Parenting 'nfortunately* 5,umura D Emi,o 7"!$!3 accurately record that there are difficulties in attempting to study the intergenerational lin, in social s,ills and en(ironments* due to the lac, of data on parents- social s,ills. Also Aasten et. al.* 7"!!K3 +rites that there is a lac, of e(idence on the long.term significance of parenting and its effects on the de(elopment of early adulthood. As Serbin D Carp 7"!!K3 identify* there is much less research that has in(estigated the intergenerational continuity of supporti(e or constructi(e parenting and if it has a significant effect on determining +hether recei(ing such parenting +ill predict one-s o+n competence at parenting. 0o+e(er* in light of the limited resources surrounding the topic of social competence in parentings* there are some studies +hich ha(e lent empirical e(idence to this area of psychology. Chen D Caplan 7"!!$3 conducted an in(estigation of social competence as a possible mediator for the intergenerational continuity of supporti(e and +arm parenting. /rom using inter(ie+s +ith pre.school children in(estigating their percei(ed quality of relationships +ith their parents* and then using self.report studies on the parents* Chen D Caplan 7"!!$3 disco(ered that there +as a moderate continuity in parenting bet+een generations. )his continuity +as found to be significantly mediated by Chen D Caplan-s measurements of social competence. Continuing the research in this area of psychology 5,umura D Emi,o 7"!$!3 ha(e attempted to ans+er the question* <Do Parents- Social S,ills Influence )heir Children-s SociabilityN= /rom their research 5,umura D Emi,o 7"!$!3 in(estigated some mother.child relationships and found that parent-s social competence has a positi(e effect on their children-s sociability along gender lines. )his means that mothers ha(e a strong influence on their

daughters and that /athers ha(e a strong influence on their sons* but mothers ha(e poor influence on their sons* and /athers ha(e a poor influence on their daughters. In con6unction +ith findings from Blac,* D De(ereu1* 7"!$!3 /ather-s sociability has a positi(e and strong effect on their sons- sociability. In contrast to the findings abo(e* Shaffer et. al.* 7"!!#3 conducted their o+n study on "!: bet+een the ages of 9.$"* in +hich they obser(ed the participants in a longitudinal study of "! years. After the "! years had passed* a follo+ assessment +as conducted. #!L of the original sample too, part in the follo+ up* $$& of +hich had become parents. )heir findings ho+e(er* disagreed +ith Chen D Caplan 7"!!$3. )hey found that although social competence might mediate intergenerational continuity of positi(e parenting* their findings sho+ed no significance of the effects of social competence on parenting from generation one 7E$3 to generation t+o 7E"3. Shaffer et. al.* 7"!!#3 +rite that a possible e1planation for the difference in findings bet+een their study and Chen D Caplan 7"!!$3 is that <it is concei(able that shared method (ariance due to a single reporter or other measurement differences might account for the significant direct path of intergenerational continuity in parenting quality as reported in that study.= )hey do also point out that the difference in findings may be due to (ariation of measurements used to report parenting quality bet+een E$ and E". )he E$ of parenting +as measured primarily on aspects of parenting practises such as pro(ision of +armth and support* and structure and limit.setting* +here as the measurements used for E" +as in(estigating a more general domain of competence including ho+ the participants felt they +ere doing as parents. Shaffer et. al.* 7"!!#3 point out that the difference bet+een Chen D Caplan 7"!!$3 may be due to this (ariance in measurement* rather than error on Chen D Caplan-s part. Begardless of potential error on either team of psychologists* the fact remains that there is

(ery limited amounts of data on the sub6ect of intergenerational continuity of social competence. )he stability of social competence in children-s life into the transitions of parenthood* may not ha(e a significant effect on their ability to de(elop social competence in their o+n children. )he intergenerational continuity does not appear to ha(e a (ery strong lin, as suggested by Shaffer et. al.* 7"!!#3. 0o+e(er* as each of the researchers identified* there is a significant lac, of e(idence for any form of intergenerational continuity* e(en outside of social competence. )his causes the plausibility that intergenerational continuity of social competence may ha(e a significant effect on parenting for multiple generations. 0o+e(er* much more research is required in this longitudinal area of psychology before a definiti(e conclusion* based on empirical findings through test and retest reliability* can be dra+n. 'ntil then* the ans+er to +hether or not the social competence in children-s de(elopment +ill significantly influence their social competence as parents* remains (ague.

Conclusion )hough there has been a brief comprehension of the attempt to define the comple1 terms of social competence a fully descripti(e definition has yet to be agreed upon. )he most encompassing definition mentioned is by Bubin and Bose.Crasnor 7$##"3* <)he ability to achie(e personal goals in social interaction +hile simultaneously maintaining positi(e relationships +ith others o(er time and across situations.= 'pon reflection of this definition* the inclusion of a cross.cultural consideration seemed lac,ing. )hough it may not be significant* a complete definition of social competence* in attempt to be all encompassing if such a goal is obtainable* +ould be to include a cross.cultural aspect so that intrapersonal goals may be achie(ed* as +ell as ha(ing the adequacy of interpersonal interactions* as +ell as ha(ing a final

aspect of cross.cultural competence may bring the definition of social competence to a full and generali4ed definition +hich then can be standardi4ed and studied by multiple researchers. )hough this may not be a necessity* it may help in future research. Progressing for+ard from definition to practice* the importance of social competence in children is quite apparent through a (ast amount of research. Aultiple studies suggesting that a poor de(elopment of social competence may lead a child to suffer academically* mentally and emotionally* +here as the de(elopment of a strong social competence* can lead to an opposite affect of ha(ing poor social competence. Due to the importance of the de(elopment of social competence* an inter(ention +as briefly analysed. PA)0S attempts to help the de(elopment of more than 6ust social competence in a child* for they belie(e that the emotional readiness for education and future en(ironments to be more beneficial than a high score on an IJ test. 0o+e(er* as briefly mentioned abo(e* the necessity for a program such as PA)0S* though greatly beneficial in it-s o+n right* seems some+hat disappointing. Parent-s in modern.day societies are in a situation +here they must rely upon the inter(ention of a third party to attempt to aid in the de(elopment of social competence. In pre(ious years in history* presumably the required social competence +ould be taught through the parents and families of those around* and if not in that setting or en(ironment* then through trial and error. 0o+e(er* in modern society* it appears that parents are progressing to greater le(els of inadequacy in their roles as caregi(ers. Oessons such as emotional e1pression should be easily de(eloped in the household* but instead* programs such as PA)0S are no+ required to inter(ene. )he question of the effect that social competence has on parenting* remains to be simply a question. )hough there are reasonable quantities of studies on parenting methods and tactics* and ho+ they can affect their children* there +ere practically no studies in(estigating the

emotional* mental or social states of parents. It is quite difficult to study such a topic due to it-s more reflecti(e nature. Due to the fact that there +as so little to no research on the topic* the aim de(iated slightly to in(estigation intergenerational continuities in from parents to parents. As some researchers disco(ered* self.report studies appear to be the only non.longitudinal method of in(estigating these intergenerational continuities* though due to the reflecti(e nature of these studies* the reliability remains in question. )he only other method is to conduct a longitudinal study +hich* though possibly collecting more empirically (alid data* is also much more time consuming* financially costly and almost as difficult to de(elop a standardi4ed coding system. )he result is simply that this specific area of psychology is se(erely lac,ing* and much more resources are required to remedy this* for if the intergenerational continuity of social competence* habits and financial stability can be properly studied* it may re(eal significant findings into a poor structure of society in +hich +e are not able to pass our e1periences onto the ne1t generations. )he result of this and of poor parenting in general* is the steady decline of society* +hich may also lead to the steady decline of indi(idual-s sense of identity and security. )hough this argument may suffer in a critical thin,ing debate for running do+n a slippery slope in +hich a possible danger leads to dramatically se(er consequences* the plausibility of the slippery slope becoming a reality is only a matter of a fe+ +rong steps. Begardless of the reality or lac, thereof in relation to this slippery slope* further in(estigation into the dynamics of intergenerational continuity* may at the (ery least help to refine the educational system as +ell as aid the comprehension of marriage and family counselling. In conclusion* social competency in children is a significant and important aspect of childhood +hich requires attenti(e peers* teachers and parents to aid in it-s de(elopment. )hough unfortunate* there is too little e(idence to dra+ a conclusion on the subsequent effects that social

competence has on parenting. Aore research is required in this area to dra+ significant conclusions.

Beferences Ale1ander* C. O.* Ent+isle* D. B.* D Dauber* S. O. 7$##&3. /irst grade classroom beha(iour2 Its short and long.term consequences for school performance. Child De(elopment* K* 9!$P 9$K. Attili* E. 7$#9#3. Social competence (erses emotional security2 )he lin, bet+een home relationships and beha(iour problems in preschool. In B. Schneider* E. Atilli* I. Hadel. Brulfert* D B. ;eissberg 7eds.3* Social competence in de(elopmental perspecti(e. 7pp. "#&.&$$3. Dordrecht* Hetherlands2 Clu+er International Publishers. Barnett* A. A.* Eustafsson* 0.* Deng* A.* Aills.Coonce* ;.* D Co1* A. 7"!$"3. Bidirectional Associations Among Sensiti(e Parenting* Oanguage De(elopment* and Social Competence. Infant & Child Development, "$7K3* &?K.&#&. Bierman* C. O.* D ;elsh* I. A. 7$##?3. Social relationship deQcits. In E. I. Aash D O. E. )erdal 7Eds.3* Assessment of childhood disorders7&rd edn.* pp. &"9P& :3. Blac,* S. E.* D De(ereu1* P. I.* 7"!$!3. Becent De(elopments in Intergenerational Aobility. HBEB ;or,ing Paper $:999. Channing Bete Company* Inc. 7M"!$K3. PA)0SR 7Promoting Alternati(e )0in,ing Strategies3 Program. Betrie(ed /rom2 http2%%+++.channing.bete.com%pre(ention. programs%paths%paths.html Chen* >.* D Caplan* 0. B.* 7"!!$3. Intergenerational transmission of constructi(e parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, $?.&$.

Dodge* C. A. 7$#9:3. /acets of Social Interaction and the assessment of social competence in children. In B. Schneider* C. 0. Bubin* D I. Oedingham 7Eds.3* Children-s peer relations2 Issues in assessment and inter(ention* 7pp. &.""3 He+ Yor,2 Springer.Ferlag. Dodge* C. A. 7$#9 3. A social information processing model of social competence in children. In A. Perlmutter 7eds.3* Cogniti(e perspecti(es on children-s social and beha(ioural de(elopment. )he Ainnesota Symposia on Child Psychology 7Fol. $93. 7pp. ??.$" 3 0illsdale* H.I.2 Erlbaum. Domitro(ich* C.* Cortes* B.* D Ereenber* A. 7"!!?3. Impro(ing young children-s social and emotional competence2 A )rial of the preschool -PA)0S- curriculum. !rimary !revention, "97"3* 7pp. ?.#$3. /agan* ).* Core Education.* 7"!$$3 Social Interactions. "o#ial Competen#e, Betrie(ed from http2%%eceonline.core.ed.org%groupcms%(ie+%$#9% Eagnon* C.* Craig* ;. A.* )remblay* B. E.* >hou* B. A.* D Fitaro* /. 7$##:3. Cindergarten predictors of boysG stable beha(ior problems at the end of elementary school. Iournal of Abnormal Child Psychology* "&7 3* ?:$P? 0artup* ;. 7$##$3. 0a(ing friends* ma,ing friends* and ,eeping friends2 Belationships as educational conte1ts. In Early report$ Ainneapolis* AH2 Centre for Early Education and De(elopment. 0emmeter* A. O.* 5stros,y* A.* D /o1* O.* 7"!! 3. Social and emotional foundations for early learning2 A conceptual model for inter(ention. "#hool !sy#hology %evie&, &:7K3* :9&. $!. 0uffman* O. C.* Aehlinger* S. O.* Ceri(an* A. S.* Ca(anaugh* D. A.* Oippett* I.* D Aoyo* 5. 7"!!!3. 5ff to a good start2 Besearch on the ris, factors for early school problems and he Journal of

selected federal policies affecting childrenGs social and emotional de(elopment and their readiness for school. Chapel 0ill* HC2 'ni(ersity of Horth Carolina* /PE Child De(elopment Center. Iones* O.* D 0arcourt* D. 7"!$&3. Social competencies and the Early Years Oearning /rame+or,2 'nderstanding critcal influences on educator capacity. 'ustralasian Journal (f )arly Childhood, 3*7$3* K.$!. Aasten* A. S.* Burt* C. B.* Boisman* E. I.* 5brado(icS* I.* Oong* I. D.* D )ellegen* A.* 7"!!K3. Besources and resilience in the transition to adulthood2 Continuity and change. Development and !sy#hopathology, +6, $!?$.$!#K. Ac/all* B.A. 7$#9"3. A re(ie+ and reformulattion of the concept of social s,ills. Beha(ioral Assessment* K* $.&&. 5,umura* ).* D Emi,o.* '* 7"!$!3. Do ParentsG Social S,ills InTuence )heir ChildrenGs SociabilityN. Dis#ussion !aper "eries. Ho. :&"K 5GHeil* B.* ;elsh* A.* Par,e* B. D.* ;ang* S.* D Strand* C. 7$##?3. A longitudinal assessment of the academic correlates of early peer acceptance and re6ection. Iournal of Clinical Child Psychology* " * "#!P&!&. 51ford Dictionaries* )he ;orlds most )rusted Dictionaries. http2%%+++.o1forddictionaries.com%definition%english%society Bubin* Cenneth 0.* D Bose.Crasnor*Oinda. 7$##"3. Interpersonal problem sol(ing and social competence in children. In Fincent B. Fan 0asselt D Aichel 0ersen 7Eds.3* ,and-oo. of so#ial Development 7pp. "9&.&"K3. He+ Yor,2 Plenum. Serbin* O. A.* D Carp* I.* 7"!!K3. )he Intergenerational transfer of psychosocial ris,s2 Aediators of (ulnerability and resilience. 'nnual %evie& of !sy#hology, //* &&&.& &.

Shaffer* A.* Burt* C. B.* 5brado(iU* I.* 0erbers* I. E.* D Aasten* A. S.* 7"!!#3. Intergenerational continuity in parenting quality2 )he mediating role of social competence. Developmental !sy#hology, 0/7:3* $""?.$"K!. Strayer* /. /. 7$#9#3. Co.adaptation +ithin the early peer group2 A psychobiological study of social competence. In B. Schneider* E. Atilli* I. Hadel* D B. ;eissberg 7eds.3* Social competence in de(elopmental perspecti(e. 7pp. $K:.$?K3. Dordrecht* Hetherlands2 Clu+er International Publishers. ;hite* B. ;. 7$#:#3. Aoti(ation reconsidered2 )he concept of competence. Psychological Be(ie+* * 7pp. "#?.&&&3.

>igler* E. 7$#?&3. Pro6ect 0ead Start2 Success or failureN Oearning* $* 7pp. K&.K?3.