Chapter 13

Positive Youth Development

Frank J. Snyder and Brian R. Flay

A fourth-grade student at Discovery Bay Elementary School in Byron, California, could teach us all a lesson about what it means to be positive. Tyler Page participates in lessons every day at school where he learns that you feel good about yourself when you think and do positive actions, and there is always a positive way to do everything. His teachers, other school staff, fellow students, and parents provide positive reinforcement and support for him and his fellow students in the classroom, on the school grounds, and elsewhere.

One day while watching TV, Tyler found a way to take positive action. Inspired and moved by an Oprah show that exposed parents selling their children into slavery in Ghana, Africa, he devised a plan to raise money to assist those children. Tyler knew that $240 could support one rescued child for an entire year. Along with twenty-five other kids and the help of parents and local businesses, he organized a car wash fund-raiser and raised $1,705—enough to support seven children. The kids worked all day, only stopping to eat. Some who had scheduled sports or other activities did not want to leave, and everyone asked Tyler when the next fund-raiser would be. Within seventeen months, Tyler had led the charge in raising $50,000—enough to support two hundred children. Tyler’s positive assets and actions united an entire community behind a common cause. Two hundred children’s lives were positively changed because one group of children across the world applied the concepts and skills they were learning to civic action in real life.

What would you prefer? To be praised for your positive assets, or to be told that you are merely problem free? Should you support a safe-school initiative or fight in the war on drugs? Would you rather attend a peace rally or an antiwar protest? A positive perspective is often semantically best, and a positive perspective toward youth development helps movement away from the negative paradigm that has been predominant in scientific thinking for decades (J. V. Lerner, Phelps, Forman, & Bowers, 2009). A positive youth development (PYD) perspective views youth as people to be nurtured, not problems to be managed (Benson, Scales, Hamilton, & Sesma, 2006; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a). While this perspective acknowledges the risk and difficulties youth face (Damon, 2004), its key components include (1) a focus on youth strengths or assets and potential for positive individual development; (2) the value of supportive (asset-rich) contexts; and (3) the bidirectional interactions between person and context (Benson, 1997; R. M. Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, 2005).

PYD is grounded in the premise that every child has the potential to succeed and the capacity for positive development (R. M. Lerner, Dowling, & Anderson, 2003). Of course, this development is influenced by a myriad of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cultural-environmental factors (Flay, Snyder, & Petraitis, 2009). Youth tend to manifest positive development when their environment is rich with assets that mesh with their strengths (Benson, 2003; R. M. Lerner, 2005). In addition to social-emotional skills, optimal youth development requires clear parental boundaries, supportive teachers, and caring communities that provide a venue for youth to contribute to society. However, only in recent decades have more researchers, practitioners, and policy makers taken a PYD approach that acknowledges these concepts. For most of the twentieth century, adolescence and young adulthood were seen as times of turbulence and stress (Hall, 1904, as cited in R. M. Lerner, 2005). Many researchers and the public cast a suspicious eye on youth, seeing them as susceptible to hazards and prone to risk behaviors that endanger themselves and disrupt society.

More recently, studies and advancements in knowledge have begun to shift the established views of youth. Now there is greater recognition of positive youth–adult interactions and motivated youth (Larson, 2006) thriving in their development (R. M. Lerner, Brentano, Dowling, & Anderson, 2002; R. M. Lerner et al., 2003; Settersten & Ray, 2010). In fact, while youth do face challenges, most youth do not have a turbulent second decade of life (adolescence; R. M. Lerner, 2005) or third decade (young adulthood; Settersten & Ray, 2010). Actually, they often value good relationships with their parents, frequently develop altruistic values, and select friends with similar core values.

A variety of work has bolstered support for the PYD perspective. Toward the end of the twentieth century, researchers began to accrue empirical evidence of neural plasticity, or experience-induced changes in the brain. This breakthrough was instrumental in understanding human development (Nelson, 1999). Further, theoretical understanding, along with a discussion among practitioners and policy makers, helped form a foundation upon which the PYD approach was built. Research and practice expanded the comprehensive and evolving set of constructs that PYD subsumes. Additionally, integrative theories have been developed that unify multiple influences into a more cogent view of human development and behavior (Flay & Petraitis, 1994; Ford & Lerner, 1992). Integrative theory has informed the PYD perspective and can help bring order to the confusion that may accompany a complex system of behavioral influences.

Current researchers have learned that behaviors, both positive and negative, are correlated and have the same distal influences and ultimate or fundamental roots and causes (Flay, 2002). Similarly, program developers and evaluators have found that many school-based programs have had limited results because most have been problem specific and have not addressed the distal and ultimate influences that have far-reaching influences on numerous behaviors (Flay, 2002; Flay et al., 2009; Romer, 2003). These distal factors, such as prosocial norms, are key in creating nurturing environments (Komro, Flay, Biglan, & Promise Neighborhoods Research Consortium, 2011). Several programs have evolved from problem-specific approaches to more comprehensive (i.e., including youth, school personnel, families, and communities) and integrative (i.e., addressing multiple risk and protective factors for co-occurring behaviors) approaches (e.g., Bierman et al., 2004; Flay & Allred, 2010; Flay, Graumlich, Segawa, Burns, & Holliday, 2004; Pentz et al., 1989). This new understanding that behaviors are linked and recent recognition that programs can address multiple influences have the potential to unite many disciplines.

Indeed, PYD is a multidisciplinary field, with many individuals involved who have found common ground after inquiry and experience. In this chapter, we provide a thematic review of the field rather than an exhaustive one; we are unable to be inclusive of all the researchers and practitioners who use the term PYD and conduct related work. To date, this relatively new and multidisciplinary field involves considerable overlap with multiple approaches to prosocial education, such as character education (Berkowitz & Bier, 2004, 2007); social and emotional learning (SEL; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Payton et al., 2000; Weissberg & O’Brien, 2004); social and character development (SACD; Flay, Berkowitz, & Bier, 2009; Haegerich & Metz, 2009); and social-emotional and character development (SECD; Elias, 2009). We use the term PYD related to denote this overlap among various areas of prosocial education and to express that some approaches, such as public policy, are related to PYD. Prosocial education, in its principles and goals given in chapter 1, is an umbrella concept that is informed by PYD and the other approaches provided in this book.

Disparate inclusion criteria determine which programs were included in reviews on different areas of prosocial education, thus generating program overlap across the reviews. Readers who compare recent reviews of character education programs (Berkowitz & Bier, 2007); PYD programs (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2004); and SEL programs (Durlak et al., 2011) will find multiple programs that are included in two or all three of these reviews. Further, there are substantial overlaps in terminologies and strategies across disciplines; however, the best programs incorporate most, if not all, of the strategies described in the reviews. Listed in this chapter’s first paragraph, three key components of PYD (a focus on youth strengths or assets, the value of supportive environments, and acknowledgment of bidirectional person–context interactions) help clarify what comprehensive PYD programs include and how they differ from other programs. A PYD program that includes these components can, as we will discuss herein, promote positive youth development and, simultaneously, prevent unhealthy behaviors without ever addressing an unhealthy behavior specifically.

Overall, PYD is a rather new perspective with a complex history. Although PYD may be a common “buzzword” in present-day scientific and colloquial dialogue, there is mounting empirical evidence that supports its concepts, characteristics, and strategies. Accordingly, this chapter provides a discussion of PYD in historical context; a detailed overview of what PYD is and its constructs; theories that informed the conception of PYD and unifying, integrative theories that facilitate understanding of PYD; empirical research on characteristics, strategies, and outcomes of effective programs; examples of effective research and programming; PYD-related policy; implications for prosocial education; and paths for future research.

Historical Context

The PYD perspective originated in biological and psychological research related to ontogenesis (i.e., the study of an organism’s life span) and the plasticity of development, and it grew out of work related to child and human development (J. V. Lerner et al., 2009; R. M. Lerner, 2005; R. M. Lerner, Abo-Zena, et al., 2009) and juvenile delinquency (Benson et al., 2006). Further, it propagated from a discussion among practitioners and policy makers as well as funding initiatives that aimed to enhance the development of youth (Benson, 2003; Benson et al., 2006). Overall, PYD has many historical roots, and several scholars have blazed a path of research that emerged in the 1990s.

Integral in advancing the PYD movement during the last two decades are the contributions of groups led by Peter Benson (Benson, 1997; Benson & Pittman, 2001; Benson et al., 2006) and Richard Lerner (R. M. Lerner, 2005; R. M. Lerner et al., 2003; R. M. Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005; R. M. Lerner, von Eye, Lerner, & Lewin-Bizan, 2009). Their efforts have provided vocabulary and insight about the strengths of youth, the importance of context, and approaches to enhance youth development. This chapter highlights many of their contributions toward and vision of PYD. These include Benson’s forty developmental assets (Benson, 1997) and Lerner’s theoretical and empirical work (Ford & Lerner, 1992; R. M. Lerner, 2006), including the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development (R. M. Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005).

Other key scholars interested in youth development and enhancement, including health promotion, have contributed toward a PYD approach (Catalano, Hawkins, Berglund, Pollard, & Arthur, 2002; Catalano, Oesterle, Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004; Damon, 2004; Flay, 2002; Larson, 2000). Moreover, although the PYD perspective did not originate from work related to positive psychology (R. M. Lerner, 2005; R. M. Lerner, Abo-Zena, et al., 2009), research conducted by such scholars as Seligman (2000) had similarities to and application toward PYD. Lastly, PYD is an aspect of another field, applied developmental psychology, which emphasizes the study of bidirectional and changing relationships of human development and contexts throughout the life span in ways that simultaneously add to both foundational knowledge and the development of new or adapted practices.

Also related to PYD, as mentioned briefly earlier, is the understanding that most, if not all, behaviors have common developmental determinants (Flay, 2002). Behaviors do not develop or exist in isolation from one another (Biglan, Brennan, Foster, & Holder, 2004; Botvin, Schinke, & Orlandi, 1995; Flay, 2002; O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009). Research offers clear support that both positive and negative youth outcomes are influenced by similar protective and risk factors (Catalano, Hawkins, et al., 2002; Donovan, Jessor, & Costa, 1993; Flay, 2002). For instance, a clear relationship was established between academic achievement and violence, substance use, and other unhealthy behaviors (Fleming et al., 2005; Malecki & Elliott, 2002; Wentzel, 1993).

With this research showing that behaviors are linked and in an effort to tackle the narrow reach of many programs, there has been a movement in recent years toward more comprehensive, integrative PYD-related programs that address co-occurring behaviors and that involve families and communities. These programs generally appear to be more effective (Battistich, Schaps, Watson, Solomon, & Lewis, 2000; Bierman et al., 2004; Flay, 2000; Flay et al., 2004; Hawkins, Catalano, Kosterman, Abbott, & Hill, 1999; R. M. Lerner, 1995). That is, a comprehensive, integrated, promotive-preventive approach that addresses multiple determinants of behavior, not a narrow problem-specific approach, is likely to improve such diverse behavioral outcomes as academic skills and achievement, prosocial behaviors, truancy, substance use, risky sexual activity, and violence (Battistich et al., 2000; Botvin et al., 1995; Catalano, Hawkins, et al., 2002; Flay, 2002).

Scholars have suggested a need to focus on risk reduction (i.e., a prevention science perspective) and asset development (i.e., the PYD perspective) because they acknowledge that positively developing youth are involved in some number of risk behaviors (Catalano, Hawkins, et al., 2002; J. V. Lerner et al., 2009). Empirical evidence suggests that it is possible to promote PYD and simultaneously reduce multiple risk behaviors with a PYD approach (Beets et al., 2009; Lewis et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011; Riggs, Greenberg, Kusché, & Pentz, 2006; Snyder, Vuchinich, Acock, Washburn, & Flay, in press; Snyder et al., 2010, 2011; Washburn et al., in press). Therefore, prosocial education can enhance youth development and, at the same time, prevent unhealthy behaviors. In fact, equipped with an understanding of PYD and more detailed knowledge of health behaviors and the components of effective programs, researchers have evaluated more comprehensive, integrative programs, such as the Positive Action program described herein. These types of programs have a greater likelihood of affecting multiple co-occurring behaviors, partly through positively influencing context; they promote positive behaviors while reducing risk concomitantly.

Before we discuss effective strategies and exemplar programs, it is useful to explore PYD constructs and related theory. Taken together, the aforementioned research has led to a better understanding of what PYD is and what constructs it includes.

Positive Youth Development: Definitions, Concepts, and Constructs

PYD is broad and encompasses many descriptions and constructs. To date, no universally accepted definition of PYD exists (Benson et al., 2006; J. V. Lerner et al., 2009), perhaps because of its relative newness and cross-disciplinary nature or its complexity. As table 13.1 demonstrates, PYD can be thought of as (1) a perspective; (2) a construct (at minimum a second-order latent construct; Phelps et al., 2009); and (3) a program or policy approach. That is, PYD is a point of view (focusing on youth assets and their context), it is multidimensional and thus requires multiple measures to capture, and it is a comprehensive approach to intervention, aligned with program or policy activities, atmosphere, and goals. With such an inclusive term, definitions and constructs comprising PYD are many and varied. Paralleling the three concepts above, we describe PYD with three definitions:

Table 13.1. Descriptions of Positive Youth Development

Description	Reference
Four defining features of this field: comprehensive (a host of inputs in a variety of contexts); promotion (increase access to strength-building inputs and building personal strengths); developmental (recognizes the growth process and stages, and the role youth play navigating through those stages); and symbiotic (drawing ideas, strategies, and practices from many disciplines).	Benson & Pittman, 2001, ix
Core ideas: community (i.e., family, school, neighborhoods, programs, congregations, peers, workplace); view of the child; developmental strengths; reduction in high-risk behaviors; promotion of health; well-being; and thriving.	Benson et al., 2006, 896–897
Approaches that seek to achieve one or more of the following objectives: promotes bonding, fosters resilience, promotes social competence, promotes emotional competence, promotes cognitive competence, promotes behavioral competence, promotes moral competence, fosters self-determination, fosters spirituality, fosters self-efficacy, fosters clear and positive identity, fosters belief in the future, provides recognition for positive behavior, provides opportunities for prosocial involvement, fosters prosocial norms.	Catalano, Berglund, et al., 2004, 101
The positive youth development approach aims at understanding, educating, and engaging children in productive activities rather than at correcting, curing, or treating them for maladaptive tendencies or so-called disabilities.	Damon, 2004, 15
This approach is not viewed as replacing the focus on preventing problems, but rather as creating a larger framework that promotes positive outcomes for all young people.	Eccles & Gootman, 2002, 3
Initiative (i.e., related to the capacity for agency or for autonomous action) is a core quality of positive youth development.	Larson, 2000, 170
The five Cs: competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring. A possible sixth C, contribution.	Lerner, Phelps, et al., 2009, 545
All concepts are predicated on the ideas that every young person has the potential for successful, healthy development and that all youth possess the capacity for positive development.	Lerner et al., 2003, 172
Three distinguishing features of youth development approaches: program goals, atmosphere, and activities.	Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a, 97–98

1. As a perspective, PYD emphasizes youths’ strengths and supportive contexts, along with acknowledging bidirectional youth–context interactions (e.g., when youth engage in civic activities, they are reinforced, and the community learns to place greater value on such activities and to encourage more of them).
2. As a construct, PYD is multidimensional and is assessed by multiple measures related to the strengths of youth and the assets in their social environments.
3. PYD programs support youth by focusing on developing their strengths, providing supportive and reinforcing contexts, and presenting opportunities for bidirectional youth–context interactions (e.g., school efforts affect youth and youth, in turn, affect their contexts).

The thoroughness of PYD can be grasped by examining a representative sample of several key literatures. Benson and colleagues, for example, have hypothesized that forty developmental assets are essential for all youth (Benson, 1997, 2007; Benson et al., 2006; Scales, 1999). The list includes both external, environmental, contextual asset types (e.g., support, empowerment, boundaries and expectations, constructive use of time) as well as internal, intrapersonal, individual asset types (e.g., commitment to learning, positive values, social competencies, positive identity). Further, these categories encompass several distinct assets. For instance, among the external asset types, “support” includes family support, positive family communication, other adult relationships, a caring neighborhood, a caring school climate, and parent involvement in schooling. Among the internal asset types, “commitment to learning” incorporates achievement motivation, school engagement, completing homework, bonding to school, and reading for pleasure. These forty assets have been found to affect seven thriving-related outcomes: school success, leadership, valuing diversity, physical health, helping others, delay of gratification, and overcoming adversity (Scales, Benson, Leffert, & Blyth, 2000). More recently, Benson has taken these concepts and written about ways for parents to help youth succeed by igniting their potential, called “sparks” (Benson, 2008).

Benson and colleagues’ efforts coincide with work by the Committee on Community-Level Programs for Youth. Their work has considered personal assets (knowledge of essential life skills, good self-regulation skills) and social assets (connectedness, sense of social place and integration, ability to navigate in different cultural contexts) that facilitate positive youth development (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Community partnerships, such as Children First, have used these concepts, and R. M. Lerner and others (J. V. Lerner et al., 2009; R. M. Lerner, 2005) have discussed the forty assets in their own work.

Richard Lerner and colleagues have sought to examine constructs related to indicators of PYD. They have hypothesized that indicators of PYD are comprised of the five Cs (competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring), and possibly a sixth C, contribution (R. M. Lerner, Almerigi, et al., 2005). The five Cs are derived from work by Roth and Brooks-Gunn (2003b) and are defined as follows (Phelps et al., 2009, p. 573):

1. Competence: Positive view of one’s actions in domain-specific areas including social, academic, cognitive, and vocational. Social competence pertains to interpersonal skills (e.g., conflict resolution). Cognitive competence pertains to cognitive abilities (e.g., decision making). School grades, attendance, and test scores are part of academic competence. Vocational competence involves work habits and career choice explorations.
2. Confidence: An internal sense of overall positive self-worth and self-efficacy; one’s global self-regard, as opposed to domain-specific beliefs.
3. Connection: Positive bonds with people and institutions that are reflected in bidirectional exchanges between the individual and peers, family, school, and community in which both parties contribute to the relationship.
4. Character: Respect for social and cultural rules, possession of standards for correct behaviors, a sense of right and wrong (morality), and integrity.
5. Caring and compassion: A sense of sympathy and empathy for others.

The sixth C, contribution, recognizes that PYD occurs over time (Larson, 2000) and that adult life should ideally include contributions to one’s own health and well-being and to various realms of society (e.g., family, school, neighborhood; R. M. Lerner, 2004).

Other scholars, such as Damon, have echoed related components of PYD and have highlighted constructs such as noble purpose and morality (Damon, 2004, 2010). Noble purpose involves youth moving beyond self-interest (assuming that their basic needs are met) to pursue a purposeful life and engage in actions that strengthen the world around them. Morality involves children’s natural moral sense and the guidance required of caregivers in a supportive context to promote youth to act in a caring and ethical manner as they mature into honorable adults.

These descriptions and constructs, along with work from other like-minded researchers and practitioners (Keyes, 2005; Larson, 2000; Seligman, 2000), have created a vocabulary that shares a common focus on enhancing youth development. The varying terminology reflects the heterogeneity of theory that has contributed to PYD. As research and theory progress, integrative theories may help generate greater consistency across this field.

Underlying and Unifying Theories of Positive Youth Development

By the term underlying, we refer to theories that helped inform the process leading to the conception of PYD. This process includes a myriad of child and human development theories that, along with the study of plasticity and the nature-nurture synthesis, led to the development of systems theories of development (R. M. Lerner, 2006). “Unifying” theories make reference to these systems theories and other metatheories (such as the theory of triadic influence described herein) that are integrative and acknowledge the importance of nature- and nurture-based factors and their interaction. Unifying metatheories, such as developmental systems theory (Ford & Lerner, 1992; J. V. Lerner et al., 2009; R. M. Lerner, 2005), helped inform PYD and were at least part of the impetus for PYD by serving as the basis for the articulation of developmental assets. As Benson stated, “the concept of developmental assets, first posited in 1990 (Benson, 1990), is grounded in the large metatheory known as developmental systems theory (Ford & Lerner, 1992; Gottlieb, 1997)” (Benson, 2007, p. 36). Developmental systems theories include features noting the importance of both biological and environmental factors and the interactions or relationships between them (R. M. Lerner, 2006).

Certain developmental theories, such as attachment theory and social learning theories, have long been influential in developmental research (Cairns & Cairns, 2006). Developmental theory components are included as core concepts in dynamic systems theories that describe the behavior of complex biological and physical systems (Thelen & Smith, 1998). Dynamic systems theories overlap with developmental systems models that acknowledge concepts such as individual and contextual relations and the temporality and relative plasticity of human development (J. V. Lerner et al. 2009; R. M. Lerner, 2005; R. M. Lerner et al., 2009). These theories are similar to bioecological models in that they are evolving theoretical frameworks for the study of human development over time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). They generally propose that by promoting intra- and interpersonal processes and environments, human developmental potential is enhanced (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Simply put, these theories highlight that personal, human relationship, and environmental factors all interact in myriad ways to influence development and outcomes.

As much as we admire well-thought-out theory and recognize its importance, we agree with Baltes and colleagues who explained, “It is important to recognize that present theoretical preferences are in part the direct result of historical contexts of science and cultural scenarios rather than of carefully elaborated theoretical arguments” (Baltes, Lindenberger, & Studinger, 2006, p. 571). Understanding of PYD is also informed by research and program advancement, such as the movement from problem-specific interventions to those that address more distal factors that influence multiple behaviors (Flay, 2000, 2002; Flay et al., 2009; Romer, 2003). Further, practitioners provide additional knowledge through experience on the “front lines” of PYD work. Benson noted that “the articulation of a developmental theory of positive youth development is itself an ongoing and dynamic process emerging several decades after the birthing of positive youth development as a field of practice” (Benson et al., 2006, p. 902). He described in detail a broad and comprehensive theory of PYD that includes theories of human development, context and community influence, and context and community change (Benson et al., 2006).

The Theory of Triadic Influence

Recently, researchers have recommended the theory of triadic influence (TTI; Flay & Petraitis, 1994; Flay et al., 2009) as an integrative, comprehensive theoretical framework with applicability to PYD (Catalano, Gavin, & Markham, 2010). Consistent with the holistic nature of PYD (i.e., considering environments in relation to the whole child; Damon & Gregory, 2003) and the reciprocity between person and context (Benson, 2007), the TTI has the potential to unify and clarify the many concepts of PYD.

Due to the “newness” of the PYD field and related theory, and the multidisciplinary and often comprehensive nature of PYD, there is sometimes inconsistency in what it encompasses across related disciplines. Moreover, an unclear picture arises from the complex puzzle of influences that affect PYD and result in behavior. Therefore, we believe that some new ideas regarding PYD can be derived from the TTI and have implications for prosocial education in general and PYD in particular. The comprehensive, integrative metatheory was developed to organize the scores of factors that influence behavior and to clearly focus one’s view of (1) what causes behaviors and (2) how to effectively promote positive behavior, a key goal of prosocial education and PYD.

The theory was introduced during the time that PYD efforts began to expand in the 1990s. Faced with a complex mass of theories and variables, particularly in the field of substance use, Petraitis, Flay, and Miller (1995) examined the literature and concluded that variables can be organized along two dimensions: the social-ecological streams of influence (i.e., intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cultural-environmental influences) and levels of causation (i.e., ultimate causes, distal influences, and proximal predictors). From these findings, Flay and Petraitis (1994) proposed the TTI (see figure 13.1 for more detail) to acknowledge that a complex “web of causation” (Krieger, 1994) affects behaviors and that these causes can be organized into a cogent framework to provide a structured and testable integrated theory.

Figure 13.1. The theory of triadic influence. Source: Adapted from Flay, Snyder, and Petraitis (2009).

The TTI provides a detailed ecological approach and suggests that distal and ultimate influences on behavior produce larger and sustained effects on PYD. Further, the theory can provide PYD researchers with a detailed theoretical framework to guide research, program design, and evaluation. In fact, the Positive Action program that we discuss herein maps well onto the TTI.

The TTI arranges variables that affect behavior into three levels of causation: ultimate, distal, and proximal. Ultimate-level causes are factors that individuals possess little control over such as cultural practices, mass media, politics, socioeconomic status, school availability, parental values, and their own personality and neurocognitive skills. However, these factors affect multiple behaviors, are the most mediated, and if changed are likely to have the greatest and longest-lasting impact on PYD. Distal-level influences are factors reflecting the relation between individuals and context (social-personal nexus; e.g., general self-concept and self-control, bonding to parents and/or peers, after-school program participation) that persons are likely to have some control over. Another step closer to behavior are evaluations and expectancies, which are general values, behavior-specific evaluations, general knowledge, and specific expectations and beliefs that result from bidirectional individual–contextual influences. Proximal-level predictors are more specific to and more immediate precursors of behavior. Youth wield control over these variables, such as their will and skill (i.e., self-efficacy) to do well in school, although proximal predictors are clearly influenced by the distal and ultimate factors described above. Decisions, intentions, and experiences are thought to directly affect a particular behavior.

Three streams of influence flow through these levels of causation as they affect PYD and influence behavior (see figure 13.1). The intrapersonal stream begins at the ultimate level with relatively stable biological/personality characteristics that in turn influence sense of self and competence (both general and social). These affect self-determination and general skills and converge on self-efficacy regarding a particular behavior, such as completing homework. The interpersonal stream follows a similar flow and begins with ultimate-level variables of the immediate social situation that in turn influence interpersonal bonding and the behaviors of role models such as parents, teachers, neighbors, and peers. The flow then continues through variables that include motivation to comply with or please various role models and perceptions of what behaviors those role models are encouraging. These influences then converge on social normative beliefs, or the perceptions of social pressures to engage in a particular behavior. Lastly, the third stream, the cultural-environmental stream, begins with characteristics of one’s broader culture and environment and flows into variables including the nature of relationships with societal institutions (e.g., governmental, religious), along with the information extracted from the culture, such as knowledge gained from mass media (e.g., that adolescents are typically “troubled,” as they are portrayed in movies). Next, the stream affects variables related to the expected consequences (expectancies) of a behavior (e.g., whether attending class is useful) and values and evaluations of those consequences. Finally, these influences converge on attitudes toward a specific behavior, such as caring for and helping an older neighbor.

In addition to the three main streams, each stream contains two substreams. One substream is more cognitive and rational in nature, and the other is more affective or emotional, controlling in nature and less rational. Therefore, decisions may encompass an affective or emotional component (i.e., hot cognition) as well as a cognitive or rational component (Ariely, 2009). Within the TTI, every stream ends in affective or cognitive factors (self-efficacy, social normative beliefs, and attitudes) that influence the most proximal affective or cognitive predictor of behavior, intentions. The theory recognizes that variables in one path are often mediated by or interact with variables in another path, and engaging in a behavior may have influences that feed back and alter the original causes of the behavior.

Figure 13.2 illustrates that the TTI includes ecological rings and levels of causation. The three streams of influence in the TTI are similar to the rings of influence in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological-systems theory (1979, 1986, 2005); however, the TTI provides explicit detail about levels/tiers of causation within its rings. Figure 13.2 shows that time and development also influence levels of causation, and lower levels of causation often include faster processes. Time and development also influence program results; for example, PYD programs that are effective but not followed up by ongoing supportive contexts will likely have less impact over time. Much like math, reading, and science, youth should not be expected to improve developmentally and permanently gain PYD assets if prosocial skills are only briefly targeted in, for example, a one-month or one-year program.

Figure 13.2. The theory of triadic influence ecological system. Source: Adapted from Flay, Snyder, and Petraitis (2009). Note: Eval = evaluation, Att = attitude toward the behavior, MC = motivation to comply, SNB = social normative beliefs, Know = knowledge, Exp = expectancies.

The TTI helps explain PYD because it is integrative and recognizes interactions (i.e., moderation) and intervening variables (i.e., mediation) in a developmental, ecological framework. The appropriateness of the TTI for PYD-related work becomes even clearer after reviewing PYD-related strategies, characteristics, and outcomes of effective programs, as described in the next section. The theory also helps in understanding why some programs are more effective than others. A more detailed discussion of the TTI and its various applications can be found elsewhere (Flay & Petraitis, 1994; Flay et al., 2009).

Characteristics, Strategies, and Outcomes of Effective Programs

We are beginning to amass a body of literature that demonstrates that PYD-related approaches work. Also, research explicitly describes characteristics of effective PYD-related programs and the successful strategies they employ. However, investigation is still needed to understand why some PYD-related efforts are more effective than others, and we encourage readers to examine whether programs meet criteria for effectiveness (Flay et al., 2005). We caution that evidence-based is not a standardized term and is often used broadly to suggest that a program has some evidence of effectiveness without regard to the quality of the research that produced the results. Further, although more work can be done to guide choices for policy and practice (Granger, 2002), we have gained a better understanding of the beneficial outcomes evinced by PYD-related programming. During the last two decades, various empirical studies and reviews have clarified effective practices and continue to advance the PYD movement (Catalano, Berglund, et al., 2004; Durlak et al., 2007; Gavin, Catalano, David-Ferdon, Gloppen, & Markham, 2010). A broad range of characteristics and strategies exist that overlap PYD and other prosocial areas of research and programming (e.g., SEL, SECD). Moreover, common themes emerge among these areas that lead to successful youth outcomes. These overlaps and common themes exemplify the usefulness of the prosocial education concept to further practice and educational theory building.

Unique Characteristics of PYD Programming

Some program characteristics are included in table 13.1. According to Roth and Brooks-Gunn (2003a), who surveyed U.S. youth development organizations, there are three distinguishing characteristics of youth development programs: program goals, atmosphere, and activities. Most, if not all, prosocial education interventions likely meet Roth and Brooks-Gunn’s defining characteristics. While their sample is not representative of U.S. PYD organizations, and more research is needed regarding PYD organizations, the study does provide insight regarding PYD-related efforts. The researchers identified program goals that included the promotion of development (e.g., social and life skill building, academic improvement, personality development) and the prevention of unhealthy behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, violence, school dropout, gang activity). Programs offered youth-centered approaches that “create and nourish an atmosphere of hope” (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a, p. 97). Program atmospheres were supportive (e.g., relationship-focused activities); empowering (e.g., leadership training, community service); and included expectations for positive behavior (e.g., incentives or rewards). Further, program activities included opportunities for youth to pursue talents and beneficial interests, build skills, and gain a sense of achievement.

Characteristics of PYD efforts coincide with strategies of effective programs explained in recent reviews. For instance, as Catalano and colleagues noted,

themes common to success involved methods to strengthen social, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and moral competencies; build self-efficacy; shape messages from family and community about clear standards for youth behavior; increase healthy bonding with adults, peers, and younger children; expand opportunities and recognition for youth; provide structure and consistency in program delivery; and intervene with youth for at least nine months or longer. (Catalano, Berglund, et al., 2004, p. 114)

The authors explain further that effective programs focused on several PYD constructs, had structured curriculum and activities, and attended to fidelity of implementation. These recommendations are similar to those suggested by other scholars. For example, some have suggested four practices of effective programs (Bond & Hauf, 2004; Dusenbury & Falco, 1995; Gresham, 1995, as cited in Durlak et al. 2011). These include a sequenced step-by-step training approach, incorporating active forms of learning, a focus (and sufficient time) on social and personal skill development, and explicit learning goals, or SAFE practices (for “sequenced, active, focused, and explicit”). Effective strategies have been reiterated in the health behavior literature, and Flay (2002) has noted that programs must ideally (1) address both positive and negative behaviors; (2) be developmentally appropriate; (3) span several years, with carefully designed review, reinforcement, and extension; (4) be culturally sensitive; (5) be school- and classroom-focused, but extend beyond the school; (6) when appropriate, use peers to demonstrate skills and alter norms; (7) include proper training of personnel; (8) actively involve parents; (9) be designed with input from all stakeholders, including students; (10) include school improvement and reorganization components; and (11) incorporate ongoing evaluation at all programming stages.

Not surprisingly, these recommendations echo researchers examining other areas of prosocial education, such as character and moral education. For example, Berkowitz and Bier (2007) concluded that effective programs tend to include professional development for implementation, interactive teaching strategies, direct teaching strategies, family and community involvement, and modeling and mentoring. Many of these strategies are echoed by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL).

These characteristics and strategies clearly relate to program expectations referenced by our integrative theory, the TTI. For example, the comprehensiveness of the TTI explains the limited impact of information-only approaches that only focus on didactic education (i.e., knowledge, in the TTI’s cultural-environmental stream), value-based approaches that frequently focus only on the lower half of the cultural-environmental stream, and even more recent approaches that address the need for social skills and self-efficacy (Botvin, 1990; Botvin, Schinke, & Orlandi, 1995; Flay, 2000; Flay et al., 2009). The TTI clarifies that the most successful PYD-related programs must address all of the streams of influence. For example, programs that incorporate skill-, social-normative-, knowledge-, and value-based components are more likely to enhance social and emotional skills, attitudes, prosocial behaviors, and academic achievement (Durlak et al., 2011). Program effects can also be enhanced if programs and supports exist that address the proximal, distal, and ultimate levels of causation.

Consistent with theory, and as several key research articles have concluded, appropriately designed and implemented programs have demonstrated effects on a variety of outcomes. For instance, Catalano and colleagues (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins 2002) found that effective PYD programs significantly enhanced multiple youth outcomes, including interpersonal skills, quality of adult and peer relationships, self-control, problem-solving abilities, cognitive competencies, self-efficacy, commitment to schooling, and academic performance. Again, not surprisingly, the results of other prosocial programs are similar, such as SEL programs, which have components overlapping with PYD. Results show that programs significantly improved social-emotional skills, attitudes, behavior, and academic achievement, with fewer conduct problems, less aggressive behavior, and less emotional distress (Durlak et al., 2011). Another recent review described beneficial effects of PYD-related programs (e.g., Aban Aya, Abecedarian, the Seattle Social Development Project, the Teen Incentives Program, the Teen Outreach Program) on adolescent sexual and reproductive health (Gavin, Catalano, & Markham, 2010; Gavin et al., 2010).

As demonstrated above and expressed elsewhere (Bernat & Resnick, 2006; Durlak et al., 2007), research as a whole has shown that PYD-related programs can promote development and prevent risk behaviors. Moreover, there is considerable conceptual overlap between youth development and prevention (Benson et al., 2006; Catalano, Hawkins, et al., 2002). As we will explain in the next section, programs can prevent health-compromising behaviors, promote development, and create contextual change by building abilities and competencies.

Exemplar Research and Programming

Growing empirical evidence describes state-of-the-art research on PYD etiology and an array of PYD-related exemplar programs. These numerous programs are discussed in empirical reviews and meta-analyses (e.g., Catalano, Berglund, et al., 2004; Durlak et al., 2007; Gavin et al., 2010). In one PYD review, Catalano, Berglund, and colleagues (2004) described programs such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Life Skills Training, the PATHS Project, the Child Development Project, Fast Track, the Seattle Social Development Project, Across Ages, the Midwestern Prevention Project, and Project Northland. Other resources summarize effective PYD-related programs such as those produced by Child Trends.

As mentioned previously, PYD reviews include programs that were also included in reviews of other areas of prosocial education, such as SEL. There is sometimes no differentiation made between PYD programs and substance use prevention programs (J. V. Lerner et al., 2009). Thus, in this chapter we discuss a program that we have evaluated, Positive Action, and believe is a good example of what a PYD program encompasses and its potential impact. Positive Action serves as an example to highlight best practices and beneficial outcomes, which include an improvement in positive and prosocial behaviors, a simultaneous reduction in unhealthy behaviors, and an improvement in whole-school quality. Additionally, we discuss 4-H and an example of state-of-the-art etiology research, the 4-H Positive Youth Development Study. This etiology research supports the inclusion of both preventive and PYD approaches in programmatic efforts, such as Positive Action. The 4-H PYD study also reports evidence that suggests 4-H participants demonstrate better outcomes as compared to those participating in other out-of-school-time activities.

4-H Study of Positive Youth Development

Through land-grant university extension systems across the United States, 4-H is a PYD organization that involves nearly six million youth and adults in a variety of programs with various curricula and activities related to citizenship, science, and health. For example, 4-H citizenship programs include Citizenship Washington Focus, held in Washington, D.C., and designed to provide youth with skills to engage in civic action through field trips and leadership opportunities. 4-H science programs include curricula on renewable energy and technology; its health-related curricula include activities and training that seek to engage youth in behaviors such as preparing healthy food and participating in physical activity. Overall, 4-H offers programs and hands-on activities intended to enhance the health of youth and society.

As part of the 4-H Study on Positive Youth Development, a cross-sectional (i.e., at one point in time) analysis suggested that tenth-grade youth participating in 4-H programs demonstrated greater academic achievement and engagement in school compared to youth involved in other out-of-school-time activities (R. M. Lerner, Lerner, & colleagues, 2011). In addition, 4-H youth evinced less alcohol and cigarette use, along with lower use of other drugs. The overall goal of the 4-H PYD study and its strength, however, is to understand the processes involved in PYD (R. M. Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005), not the effects of any one particular program.

The 4-H Study of PYD was an ambitious endeavor to gain a greater understanding of what PYD is and what fosters a healthy developmental trajectory toward an adulthood full of contributions to self, family, community, and civil society. Participant recruitment for the study began in 2002 and included 1,700 diverse adolescents and their parents located in thirteen states (R. M. Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005; Schwartz et al., 2010). The study used a longitudinal sequential design (i.e., new groups of participants were added over time), and through wave 6 (grades 5 to 10) data were collected from 6,450 adolescents from forty-five states (R. M. Lerner et al., 2011). Adolescents in the study sample took part in numerous after-school activities, not only 4-H (R. M. Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005). A list of publications with detailed information regarding the 4-H study is available from the Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development website (see “For More Information” section at the end of this chapter). Although the study is largely observational, its longitudinal perspective provides a good example of cutting-edge research related to PYD etiology. A brief highlight from a few of the many studies related to this project illustrates our point.

Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study demonstrated that PYD was comprised of components representing the five Cs (R. M. Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005). The results provided support for the relationship between PYD and the five Cs as well as the sixth C, contribution. More recently, Bowers and colleagues (2010), using longitudinal data from students in grades 8 through 10, concluded that the five-C model demonstrated measurement invariance and thus suggested that PYD can be measured similarly across these age groups. In a study examining the trajectories of positive (e.g., PYD, contribution) and negative outcomes (e.g., depressive symptoms, risk behaviors), Lewin-Bizan and colleagues (2010) found that, from fifth through tenth grade, youth fit into groups that demonstrated several trajectories (i.e., patterns of intraindividual change; for example, PYD scores across grade levels) and most often followed a high trajectory of positive outcomes and a low trajectory of negative ones. Youth in the high-trajectory group were most likely to be in a decreasing risk behavior group and low depressive symptoms group. Another study (Schwartz et al., 2010) found evidence that PYD acts as a protective mechanism against alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use, along with unsafe sexual behavior. The researchers concluded that the results support the integration of prevention science and PYD perspectives. Overall, the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development has provided, and continues to provide, a greater understanding of PYD etiology and how PYD relates to risk reduction.

Positive Action

The Positive Action (PA) program is a comprehensive, schoolwide PYD program designed to affect youth development in multiple affective, cognitive, and behavioral domains and create whole-school contextual change in order to reduce such problem behaviors as substance use and improve school performance. The student-focused component of the program is grounded in a broad theory of self-concept (DuBois, Flay, & Fagen, 2009; Purkey, 1970; Purkey & Novak, 1970), and the whole program is consistent with integrative, ecological theories such as the TTI (Flay & Allred, 2010).

The full PA program includes K–12 classroom curricula (consisting of almost daily fifteen- to twenty-minute lessons), a schoolwide climate development component, and family- and community-involvement components. The sequenced curricula contain teacher-friendly, scripted lessons that use a range of teaching methodologies to address different learning styles. For example, interaction between student and teacher is enhanced through structured discussions, and interaction between students is encouraged through small-group activities including games, role-plays, and practice of skills. Each grade-specific curriculum consists of 140 lessons covering six major units on topics related to self-concept (the relationship of thoughts, feelings, and actions); physical and intellectual actions (nutrition, physical activity, learning skills, decision-making skills, creative thinking); social-emotional actions for managing oneself responsibly (self-control, time management); getting along with others (empathy, altruism, respect, conflict resolution); being honest with yourself and others (self-honesty, integrity, self-appraisal); and continuous self-improvement (goal setting, problem solving, persistence). The total time students are exposed to the fully implemented program during a thirty-five-week academic year is around thirty-five hours.

The schoolwide climate development kit includes materials and activities (such as posters and school assemblies) to encourage and reinforce the six units of PA. School leaders and other personnel are involved in coordinating schoolwide implementation of the program. The family and community involvement components provide additional support and reinforcement of the PA units. For example, when the PA program is fully implemented, parents receive PA materials to guide activities in the home and a PA committee is formed to involve community stakeholders.

Both quasi-experimental and experimental trials demonstrate that PA can improve a variety of student- and school-level outcomes and that the program can prevent risk behaviors and enhance positive behaviors and development, concomitantly. Additionally, the program has been shown to create whole-school contextual change and improve school quality.

Specifically, the program has been shown to increase academic performance and decrease undesirable outcomes such as suspensions (Flay & Allred, 2003; Flay, Allred, & Ordway, 2001; Snyder et al., 2010). Snyder and colleagues (2010) utilized archival school-level data collected by the Hawai’i Department of Education to find that PA schools in a randomized trial demonstrated significantly improved standardized test scores in reading and math. At baseline, PA schools were below state averages in academic performance, and at posttest, they met or exceeded state averages. PA schools also reported lower absenteeism and fewer suspensions and retentions compared to control schools.

Other outcomes related to positive development have been examined. Washburn and colleagues (in press) examined the effects of PA on student-level positive behaviors associated with character. Utilizing data from three randomized trials (a Hawai’i trial, a Chicago trial, and a smaller trial in a southeastern state), results demonstrated that elementary-aged students in PA program and control schools showed a general decline in the number of positive behaviors associated with character across time (4 years in Hawai’i; 2.5 years in Chicago; 3 years in the southeastern state), with the PA program mitigating this decline.

The effect of the PA program on unhealthy behaviors has also been investigated. Utilizing data from the PA randomized trial in Hawai’i, Beets and colleagues (2009) found that 10 percent of fifth-grade PA students and 19 percent of control-school students had ever consumed alcohol. Less than 11 percent of fifth-grade students reported having ever engaged in behaviors related to extreme violence or voluntary sexual activity, but results showed significantly lower rates of substance use, violent behaviors, and voluntary sexual activity among students receiving the PA program compared to control school students. With data from the PA randomized trial in Chicago, Li and colleagues (2011) found that nearly one-third of fifth-grade students reported using at least one substance and engaging in at least one violent behavior, but students attending PA program schools had significantly less substance use and violent behavior compared to control school students. Overall, the studies found that the PA program reduced unhealthy behaviors even though limited or no instructional time was devoted to negative behaviors. Although substance use and violence-related behaviors (harassment, bullying, fighting, etc.) are mentioned, they are not the main focus anywhere in the curricula and are used only as example behaviors (sexual activity is never mentioned).

More recently, studies have examined mediational models whereby positive behaviors mediated the effects of the PA program on unhealthy behaviors. That is, positive development was promoted, and in the same model, risky behaviors were reduced. Snyder and colleagues (2011), using data from the Hawai’i trial, found that program effects on positive academic behavior (e.g., work hard in school, set goals, manage time wisely, try to be one’s best, solve problems well) mediated the effects of PA on reducing substance use, violent behaviors, and sexual activity. In another study using longitudinal data from the Chicago study, Lewis and colleagues (2011) demonstrated that program effects on youths’ general character (defined as prosocial interaction, honesty, self-development, self-control, respect for teacher, respect for parent; DuBois, Ji, Flay, Day, & Silverthorn, 2010; Ji, DuBois, & Flay, 2011) mediated the program effects on substance use. That is, students attending PA schools showed significantly better change in general character than students attending control schools, and general character, in turn, mediated the program’s effects on reducing substance use. These results, in total, confirm the model underlying the PYD approach.

Regarding whole-school contextual change, a recent study (Snyder et al., in press), using school-level data collected by the Hawai’i Department of Education as part of its School Quality Survey (and independently of the evaluation of PA), showed that PA schools demonstrated improved overall school quality compared to control schools. Program schools, compared to controls, also evinced improvement on individual indicators of school quality such as school safety and well-being and student, teacher, and parent involvement. Notably, by one year posttrial, PA schools outperformed control schools and state averages on school quality. Emerging evidence continues to support the concepts that PYD-related programming can indeed improve youths’ contexts and have both promotive (of positive development) and preventive (of problem behaviors) effects.

Positive Youth Development Policy

We agree with others who have suggested that “promoting healthy youth development through programmatic means must be coupled with policy-based approaches that address the broader social determinants of health” (Bernat & Resnick, 2006, p. S14). This is evident by a quick glance at the TTI in figure 13.1. Most, if not all, policy is related to health, and policy in general is linked to PYD in some way. PYD-related policy extends beyond the educational landscape. Schools and the educational system play a role, but youth also spend time in homes and neighborhoods interacting with family, peers, and neighbors, and they are exposed to mass media. Although an in-depth discussion of many PYD-related policies is beyond the scope of this chapter, here we briefly focus on examples of U.S. federal policy and federally funded programs related to PYD and socioeconomic status. Similar to a PYD perspective, policy and program strengths and beneficial outcomes are highlighted.

Policies related to increasing the economic well-being of families play a vital role in PYD. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), for instance, is one strategy responsible for lifting over four million families above the federal poverty line and increasing employment (Holtz, Mullin, & Scholz, 2001). Family-directed, in-kind support is another strategy used to increase resources for families. Strategies that are classified in this category include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP; formally known as the Food Stamp Program); the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the National School Lunch Program; the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP); and housing assistance programs. Many of these strategies have repeatedly been associated with improved development and health outcomes in youth. For example, WIC has been associated with a range of positive health outcomes, including improved cognitive abilities among youth (Gershoff, Aber, & Raver, 2003).

Other programs, such as Head Start and Early Head Start, include an assortment of health services for young children. In a review of Head Start research, Barnett and Hustedt (2005) reported generally positive evidence supporting the long-term benefits of Head Start. Relatedly, the Early Head Start program (Robinson & Fitzgerald, 2002) has been implemented and is designed to influence four related outcomes: child development (e.g., cognitive and social development), family development (e.g., parenting practices), staff development (e.g., training), and community development (e.g., family support services). Although there is a need for more rigorous research and evaluation of these strategies, evidence has indicated that Early Head Start has a positive influence on parents and their children, with mothers found to be more supportive and children demonstrating greater cognitive development as compared to children not enrolled (Gershoff et al., 2003).

Not only are these aforementioned policies and strategies good for the families and youth directly involved, but research demonstrates that greater equality makes societies stronger and is better for the health and well-being of everyone (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010). Actualizing positive health and developmental outcomes largely depends upon policy, and although investing in youth can have a positive financial return (Newman, Smith, & Murphy, 2001), U.S. society in general has yet to make PYD a high priority. The PYD perspective and research clearly show the need to move away from an approach that attempts to fix problems (i.e., depression, substance abuse, school dropout), to one that focuses on youth development and primary prevention, a key point of the prosocial approach of this handbook. Overall, it is also important to note that programming efforts will be maximized across the life span if policy supports PYD, another point of this handbook’s focus.

Implications for Prosocial Education

Educators, researchers, policy makers, and the public can benefit by acknowledging the components of PYD and supporting effective PYD strategies and programs. In particular, PYD research has generated, and continues to generate, knowledge about specific youth and context strengths/assets. In this chapter we have sought to provide clarity by highlighting three key components of PYD programs: (1) a focus on youth strengths/assets and potential for positive individual development, (2) the value of supportive (asset-rich) contexts, and (3) bidirectional interactions between person and context. The implication of this is that a comprehensive PYD program by our definition includes three characteristics: (1) curricula to teach students prosocial and emotional skills and develop their intrapersonal strengths/assets; (2) activities to enrich environments (schools, families, and community) to support and reinforce the use of skills and positive behaviors by youth; and (3) activities to encourage the bidirectional influence of intrapersonal and environmental assets. Because of the relative newness of PYD, its efforts go beyond the origins of some other types of prosocial education; for example, character education, because of its far-reaching roots, was historically didactic (Berkowitz & Bier, 2004; Park & Peterson, 2009), although this is now changing. Areas of prosocial education overlap with PYD if they include a focus on youth strengths, comprehensive and integrative components, or acknowledgment of bidirectional interactions. Similar to other successful prosocial education and health promotion efforts, it is likely that the most effective approaches to PYD will include behavioral and contextual change strategies from the multiple causal levels and six substreams included in the TTI (Flay, Snyder, et al., 2009).

Although it is often difficult and frustrating to sift through the PYD-related programs without evaluation data, rigorously evaluated PYD-related programs exist and have demonstrated encouraging results on a wide array of outcomes (Catalano, Berglund, et al., 2004). Program evaluations (using randomized trials) and PYD etiology research have suggested the integration of promotive and preventive approaches. Our research with the Positive Action program suggests that focusing mainly on PYD (increasing strengths/assets/positive behaviors) can also reduce unhealthy behaviors among youth (Flay et al., 2003).

Even with the promising results of evidence-based programs, “one program, even an extraordinarily good program, cannot do it all” (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a, p. 97). Each effective programming effort plays a role, and a variety of evidence-based strategies should be implemented that meet the demands of diverse youth (Komro et al., 2011). Further, strategies need to be broader (i.e., address sociocultural influences), with sustained efforts and policy supports for long-lasting effects. Regarding sociocultural influences, more can be done by, for instance, increasing positive portrayals of youth in film media, highlighting positive youth outcomes in the news, training students to be peer advocates, creating more opportunities for community service and service abroad, offering only healthy foods at schools, changing food policy to make fresh fruits and vegetables more affordable as compared to processed and fast food, and providing youth with access to clean, safe outdoor spaces (e.g., community gardens, parks, natural areas).

Limitations

Positive youth development is comprehensive, and comprehensiveness often entails complexity. Researchers are beginning to understand the multidimensionality of PYD; however, more work is needed. Not only is PYD challenging to measure, but PYD indicators may also change across childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood. Further, although multidisciplinary work has the potential for innovation, this relatively new and multidisciplinary field is rife with overlap with other areas of prosocial education, which can make uniquely defining and understanding PYD a challenge. In many ways it appears everyone has their own unique insight regarding what PYD is and what strategies it includes. However, after a careful review of the empirical literature, several lucid themes emerge, including a focus on youth strengths/assets, the importance of supportive environments, and bidirectional youth–context interactions.

Conclusions and Future Directions

Progress has been made in the last couple of decades toward expressing a positive view of youth development, and more research and practice will occur in the future. There will likely be growth in some PYD-related areas, such as positive psychology, while other related areas will perhaps merge together, such as SEL and SECD. Recognizing the challenges of research extending across numerous disciplines and many programs, an increased effort toward generating consistency should be made. Ideally, over time, with persistent effort, research and practice will form a more uniform terminology and approach. Consistency in theoretical understanding is one way of achieving this. Theory, when empirically tested and validated, can bring together various fields by building a common foundation on which to understand phenomena. Interconnected with a need for theory, there is a need for advancing PYD-specific measurement models to help define and delineate constructs included in PYD.

Prosocial education has much to gain by embracing a PYD perspective, which acknowledges that youth have strengths and that context matters. Indeed, public-health research shows the importance of contextual and social determinants of health (Marmot & Bell, 2009; Woolf, 2009). Overall, there is vast potential for the prosocial education focus of PYD to help answer some of the vexing questions surrounding education. For instance, PYD-related work has answered questions related to how youth are motivated and challenged to succeed and move toward a healthy adulthood: youth can be engaged in positive, meaningful activities and relationships (Larson, 2000, 2006). There is, however, more work that is needed to gain a better understanding of PYD and its influences.

To help advise and advance theory, and to understand why some PYD-related efforts are more effective than others, further research is needed related to mediation and moderation analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon & Fairchild, 2009). This will help add to the limited PYD literature consistent with theory and, further, will help in the development of PYD-specific theory (Benson et al., 2006). Methodological and statistical advances (Hayes, 2009; MacKinnon, 2008; Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010) have potential to improve youth development by helping to identify how to prevent risky behaviors and promote healthy behaviors. Moreover, a better understanding of program effects can be gained. Ideally, to reduce Type I error, analysis should include comprehensive models that examine many components of a program in one theoretically justified model.

Relatedly, more research is needed to examine how positive behaviors can lead to a reduction in negative ones under differing circumstances. Evidence herein shows that a program can promote positive development and, at the same time, reduce risky behaviors; however, more work is required to better understand the complexity of this effect. For instance, does this effect occur differently for varying ages and cultures, and how can PYD be optimally integrated with risk prevention in, for example, unsafe sex prevention? Are there certain situations and contexts where increasing positive behaviors will lead to a more sustained reduction in negative behaviors? On a related note, more research is required to better understand the bidirectional nature of PYD (Benson et al., 2006; J. V. Lerner et al., 2009). For example, how do school/community efforts affect youth, and how do youth in turn affect their contexts? This calls for more longitudinal research and rigorous quasi-experimental and experimental designs.

Increased efforts could also be made examining the effect of PYD on additional behavioral outcomes, such as dietary behaviors and physical activity. Given the promising results of PYD-related programs described herein, it is likely these programs (perhaps modified) can affect behavioral outcomes that have not been examined to date. To help predict and understand the potential of a program’s impact, prosocial education practitioners can refer to theory. Theory can help understand if, for example, a program will likely be behavior specific or influence multiple behaviors (Flay, Snyder, et al., 2009). Theory also helps in understanding the limits of program impacts if there are not auxiliary supports (interpersonal, environmental, or cultural, for example) in place to enhance outcomes across time.

Additionally, although some work has been done specifically with PYD among diverse youth (Lerner, Taylor, & von Eye, 2002), more cross-cultural work is needed. Further, more can be uncovered about PYD programming and etiology across ages. This includes examining the importance of PYD before a child is conceived, across gestation, through young adulthood, and into adulthood and old age.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it is essential to determine which programs are effective and ready for broad dissemination (Flay et al., 2005). Many evidence-based programs exist, yet ineffective (even iatrogenic) programs continue to be implemented. Both PYD programs and other related efforts should be backed by objective data that demonstrate their positive impact; otherwise, limited resources are wasted.

To reiterate, a PYD approach seeks to instill in youth and adults the belief that humans are born with vast potential, and youth are not problems to be managed. Unhealthy development and behaviors are not inexorable, but instead, with healthy personal strengths in a supportive, asset-rich context, youth can develop positively and be more likely to have bright futures full of satisfaction, health, happiness, and contribution. This is the PYD perspective.

For More Information

Child Trends: http://www.childtrends.org

Children First: http://www.children-first.org

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL): http://casel.org

4-H: http://www.4-h.org

Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development, Tufts University: http://ase.tufts.edu/iaryd/default.htm

Positive Action (PA) program: http://www.positiveaction.net

References

Ariely, D. (2009). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: HarperCollins.

Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Studinger, U. (2006). Life span theory in developmental psychology. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 569–664). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Barnett, W. S., & Hustedt, J. T. (2005). Head Start’s lasting benefits. Infants & Young Children, 18(1), 16–24.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, D., Solomon, D., & Lewis, C. (2000). Effects of the child development project on students’ drug use and other problem behaviors. Journal of Primary Prevention, 21(1), 75–99.

Beets, M. W., Flay, B. R., Vuchinich, S., Snyder, F. J., Acock, A., Li, K.-K., et al. (2009). Use of a social and character development program to prevent substance use, violent behaviors, and sexual activity among elementary-school students in Hawaii. American Journal of Public Health, 99(8), 1438–1445.

Benson, P. L. (1990). The troubled journey: A portrait of 6th–12th grade youth. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Benson, P. L. (2003). Developmental assets and asset-building community: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In R. M. Lerner & P. L. Benson (Eds.), Developmental assets and asset-building communities: Implications for research, policy, and practice (pp. 19–43). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Benson, P. L. (2007). Developmental assets: An overview of theory, research, and practice. In R. K. Silbereisen & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Approaches to positive youth development (pp. 33–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Benson, P. L. (2008). Sparks: How parents can help ignite the hidden strengths of teenagers. San Fransicso: Jossey-Bass.

Benson, P. L., & Pittman, K. (2001). Moving the youth development message: Turning a vague idea into a moral imperative. In P. L. Benson & K. J. Pittman (Eds.), Trends in youth development: Visions, realities, and challenges (pp. vii–xii). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma, A. (2006). Positive youth development: Theory, research, and applications. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 894–941). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2004). Research-based character education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 72.

Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2007). What works in character education. Journal of Research in Character Education, 5(1), 29–48.

Bernat, D. H., & Resnick, M. D. (2006). Healthy youth development: Science and strategies. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 12(Suppl. 6), S10–S16.

Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Foster, E. M., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E., et al. (2004). The effects of the Fast Track program on serious problem outcomes at the end of elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(4), 650–661.

Biglan, A., Brennan, P. A., Foster, S. L., & Holder, H. D. (2004). Helping adolescents at risk: Prevention of multiple problem behaviors. New York: Guilford.

Bond, L. A., & Hauf, A. M. C. (2004). Taking stock and putting stock in primary prevention: Characteristics of effective programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(3), 199–221.

Botvin, G. J. (1990). Substance abuse prevention: Theory, practice, and effectiveness. Crime & Justice, 13, 461–519.

Botvin, G. J., Schinke, S., & Orlandi, M. A. (1995). School-based health promotion: Substance abuse and sexual behavior. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 4(3), 167–184.

Bowers, E. P., Li, Y., Kiely, M. K., Brittian, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). The five Cs model of positive youth development: A longitudinal analysis of confirmatory factor structure and measurement invariance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(7), 720–735.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human Development: Research Perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (2006). The making of developmental psychology. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 89–165). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5(1). doi:10.1037/1522-3736.5.1.515a

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 98–124.

Catalano, R. F., Gavin, L. E., & Markham, C. M. (2010). Future directions for positive youth development as a strategy to promote adolescent sexual and reproductive health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(3 Suppl.), S92–S96.

Catalano, R. F., Hawkins, J. D., Berglund, M. L., Pollard, J. A., & Arthur, M. W. (2002). Prevention science and positive youth development: Competitive or cooperative frameworks? Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6 Suppl.), 230–239.

Catalano, R. F., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the Social Development Research Group. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252–261.

Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 13–24.

Damon, W. (2010, February). Meeting students where they are: The bridge to character. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 36–39.

Damon, W., & Gregory, A. (2003). Bringing in a new era in the field of youth development. In R. Lerner, F. Jacobs, & D. Wertlieb (Eds.), Handbook of applied developmental science (pp. 407–420). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. M. (1993). Structure of health-enhancing behavior in adolescence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34, 346–362.

DuBois, D. L., Flay, B. R., & Fagen, M. C. (2009). Self-esteem enhancement theory: An emerging framework for promoting health across the life-span. In R. J. DiClemente, M. C. Kegler, & R. A. Crosby (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (pp. 97–130). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DuBois, D. L., Ji, P., Flay, B. R., Day, J., & Silverthorn, N. (2010, June). Further validation of the youth social and character development scale. Poster Session presented at the fifth annual conference of the Institute of Educational Sciences Research, National Harbor, MD.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.

Durlak, J. A., Taylor, R. D., Kawashima, K., Pachan, M. K., DuPre, E. P., Celio, C. I., et al. (2007). Effects of positive youth development programs on school, family, and community systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3), 269–286.

Dusenbury, L., & Falco, M. (1995). Eleven components of effective drug abuse prevention curricula. Journal of School Health, 65(10), 420–425.

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Elias, M. J. (2009). Social-emotional and character development and academics as a dual focus of educational policy. Educational Policy, 23(6), 831–846.

Flay, B. R. (2000). Approaches to substance use prevention utilizing school curriculum plus social environment change. Addictive Behaviors, 25(6), 861–885.

Flay, B. R. (2002). Positive youth development requires comprehensive health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26(6), 407–424.

Flay, B. R., & Allred, C. G. (2003). Long-term effects of the Positive Action program. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(Suppl. 1), S6–S21.

Flay, B. R., & Allred, C. G. (2010). The Positive Action program: Improving academics, behavior and character by teaching comprehensive skills for successful learning and living. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, & N. Clement (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing (pp. 471–501). New York: Springer.

Flay, B. R., Allred, C. G., & Ordway, N. (2001). Effects of the Positive Action program on achievement and discipline: Two matched-control comparisons. Prevention Science, 2(2), 71–89.

Flay, B., Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2009). Elementary school-based programs theorized to support social development, prevent violence, and promote positive school climate: Description and hypothesized mechanisms of change. Journal of Research in Character Education, 7(2), 21–49.

Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., et al. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175.

Flay, B. R., Graumlich, S., Segawa, E., Burns, J. L. & Holliday, M. Y. (2004). Effects of 2 prevention programs on high-risk behaviors among African American youth: A randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(4), 377–384.

Flay, B. R., & Petraitis, J. (1994). The theory of triadic influence: A new theory of health behavior with implications for preventive interventions. Advances in Medical Sociology, 4, 19–44.

Flay, B. R., Snyder, F. J., & Petraitis, J. (2009). The theory of triadic influence. In R. J. DiClemente, R. A. Crosby, & M. C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (pp. 451–510). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., Mazza, J. J., & Gruman, D. H. (2005). Do social and behavioral characteristics targeted by preventive interventions predict standardized test scores and grades? Journal of School Health, 75(9), 342–349.

Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gavin, L. E., Catalano, R. F., David-Ferdon, C., Gloppen, K. M., & Markham, C. M. (2010). A review of positive youth development programs that promote adolescent sexual and reproductive health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(3 Suppl.), S75–S91.

Gavin, L. E., Catalano, R. F., & Markham, C. M. (2010). Positive youth development as a strategy to promote adolescent sexual and reproductive health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(3 Suppl.), S1–S6.

Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L., & Raver, C. C. (2003). Child poverty in the United States: An evidence-based conceptual framework for programs and policies. In R. M. Lerner, F. Jacobs, & D. Wertlieb (Eds.), Handbook of applied developmental science (pp. 81–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gottlieb, G. (1997). Synthesizing nature-nurture: Prenatal roots of instinctive behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Granger, R. C. (2002). Creating the conditions linked to positive youth development. New Directions for Youth Development 95, 149–164.

Haegerich, T. M., & Metz, E. (2009). The social and character development research program: Development, goals, and opportunities. Journal of Research in Character Education, 7(2), 1–20.

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153(3), 226–234.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.

Holtz, V. J., Mullin, C., & Scholz, J. K. (2001). The earned income tax credit and labor market participation of families on welfare (Joint Center for Poverty Research Working Paper). Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.

Ji, P., DuBois, D. L., & Flay, B. R. (2011). Child character and social development scale: Development and initial validation with elementary school students. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental health and/or mental illness? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 539–548.

Komro, K. A., Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., & Promise Neighborhoods Research Consortium. (2011). Creating nurturing environments: A science-based framework for promoting child health and development within high-poverty neighborhoods. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10567-011-0095-2

Krieger, N. (1994). Epidemiology and the web of causation: Has anyone seen the spider? Social Science & Medicine, 39(7), 887–903.

Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55(1), 170–183.

Larson, R. W. (2006). Positive youth development, willful adolescents, and mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 677–689.

Lerner, J. V., Phelps, E., Forman, Y., & Bowers, E. P. (2009). Positive youth development. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 524–558). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lerner, R. M. (1995). Developing individuals within changing contexts: Implications of developmental contextualism for human development research, policy, and programs. In T. A. Kinderman & J. Valsinar (Eds.), Development of person-context relations (pp. 227–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lerner, R. M. (2004). Diversity in individual–context relations as the basis for positive development across the life span: A developmental systems perspective for theory, research, and application. Research in Human Development, 1(4), 327–346.

Lerner, R. M. (2005). Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. White paper prepared for the Workshop on the Science of Adolescent Health and Development, National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies of Science.

Lerner, R. M. (2006). Developmental science, developmental systems, and contemporary theories of human development. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 1–17). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lerner, R. M., Abo-Zena, M. M., Bebiroglu, N., Brittian, A., Lynch, A. D., & Issac, S. S. (2009). Positive youth development: Contemporary theoretical perspectives. In R. J. DiClemente, J. S. Santelli, & R. A. Crosby (Eds.), Adolescent health: Understanding and preventing risk behaviors (pp. 115–128). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005). Positive youth development: A view of the issues. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10–16.

Lerner, R. M., Brentano, C., Dowling, E. M., & Anderson, P. M. (2002). Positive youth development: Thriving as the basis of personhood and civil society. In R. M. Lerner, C. S. Taylor, & A. von Eye (Eds.), New directions for youth development: Pathways to positive development among diverse youth (pp. 11–33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lerner, R. M., Dowling, E. M., & Anderson, P. M. (2003). Positive youth development: Thriving as the basis of personhood and civil society. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 172–180.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & colleagues. (2011). Waves of the future 2009: Report of the findings from the first six years of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Medford, MA: Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development, Tufts University.

Lerner, R. M., Taylor, C. S., & von Eye, A. (2002). New direction for youth development: Pathways to positive development among diverse youth (G. G. Noam, Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lerner, R. M., von Eye, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lewin-Bizan, S. (2009). Exploring the foundations and functions of adolescent thriving within the 4-H study of positive youth development: A view of the issues. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 567–570.

Lewin-Bizan, S., Lynch, A. D., Fay, K., Schmid, K., McPherran, C., Lerner, J. V., et al. (2010). Trajectories of positive and negative behaviors from early- to middle-adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(7), 751–763.

Lewis, K. M., Bavarian, B., Snyder, F. J., Acock, A., DuBois, D. L., Ji, P., et al. (2011). Direct and mediated effects of a social-emotional and character development program on adolescent substance use. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Li, K.-K., Washburn, I., DuBois, D. L., Vuchinich, S., Brechling, V., Day, J., et al. (2011). Effects of the Positive Action programme on problem behaviors in elementary school students: A matched-pair randomised control trial in Chicago. Psychology & Health, 26(2), 179–204. doi:10.1080/08870446.2011.531574

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Erlbaum.

MacKinnon, D. P., & Fairchild, A. J. (2009). Current directions in mediation analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 16–20.

Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 1–23.

Marmot, M., & Bell, R. (2009). Action on health disparities in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301(11), 1169–1171.

Nelson, C. A. (1999). Neural plasticity and human development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(2), 42–45.

Newman, R. P., Smith, S. M., & Murphy, R. (2001). A matter of money: The cost and financing of youth development. In P. L. Benson & K. J. Pittman (Eds.), Trends in youth development: Visions, realities and challenges (pp. 91–134). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

O’Connell, M. E., Boat, T., & Warner, K. E. (Eds.). (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Strengths of character in schools. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 65–76). New York: Routledge.

Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Graczyk, P. A., Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental health and reducing risk behaviors in children and youth. Journal of School Health, 70(5), 179–185.

Pentz, M. A., Dwyer, J. H., MacKinnon, D. P., Flay, B. R., Hansen, W. B., Wang, E. Y. I., et al. (1989). A multicommunity trial for primary prevention of adolescent drug abuse. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 261(22), 3259–3266.

Petraitis, J., Flay, B. R., & Miller, T. (1995). Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 67–86.

Phelps, E., Zimmerman, S., Warren, A. E. A., Jeličić, H., von Eye, A., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). The structure and developmental course of positive youth development (PYD) in early adolescence: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 571–584.

Purkey, W. W. (1970). Self-concept and school achievement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. (1970). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching and learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Riggs, N. R., Greenberg, M. T., Kusché, C. A., & Pentz, M. A. (2006). The mediational role of neurocognition in the behavioral outcomes of a social-emotional prevention program in elementary school students: Effects of the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science, 7(1), 91–102.

Robinson, J. L., & Fitzgerald, H. K. (2002). Early Head Start: Investigations, insights, and promise. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23(1–2), 250–257.

Romer, D. (2003). Reducing adolescent risk: Toward an integrated approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003a). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7(2), 94–111.

Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003b). What is a youth development program? Identificaton and defining principles. In F. Jacobs, D. Wertlieb, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of applied developmental science: Promoting positive child, adolescent, and family development through research, policies, and programs (Vol. 2, pp. 197–223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scales, P. C. (1999). Reducing risks and building developmental assets: Essential actions for promoting adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 69(3), 113–119.

Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. A. (2000). Contribution of developmental assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4(1), 27–46.

Schwartz, S. J., Phelps, E., Lerner, J. V., Huang, S., Brown, C. H., Lewin-Bizan, S., et al. (2010). Promotion as prevention: Positive youth development as protective against tobacco, alcohol, illicit drug, and sex initiation. Applied Developmental Science, 14(4), 197–211.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2000). Positive psychology. In J. E. Gillham (Ed.), The science of optimism and hope: Research essays in honor of Martin E. P. Seligman (pp. 415–429). Randor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Settersten, R., & Ray, B. E. (2010). Not quite adults: Why 20-somethings are choosing a slower path to adulthood, and why it’s good for everyone. New York: Random House.

Snyder, F. J., Acock, A. C., Vuchinich, S., Beets, M. W., Washburn, I. J., & Flay, B. R. (2011). Preventing negative behaviors among elementary-school students through enhancing students’ social-emotional and character development. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Snyder, F., Flay, B., Vuchinich, S., Acock, A., Washburn, I., Beets, M., et al. (2010). Impact of a social-emotional and character development program on school-level indicators of academic achievement, absenteeism, and disciplinary outcomes: A matched-pair, cluster-randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(1), 26–55.

Snyder, F. J., Vuchinich, S., Acock, A., Washburn, I. J., & Flay, B. R. (in press). Improving elementary-school quality through the use of a social-emotional and character development program: A matched-pair, cluster-randomized, controlled trial in Hawai’i. Journal of School Health, 82(1), 11–20.

Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1998). Dynamic system theories. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psycology (pp. 563–634). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Washburn, I. J., Acock, A., Vuchinich, S., Snyder, F., Li, K.-K., Ji, P., et al. (in press). Effects of a social-emotional and character development program on the trajectory of behaviors associated with social-emotional and character development: Findings from three randomized trials. Prevention Science, 12(3), 314–323.

Weissberg, R. P., & O’Brien, M. U. (2004). What works in school-based social and emotional learning programs for positive youth development. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 86–97.

Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 357–364.

Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Woolf, S. H. (2009). Social policy and health policy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 11, 1166–1169.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.