Conceptualisations of PYD

Previous investigations have adopted different conceptualisations of PYD. Although initial work on PYD examined unidimensional constructs of adolescent thriving, such as initiative (Larson, Reference Larson2000), resilience (Masten, Reference Masten2007), and purpose (Damon, Reference Damon2008), more contemporary studies have developed multidimensional paradigms. For example, Lerner and colleagues (Reference Lerner, Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, Phelps, Gestsdottir, Naudeau, Jeličić, Alberts, Ma, Smith, Bobek, Richman-Raphael, Simpson, Christiansen and von Eye2005) have conceptualised PYD using five interrelated dimensions termed Five Cs (i.e., competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring). Benson and colleagues (Reference Benson, Scales, Hamilton and Sesma2006), on the other hand, proposed the developmental assets framework, which operationalised PYD as a consequence of optimal adolescent-environment interaction covering 40 internal (e.g., positive identity) and external (e.g., empowerment) resources.

Meanwhile, practitioners have designed PYD paradigms for specific programs in the United States (US), such as the Four Hs of the Targeting Life Skills Model (Hendricks, Reference Hendricks1998), the Community Action Framework for Youth Development (Gambone et al., Reference Gambone, Klem and Connell2002), and the Four Essential Elements of PYD (Kress, Reference Kress2004). In the field of social work, Catalano et al. (Reference Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak and Hawkins2004) identified 15 PYD constructs, which were based on their extensive review of PYD programs in the US. Shek and colleagues (Shek, Sun, Chui et al., 2012; Shek, Sun, & Merrick, 2012; Shek et al., Reference Shek, Dou, Zhu and Chai2019) adopted this framework to develop PYD programs for adolescents in Hong Kong and mainland China.

Of all the existing PYD frameworks, the Five Cs model has been the most empirically supported framework in research and in practice (Burkhard et al., Reference Burkhard, Robinson, Murray and Lerner2020; Heck & Subramaniam, Reference Heck and Subramaniam2009). Nevertheless, studies have mostly concentrated on how this model functions in Western contexts involving white, middle-class and female adolescents in the US (Bowers et al., Reference Bowers, Li, Kiely, Brittian, Lerner and Lerner2010; Geldhof, Bowers, Boyd et al., 2014; Lerner et al., Reference Lerner, Tirrell, Dowling, Geldhof, Gestsdóttir, Lerner, King, Williams, Iraheta and Sim2019). Exceptions to these were studies involving El Salvadorian (Tirrell et al., 2018), mainland Chinese (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Wiium and Dimitrova2018), and Taiwanese (Yang & McGinley, Reference Yang and McGinley2021) adolescents. The scarcity of PYD studies in collectivistic societies (e.g., Malaysia and the Philippines) raises additional challenges on the cultural applicability of PYD. Findings from previous investigations may not necessarily reflect the experiences of adolescents from non-Western and collectivistic societies due to differences in how they construe themselves and their relationships, as well as the availability of opportunities and resources (e.g., educational and financial) necessary to cultivate healthy adolescent development (Leman et al., Reference Leman, Smith and Petersen2017; Williams & Deutsch, Reference Williams and Deutsch2016).

Despite the scarce studies on how PYD models operate in non-Western contexts, the abovementioned frameworks have been useful in guiding researchers and practitioners designing and implementing youth studies and programs. While some PYD models are ‘research-driven’ (e.g., Benson et al., Reference Benson, Scales, Hamilton and Sesma2006; Lerner et al., Reference Lerner, Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, Phelps, Gestsdottir, Naudeau, Jeličić, Alberts, Ma, Smith, Bobek, Richman-Raphael, Simpson, Christiansen and von Eye2005), others are ‘practice-oriented’ (e.g., Gambone et al., Reference Gambone, Klem and Connell2002; Hendricks, Reference Hendricks1998; Kress, Reference Kress2004). Yet others appear to be a combination of both orientations (e.g., Catalano et al., Reference Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak and Hawkins2004). Research-driven frameworks, such as the Five Cs model and the developmental assets framework, were developed based on rigorous empirical investigations involving large sample sizes and well-validated measures. Practice-oriented frameworks, on the other hand, emerged from PYD programs that cater to the specific needs of a particular community (e.g., 4-H Programme in the US). An example of a model that can be considered both is the work of Catalano et al. (Reference Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak and Hawkins2004) and Shek et al. (Reference Shek, Sun, Chui, Lit, Yuen, Chung and Ngai2012a), which documented the evaluation of PYD programs (e.g., Project PATHS and Tomorrow’s Leaders).

Further, these conceptualisations have similar and distinct features. First, almost all PYD models are multidimensional (e.g., Benson et al., Reference Benson, Scales, Hamilton and Sesma2006; Catalano et al., Reference Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak and Hawkins2004; Gambone et al., Reference Gambone, Klem and Connell2002; Lerner et al., Reference Lerner, Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, Phelps, Gestsdottir, Naudeau, Jeličić, Alberts, Ma, Smith, Bobek, Richman-Raphael, Simpson, Christiansen and von Eye2005) in that healthy adolescent development is often characterised by more than one indicator of thriving (e.g., Five Cs, 40 developmental assets, 15 PYD constructs). Also, supporting the tenets of relational developmental systems theories, all models of PYD emphasise positive exchanges between adolescents and their contexts (e.g., families, schools, communities), although variations exist on how these interactions operate. Emphasis on psychosocial competence and character development also appears to be common among PYD frameworks. For example, having a set of ethical principles or a moral sense of right and wrong is one of the most common indicators of PYD; however, models may define it differently such as ‘character’ (Lerner et al., Reference Lerner, Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, Phelps, Gestsdottir, Naudeau, Jeličić, Alberts, Ma, Smith, Bobek, Richman-Raphael, Simpson, Christiansen and von Eye2005), ‘positive values’ (Benson et al., Reference Benson, Scales, Hamilton and Sesma2006), and ‘moral competence’ (Catalano et al., Reference Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak and Hawkins2004).

School-Related Consequences of PYD

Studies have demonstrated the academic-related benefits of diverse models of PYD (Benson et al., Reference Benson, Scales, Hamilton and Sesma2006; Catalano et al., Reference Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak and Hawkins2004; Lerner et al., Reference Lerner, Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, Phelps, Gestsdottir, Naudeau, Jeličić, Alberts, Ma, Smith, Bobek, Richman-Raphael, Simpson, Christiansen and von Eye2005). PYD has been associated with reduced intensity of maladaptive mental health outcomes (e.g., depression and anxiety) and risk-taking behaviours (e.g., aggression and delinquency; Benson et al., Reference Benson, Scales and Syvertsen2011; Geldhof, Bowers, Boyd et al., 2014; Holsen et al., Reference Holsen, Geldhof, Larsen and Aardal2017; Zhu & Shek, Reference Zhu and Shek2020). PYD has also been linked to higher levels of adaptive outcomes, such as life satisfaction (Holsen et al., Reference Holsen, Geldhof, Larsen and Aardal2017; Shek & Chai, Reference Shek and Chai2020; Zhu & Shek, Reference Zhu and Shek2020) and volunteerism (Truskauskaitė-Kunevičienė et al., Reference Truskauskaitė-Kunevičienė, Romera, Ortega-Ruiz and Žukauskienė2020), as well as helping and leadership (Geldhof, Bowers, Mueller et al., 2014). Further, there is evidence supporting the relations between PYD and favourable school-related consequences such as academic achievement (Benson et al., Reference Benson, Scales and Syvertsen2011; Scales et al., Reference Scales, Benson, Roehlkepartain, Sesma and Van Dulmen2006), academic satisfaction (Shek & Chai, Reference Shek and Chai2020), and school empowerment (Holsen et al., Reference Holsen, Geldhof, Larsen and Aardal2017). However, other studies have found internal, but not external, developmental assets of PYD to be associated with academic performance among sub-Saharan African students (Adams et al., Reference Adams, Wiium and Abubakar2019). Using the Five Cs model, Kozina et al. (Reference Kozina, Wiium, Gonzalez and Dimitrova2019) have shown positive relations between confidence, character, and math achievement, while connection showed negative relations with math achievement. Clearly, such findings point to the need to further clarify the relations of PYD with school-related outcomes.

It is also typical for researchers to treat school-related outcomes such as academic competence, grades and school engagement as sub-indicators of PYD itself and not necessarily as outcomes (Benson et al., Reference Benson, Scales, Hamilton and Sesma2006; Kozina et al., Reference Kozina, Wiium, Gonzalez and Dimitrova2019; Lerner et al., Reference Lerner, Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, Phelps, Gestsdottir, Naudeau, Jeličić, Alberts, Ma, Smith, Bobek, Richman-Raphael, Simpson, Christiansen and von Eye2005). For example, guided by the Five Cs model, some researchers have examined the role of school engagement as an important PYD construct under one of the Cs – ‘competence’ (Chase et al., Reference Chase, Warren and Lerner2015; Li & Lerner, Reference Li and Lerner2011; Li et al., Reference Li, Zhang, Liu, Arbeit, Schwartz, Bowers and Lerner2011). Benson et al. (Reference Benson, Scales, Hamilton and Sesma2006) have also specified a cluster of school-related variables (e.g., academic motivation, school engagement, homework) as internal developmental assets of PYD. Future investigations may need to clarify the distinction between school-related PYD indicators and actual PYD constructs.

PYD Programs in Schools

PYD programs come in different modes and formats (e.g., outdoor-based, art-based, school-based) depending on their theoretical orientation, target outcomes, and target respondents (Waid & Uhrich, Reference Waid and Uhrich2019). School-based PYD programs are designed to help students cultivate emotional and social resources through well-designed modules as well as peer and adult interactions at school (Curran & Wexler, Reference Curran and Wexler2017; Shek et al., Reference Shek, Sun, Chui, Lit, Yuen, Chung and Ngai2012a; Waid & Uhrich, Reference Waid and Uhrich2019). Such programs are typically conducted by targeting all students through universal recruitment strategies or by focusing on students considered at-risk (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Oberle, Durlak and Weissberg2017; Shek & Sun, Reference Shek and Sun2013; Waid & Uhrich, Reference Waid and Uhrich2019). Providing a series of structured modules inside the classroom is a usual approach adopted by school-based PYD programs, although mentorship and sports activities outside the classroom are also employed (Curran & Wexler, Reference Curran and Wexler2017; Madsen et al., Reference Madsen, Hicks and Thompson2011; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Oberle, Durlak and Weissberg2017). Other interactive learning strategies include reflections, group discussion and role plays (Shek et al., Reference Shek, Sun, Chui, Lit, Yuen, Chung and Ngai2012a). There is great variability, however, in the topics discussed, activities implemented, duration, and outcomes measured in these interventions. Commonly evaluated outcomes in these programs include psychosocial skills (e.g., self-awareness, emotional management, family relationships) as well as negative and problematic behaviours (e.g., psychological distress, criminality, substance use; Catalano et al., Reference Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak and Hawkins2004; Curran & Wexler, Reference Curran and Wexler2017; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Oberle, Durlak and Weissberg2017). Prior studies also examined the impacts of PYD programs on diverse outcomes such as grade point average (Benson et al., Reference Benson, Scales and Syvertsen2011; Paricio et al., Reference Paricio, Rodrigo, Viguer and Herrera2020), communication skills (Paricio et al., Reference Paricio, Rodrigo, Viguer and Herrera2020; Shek & Sun, Reference Shek and Sun2013), critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Johnson-Pynn and Pynn2007; Madsen et al., Reference Madsen, Hicks and Thompson2011), teacher-reported goal-setting and social reasoning (Frey et al., Reference Frey, Nolen, Van Schoiack Edstrom and Hirschstein2005), as well as physical activity and meaningful participation in school (Madsen et al., Reference Madsen, Hicks and Thompson2011).

There is a growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy of school-based PYD programs (Curran & Wexler, Reference Curran and Wexler2017; Shek & Sun, Reference Shek and Sun2013; Waid & Uhrich, Reference Waid and Uhrich2019). In general, students who participated in these programs fared significantly well in terms of psychosocial skills and academic success, as well as positive and negative indicators of wellbeing 6 months to 18 years after the interventions (Curran & Wexler, Reference Curran and Wexler2017; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Oberle, Durlak and Weissberg2017). Nevertheless, some interventions showed no significant effects (e.g., Lever et al., Reference Lever, Sander, Lombardo, Randall, Axelrod, Rubenstein and Weist2004; Wong et al., Reference Wong, Lau and Lee2012). Inadequate descriptions of interventions, including the procedures, materials and measurements, have also prevented other psychologists and counsellors from replicating these programs (Arnold & Silliman, Reference Arnold and Silliman2017; Curran & Wexler, Reference Curran and Wexler2017; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Oberle, Durlak and Weissberg2017). These shortcomings make it challenging for researchers and practitioners to compare PYD programs and identify specific intervention components that can yield beneficial outcomes. Few studies have also explored the importance of designing culturally sensitive PYD interventions. For example, Shek, Sun, Chui et al. (2012) incorporated Chinese language and culture within the modules of a school-based PYD program for Hong Kong secondary school students. Tirell et al. (2019) integrated the Five Cs model within a faith-based youth program, which aims to alleviate child poverty among El Salvadorian adolescents.

Future Directions for PYD Research and Practice

In general, there is evidence showing how PYD indicators and programs relate to students’ optimal psychological and academic wellbeing, especially in Western cultural contexts. Nevertheless, there are issues that researchers, teachers, psychologists and counsellors should address in order to advance our understanding on the science and practice of PYD in schools.

First, the effectiveness of Western-derived PYD interventions and programs need to be evaluated in schools in non-Western and collectivist societies. Considering that students from other contexts may differ in terms of experiences (e.g., parenting), worldviews (e.g., religious and political beliefs), resources (e.g., financial), and opportunities (e.g., education), it is vital to examine the applicability of PYD models, indicators, measures and programs among diverse youth populations, particularly those belonging in low-income countries, as they comprise the majority of the world’s adolescent population (Lerner et al., Reference Lerner, Tirrell, Dowling, Geldhof, Gestsdóttir, Lerner, King, Williams, Iraheta and Sim2019). Further, given the lack of agreement regarding the most culturally generalisable model of PYD, future research is needed to rigorously evaluate which of these PYD frameworks can generate stronger effects on adolescents’ academic and psychosocial outcomes.

Second, most of the studies examining PYD in schools have relied on cross-sectional research designs, which are prone to common method invariance (Lindell & Whitney, Reference Lindell and Whitney2001), thereby limiting inferences on the consequences and effectiveness of PYD indicators and programs. One way of addressing this issue is by employing longitudinal and experimental research designs to demonstrate how PYD facilitates optimal student outcomes.

Third, consistent with existing perspectives on the importance of fostering youth’s strengths rather than addressing their mental health deficits (Lerner et al., Reference Lerner, Bowers, Minor, Boyd, Mueller, Schmid, Napolitano, Lewin-Bizan and Lerner2013), teachers, school counsellors and psychologists are encouraged to assess not only internalising (e.g., anxiety and depression) and externalising (e.g., substance use and delinquency) behavioural outcomes, but also thriving indicators (e.g., altruistic behaviours and psychological flourishing) when evaluating the effectiveness of school-based PYD programs. Such endeavours would entail carefully integrating PYD concepts in actual classroom activities, school clubs and organisations, psychosocial services, as well as individual and group psychotherapeutic interventions. One way of doing this is by implementing a three-tiered PYD program, which includes a school-wide assessment (Tier 1) of students’ wellbeing, psychosocial strengths and other PYD characteristics (e.g., Five Cs measured using the short scale of PYD; Geldhof et al., Reference Geldhof, Bowers, Boyd, Mueller, Napolitano, Schmid, Lerner and Lerner2014a), a classroom-level program (Tier 2) that provides modules, discussions and exercises that emphasise thriving and contribution while capitalising on students’ strengths (e.g., providing games and activities to improve students’ efficacy-related Cs of competence and confidence), and a student-level intervention (Tier 3) wherein school counsellors and psychologists incorporate PYD concepts in routine counselling sessions with individual students (e.g., strengthening students’ socio-emotional Cs of connection, character, and caring).

Finally, the difficulties posted by the COVID-19 pandemic call for the need to identify alternative means (e.g., synchronous and asynchronous online modules) of delivering PYD interventions. Teachers, counsellors and psychologists may incorporate culturally relevant themes of adolescent thriving in online psychoeducational interventions or modules. Examples of empirically supported PYD programs that can be conducted via online arrangements include Project PATHS (Shek & Sun, Reference Shek and Sun2013), Big Brother/Big Sister School-based Mentoring (Hererra et al., Reference Herrera, Grossman, Kauh and McMaken2011), and the Second Step Social-Emotional Learning Programme (Frey et al., Reference Frey, Nolen, Van Schoiack Edstrom and Hirschstein2005). Virtual sports (Bates et al., Reference Bates, Greene and O’Quinn2021) and leisure (Ettekal & Agans, Reference Ettekal and Agans2020) activities also have the potential to promote PYD amid the ongoing pandemic and may be implemented alongside students’ academic tasks. Providing real-life exercises beyond online interactions, such as maintaining meaningful conversations with parents, developing empathy with peers and recognising positive emotions, can also help students capitalise on their psychological strengths amid the challenges of current pandemic. Researchers and practitioners are encouraged to explore how PYD may mitigate the pandemic-specific mental health hazards (e.g., COVID-19 anxiety and depression) through school-based interventions.