Doing for others: Youth's contributing behaviors and psychological engagement in youth-adult partnerships

Journal of Adolescence 55 (2017) 129e138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Doing for others: Youth's contributing behaviors and psychological engagement in youth-adult partnerships Heather L. Ramey a, b, *, Heather L. Lawford c, d, Linda Rose-Krasnor e a

School of Social and Community Services, Humber Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, Canada Department of Child & Youth Studies, Brock University, Canada c Department of Psychology, Bishop's University, Canada d Department of Child & Youth Studies, Brock University, Canada e Department of Psychology, Brock University, Canada b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 23 August 2016 Received in revised form 28 December 2016 Accepted 1 January 2017

Youth contributions to others (e.g., volunteering) have been connected to indicators of successful development, including self-esteem, optimism, social support, and identity development. Youth-adult partnerships, which involve youth and adults working together towards a shared goal in activity settings, such as youth-serving agencies or recreation organizations, provide a unique opportunity for examining youth contributions. We examined associations between measures of youth's participation in youth-adult partnerships (psychological engagement and degree of partnering) in activity settings and youth contributing behaviors, in two Canadian samples: (a) community-involved youth (N ¼ 153, mean age ¼ 17.1 years, 65% female) and (b) undergraduates (N ¼ 128, mean age ¼ 20.1 years, 92.2% female). We found that degree of partnering and psychological engagement were related to each other yet independently predicted contributing behaviors. Our findings suggest that youth-adult partnerships might be one potentially rich context for the promotion of youth's contributions to others. © 2017 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Youth contributions Contributing behaviors Youth engagement Psychological engagement Youth-adult partnerships

In North American society, youth are often considered self-absorbed and self-focused (Arnett, 2013), despite research findings that youth commonly contribute both to their families and communities (Sinha, 2015; Telzer & Fuligni, 2009). Further, such contributions have been connected to indicators of successful development, including self-esteem, optimism, social support, and positive identity (e.g., Pancer, Pratt, Hunsberger, & Alisat, 2007). Thus, this underestimation of youth's contributions to other individuals and society, as well as the relatively recent and limited nature of research on their contributions (Hershberg, DeSouza, Warren, Lerner, & Lerner, 2014; Hershberg, Johnson, DeSouza, Hunter, & Zaff, 2015), indicate the need for further research, both to gain a better understanding of youth contributions and promote these contributions. The importance of participating and feeling engaged in structured activities (e.g., volunteering) for youth development has been well documented. Recently, researchers (e.g., Adachi & Willoughby, 2014) have highlighted psychological engagement, generally defined as youth's subjective involvement in activities, as being particularly important, over and above mere physical presence. Youth who are psychologically engaged in activities enjoy a number of benefits, including identity

* Corresponding author. School of Social and Community Services, Humber Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, 3199 Lakeshore Blvd., Toronto, Ontario, M8V 1K8, Canada. E-mail address: [email protected] (H.L. Ramey). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.01.001 0140-1971/© 2017 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

130

H.L. Ramey et al. / Journal of Adolescence 55 (2017) 129e138

development, better quality friendships, and more positive self-concept (see review by Rose-Krasnor & Ramey, in press). Researchers have proposed a variety of specific aspects of activity contexts as explanations for these benefits. For example, the presence of positive adult role models, feelings of safety, and active influence in decision making have been found to be predictors of successful development (e.g., Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lawford, Ramey, Rose-Krasnor, & Proctor, 2012). In the current study, we focus on two aspects of activity contexts that may have unique associations with youth contributions: participation in youth-adult partnerships and psychological engagement in the activity. Youth-adult partnerships involve youth and adults working together toward a shared goal in contexts such as youthserving organizations or recreation settings (Zeldin, Christens, & Powers, 2013). These partnerships include elements, such as authentic decision making by youth and reciprocity, that distinguish them from other youth-adult relationships. Youth involved in youth-adult partnerships (i.e., youth partners) may have roles as members of advisory teams or boards of directors, in program planning and delivery, in advocacy, or may be involved in a range of other ways (Zeldin et al., 2013). Youth report being motivated to help and contribute to others (McLellan & Youniss, 2003; Ramey & Rose-Krasnor, 2015; Ramey, Lawford, & Rose-Krasnor, 2016) and these partnerships can be considered to be a unique sociocultural context, where youth can take on roles otherwise reserved for adults (Zeldin et al., 2013). Indeed, these partnerships may provide a unique opportunity for examining youth contributions. In the current study, we examined associations between measures of youth's degree of participation in partnerships, psychological engagement in activities, and contributing behaviors among youth involved in youth-adult partnerships in activity settings. We expected that greater degrees of partnering (e.g., greater youth voice) and psychological engagement (e.g., more interest in the activity, sense of activity importance) would be linked with more positive adjustment (e.g., Krauss et al., 2014).

1. Contributing behaviors in youth Research on youth contributions often has focused either on youth's beliefs, values, or intentions about contributing to others, such as youth's overarching values regarding contributions to others, or on youth's involvement in formal volunteer opportunities (Hershberg et al., 2015). Although youth's values and beliefs regarding their contributions are important factors in positive youth development, they do not necessarily coincide with their behaviors (Hershberg et al., 2014). Moreover, a narrow focus on participation in formal and organized opportunities overlooks many other contributing behaviors, such as help and support that youth provide in response to bids from others and as the need arises (Telzer & Fuligni, 2009). Thus, there is a need to examine youth's contributing behaviors with a broad lens, which includes both helping behaviors (e.g., assisting others in youth's school or community), as well as more passive responses to requests for assistance (e.g., providing transportation to a friend in need). These contributing behaviors reflect and can be examined by a number of theoretical and developmental perspectives (e.g., Fuligni & Telzer, 2013; Mayseless, 2016; Pancer et al., 2007). We outline some of these perspectives below. In the positive youth development literature, contribution has been described as the sixth C of positive youth development. The five Cs of competence, caring, social connections, character, and confidence are theorized to develop first, enabling the youth to make meaningful contributions to others and the broader world (Lerner, von Eye, Lerner, Lewin-Bizan, & Bowers, 2010; Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000). In this framework, contribution is indicated by both youth's beliefs and values, such as their sense of moral or civic duty, and youth behaviors (Hershberg et al., 2015; Lerner et al., 2005). Hershberg et al. (2014, 2015) have suggested that youth-adult partnerships might be especially beneficial for the development of youth contribution, as horizontal youth-adult relationships and opportunities for youth leadership could be expected to foster youth's commitments to contribute and participate positively in society. An additional perspective on contributing is offered by Rogoff and colleagues (Coppens et al., 2014; Rogoff, 2014), who have described children and youth's contributions to their community and family in behaviors such as helping in household and collaborative work. They conceptualized these activities as a form of informal learning and described it as “Learning by Observing and Pitching In”. This process appears to foster initiative, perspective-taking, and self-regulation (Coppens et al., 2014; Rogoff, 2014). Although particularly common in indigenous communities within and outside of North America, Coppens et al. (2014) have described the need for more research on the potential of this process broadly across a diversity of communities, in order to better understand and foster young people's contributions. Prosocial behaviors, such as providing unpaid child care or helping people who are sick, have been defined as voluntary actions intended to benefit others (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Padilla-Walker & Carlo, 2014). Such actions also can be considered a form of contributing behaviors. Different types of prosocial behavior appear to have different trajectories through adolescence and emerging adulthood and this diversity needs to be recognized in order to identify a coherent pattern of findings among different types, their predictors, and correlates (Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2014). Moreover, helping activities in adolescence and emerging adulthood, as well as the specific settings and predictors of these behaviors, have been highlighted by researchers as an area of prosociality in need of further research from a developmental perspective ((Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2014). In summary, for the purpose of this paper, we have defined contributing behaviors as doing for others, in structured and unstructured contexts. Contributing behaviors include both responding to bids for help and more actively seeking or initiating helping behaviors. Hershberg et al. (2014) and Pancer et al. (2007) have suggested that youth contributing behaviors might be

H.L. Ramey et al. / Journal of Adolescence 55 (2017) 129e138

131

evident in, or fostered by, a variety of settings, including youth-adult partnerships and engagement in structured and unstructured activities. 2. Youth-adult partnerships in activity settings Youth-adult partnerships involve collaboration among multiple youth and adults, and are characterized by mutual respect and reciprocity. These partnerships are focused on shared work intended to address either a social justice or community issue or to strengthen an organization (Zeldin et al., 2013). Measurement of the degree of partnering is multidimensional and has often included youth voice in decision making; equitable, collaborative relationships with adults; and program engagement. In youth-adult partnerships, youth voice has been defined as youth's perception that they have influence and ownership in decision making (Serido, Borden, & Wiggs, 2014; Zeldin, Krauss, Collura, Lucchesi, & Sulaiman, 2014). Equitable, collaborative youth-adult relationships may be a critical factor in positive youth development due to the welcoming, supportive atmosphere that can adults provide (Ramey & Rose-Krasnor, 2015; Serido, Borden, & Perkins, 2011). Finally, program engagement reflects youth's perception that the work and activities of the youth-adult partnership are valuable (e.g., with the potential to “make a difference”) (Ramey, Rose-Krasnor, & Lawford, 2016; Wood, Larson, & Brown, 2009). Conceptually, this is distinct from, but likely related to, youth's psychological engagement in activities (e.g., their feeling that their involvement in important to them, personally). Hershberg et al. (2015) have suggested a process through which youth become involved in youth-adult partnerships in community organizations, develop agency and efficacy around their potential to contribute, and thereby act on these changes and increase their contributing behaviors. Although we are not aware of any prior research linking youth's involvement in youth-adult partnerships to greater youth contributing behaviors, a number of studies have found that youth involved in youth-adult partnerships do experience greater responsibility (Salusky et al., 2014) and greater empowerment and personal agency outside of the youth-adult partnership (Krauss et al., 2014; Zeldin et al., 2014). These factors might prompt youth to increase their contributing behaviors. Moreover, it appears that these potential benefits of responsibility, agency, and empowerment depend upon the nature of youth-adult relationships and youth's degree of voice (Cargo, Grams, Ottoson, Ward, & Greene, 2003; Krauss et al., 2014; Larson, Walker, & Pearce, 2005; Wood et al., 2009). For example, youth's empowerment appears to occur, at least in part, because youth feel listened to and because their participation in the partnership is seen as giving them greater legitimacy and credibility (Blanchet-Cohen, Manolson, & Shaw, 2014; Howe et al., 2011). Taken together, links between degree of partnering and empowerment, responsible behavior, legitimacy and credibility, and youth agency, suggest that greater partnering would enhance youth's ability and intentions toward increased contributing behaviors. Furthermore, it is likely that not just youth's perception regarding the degree of partnering but also their psychological engagement in the activities of the youth-adult partnership that would determine potential outcomes, including youth contributing behaviors. 3. Psychological engagement Psychological engagement is a multidimensional construct, including cognitive (e.g., focus), affective (e.g., enjoyment), and spiritual (e.g., meaningfulness) components (Ramey et al., 2015; Rose-Krasnor, 2009). It is a subjective concept, in contrast to more objective measures of behavioural engagement, such as frequency and duration of participation. In activity settings, psychological engagement has been found to be a stronger predictor than behavioural participation of a number of indicators of overall positive youth development (Ramey et al., 2015), as well as specific indices of developments, such as selfesteem, optimism, and purpose in life in high-school aged youth (Adachi & Willoughby, 2014; DesRoches & Willoughby, 2014). Although psychological engagement is increasingly being measured in studies of general activity participation such as sports or clubs (e.g., Adachi & Willoughby; Denault & Poulin, 2016), few researchers have studied psychological engagement specifically in youth-adult partnerships. One exception is a recent study by Krauss et al. (2014), which has included a measure of youth's enjoyment, concentration, and interest. This measure of psychological engagement was found to predict youth empowerment, although not over and above degree of partnering (specifically, youth voice). Some current research suggests that psychological engagement in activities predicts youth contributions. In a qualitative study of the development of youth's psychological engagement in activities, Dawes and Larson (2011) found that psychological engagement frequently increased as youth began to pursue a purpose that transcended their own self-interest. Their other-directed goals included service, civic, and social change goals. In a recent study of school-aged children in Boy Scouts, Lynch, Ferris, Burkhard, Wang, Hershberg, and Lerner (2016) found that greater psychological engagement was related to increases in helpfulness over time. In a review on civic engagement, Zaff, Kawashima-Ginsberg, and Lin (2011), further, pointed to research highlighting engagement in organizational processes as providing youth with an understanding of their stake and potential in creating change. This engagement, in turn, led to youth's greater contributions to their social worlds. They highlighted the importance of active engagement, rather than mere physical presence, in community-based programs. Taken together, this body of research suggests links between psychological engagement and contributions more broadly. However, previous research on psychological engagement has not included a wide range of helping or responding behaviors, including those occurring outside of structured activities.

132

H.L. Ramey et al. / Journal of Adolescence 55 (2017) 129e138

4. The current study In the current study, we examined associations among youth's involvement in youth-adult partnerships and their contributing behaviors, in samples of community engaged youth and undergraduate emerging adults. Specifically, we examined degree of partnering (voice, youth-adult relationships, and program engagement) and psychological engagement in activities (cognitive, affective, and spiritual) as predictors of youth's contributing behaviors (including both helping and more passive responding). We anticipated that both degree of partnering and psychological engagement would separately predict more frequent contributing behaviors in youth. Given past findings by Hardy, Pratt, Pancer, Olsen, and Lawford (2011), suggesting that overall community involvement decreases over adolescence and emerging adulthood, we further tested the possibility that associations differed between the two samples. Hardy et al. found that, although overall levels of community involvement decreased as youth became older, community involvement remained important. Therefore, we anticipated that associations would be consistent across different aged samples although the frequency of contribution behaviors may differ. 5. Method 5.1. Participants and procedures We used two samples in the current study (for more information, see Lawford & Ramey, 2015). Participants in Sample 1 were 153 youth (Mean age ¼ 17.1 years; SD ¼ 1.9 years; age range 13e21; 64.7% female) involved in youth-adult partnerships (e.g., youth advisory councils) at community organizations (e.g., youth drop-in centers) in Ontario, Canada. Youth were recruited through emails to community organizations and were invited to complete an online survey. Participants most frequently identified as Caucasian (43%), Asian (21%), and “other” (17%). Some participants identified as African American (10%), West Indian (7%), and Aboriginal (3%). Overall, the most common grade average (48% of participants) was between 80% and 89%. Reports of mother's education was diverse; participants reported mother's education as having completed high school (25%), some university or college (23%), university or college (19%), graduate school (20%), or some high school (13%). In Sample 2, participants were 225 undergraduates recruited from a midsize university in Ontario, Canada. Of these, 97 indicated they were not involved in decision making in their activities and therefore the discussed activities were not youthadult partnerships. The final sample for analysis therefore included 128 participants (Mean age ¼ 20.1 years; SD ¼ 1.7 years, age range 17e25; 92.2% female). Most participants (84%) were in a social sciences program and the most common grade average (53% of participants) was between 70 and 79%. Most participants identified as Caucasian (48%) or Asian (40%). A small percentage identified their ethnicity as “other” (7%), Aboriginal (2%), African American (2%), or West Indian (1%). Participants most frequently reported mother's education as having completed university or college (34%), high school (29%), or some college (19%). Recruitment occurred both through a psychology participant pool, as well as through campus-wide advertisement. Participants completed the online or paper-and-pencil version of the survey, based on their own preference. There were some demographic differences between the two samples. It is not surprising that the undergraduate sample (Sample 2) was significantly older than the community sample (Sample 1), t(273) ¼ 13.71, p < 0.001. Also, there was a significantly larger proportion of male participants in Sample 1 (35%) compared with the Sample 2 (8%), t(279) ¼ 5.77, p < 0.001. Sample 1 reported higher average grades (4.65 versus 4.29 in Sample 2), and longer (Mean ¼ 4.00 versus 3.26) participation. There was no significant difference in participation frequency or level of mother's education. 5.2. Measures Details and descriptives for each study measure, including means, standard deviations, alphas, and correlations, are included in Table 1. 5.2.1. Background information Age, gender, ethnicity, maternal education (a proxy for socioeconomic status), and average grades were measured with single items. Responses on the average grades item could range from 1 (below 50%) to 6 (90e100%). Responses on the maternal education item could range from 1 (some high school) to 5 (professional degree or graduate school). 5.2.2. Contributions Contributing behaviors were measured using two subscales of the Youth Inventory of Involvement (YII; Pancer et al., 2007): the responding subscale (5 items, averaged, e.g., “signed a petition”, Sample 1, a ¼ 0.69, Sample 2, a ¼ 0.55) and the helping subscale (10 items, averaged, e.g., “visited or helped out people who were sick”, Sample 1, a ¼ 0.81, Sample 2, a ¼ 0.82). Responses could range from 1 (never did this) to 5 (did this a lot). 5.2.3. Psychological engagement Psychological engagement in activities was measured using the Snapshot Survey of Engagement (SSE; Busseri, RoseKrasnor, & Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement, 2009; Ramey et al., 2015). Psychological engagement was measured using cognitive (3 items, averaged, e.g., “I really focus on this activity when I am doing it”, Sample 1, a ¼ 0.59, Sample 2, a ¼ 0.72), affective (3 items, averaged, e.g., “I enjoy this activity and have fun when I am involved”, Sample 1,

H.L. Ramey et al. / Journal of Adolescence 55 (2017) 129e138

133

Table 1 Summary of means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations. Measure

1. Age

Sample 1

Sample 2

M (SD)

M (SD)

17.08 (1.95) 2. Gender 64.7% female 3. Grade average 4.65 (0.90) 4. Mother education 3.06 (1.33) 5. Frequency 4.38 (1.51) 6. Duration 3.26 (1.26) 7. Cognitive 4.06 (0.73) 8. Affective 4.22 (0.82) 9. Spiritual 4.16 (0.80) 10. Relationships 4.29 (0.63) 11. Program 4.33 (0.60) engagement 12. Voice 3.93 (0.81) 13. Responding 3.52 (0.86) 14. Helping 3.46 (0.75)

20.13 (1.72) 92.2% female 4.29 (0.64) 3.20 (1.15) 4.48 (1.62) 4.00 (1.59) 4.35 (0.66) 4.38 (0.70) 4.33 (0.73) 3.87 (0.77) 4.34 (0.63)

1

2

3

e

0.18*

0.14 0.02

0.02

e

0.22* 0.13 0.08

0.07

0.11 0.20* 0.24** 0.04 0.18* 0.12 0.15 0.12*

0.15 0.16 0.06 0.29** 0.14 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.02

0.23** 0.10 0.01 0.06 0.17* 0.11 -0.19* 0.07 0.15

e 0.25** 0.14 0.06 0.26** 0.17* 0.15 0.13 0.20*

0.12 e 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.18* 0.13 0.15 0.18*

0.10 0.12 e 0.03 0.18* 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.02

0.02 0.07 0.13 e 0.04 0.17* 0.14 0.02 0.07

0.23** 0.06 0.14 0.21* e 0.56** 0.55** 0.53** 0.58**

0.12 0.13 0.12

0.08 0.11 0.10

0.05 0.14 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.19*

3.81 (0.82) 0.03 0.03 3.55 (0.76) 0.13 0.02 3.52 (0.77) 0.06 0.07

4

5

6

7

8

9

0.08 0.20* 0.02 0.10 0.04

0.08 0.04 0.06 0.29** 0.67** e 0.73** 0.53** 0.70**

0.18* 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.38** 0.61** e 0.53** 0.64**

0.44** 0.52** 0.47** 0.13 0.28** 0.27** 0.20* 0.39** 0.35**

10

11

12

13

0.04

0.06

0.15

0.21* 0.17

0.03 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.19* 0.25** 0.36** e 0.77**

0.14 0.05 0.12 0.002 0.32** 0.31** 0.39** 0.61** e

0.05 0.01 0.15 0.10 0.23* 0.27** 0.33** 0.69** 0.63**

0.13 0.12 0.09 0.15 0.33** 0.38** 0.31** 0.20* 0.29**

14

0.10 0.10 0.05 0.13 0.18* 0.24** 0.24** 0.17 0.26**

0.72** 0.65** e 0.19* 0.24** 0.22** 0.30** 0.29** e 0.61** 0.40** 0.43** 0.52** 0.69** e

Note: Values for Sample 1 are below the diagonal, and values for Sample 2 are above the diagonal. Gender was coded as 0 (female), and 1 (male). *p < .05. **p < .01.

a ¼ 0.83, Sample 2, a ¼ 0.78), and spiritual (4 items, averaged, e.g., “This activity helps me connect to something greater than myself”, Sample 1, a ¼ 0.77, Sample 2, a ¼ 0.78) subscales. Responses could range from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). 5.2.4. Behavioural engagement To characterize the nature of youth participation, youth were asked the duration (“How long have you been participating in these activities?”) and frequency (“How often do you do participate in these activities?”) of their participation. Responses on the frequency item could range from 1 (done it just once) to 6 (several days a week). Responses on the duration item could range from 1 (just started) to 6 (more than 5 years). Further, as Sample 2 participants were not specifically recruited for their participation in youth-adult partnerships, they were also asked to describe the activity that was most important to them. Following a system described in our previous work (Ramey et al., 2010), activities were categorized into 6 types: clubs and groups (11.1% of participants); leisure/games/hobbies (1.6%); performing and fine arts (7.1%); socializing (1.6%); sports/ physical activities (19.8%); and volunteering/service (57.1%), in addition to an unclear/uncodeable category (1.6%). 5.2.5. Degree of partnering Degree of partnering was measured with three subscales from the Youth Voice Survey (Cater, 2006; Cater, Machtmes, & Fox, 2008): collaborative relationships with adults (8 items, averaged; e.g., “My ideas are respected by adults who are involved in these activities”, Sample 1, a ¼ 0.91, Sample 2, a ¼ 0.94), program engagement (8 items, averaged; e.g., “I think the activities that we are involved in with this organization are valuable”, Sample 1, a ¼ 0.90, Sample 2, a ¼ 0.93), and voice (5 items, averaged; e.g., “I make decisions about what we do in these activities”, Sample 1, a ¼ 0.89, Sample 2, a ¼ 0.85). Responses could range from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). 5.3. Missing data and data analysis Some participants did not complete all survey questions; 1.5% of the data were missing. Therefore, missing values were imputed using the EM algorithm in SPSS (Schafer & Graham, 2002). Following an examination of descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations, the models were tested with structural equation modeling (SEM) using the Amos program. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the measurement model for psychological engagement, degree of partnering, and contributing behaviors. Subscales acted as the manifest variables derived from the latent variables. Goodness of fit was assessed with the comparative fit index (CFI), which is considered to reflect good fit when it is 0.95 or above (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), which is considered to reflect reasonable fit when it is 0.08 or below and good fit when it is 0.05 or below (Kline, 2011). 6. Results Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1. In Sample 1, female participants tended to report higher levels of cognitive and spiritual psychological engagement than did male participants. Youth with higher grades tended to

134

H.L. Ramey et al. / Journal of Adolescence 55 (2017) 129e138

report higher levels of cognitive and affective psychological engagement, as well as program engagement. Maternal education was significantly and positively related to affective psychological engagement and program engagement. Youth who had been involved for a longer duration tended to report more helping behaviors, but participation frequency and duration were not related to any other responding or helping behaviors. Age was not related to any key variables. In Sample 2, female participants tended to report higher levels of affective and spiritual psychological engagement, program engagement, and helping behaviors than did male participants. Youth with higher grades tended to report higher levels of cognitive and spiritual engagement. Older youth tended to report lower levels of helping behaviors. Maternal education, participation frequency, and duration were not correlated with any key variables. In both samples, each of psychological engagement variables were positively and significantly correlated with each other, as were the degree of partnering variables. Also in both samples, each of the psychological engagement variables was positively correlated with each of the degree of partnering variables. Notably, relationships between program engagement and the psychological engagement composites were reflected in their zero order correlations, which ranged from 0.58 (cognitive) to 0.70 (affective) in Sample 1 and 0.31 (affective) and 0.39 (spiritual) in Sample 2, indicating shared and unique variance. In both samples, helping and responding were positively correlated with all of the degree of partnering and psychological engagement variables, with two exceptions. In Sample 1, responding and cognitive engagement were not significantly related and in Sample 2, collaborative youth-adult relationships and helping were not significantly related. Finally, in both samples, helping and responding behaviors were significantly and positively correlated. The CFA of the complete model resulted in an acceptable fit (CFI ¼ 0.965, RMSEA ¼ 0.087, c2 (17) 52.756, p < 0.001). An examination of standardized residuals showed residuals above 1.0 between program engagement from the degree of partnering latent variable and all three psychological engagement subscales. We therefore added a path from psychological engagement to program engagement. This significantly improved the model (CFI ¼ 0.989, RMSEA ¼ 0.049, c2 D (1) ¼ 25.801, p < 0.001. All correlations were significant. The path from psychological engagement to program engagement was significant (0.30, p < 0.001). We concluded that items fell relatively well within their latent variables, with the exception of the crossloading of program engagement. Next we tested a path model, whereby degree of partnering and psychological engagement predicted contributing behaviors (see Fig. 1). As predicted, results from this analysis indicated that both independently and significantly predicted contributing behaviors, CFI ¼ 0.989, RMSEA ¼ 0.049, c2 (16) ¼ 26.950, p ¼ 0.042. Degree of partnering was a moderate predictor of contributing behaviors (0.262), as was psychological engagement (0.292). Finally, to assess the potential moderating role of sample, we conducted multiple-group SEM (Kline, 2011). This type of test is employed to assess whether latent variable scores and hypothesized relationships are similar across groups. This analysis was used to assess the invariance of our model in participants collected from the two different samples to see if paths from degree of partnering and psychological engagement to contributing behaviors were consistent in strength across samples. We tested for equality of structural coefficients, constraining the paths from youth-adult partnership and psychological engagement to contributing behaviors to be equal in both groups. The models showed no significant difference in c2 (c2(8) ¼ 11.241, p ¼ 0.188) and the difference between the CFI values on the constrained and unconstrained models was below the recommended cutoff criterion of 0.01 (D CFI ¼ 0.003; Byrne, 2010). This latter result indicated that the model did not differ by sample and our hypothesis was supported for both groups. 7. Discussion Our findings suggest that experiencing a relatively high degree of youth-adult partnering and psychological engagement in activities positively predict youth's contributing behaviors. Moreover, degree of partnering and psychological engagement operated independently, suggesting that each measurement of participation in youth-adult partnership had a unique role in predicting youth contributing behaviors, in addition to their shared variance. Degree of partnering reflects what might be an ideal form of youth-adult partnership. Indeed, youth who experienced this form of youth-adult partnership in their activities were more likely to demonstrate a range of contributing behaviors than were youth with lower levels of such experiences. Thus, it appears that a process of having greater voice, more collaborative relationships with adults, and engagement in a program with activities that youth perceive as valuable might foster a greater frequency of youth behaviors that benefit others. Our finding extends past research on links between youth's degree of partnering in youth-adult partnerships and youth's agency, empowerment, and responsible behavior (e.g., Salusky et al., 2014), in associating the degree of partnering with a range of specific behaviors focused beyond the self. Connections between degree of partnering and contributing behaviors might be explained, at least partially, by youth's feeling more empowered to make contributions (Krauss et al., 2014; Zeldin et al., 2014) or feeling greater responsibility for others (Salusky et al., 2014). Further, youth who experience greater partnering (e.g., having stronger relationships with adults, demonstrating greater voice) may be offered new opportunities for making contributions to others. Also, as anticipated, youth's psychological engagement, comprising cognitive, affective, and spiritual components, predicted their contributing behaviors. This finding, first, builds on a growing list of indicators of youth's positive development that have been linked to psychological engagement in activities, including sense of belonging, social responsibility, selfesteem, and reduced suicidal thought (Adachi & Willoughby, 2014; Armstrong & Manion, 2015; McGuire & Gamble, 2006; Rose-Krasnor & Ramey, in press). More specific to the current study's focus on contributing behaviors, our findings add to past

H.L. Ramey et al. / Journal of Adolescence 55 (2017) 129e138

135

Fig. 1. Structural equation model of degree of partnering and psychological engagement predicting contributing behaviors. *p  .05. CFI ¼ .989, RMSEA ¼ .049.

research (Dawes & Larson, 2011; Pratt & Lawford, 2014; Zaff et al., 2011) that suggested links between youth participation in activities and the desire to create change. Our results establish quantitative links between youth's psychological engagement in youth-adult partnerships and their contributing behaviors. It was not surprising that the latent psychological engagement factor also loaded onto the youth involvement in youthadult partnership latent factor. As noted above, very little research has included measures of youth involvement and psychological engagement in youth-adult partnerships; those that have (e.g., Zeldin et al., 2014) have not included program engagement. It is reasonable, however, that youth's perception that their youth-adult partnership activities are valuable and important, and their subjective engagement in those activities, would overlap. In addition to this association, the broader degree of partnering and psychological engagement latent variables in the final model were related even more strongly to each other (0.54) than either were to contributing behavior (0.26, 0.29, respectively). Nevertheless, associations between both psychological engagement and degree of partnering in youth-adult partnerships and contributing behaviors were significant, supporting the importance of both of these factors as independent predictors of youth's contributing behaviors. We might speculate that, in its subjectivity, psychological engagement indicates a more proximal process than degree of partnering and is therefore more reflective of youth's individual needs and motivations. In contrast, degree of partnering might be relatively less personal and more reflective of the functioning and effectiveness of the broader group of youth and adults within a given youth-adult partnership. There were a number of differences between our two samples. Participants in the community sample were recruited specifically for their participation in youth-adult partnerships. The undergraduate sample likely participated in a more diverse range of activities than did youth in settings where youth-adult partnerships are not as common (e.g., sports teams). Participants in the undergraduate sample, moreover, were slightly older, almost entirely female, and attended the same midsized university. However, our tests showed no difference in model fit between samples, suggesting that the model is robust in fitting across the groups of adolescents and emerging adults. 7.1. Limitations, strengths, and future directions The current study had a number of limitations, suggesting some directions for future research. One limitation was that our data were cross-sectional. We can therefore make no assumptions regarding directionality and, indeed, expect that associations between youth's involvement in youth-adult partnerships, psychological engagement, and contributing behaviors are bidirectional. Nevertheless, longitudinal research would help to assess this assumption and to disentangle directionality and strength of associations. Specifically, future research is needed to disentangle associations between psychological engagement and degree of partnering. Program engagement is clearly implicated in the overlap between these two constructs; however, our own past research indicates that program engagement is an important dimension in measuring youth-adult partnering, in its predictive power over and above other dimensions (Ramey, Rose-Krasnor, et al., 2016). Our findings suggest that relations

136

H.L. Ramey et al. / Journal of Adolescence 55 (2017) 129e138

between psychological engagement and degree of partnering are more complex than simply those of complementary or parallel predictors. Future research is needed to explore overlap and directionality, including the degree to which these constructs might be mutually reinforcing. A further limitation involved our measure of contributing behaviors. Contributing behaviors included both helping and more passive responding behaviors. It also included different contexts, including, but not restricted to, unpaid child care, helping people who were sick or in need of instrumental support, and helping with fundraising projects. However, our measure of contribution also was limited in at least two ways. First, it did not specifically include family-focused contributions, such as household chores. Other researchers have found that this type of contribution is common and important in adolescence, and is connected to greater youth well-being and better immune functioning (Fuligni & Telzer, 2013). Second, the quantitative nature of our contribution measure restricted youth's ability to identify contributions more generally. In future, it would be productive to explore a wider range of contributions, including those that take place in the family home, and to continue qualitative explorations of youth's self-perceived contributions (e.g., Hershberg et al., 2014). Both of these approaches also might be more relevant and better able to capture the contributions of youth from diverse range of cultures pez, Najafi, Rogoff, & Mejía-Arauz, 2012). (Lo A further measurement limitation arose in our use of youth self-report. Past research has indicated differences between youth and adult reports of degree of partnering in youth-adult partnerships (Akiva, Cortina, & Smith, 2014). Further, it appears to be youth's perceptions of their roles as meaningful, rather than adults' perceptions of youth's roles, that is critical in measuring youth-adult partnerships (Sullivan & Larson, 2010). Nevertheless, it would be interesting to examine the degree, predictors, and consequences of discrepancies between youth and adult perceptions of the same youth-adult partnerships, as well as youth contributions. The strengths of the current study include, as noted above, a reliance on two different samples of youth, including an undergraduate sample, not typically used for studies of youth-adult partnership. Generalizability to more disparate samples, however, cannot be assumed. For example, there is conflicting evidence about the impact youth voice for marginalized populations. Serido et al. (2014) found that greater youth voice was related to lower barriers for continued participation for white youth but to greater barriers to participation for ethnic minority youth. They speculated that this somewhat surprising finding might result from minority youth's recognition of the limits of their own power in effecting changes. Poteat, Calzo, and Yoshikawa (2016), however, found that, for youth involved in gay-straight alliances, participation in advocacy activities was related to greater agency for sexual minority youth, but the association was not significant for heterosexual youth. Further research and attention from practitioners is needed to clarify these seemingly disparate findings. Another possible limitation to generalizability might be the high average grades (80e89%) in Sample 1. Indeed, there appear to be few existing quantitative studies of youth-adult partnerships reporting youth's average grades. Akiva et al.'s (2014) study of youth involved in program decision making is one exception. They reported a more typical mean GPA of 3.2, approximating the grade average found in the undergraduate sample in the current study. The characteristics of youth involved in youth-adult partnerships is most likely variable and dependent on such factors as type of partnership (e.g., advisory committees, program planning and implementation, political organizing), and type of organization (e.g., mental health services, government, grassroots). It is difficult to account for this sample characteristic in the current study. Our Sample 1 participants were drawn from organizations that were primarily focused on community services, including those for street youth, recreation centers, neighborhood centers, and mental health advocacy. Participation in such organizations may be particularly attractive to academically successful students. Although average grades were not included in the current model because they were not related to contributions, this might be an issue of restriction of range and the association might be significant in other samples. Thus, it might be important to consider academic competence in future research, and also to consider different characteristics of youth-adult partnerships, such as type of partnership. The use of a measure of psychological engagement, while also measuring degree of partnering, also is uncommon in studies of youth-adult partnerships. Studies of broader activity participation support the importance of psychological engagement in predicting developmental outcomes (e.g., Adachi & Willoughby, 2014). In line with these results, our findings point to the need to include psychological engagement in analyses of youth-adult partnership and contributing behaviors. Although some past research has suggested age-related differences in contributions (Hardy et al., 2011), helping behaviors did not differ by age in either sample. Responding behaviors differed only in Sample 2, with older youth showed lower levels of responding behaviors. We were unable to specifically examine the role of age in the current study. With regard to gender, as already noted, Sample 2 was mostly female. We are not aware of any prior research suggesting associations between either degree of partnering or psychological engagement and contributing behaviors would be expected to differ by gender. Nevertheless, as past research (Hardy, Bean, & Olsen, 2015) has found mean differences in contributions between male and female youth, gender might be relevant in other studies of youth contributing behaviors. Past research suggests that participation in youth-adult partnerships fosters youth's positive development (e.g., empowerment, identity; Ramey, Lawford, et al., 2016; Zeldin et al., 2014). One unique contribution of the current study is that we examined these partnerships as a potential means to foster, not just youth's self-development, but care and contributions to others. Current findings indicate that participation in youth-adult partnerships may have significant implications for the development and recognition of youth's roles within broader society.

H.L. Ramey et al. / Journal of Adolescence 55 (2017) 129e138

137

7.2. Conclusion Recognizing and promoting youth's contributions can have positive consequences both for youth development and for communities and other developmental contexts of their lives. Moreover, such contributions situate them as complete persons, already a contributing part of their communities and society, rather than simply “a work” in preparation for a future adult world (Coppens et al., 2014). In the current study, we explored youth-adult partnerships as one potentially rich context for the promotion of youth's contributions. As expected, we found that a high degree of youth-adult partnerships was positively associated with the contributions of young people beyond the self. We hope future research and work with youth builds on these findings. Acknowledgments This research was supported by a Humber SIRF grant given to the first author and a SSHRC Insight Development Grant given to the second author. References Adachi, P., & Willoughby, T. (2014). It's not how much you play, but how much you enjoy the game: The longitudinal associations between adolescents' selfesteem and the frequency versus enjoyment of involvement in sports. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 137e145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964013-9988-3. Akiva, T., Cortina, K. S., & Smith, C. (2014). Involving youth in program decision-making: How common and what might it do for youth? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1844e1860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0183-y. Armstrong, L. L., & Manion, I. G. (2015). Meaningful youth engagement as a protective factor for youth suicidal ideation. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 20e27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12098. Arnett, J. J. (2013). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. Blanchet-Cohen, N., Manolson, S., & Shaw, K. (2014). Youth-led decision making in community development grants. Youth & Society, 46, 819e834. http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/0044118X12455024. Busseri, M. A., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement. (2009). The engagement portrait: A snapshot of your involvement. Unpublished survey. Cargo, M., Grams, G. D., Ottoson, J. M., Ward, P., & Green, L. W. (2003). Empowerment as fostering positive youth development and citizenship. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, S66eS79. Cater, M. D. W. (2006). How voice affects perceptions of relationship with adults, ownership, and engagement in youth (Doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College. Cater, M., Machtmes, K., & Fox, J. (2008). An examination of youth voice via quasi- experimental methodology. Journal of Youth Development, 3(2). Retrieved from: http://data.memberclicks.com/site/nae4a/JYD_080302final.pdf. Coppens, A. D., Silva, K. G., Ruvalcaba, O., Alcala, L., Lopez, A., & Rogoff, B. (2014). Learning by observing and pitching In: Benefits and processes of expanding repertoires. Human Development, 57, 150e161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356770. Dawes, N. P., & Larson, R. (2011). How youth get engaged: Grounded-theory research on motivational development in organized youth programs. Developmental Psychology, 47, 259e269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020729. DesRoches, A., & Willoughby, T. (2014). Bidirectional associations between valued activities and adolescent positive adjustment in a longitudinal study: Positive mood as a mediator. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 208e220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9957-x. Denault, A.-S., & Poulin, F. (2016). What adolescents experience in organized activities: Profiles of individual and social experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 42, 40e48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.11.004. Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Features of positive developmental settings. In J. S. Eccles, & J. A. Gootman (Eds.), Community programs to promote youth development (pp. 86e118). Washington, DC: National Academic Press. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social emotional, and personality development (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 646e718). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. (2014). Multidimensionality of prosocial behavior. In L. M. Padilla-Walker, & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 17e39). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199964772.003.0001. Fuligni, A. J., & Telzer, E. H. (2013). Another way family can get in the head and under the skin: The neurobiology of helping the family. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 138e142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12029. Hardy, S. A., Bean, D. S., & Olsen, J. A. (2015). Moral identity and adolescent prosocial and antisocial behaviors: Interactions with moral disengagement and self-regulation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1542e1554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0172-1. Hardy, S. A., Pratt, M. W., Pancer, S. M., Olsen, J. A., & Lawford, H. L. (2011). Community and religious involvement as contexts of identity change across late adolescence and emerging adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 125e135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025410375920. Hershberg, R. M., DeSouza, L. M., Warren, A. E. A., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2014). Illuminating trajectories of adolescent thriving and contribution through the words of youth: Qualitative findings from the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 43, 950e970. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0102-2. Hershberg, R. M., Johnson, S. K., DeSouza, L. M., Hunter, C. J., & Zaff, J. (2015). Promoting contribution among youth: Implications from positive youth development research for youth development programs. In E. P. Bowers, G. J. Geldhof, S. K. Johnson, L. J. Hilliard, R. M. Hershberg, J. V. Lerner, et al. (Eds. ), Promoting positive youth development: Lessons from the 4-H study (pp. 211e228). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17166́ ́ 1_11. Howe, D., Batchelor, S., & Bochynska, K. (2011). Finding our way: Youth participation in the development and promotion of youth mental health services on the NSW Central Coast. Advances in Mental Health, 10, 20e28. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cuto criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1e55. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Krauss, S. E., Collura, J., Zeldin, S., Ortega, A., Abdullah, H., & Sulaiman, A. H. (2014). Youth-adult partnership: Exploring contributions to empowerment, agency and community connections in Malaysian youth programs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1550e1562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964013-0027-1. Larson, R., Walker, K., & Pearce, N. (2005). A comparison of youth- driven and adult-driven youth programs: Balancing inputs from youth and adults. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 57e74. Lawford, H. L., & Ramey, H. L. (2015). “Now I know I can make a difference”: Generativity and activity engagement as predictors of meaning making in youth. Developmental Psychology, 51, 1395e1406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000034.

138

H.L. Ramey et al. / Journal of Adolescence 55 (2017) 129e138

Lawford, H. L., Ramey, H. L., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Proctor, A. (2012). Predictors of adolescent successful development after an exchange: The importance of activity qualities and youth input. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1381e1391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.05.008. Lerner, R. M., Fisher, C. B., & Weinberg, R. A. (2000). Toward a science for and of the people: Promoting the civil society through the application of developmental science. Child Development, 71, 11e20. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 17e71. Lerner, R. M., von Eye, A., Lerner, J. V., Lewin-Bizan, S., & Bowers, E. P. (2010). Special issue introduction: The meaning and measurement of thriving: A view of the issues. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 39, 707e719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9531-8.  pez, A., Najafi, B., Rogoff, B., & Mejía-Arauz, R. (2012). Collaboration and helping as cultural practices. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and Lo psychology (pp. 869e884). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lynch, A. D., Ferris, K. A., Burkhard, B., Wang, J., Hershberg, R. M., Lerner, R. M., et al. (2016). Character development within youth development programs: Exploring multiple dimensions of activity involvement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57, 73e86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12035. Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York, NY: Oxford. McGuire, J. K., & Gamble, W. C. (2006). Community service for youth: The value of psychological engagement over number of hours spent. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 289e298. McLellan, J. A., & Youniss, J. (2003). Two systems of youth service: Determinants of voluntary and required youth community service. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 47e58. Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2014). The study of prosocial behavior: Past, present, and future. In L. M. Padilla-Walker, & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 3e16). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199964772. 003.0001. Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B., & Alisat, S. (2007). Community and political involvement in adolescence. What distinguishes the activists from the uninvolved? Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 741e759. Poteat, V. P., Calzo, J. P., & Yoshikawa, H. (2016). Promoting youth agency through dimensions of GayeStraight Alliance involvement and conditions that maximize associations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1438e1451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0421-6. Pratt, M., & Lawford, H. L. (2014). Early generativity and types of civic engagement in adolescence and emerging adulthood. In L. M. Padilla-Walker, & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 10.10939780199964772.003.0020. seau Ado Ottawa, & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2010). Youth engagement and suicide risk: Ramey, H. L., Busseri, M. A., Khanna, N., Youth Net Hamilton, Youth Net/Re Testing a mediated model in a Canadian community sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 243e258. Ramey, H. L., Lawford, H. L., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2016). Motivations for participation and psychological engagement in emerging adults' leisure activities. Leisure Sciences, 38, 338e356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2015.1095661. Ramey, H. L., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2015). The New Mentality: Youth-adult partnerships in a community mental health promotion program. Children and Youth Services Review, 50, 28e37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.01.006. Ramey, H. L., Rose-Krasnor, L., Busseri, M. A., Gadbois, S., Bowker, A., & Findlay, L. (2015). Measuring psychological engagement in youth activity involvement. Journal of Adolescence, 45, 237e249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.09.006. Ramey, H. L., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Lawford, H. L. (2016). Youth-adult partnerships and youth identity style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-016-0474-6. Advanced online publication. Rogoff, B. (2014). Learning by Observing and Pitching in to family and community endeavors: An orientation. Human Development, 57, 69e81. http://dx.doi. org/10.1159/000356757. Rose-Krasnor, L. (2009). Future directions in youth involvement research. Social Development, 18, 497e509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008. 00506.x. Salusky, I., Larson, R. W., Griffith, A., Raffaelli, M., Sugimura, M., Wu, J., et al. (2014). How youth develop responsibility: What can be learned from youth programs. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 417e430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12118. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147e177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7. 2.147. Serido, J., Borden, L. M., & Perkins, D. F. (2011). Moving beyond youth voice. Youth & Society, 43, 44e63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X09351280. Serido, J., Borden, L. M., & Wiggs, C. B. (2014). Breaking down potential barriers to continued program participation. Youth & Society, 46, 51e69. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0044118X11424916. Sinha, M. (2015). Volunteering in Canada, 2004 to 2013. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-652-x/89-652x2015003-eng.htm#a5. Sullivan, P. J., & Larson, R. W. (2010). Connecting youth to high- resource adults: Lessons from effective youth programs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 99e123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558409350505. Telzer, E. H., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). Daily family assistance and the psychological well being of adolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1177e1189. Wood, D., Larson, R., & Brown, J. R. (2009). How adolescents come to see themselves as more responsible through participation in youth programs. Child Development, 80, 295e309. Zaff, J. F., Kawashima-Ginsberg, K., & Lin, E. S. (2011). Advances in civic engagement research: Issues of civic measures and civic context. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 41, 273e308. Zeldin, S., Christens, B., & Powers, C. (2013). The psychology and practice of Youth-Adult Partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 385e397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9558-y. Zeldin, S., Krauss, S. E., Collura, J., Lucchesi, M., & Sulaiman, A. H. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring youtheadult partnership in community programs: A cross national study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54, 337e347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9676-9.