Toward an Integrative Paradigm of Positive Youth Development: Implications for Research, Practice, and Policy

Globally, it is estimated that around 13% of adolescents whose ages range from 10 to 19 are experiencing mental health problems, with depression, anxiety, and behavioral disorders rated as the most common conditions. Suicide remains to be a fourth leading cause of death among 15- to 19-year-olds (World Health Organization, 2021). The youth with mental health conditions are at a higher risk of experiencing discrimination, stigma, learning difficulties, risk-taking behaviors, and physical illnesses (UNICEF, 2021). There is also evidence suggesting that the COVID-19 health crisis has exacerbated the prevalence of mental health symptoms (e.g., drug use, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation) among children and adolescents globally (Jones et al., 2021; Oliveira et al., 2022). Adolescent mental health has serious impacts on relationships, education, well-being, and long-term health; hence, it is important to address mental health issues among young people and design preventive measures that can support a healthy transition from childhood to adulthood. However, developmental scientists have differentiated addressing mental health problems from boosting psychological well-being and flourishing, suggesting that prevention does not equate with promotion (Lerner et al., 2021).

The scientific study of adolescence has traditionally been framed using the “deficit perspective,” which focuses on young people’s risky and problematic behaviors (Lerner et al., 2010). With this perspective, adolescent well-being and mental health have been defined in terms of the presence or absence of negative and problematic outcomes such as anxiety, depression, and risk-taking behaviors (Bowers et al., 2010). However, the emergence of relational developmental systems theories in the 1980s and positive psychology in the 2000s, as well as the growing dissatisfaction of developmental scientists over traditional models of studying adolescents’ mental health, has sparked the origins of positive youth development (PYD; Lerner et al., 2014; Lerner et al., 2021). PYD is both a movement and concept in developmental sciences that emphasizes young people’s strengths and contributions to themselves and to their respective environments (Benson et al., 2006). PYD views adolescents as “resources to be developed” instead of “problems to be solved” or “patients to be cured” (Lerner et al., 2010). The second decade of life, therefore, is not just seen as a period of storm and stress but as an opportune time for young people to discover, develop, and deploy their talents and strengths.

Over the past decades, several models have been proposed to conceptualize and characterize PYD, each with its own set of definitions, dimensions, measures, and programs on healthy adolescent development (e.g., Benson et al., 2006; Catalano et al., 2004; Lerner et al., 2005). These frameworks have gained considerable attention among researchers and practitioners from various fields, including developmental psychology, education, medicine, public health, social work, and sociology (Lerner, 2017; Qi et al., 2020). Several PYD models have also been used to design, implement, and evaluate youth programs and interventions that aim to promote academic and psychosocial well-being in schools and socially challenged communities (Buenconsejo & Datu, 2021; Lerner et al., 2013).

However, majority of PYD models and programs were developed and validated among youth samples from individualistic (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and WEIRD (i.e., Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) contexts (Henrich et al., 2010), particularly in North America and Europe. As such, developmental scientists have raised important issues regarding the cultural applicability of existing PYD theories especially among under-represented adolescents from collectivistic and non-WEIRD societies (Dimitrova & Wiium, 2021; Leman et al., 2017). In addition, the diversity and multiplicity of indicators from different PYD models have resulted in varying and oftentimes overlapping conceptualization and assessment of adolescent thriving. Although these indicators reflect the multidimensionality of PYD across different contexts, it also poses a challenge among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in identifying culturally generalizable and specific aspects of adolescent thriving. Developing a unified paradigm that organizes these indicators into a consolidated taxonomy can provide a clearer and more unified lens, such that PYD researchers and practitioners from around the globe can have better scholarly dialogue in conceptualizing, measuring, and promoting adolescent thriving, despite possible differences in the context and theoretical orientation in PYD.

Based on a review of major PYD models, we propose an integrative paradigm that organizes different indicators of adolescent thriving. We begin by introducing the major frameworks of PYD commonly used by developmental scientists, namely, the five Cs model and its subsequent versions (Dimitrova & Wiium, 2021; Lerner et al., 2005), 15 PYD constructs (Catalano et al., 2004; Shek et al., 2012), and the 40 developmental assets framework (Benson et al., 2006; Benson et al., 2011). For each model, we described its specific dimensions, factor structures, possible mechanisms of action, instruments used to measure its dimensions, as well as general findings from investigations and programs anchored on each model. We then discussed the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of these frameworks and identified commonalities and intersections where these models meet, particularly by citing relevant studies that integrated the dimensions of adolescent thriving from different PYD models.

Drawing from the results of these studies as well as the major tenets of relational developmental systems theories, we introduced the integrative paradigm of PYD, which classifies thriving dimensions into (a) intrapersonal-immediate indicators, (b) interpersonal-proximal indicators, and (c) ecological-distal indicators. We concluded this article by providing theoretical and methodological recommendations for youth researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to advance the field using the integrative paradigm of PYD. It is important to note at the outset that the proposed paradigm does not intend to replace or refute existing PYD models, considering the strong theoretical and empirical bases of such frameworks. Instead, we build on existing PYD models and propose an integrative paradigm that organizes the different dimensions of adolescent thriving from these models, especially those that are conceptually similar or overlapping. Likewise, the clustering of specific dimensions in this paradigm is far from conclusive and is open to further debates and criticisms from other developmental scientists. After all, to our knowledge, this is the first work that comprehensively organized diverse dimensions of PYD models into a comprehensive paradigm. We hope that this paradigm will continue to stir the ongoing scholarly dialogue in examining PYD across cultures.

The beginnings of PYD can be traced to the emergence of relational developmental systems theories (e.g., bioecological theory, dynamic systems theory, holistic person-context interaction theory; Lerner et al., 2011; Lerner et al., 2014), which highlight the mutually beneficial (i.e., bi-directional) interactions between the developing adolescent and his or her environment. These theories posit that young people have the potential to thrive (i.e., relative plasticity) if they are growing in ecologies rich in assets and resources, which complement their personal strengths (i.e., developmental regulation; Lerner et al., 2014). Hence, an alignment between an adolescent’s talent or skill (e.g., mathematical or musical ability) and context-specific resources (e.g., parental support or a mentor’s capacity to provide an autonomy-supportive environment) can facilitate PYD (Lerner et al., 2014). As these attributes improve over time, thriving adolescents are more likely to exhibit higher positive developmental outcomes (e.g., psychological well-being and contribution) as well as lower negative ones (e.g., internalizing and externalizing behaviors; Benson et al., 2006; Lerner et al., 2014).

Aside from relational developmental systems theories, the popularity of positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) or the scientific study of happiness and human flourishing in the 2000s ushered in the shift from the “deficit perspective” to PYD. The focus of positive psychology on positive subjective experiences, positive traits and states, and positive institutions as opposed to human psychopathology complements the emphasis of PYD on young people’s strengths and the resources that their developmental contexts can provide. As PYD gained increasing traction from researchers and practitioners, the number of frameworks that conceptualized adolescent thriving also multiplied from relatively simple dimensions to more complex models (Lerner et al., 2013). Preliminary scholarship on PYD operationalized adolescent thriving has adopted unidimensional constructs such as initiative, resilience, and purpose (Buenconsejo & Datu, 2021; Burkhard et al., 2020). However, contemporary researchers have created multidimensional paradigms to characterize healthy adolescent development (Burkhard et al., 2020; Lerner et al., 2013). These models include the five Cs model of PYD, 15 PYD constructs, and the 40 developmental assets framework. As there are several conceptualizations of PYD, we focus on the dimensions of these models as the basis for the integrative paradigm of PYD.

Lerner et al. (2005) characterized adolescent thriving in terms of five interrelated, but distinct constructs termed as the five Cs, namely, competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring. Competence pertains to an adolescent’s positive view of his or her actions in domain-specific areas such as academic, cognitive, and social tasks. Confidence is a global sense of self-worth and self-efficacy as opposed to domain-specific areas captured by competence. Connection encompasses positive bonds formed with people and institutions or communities that include mutually beneficial interactions. Character includes integrity, respect for societal and cultural norms, a sense of right and wrong, as well as having a set of standards for correct behaviors. Finally, caring, also called compassion, is having sympathy and empathy for other people (Lerner et al., 2005). Over time, it is argued that adolescents manifesting the five Cs are likely to make significant contribution to society (i.e., six Cs; Lerner et al., 2010).

Because initial measures of the five Cs were very lengthy (Lerner et al., 2005), the short and very short measures of PYD were developed (Geldhof et al., 2014). Attempts have also been made to examine the applicability of these measures in non-US contexts such as Norway (Holsen et al., 2017), Portugal (Tomé et al., 2021), Slovenia (Kozina et al., 2019), Spain (Gomez-Baya et al., 2021), Hong Kong (Wong et al., 2021), and the Philippines (Buenconsejo et al., 2022). More recently, Dimitrova et al. (2021) expanded this model by including creativity (i.e., seven Cs), which is defined as a novel and adaptive problem-solving ability that is meaningful in a given culture or society. The factor structure and measurement invariance of the seven Cs model has been validated in Asia (i.e., India, Indonesia, and Pakistan; Dimitrova et al., 2021; Malaysia; Abdul Kadir et al., 2021), and Latin America (i.e., Columbia and Peru; Manrique-Millones et al., 2021).

In general, results of empirical studies support the expected associations of these Cs with adaptive and maladaptive developmental outcomes among adolescents (Dimitrova & Wiium, 2021; Lerner, 2017). Specifically, higher levels of these Cs were linked to optimal academic and psychological outcomes such as school engagement (Lerner et al., 2013), math achievement (Kozina et al., 2019), life satisfaction (Holsen et al., 2017), hope (Dimitrova et al., 2021), mindfulness (Abdul Kadir et al., 2021), psychological well-being (Tomé et al., 2021), and flourishing (Buenconsejo et al., 2022). Similarly, there is evidence supporting the inverse relations between these Cs and negative developmental outcomes such as symptoms of anxiety and depression (Conway et al., 2015; Erentaitė & Raižienė, 2015), emotion dysregulation (Dvorsky et al., 2019), and risk-taking behaviors (Manrique-Millones et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2021). The five Cs model has also been used to create youth programs that aim to promote individual and contextual foundations of adolescent thriving (Lerner & Lerner, 2013). Compared to adolescents who attended other out-of-school activities, those who participated in these programs were more likely to report higher levels of thriving characteristics (Burkhard et al., 2020; Lerner & Lerner, 2013).

Based on an extensive review of effective youth programs in the USA, Catalano et al. (2004) identified 15 PYD constructs that were salient in promoting adolescent thriving. These constructs include belief in the future, bonding, behavioral competence, cognitive competence, emotional competence, moral competence, social competence, positive identity, recognition for positive behavior, resilience, self-determination, self-efficacy, spirituality, fostering prosocial norms, and opportunities for prosocial involvement (Catalano et al., 2004). The definition of each construct is presented in Table 1. It should be noted, however, that these constructs were mostly used as theoretical guidelines for youth programs and interventions in the field of social work (Catalano et al., 2004). Few investigations, if any, have examined its measurement models and hypothesized paths with adolescent outcomes in the USA. Nonetheless, Shek et al. (2012) and Shek et al. (2019) contextualized this framework to develop school-based interventions that promote thriving among students in Hong Kong and mainland China.

Using the Chinese Positive Youth Development Scale (CPYDS) to measure the 15 PYD constructs, Shek et al. (2007) provided evidence about the expected associations of these characteristics with life satisfaction, academic performance, substance abuse, delinquency, and risky behaviors. Subsequent studies on the 15 PYD constructs show that these characteristics can concurrently and longitudinally predict different developmental outcomes such as academic well-being (Shek & Chai, 2020; Zhou et al., 2020), life satisfaction (Shek & Chai, 2020), and hopelessness (Zhou et al., 2020). As noted, much of the application of the 15 PYD constructs has been evident in the development, implementation, and evaluation of school-based programs for undergraduate and high school students in Hong Kong and mainland China (Shek et al., 2019). Results from multiple evaluation techniques show that these programs were effective in enhancing students’ cognitive, behavioral, and moral competencies, positive identity, and general PYD qualities, as well as in lowering delinquency and substance use compared to controls (Shek & Sun, 2013; Shek & Zhu, 2020).

Benson et al. (2006) and Benson et al. (2011) proposed 20 internal (i.e., character strengths) and 20 external (i.e., social relationships and opportunities) developmental assets to conceptualize adolescent thriving. These internal and external resources are the developmental nutrients that can facilitate not only the prevention of risky and problematic behaviors but also the promotion of thriving skills and well-being (Benson et al., 2006). Internal assets pertain to adolescents’ personal skills or character strengths that are clustered into four categories: commitment to learning, positive identity, positive values, and social competencies (Benson et al., 2011). External assets, on the other hand, refer to positive relationships and opportunities found in young people’s developmental contexts such as their family, school, community, and peer group. External assets are grouped into four categories: boundaries and expectations, constructive use of time, empowerment, and support (Benson et al., 2011). The specific dimensions of each cluster of internal and external developmental assets are presented in Table 2.

The Developmental Assets Profile (DAP; Scales et al., 2017) has been a key assessment tool to measure adolescents’ developmental assets, which has been translated into more than 30 languages and administered to adolescent samples in 31 countries (Scales, 2011; Scales et al., 2017). Research on the developmental asset framework generally support the “accumulation hypothesis,” which states that possessing greater character strengths as well as social relationships and opportunities lead to increases in positive outcomes and decreases in negative ones (Benson et al., 2011). In general, greater internal and external resources are associated with higher academic achievement, social and emotional well-being, contribution, as well as the lower health-compromising behaviors such as substance use, delinquency, and violence (Benson et al., 2006; Benson et al., 2011; Scales et al., 2017). The incremental validity of these developmental assets in predicting thriving indicators above and beyond the function of socio-demographic covariates has also been established (Scales, 2011). Notably, the measurement invariance of the eight clusters of internal and external resources has been established across students’ grades, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and parental education (Syvertsen et al., 2019). Subsequent investigations on this model in non-US contexts (e.g., Albania, Bangladesh, Japan, Lebanon, Philippines, and Tanzania) confirm that greater developmental assets are associated with better physical and mental health, school success, and civic engagement, even in developmentally high-risk and challenging environments (Drescher et al., 2018; Scales et al., 2017).

Youth programs and interventions anchored on the developmental asset framework have also been developed and implemented to promote adolescent well-being, address risky and problematic behaviors, and promote thriving. For example, the Building Asset and Reducing Risks program was found to be effective in improving students’ academic performance and teachers’ satisfaction (Bos et al., 2019). The Assets-Getting to Outcomes program was found to enhance community practitioners capacity to implement youth programs and achieve optimal youth outcomes (Chinman et al., 2012). In sum, the three major paradigms of PYD have established compelling evidence that support their theoretical validity and practical application in youth programs, particularly in North America and other European countries. However, these models are far from perfect and there are inherent shortcomings that researchers and practitioners should take into account.

Since existing models of PYD have been developed in North America and validated in other Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies in Europe, developmental scientists have raised important issues related to their generalizability in collectivistic and non-WEIRD contexts (Leman et al., 2017; Wiium & Dimitrova, 2019). Findings drawn from youth samples in such contexts may not automatically apply to adolescents in other societies because of the differences in how they construe themselves as well as the variability in opportunities (e.g., education) and resources (e.g., financial assets and government-funded youth programs) necessary to cultivate healthy adolescent development. It has been noted that psychological constructs developed and tested in WEIRD samples and individualistic societies (e.g., the US and Germany) may not necessarily reflect the experiences of non-WEIRD samples and societies with relatively stronger collectivist values (e.g., the Philippines and mainland China; Henrich et al., 2010; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Specifically, in collectivistic and non-WEIRD societies, people value group belonging and cooperation over individuality and competition (Suh, 2007). In contrast, people from individualistic and WEIRD contexts value individualistic goals (e.g., personal achievement) over group goals (e.g., belonging) and tend to have positively biased views of themselves (Henrich et al., 2010; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Additionally, it is posited that Eastern countries tend to exhibit larger power distance, masculinity over femininity, long-term over short-term orientation, as well as restraint over indulgence compared to Western countries (Hofstede, 2011). These self-construals and cultural dimensions influence, and oftentimes determine, cognitions, emotions, and motivations to perform specific behaviors (Hofstede, 2011; Suh, 2007).

Indeed, notable differences in PYD dimensions were found in terms of respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, socio-economic status, country of origin, and parents’ educational attainment (e.g., Drescher et al., 2018; Gomez-Baya et al., 2021; Scales et al., 2017; Wiium et al., 2019). More recently, researchers have made a distinction between thriving dimensions that are more valued in collectivistic contexts (e.g., connection, character, and caring) and those that are more emphasized in individualistic ones (e.g., competence and confidence; Buenconsejo et al., 2022; Yang & McGinley, 2021; Wong et al., 2021). If important socio-contextual differences in adolescent thriving exist, then it is important for researchers and practitioners to examine the cross-cultural generalizability of major PYD frameworks in settings beyond North America and Europe. Addressing this goal is important considering that around 90% of the world’s adolescents reside in low- and middle-income countries (Catalano et al., 2019) contexts in which susceptibility to experiencing greater early life adversities, fewer educational opportunities, and higher probability of contracting diseases may be higher compared to young people in high-income countries.

Although the availability of multidimensional models of PYD has guided researchers and practitioners in conceptualizing and measuring optimal adolescent development, the variability among the dimensions of relatively straightforward (e.g., five Cs) and complex (e.g., 40 developmental assets) models of PYD poses a challenge among developmental scientists in having a unified perspective necessary to advance the field. While we acknowledge that existing PYD models reflect the multiplicity of perspectives from researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and youth samples themselves, we posit that conceptual overlaps can be found among dimensions of these models. For example, the confidence dimension of the five Cs model is conceptually similar with the positive identity cluster of the 40 developmental assets framework as well as the self-efficacy and positive identity dimensions of the 15 PYD constructs. These overlaps can also be observed in the varying instruments used to measure PYD indicators. For example, the item on character from the five Cs model (“I take responsibility for my actions when I make a mistake”) is similar with the item on positive values from the 40 developmental assets framework (“I take responsibility for what I do”) as well as the item on moral competence from the 15 PYD constructs (“I fulfil my promise/responsibility”). As such, these items can be summed up as measuring personal integrity and responsibility.

Additionally, although we do not intend to oversimplify the complexity of adolescent development nor to promote the superiority of a single PYD paradigm, conceptualizing PYD using varying constructs and dimensions may lead to the problem of fragmentation in the field where researchers and practitioners from different contexts could idiosyncratically define and measure adolescent thriving while remaining unaware of the relevant works of other developmental scientists. To date, no work has attempted to organize the different dimensions of major PYD models into a single paradigm. The present work, therefore, aims to provide researchers, practitioners, and policymakers a unified perspective in consolidating the varying indicators of adolescent thriving, which they may use in examining the cross-national and cross-cultural generalizability of existing PYD models.

Since the applicability of the abovementioned models is only beginning to be explored among youth samples in collectivistic and non-WEIRD societies (e.g., African [Drescher et al., 2018], South American [Manrique-Millones et al., 2021], and Southeast Asian countries [Buenconsejo et al., 2022]), it is important to have an integrative paradigm of PYD that can provide a common lens among developmental scientists in terms of conceptualizing and measuring adolescent thriving. It should be noted, however, that we do not intend to replace or refute existing PYD models given the strong empirical evidence supporting their theoretical validity and measurement invariance in the USA and beyond. Rather, we are offering a paradigm that consolidates the different dimensions of adolescent thriving, especially those that are conceptually overlapping with each other, to promote a more coherent perspective among PYD scientists. Identifying possible commonalities among these dimensions can provide a unified direction for PYD researchers and practitioners in promoting adolescent well-being across countries and cultures. More recently, researchers have combined and simultaneously measured different dimensions of adolescent thriving from various models to examine theoretical and methodological overlaps among existing frameworks of PYD (Fernandes et al., 2021; Gomez-Baya et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021). Results of these investigations will be presented in the next section and also served as the basis of the integrative paradigm of PYD.

Although most PYD investigations have relied on a single framework, there are recent studies that directly combined thriving dimensions from the five Cs model, 15 PYD constructs, and the 40 developmental assets framework (e.g., Dimitrova et al., 2021; Fernandes et al., 2021; Gomez-Baya et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021). Results of these investigations shed light on the possible intersections and commonalities of various indicators of optimal adolescent development from major PYD approaches. For example, in one cross-sectional study that examined the associations between the developmental asset framework and the five Cs model among Spanish adolescents, Gomez-Baya et al. (2021) noted that greater internal and external developmental assets are associated with higher levels of the five Cs, although internal assets exhibited higher correlations with the Cs than external ones. More specifically, among the five Cs, connection had the strongest correlation with adolescents’ overall external assets while character showed the strongest correlation with their overall internal assets (Gomez-Baya et al., 2021). Using structural equation modeling, correlated measurement errors were found between positive identity and confidence, support and connection, as well as positive values and character, suggesting possible overlaps among these PYD dimensions (Gomez-Baya et al., 2021).

In another investigation that simultaneously measured internal and external developmental assets and the five Cs across six countries (i.e., Ghana, Kosovo, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, and Turkey), Fernandes et al. (2021) found context-specific differences in PYD, which they attribute to the sociopolitical climate (e.g., implementation of national youth policies and programs) of each setting. Specifically, adolescents from Ghana and Norway reported higher internal developmental assets while Slovenian adolescents reported higher external developmental assets. As for the five Cs, respondents from Ghana, Kosovo, and Turkey reported greater caring and connection while Ghanaian youth reported the highest levels of confidence and character (Fernandes et al., 2021). Conceptual similarities have also been noted between the five Cs and the developmental assets in this study. For example, the internal developmental asset of positive identity (i.e., adolescent’s belief about self-worth and personal control over things that may happen) is similar to the confidence construct (i.e., a global sense of self-worth and self-efficacy). Likewise, the external developmental asset of support described as young people’s experience of support, love, and care from families, neighbors, and important others is also similar to the construct of connection or the positive bonds formed with people and institutions (Fernandes et al., 2021). Notably, strong positive correlations were also observed between the seven Cs model (defined by the five Cs, contribution, and creativity) and the developmental asset framework (defined by the 8 clusters of internal and external resources) among adolescents from India, Indonesia, and Pakistan (Dimitrova et al., 2021).

More recently, PYD researchers from mainland China examined how the 15 PYD constructs overlapped with the five Cs using confirmatory factor analysis (Li et al., 2021). As noted by the authors, one of the primary limitations of the 15 PYD constructs is its relative complexity in terms of measurement and evaluation compared to the five Cs. The effectiveness of youth programs anchored on the 15 PYD constructs also tend to focus only on one or more dimensions of the framework (Li et al., 2021; Shek et al., 2019). Using the CPYDS among middle school students from four settings in mainland China, Li et al. (2021) found evidence that the 15 PYD constructs proposed by Catalano et al. (2004) could statistically fit within the five Cs model of Lerner et al. (2005). In particular, competence subsumed cognitive competence, emotional competence, and self-efficacy. Confidence, on the other hand, included behavioral competence, clear and positive identity, and self-determination. Beliefs in the future, bonding, and spirituality fitted under connection. Social competence, recognition of positive behavior, and resilience loaded onto character. Finally, moral competence, prosocial involvement, and prosocial norms were defined by caring. However, it should be noted that some error covariances were added among the 15 PYD constructs to improve the model fit (Li et al., 2021).

Aside from empirical investigations that simultaneously measured different thriving dimensions from more than one PYD model, there are also reviews that identified similarities and differences among major PYD frameworks (Burkhard et al., 2020; Catalano et al., 2019; Shek et al., 2019). Shek et al. (2019) compared the developmental asset framework, 15 PYD constructs, and the five Cs model based on seven criteria: theoretical orientation, role of community, spirituality, character and morality, thriving continuum, being versus doing, and origin. Accordingly, all three PYD approaches emphasize the important role of the community in facilitating thriving, aim to promote character and moral development, and perceive thriving as a continuum rather than a fixed state. Likewise, common among the three models is the cultivation of both an inner quality (“being”) and psychosocial skills (“doing”) among adolescents (Shek et al., 2019). Although they all share an ecological theoretical orientation rooted in relational developmental systems theories, the developmental asset framework takes on a lifespan developmental approach, the 15 PYD constructs, a preventive science approach, and the five Cs model, a community-based approach. Additionally, while the developmental asset framework and the 15 PYD constructs give emphasis on young people’s spirituality, the five Cs model does not appear to emphasize this aspect of PYD. All three approaches have their origins coming from North America (Shek et al., 2019).

Catalano et al. (2019), on the other hand, conducted a systematic review on the impact of PYD programs in low- and middle-income countries. As a way to organize the different thriving dimensions targeted by these programs, the authors identified four clusters or domains of PYD constructs: assets, agency, contribution, and enabling environment. Specifically, assets include adolescents’ education and training, interpersonal skills, and their ability to recognize emotions and practice self-control. Agency is composed of self-efficacy, perseverance, positive beliefs about the future, positive identity, and the ability to plan and set goals. Contribution pertains to young people’s engagement with adults and civil society. Finally, an enabling environment is composed of bonding, support, value and recognition, prosocial norms, opportunities for prosocial involvement, physical and psychological safety, and gender responsiveness (Catalano et al., 2019).

Although the four domains of thriving dimensions were useful in organizing optimal developmental outcomes targeted by PYD programs in low- and middle-income countries, it appears that some of the clusters can be lumped further for theoretical parsimony. For example, education and training under assets can be included as qualities of an enabling environment while interpersonal skills, emotional recognition, and self-control can be subsumed under agency. Interestingly, the three clusters left (i.e., agency, enabling environment, and contribution) are conceptually similar with three dimensions (i.e., intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal) of the paradigm that we would like to propose in this manuscript. Overall, these studies and reviews have identified points of convergence among the dimensions of major PYD models. Since PYD researchers and practitioners tend to define adolescent thriving using varying concepts, the field may benefit from an integrative paradigm, which can provide a unified and coherent vision of understanding the multiplicity and diversity of adolescent development across cultural contexts. Based on these investigations and reviews, we have conceptualized the integrative paradigm of PYD which categorizes thriving dimensions into (a) intrapersonal-immediate, (b) interpersonal-proximal, and (c) societal-distal indicators.

The integrative paradigm of PYD aims to provide a more coherent understanding and taxonomy of the overlapping indicators of optimal adolescent development. The proposed paradigm is anchored on the main tenets of relational developmental systems theories (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner et al., 2011; Lerner et al., 2014), which emphasize the bi-directional interaction between the adolescent and his or her environmental context. Common among these theories is the conceptualization that adolescence is a period of change and stability that is embedded within layers of interconnected systems or ecologies (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner et al., 2014). Young people, therefore, do not develop in isolation of the environment or sociocultural context where they are situated. Here, both the individual and the environment mutually affect and influence each other, hence, the bi-directional interaction between the person and the context (Lerner et al., 2011; Lerner et al., 2014).

If researchers and practitioners aim to examine and promote adolescent thriving, it is important to adapt a systems approach that would capture the complexity and multidimensionality (e.g., intrapersonal, interpersonal, and ecological development) of adolescent developmental trajectories, while, at the same time, guide the conceptualization, measurement, and evaluation of PYD dimensions and programs across cultures. Although major PYD frameworks generally acknowledge the importance of these indicators, there is limited work on adopting a systems and multi-layered approach in conceptualizing adolescent thriving. We believe that the integrative paradigm of PYD (see Fig. 1) can address these theoretical and practical gaps in literature.

Systematic structuring (e.g., developing broader and higher-order categories of constructs based on their overlapping lower-order dimensions) of psychological traits or constructs has been adopted to improve the taxonomy of psychological strengths in previous research. For example, the 24 character strengths identified by Peterson and Seligman (2004) were clustered into six universal virtues (i.e., humanity, justice, temperance, courage, transcendence, and wisdom). Specifically, virtues are central characteristics valued by moral philosophers while character strengths are the psychological pathways by which these virtues are expressed. Given the conceptual similarities in social, emotional, and behavioral skills that people commonly adopt to achieve a successful life, Soto et al. (2022) have identified common features in such skills to form five broader domains, namely, (a) cooperation skills; (b) emotional resilience skills; (c) innovation skills; (d) self-management skills; and (e) social engagement skills. Further, as multiple microsystems (e.g., parent-student and teacher-student relational contexts) are believed to complexly interact with each other to facilitate effective learning processes and outcomes in students, Skinner et al. (2022) built on prior findings on how various microsystems operate and their corresponding impacts on students’ educational outcomes to identify specific nature of operations (i.e., coactive, contingent, and sequential) that capture how social agents affect engagement and achievement. These examples underscore the importance of improving the taxonomy of psychological strengths and learning processes in children and youth.

The idea of the integrative paradigm of PYD was inspired by the bioecological model of Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006), which highlights the dynamic interaction between the developing person and his or her ecology. Just as adolescent development occurs within systematic layers of relationships and other socio-contextual factors, we propose that PYD indicators can also be clustered into three overlapping layers: (a) intrapersonal-immediate indicators, (b) interpersonal-proximal indicators, and (c) ecological-distal indicators. Specifically, we grouped the dimensions of adolescent thriving from the five/six/seven Cs model, 15 PYD constructs, and 40 developmental assets framework based on their theoretical and statistical overlaps as evidenced by recent studies and reviews (Catalano et al., 2019; Fernandes et al., 2021; Gomez-Baya et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Shek et al., 2019). The specific PYD dimensions under each cluster are shown in Table 3.

Specifically, intrapersonal-immediate indicators pertain to PYD dimensions that are directly beneficial to the developing adolescent. These indicators are particularly related to one’s identity, self-esteem, self-efficacy, resilience, and perceived competence in general (e.g., behavioral, cognitive, and emotional tasks) and specific (e.g., academic and athletic activities) psychosocial domains. For example, conceptual overlaps can be seen between the competence dimension the five Cs model, cognitive competence of the 15 PYD constructs, and commitment to learning of the 40 developmental assets framework since they all pertain to adolescents’ cognitive capacity typically applied in academic-related activities. On the other hand, intrapersonal-proximal indicators are dimensions that involve positive relationships or connections formed with significant people such as one’s family, peers, teachers, classmates, neighbors, and churchmates. These dimensions do not only include young people’s capacity to initiate and maintain interpersonal relationships (e.g., social competence, peaceful conflict resolution, and cooperation) but also pertain to the beneficial elements or factors of a supportive and nurturing environment (e.g., support, modeling, and recognition for positive behavior). Much of the dimensions from the 40 developmental assets framework (i.e., boundaries and expectations, constructive use of time, and support) emphasize these beneficial resources from one’s environment. Interpersonal-proximal indicators highlight one of the primary tenets of relational developmental systems theories (i.e., developmental regulations), which acknowledges that both the adolescent and the environment have inherent strengths and resources that when aligned can lead to positive developmental outcomes (Lerner et al., 2014). Finally, ecological-distal indicators are dimensions that benefit the larger community where an adolescent belongs. These PYD constructs include young people’s personal values and principles, respect for societal and cultural norms, altruistic and prosocial behaviors to people beyond their families, schools, and neighborhoods, as well as their capacity to make significant contribution to their respective society or countrymen. Hence, this cluster includes altruistic (e.g., caring, contribution, and prosocial norms) and civil (e.g., character, moral competence, and positive values) dimensions from the three major paradigms of PYD. Ecological-distal indicators typically go beyond the boundaries and biases attached to socio-contextual labels such as gender, socio-economic status, religion, nationality, and culture thereby fostering a global and inclusive sense of acceptance and concern for other people.

Among the three clusters of PYD dimensions, it is anticipated that interpersonal-immediate indicators will be measured and evaluated more directly compared to interpersonal-proximal and ecological-distal indicators since these constructs pertain to the personal experiences (e.g., thoughts, emotions, and behaviors) of adolescents and are usually assessed using self-reports (e.g., perceived self-esteem or self-efficacy). On the other hand, it may take more time and more data sources for researchers and practitioners to measure and evaluate ecological-distal as well as interpersonal-proximal indicators compared to intrapersonal-immediate indicators because these dimensions typically involve a larger scope of individuals (e.g., parents, peers, and coaches), institutions (e.g., schools and religious organizations), and communities (e.g., charitable organizations) beyond the adolescent. Likewise, ecological-distal indicators (e.g., participating in pro-environmental activities or volunteering in a children’s shelter) may involve long-term effects (e.g., cleaner shorelines and greener forests) and other factors that may go beyond an adolescent’s capacity (e.g., educational and livelihood opportunities offered to young people by the government). As such, these indicators may require longitudinal and even experimental research designs that would examine the long-term consequences of these thriving characteristics as well as the effectiveness of PYD programs and interventions.

Note, however, that the abovementioned clusters are not mutually exclusive since they may function in an overlapping manner. For example, adolescents with high levels of emotional competence are not only mindful and understanding of their own emotions (i.e., intrapersonal-immediate indicator) but are also capable of understanding other people’s feelings (i.e., intrapersonal-proximal indicator) and are more likely to empathize with and help those who are suffering or distressed (i.e., ecological-distal indicator). Hence, the integrative paradigm of PYD is meant to be a guide in organizing different thriving dimensions instead of providing a clear-cut theoretical framework that involves a definitive set of nonoverlapping constructs. Additionally, the three clusters of PYD indicators may be conceptualized as more global or macro dimensions of PYD since they are based on broad similarities found in previous studies and reviews (Catalano et al., 2019; Fernandes et al., 2021; Gomez-Baya et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Shek et al., 2019). As broad dimensions of PYD indicators, the three clusters can provide unified lens among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in examining and promoting adolescent thriving, despite possible differences in cultural context and theoretical orientation in PYD.

Nonetheless, we would like to assert that the manifestation of these clusters may be more nuanced and distinct in specific contexts and cultures. For example, although positive connections have generally been associated with greater well-being among adolescents, these relations, especially those that involve one’s parents or family, appear to be stronger among youth samples in collectivistic cultures than individualistic ones (Chue & Yeo, 2022). Collectivistic values also appear to boost altruistic and prosocial behaviors in young people (Booysen et al., 2021; Zhang & Han, 2021). On the other hand, individualism plays a stronger role in adolescents’ academic performance (Tan et al., 2021) and self-valuation (Zhang & Han, 2021). Indeed, recent investigations have noted specific differences between PYD indicators that are more valued by adolescents from individualistic contexts (e.g., efficacy-related indicators; Dvorsky et al., 2019) and those that are emphasized in collectivistic societies (e.g., socio-emotional indicators; Buenconsejo et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2018; Wong et al., 2021). Hence, it is logical to anticipate that among the clusters of the integrative paradigm of PYD, intrapersonal-immediate indicators may be stronger in individualistic cultures while interpersonal-proximal and ecological-distal indicators may be more highlighted in collectivistic ones. Aside from cultural values, these clusters of PYD indicators may also interact with other socio-contextual factors such that adolescents from high-income countries, due to the availability of greater financial and educational resources, may exhibit higher levels of PYD compared to those coming from low- and middle-income nations.

As mentioned, the proposed paradigm does not intend to replace existing models of adolescent thriving since it is anchored on the tenets of the relational developmental systems theories (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner et al., 2014), where major PYD frameworks are based. As noted by Geldhof et al. (2022) in the recent handbook of PYD across cultures, there is no “best” theoretical framework that should dominate the field since each paradigm captures the complexities and nuances of adolescent thriving. Nevertheless, the multiplicity of PYD indicators should not prevent developmental scientists from arriving at a more coherent and unifying framework that can facilitate more comparable cross-national and cross-cultural investigations of adolescent thriving beyond WEIRD societies. The specific overlaps and intersections identified by past studies (Fernandes et al., 2021; Gomez-Baya et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021) and reviews (Catalano et al., 2019; Shek et al., 2019) among PYD dimensions show that it is possible for researchers and practitioners to use a common lens of conceptualizing adolescent thriving.

The proposed taxonomy of the integrative paradigm of PYD have important theoretical and practical implications in designing, implementing, and evaluating programs of adolescent thriving among diverse youth populations. However, it should be noted that the paradigm is far from being perfect or conclusive. Given that this is the first paradigm to incorporate the indicators of major PYD models, there is a clear need to theoretically refine and empirically validate its propositions across multiple settings and samples, particularly in collectivistic and non-WEIRD societies. As such, we encourage youth researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to engage in the scholarly dialogue by offering helpful suggestions and criticisms on the proposed paradigm. Below, we present future trajectories and possible courses of action using the integrative paradigm of PYD for their consideration.

First, given that measurement is one of the backbones of a good theoretical framework, it is important for PYD scientists to develop a common measure of intrapersonal-immediate, interpersonal-proximal, and ecological-distal indicators, which can be used by researchers and practitioners from different countries among diverse youth samples. Although there are already existing measures of PYD, it is highly possible that these instruments are measuring overlapping dimensions (e.g., confidence from the five Cs model, positive identity from the 40 developmental assets framework, and self-efficacy from the 15 PYD constructs). One way of addressing this is by integrating the constructs measured by the Developmental Assets Profile (DAP; Scales, 2011), the short and very short measures of PYD (Geldhof et al., 2014), and the Chinese Positive Youth Development Scale (CPYDS; Shek et al., 2007). Simultaneously administering these measures can identify and confirm possible clustering of thriving constructs and indicators from different frameworks. Here, data reduction techniques (e.g., cluster analysis and factor analysis) may be helpful in detecting statistical overlaps and reducing redundant items among these measures. However, researchers and practitioners should also be mindful of the length of these instruments since most of them tend to be very long (e.g., 90-item CPYDS and 58-item DAP) and may not be practical to administer among young people. Adopting item response theory approaches can potentially help in identifying items with problematic difficulty and discrimination indices to generate more parsimonious measures of PYD. As such, the reliability and validity of the resultant measure should be balanced with practicality and ease of use in PYD studies and programs.

Researchers and practitioners may also need to re-evaluate the current research designs employed in PYD studies and programs since the majority of them continue to rely on cross-sectional data and adolescent self-reports (Wiium & Dimitrova, 2019). Although longitudinal investigations have been conducted on the developmental asset framework (Scales, 2011; Scales et al., 2017) and the five Cs model (Lerner & Lerner, 2013), almost all of them involved youth samples from North America. Researchers in East Asia, on the other hand, are beginning to examine the long-term effects of the 15 PYD constructs among adolescents (Shek & Chai, 2020; Shek & Zhu, 2020). Still, the field can greatly benefit from more longitudinal studies that can establish the causal links between PYD dimensions and various developmental outcomes, especially when such investigations are simultaneously conducted across countries and cultures as this would allow temporal comparisons. The work of Wiium and Dimitrova (2019) provides an outstanding example of examining PYD across cultures that successfully incorporated different models of adolescent thriving.

Additionally, adopting person-centered approaches can also provide incremental insights on the specific configurations of PYD profiles that can concurrently and longitudinally predict adolescents’ educational and mental health outcomes. Longitudinal investigations (e.g., latent growth curve modeling and cross-lagged panel modeling) may be particularly useful in tracking intrapersonal-proximal and ecological-distal indicators since these dimensions tend to be assessed or evaluated later compared to intrapersonal-immediate indicators. Investigations on the clusters of the integrative paradigm of PYD may also be extended to younger children and emerging adults, and potentially across the lifespan, which would allow a closer inspection of consistencies and changes in PYD characteristics across and beyond the second decade of life. Path analyses and structural equation modeling, especially those that involve temporal data, continue to be essential in examining the underlying mechanisms and processes between the three clusters of PYD dimensions as well as adaptive and maladaptive youth outcomes.

Further, given that PYD scholarship is dominated by quantitative research designs that heavily rely on self-reported questionnaires (Drescher et al., 2018), researchers may consider qualitative and mixed method approaches to identify emerging and indigenous features of PYD in different developmental contexts. Grounded theory and phenomenological inquiries may be particularly useful in examining the three components of the integrative paradigm of PYD as well as their alignment with young people’s personal and contextual experiences in various settings, instances, and ecologies. Experimental research designs (e.g., randomized controlled trials) can help practitioners in evaluating the effectiveness of youth programs and interventions that aim to promote optimal adolescent outcomes, especially in low- and middle-income countries (Catalano et al., 2019). Practitioners are likewise encouraged to examine the practicality of the integrative paradigm of PYD in developing, implementing, and evaluating youth programs and interventions. To provide focus and direction on these programs and interventions, it may be practical to target one cluster at a time, starting with intrapersonal-immediate indicators and moving gradually to interpersonal-proximal and ecological-distal indicators. The evaluation strategies of Project PATHS (Shek & Sun, 2013; Zhu & Shek, 2020) may serve as a model in assessing PYD programs and interventions, particularly in schools. Some of these evaluation strategies include objective measures via randomized controlled trials, subjective measures among students and program implementers, case studies, focus group discussions, and the use of student diaries (Shek & Sun, 2013). Policymakers, particularly those in charge of youth welfare programs and initiatives, are recommended to propose guidelines and strategies that would not only prevent or address existing risky and problematic behaviors among young people but would also promote adolescent thriving and flourishing, taking into account the role of culture and contexts.

As noted, the integrative paradigm of PYD does not only include indicators that pertain to the self but also dimensions that involve adolescents’ relationships with people and institutions as well as their contribution to the larger society where they are embedded. Hence, PYD researchers and practitioners may benefit from employing multiple data sources such as young people’s parents, siblings, peers, teachers, classmates, and youth leaders when measuring such thriving indicators. This is particularly important because much of the field continue to rely on self-reported measures, which have their inherent limitations (e.g., social desirability bias). While the adolescent is still the primary source of data, triangulating self-reported measures with other data sources and informants can strengthen the objectivity and validity of results obtained by PYD studies and program evaluations. Youth researchers, practitioners, and policymakers may also take this opportunity to encourage parents, teachers, and community leaders to collaborate in designing, implementing, and evaluating PYD studies and programs, taking into account their personal experiences, opinions, and suggestions on how to promote optimal adolescent development. Their involvement would not only enrich the findings of PYD investigations and validate the effectiveness of youth programs and interventions but would also create collaborative partnerships. Here, the promotion of youth thriving can go beyond research and practice and tap youth programming in excluded and underprivileged communities, teaching practices and mental health services in schools, as well as specific parenting practices in families.

With the proposed taxonomy of the integrative paradigm of PYD, we hope that interdisciplinary collaborative efforts may persist among youth researchers and practitioners from different cultural contexts. Some developmental scientists have already started such initiatives (e.g., Dimitrova & Wiium, 2021; Fernandes et al., 2021), so it is likely that this integrative PYD paradigm will continue sparking cross-disciplinary and cultural initiatives that aim to improve the science of PYD across the globe. As a critical step toward advancing PYD research and practice is striking a balance between parsimonious (e.g., five Cs model by Lerner et al., 2005) and comprehensive (e.g., 40 developmental assets framework by Benson et al., 2006) models, the integrative paradigm of PYD provides an alternative perspective of understanding and organizing thriving dimensions from major PYD models. This review also contributes to existing evidence on how integrating developmental theories (e.g., ecological systems theory) with PYD frameworks can advance our understanding of the conceptualization and mechanisms that underpin the mental health, academic, and psychological payoffs associated with promoting PYD. This integrative paradigm attempts to provide a common and unifying language among developmental scientists and practitioners to boost collaborative investigations of adolescent thriving, particularly among understudied and under-represented adolescent samples in non-WEIRD and collectivist societies. Finally, we hope this work stimulates future scholarly discourse on how integrative models of PYD can facilitate the development of empirically supported interventions to support adolescents with diverse cultural backgrounds and psychological needs in unprecedented times (e.g., trauma caused by mass shootings in schools and the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak).

No human participation was involved in writing this article.

This research was partly funded by the Research Grant Council – Early Career Scheme (ECS Project No. 28611119) – awarded to the second author and by the Research Support Scheme of the Graduate School of the Education University of Hong Kong awarded to the first author.

No potential competing interest was reported by the authors.

J.U.B. mainly conceptualized and wrote the manuscript. J.A.D.D. assisted in the conceptualization of the integrative paradigm of PYD and provided inputs in the original and final version of this article.