What is positive youth development and how might it reduce substance use and violence? A systematic review and synthesis of theoretical literature

The major emphasis across nearly all the literature was on the importance of enabling young people not merely to avoid risk behaviours but to achieve “normal development” (Roth and Brooks-Gunn [30] p.172). Kim et al. [51], Catalano et al. [48], Busseri et al. [47] and Roth and Brooks-Gunn [30] for example all state that “problem free is not fully prepared” (Roth and Brooks-Gunn [30] p.170). Lerner and Lerner [53] and Kim et al. [51] all contrast PYD with prevention science, arguing that PYD aims to develop various positive assets rather than simply focusing on preventing risk behaviours. PYD is described as a “strength-based approach” (p.781):

“The theory and research undergirding developmental assets … are designed, in part, to reframe the targets and pathways of human development around images of strength and potential. We posit that this shift is crucial for mobilizing both personal and collective efficacy on behalf of child and adolescent development.”

Roth and Brooks-Gunn [30], Busseri et al. [47], Lerner et al. [53, 54], Schwartz et al. [56] and Perkins et al. [55] all build on this idea of thriving by suggesting what particular assets PYD might aim to develop, terming these the “5 Competences”:

“(1) competence in academics, social, emotional, and vocational areas;

(2) confidence in who one is becoming (identity);

(3) connection to self and others;

(4) character that comes from positive values, integrity, and a strong sense of morals;

(5) caring and compassion” (Perkins et al. [55] p.50).

Benson et al. [42, 43, 45] and Roth and Brooks-Gunn [30] propose an alternative categorisation of 40 assets which, though similar to the above list, divide up between internal assets possessed by individuals and external assets possessed of environments which should nurture positive development.

Several authors, such as Roth and Brooks-Gunn [30], Benson and Scales, [44] Lerner and Lerner [53] and Kim et al. [51] argue that PYD interventions should involve providers developing affective (sustained, supportive and emotionally expressive) relationships with young people. They contrast these with provider-client relationships in conventional youth services which tend to be more narrowly instrumental (focused on providing specific services such as education or careers advice). It is argued that PYD providers should create a “family-like atmosphere” [30] (p.172) characterised by enduring and emotionally engaged relationships.

Many of the included reports assert that PYD interventions should offer diverse activities and settings for participants. Lerner and Lerner [53] and Benson et al. suggest that such diversity enables young people to develop broad skills. Such activities provide multiple opportunities for recognition [30]. Benson et al. suggest that PYD activities should involve “synergies” and “redundancies” (p.210). In other words, PYD interventions should provide young people with opportunities to develop the same assets in the course of different activities, so that these mutually reinforce each other.

Busseri et al. [47], Schwartz et al. [56] and Lerner et al. [54] all suggest that PYD helps young people develop capacities for ‘intentional self-regulation’:

“intentional self regulation may involve the selection of positive goals (e.g., choosing goals that reflect important life purposes), using cognitive and behavioral skills (such as executive functioning or resource recruitment) to optimize the chances of actualizing ones purposes and, when goals are blocked or when initial attempts at optimization fail, possessing the capacity to compensate effectively”. (Lerner et al. [54] p.1108)

PYD can help adolescents reflect on existing behaviour, select personal goals and activities through which to pursue these, and apply available resources to pursue these goals and activities [42].

Lerner et al. [54] suggest that by promoting young people’s ability to intentionally self-regulate, PYD promotes positive interactions between individuals and their environments (or ‘developmental regulations’), to occur whereby young people are better able to capitalise on opportunities present within their environments in order to develop more and more positive assets of the sorts listed earlier (Lerner et al. [54]; Benson [42]; Busseri et al. [47]; Schwartz et al. [56]).

However, these authors are not explicit about how PYD interventions actually enable young people to develop their capacity for intentional self-regulation. For example, Benson [42] only offers generalities such as the suggestion that PYD does this by:

“[i]ncreasing the developmental attentiveness of contexts…to increase their capacity to nurture, support, and constructively challenge the developing person, … [e]nhancing the skills and competencies of youth (to further enable their “natural” capacity to engage with, connect, change, and learn from their social contexts…[and [c]reating processes and opportunities to invite youth to actively exercise and utilize their capacity to engage with and change their social contexts” (p.39).

This quote, as well as the theoretical literature more generally, stops short of explaining exactly how PYD programmes might promote better intentional self-regulation. However, informed by our earlier synthesis of PYD’s normative theory, we might fill in the gaps. First, PYD might provide individuals with the resources, in the form of relationships and training in specific skills which are the critical inputs upon which the use of intentional self-regulation within specific intervention-related activities depends. Second, PYD might enable individuals to practice intentional self-regulation in the context of multiple activities and settings so that they improve their general ability to intentionally self-regulate. Busseri et al. [47] come closest to making this explicit. They argue that PYD can provide a range of “affordances” (p.907) resources individuals use in the course of their development (e.g. relationships, challenges, education) to which young people may respond. Different individuals at different points in their maturation, with different needs and goals, will make use of different affordances. Third, PYD might refocus individuals’ existing capacities for intentional self-regulation away from anti-social goals and towards pro-social goals. This might occur via rewarding young people when they abandon anti-social activities and engage in specific pro-social activities. Kim et al. [51] for example refer to social learning theory to suggest that, by providing positive examples and celebrating achievements in the realm of pro-social activities, PYD programmes can reinforce positive behaviours and bonds to conventional society.

The way in which PYD might reduce risk behaviours, such as substance use and violence, was a relatively minor theme in the literature, a limitation acknowledged by Kia-Keating et al. [50] and Lerner et al. [54]. The PYD literature offers a number of general suggestions about how the development of positive assets might reduce risks as well as a few isolated examples of how specific assets might protect against risk, but stops short of offering a comprehensive theory of change for how PYD reduces risk.

Positive assets might reduce risk by processes of ‘buffering’ (Catalano et al. [48] p.233; Kia-Keating et al. [50]) or “compensation” (Busseri et al. [47] p.912). N.B. this use of the term ‘compensation’ differs from that cited above to describe one of the stages of intentional self-regulation.

Buffering is described as a process whereby risk factors in the environment have less influence on the behaviour of those with positive assets than those who lack these assets [48]. For example, individuals possessing the asset of a positive sense of identity might be less prone to peer pressure to engage in risk behaviours (Catalano et al. [48]; p.232).

Catalano et al. [48] describe ‘compensation’ in terms of those possessing positive assets being able to engage in risk with less harmful consequences. For example, a young person who is engaged with school might still participate in violence but with fewer harmful developmental effects. Schwartz et al. [56] refer to similar processes using slightly different terminology.

Pile-up is defined as occurring when the general accumulation of multiple assets regardless of their particular characteristics might lead to reduced risk behaviours. In contrast, molecular mechanisms occur when specific assets bring about reductions in risk behaviours because of their particular characteristics.

Other authors offer examples of assets which offer molecular protection against risk behaviors. Kim et al. [51] suggest that engagement with pro-social institutions will lead to reductions in anti-social behaviours. Benson and Scales [44] suggest that social skills, connections with pro-social peers and engagement with school will reduce involvement in substance use and violence via young people resolving conflict, modelling responsible behaviours and being reluctant to defy pro-social norms. Kia-Keating et al. [50] suggest that: social integration and self-efficacy will offer protection against conduct problems; pro-social behaviours will protect against substance use; emotional self-regulation will protect against externalising problem behaviours; adult supervision will protect against delinquency; and self-efficacy can interact with parental monitoring to protect against alcohol use. However these are piecemeal suggestions rather than a comprehensive theory of change.