Page 42 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 42
positive youth development in contexts
PYD attributes on delinquent behavior (Zhu & Shek, 2020). All in all, the
lack of PYD attributes usually leads to the experience and inability to cope
with negative life events, which in turn affects life satisfaction (Zhou et al.,
2020; Zhu & Shek, 2020).
Less ambiguous findings were found regarding the effects of the devel-
opmental assets on life satisfaction and well-being. Both types of assets (in-
ternal and external) explain a considerable amount of the variance of life
satisfaction with individual assets being slightly stronger predictors (Soares
et al., 2019). Specifically, internal assets like self-esteem, sense of purpose,
plan and decision making, school engagement and positive value of car-
ing, as well as external assets such as family support and communication,
support from non-parent adults, and youth as resources are all meaning-
ful predictors of life satisfaction among adolescents (Soares et al., 2019).
However, some of the assets also showed a negative relationship with life
satisfaction. For instance, assets like support from non-parent adults and
future aspirations had a negative association with life satisfaction and over-
all mental health among college students (Zullig et al., 2011). This can be
explained due to the less supportive nature of non-parent adult relation-
ships that students encounter in their college years. Moreover, students
have a hard time accommodating to the increasing competitive nature of
the working world, which in turn affects their health and their satisfaction
with life (Zullig et al., 2011).
Consistent positive effects of PYD framework on well-being and
life-satisfaction was found when tested and piloted in different interven-
tion programs (Bleck & DeBate, 2016). In recent years, an emerging num-
ber of youth programs have employed a PYD approach to their design in
order to promote and foster bonding, competence, resilience, empower-
ment, and prosocial behaviors among youth (Catalano et al., 2004; Moore,
2017). Also, numerous meta-analyses provide evidence that PYD-based
programs reduce violence and aggression, substance-use, school misbehav-
ior, school dropout rates, and high-risk sexual behavior (Benson & Scales,
2009; Bonell et al., 2015; Guerra & Bradshaw, 2008). However, it should be
noted that the most of the studies within the PYD framework have Western
(e.g. Sanders & Munford, 2014; Sanders et al., 2015) and Asian (e.g. Shek &
Chai, 2020; Zhu & Shek, 2020; Zhou et al., 2020) samples. As it is already
established that context plays a crucial role within the PYD framework, it
was recommended that future studies should consider culture as well, espe-
cially LMICs where research is scarce (USAID, 2016; Wiium & Dimitrova,
42
PYD attributes on delinquent behavior (Zhu & Shek, 2020). All in all, the
lack of PYD attributes usually leads to the experience and inability to cope
with negative life events, which in turn affects life satisfaction (Zhou et al.,
2020; Zhu & Shek, 2020).
Less ambiguous findings were found regarding the effects of the devel-
opmental assets on life satisfaction and well-being. Both types of assets (in-
ternal and external) explain a considerable amount of the variance of life
satisfaction with individual assets being slightly stronger predictors (Soares
et al., 2019). Specifically, internal assets like self-esteem, sense of purpose,
plan and decision making, school engagement and positive value of car-
ing, as well as external assets such as family support and communication,
support from non-parent adults, and youth as resources are all meaning-
ful predictors of life satisfaction among adolescents (Soares et al., 2019).
However, some of the assets also showed a negative relationship with life
satisfaction. For instance, assets like support from non-parent adults and
future aspirations had a negative association with life satisfaction and over-
all mental health among college students (Zullig et al., 2011). This can be
explained due to the less supportive nature of non-parent adult relation-
ships that students encounter in their college years. Moreover, students
have a hard time accommodating to the increasing competitive nature of
the working world, which in turn affects their health and their satisfaction
with life (Zullig et al., 2011).
Consistent positive effects of PYD framework on well-being and
life-satisfaction was found when tested and piloted in different interven-
tion programs (Bleck & DeBate, 2016). In recent years, an emerging num-
ber of youth programs have employed a PYD approach to their design in
order to promote and foster bonding, competence, resilience, empower-
ment, and prosocial behaviors among youth (Catalano et al., 2004; Moore,
2017). Also, numerous meta-analyses provide evidence that PYD-based
programs reduce violence and aggression, substance-use, school misbehav-
ior, school dropout rates, and high-risk sexual behavior (Benson & Scales,
2009; Bonell et al., 2015; Guerra & Bradshaw, 2008). However, it should be
noted that the most of the studies within the PYD framework have Western
(e.g. Sanders & Munford, 2014; Sanders et al., 2015) and Asian (e.g. Shek &
Chai, 2020; Zhu & Shek, 2020; Zhou et al., 2020) samples. As it is already
established that context plays a crucial role within the PYD framework, it
was recommended that future studies should consider culture as well, espe-
cially LMICs where research is scarce (USAID, 2016; Wiium & Dimitrova,
42
