Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite growing calls to foster civic engagement among adolescents in the United States, many youths remain disengaged. While previous research has examined the types and benefits of civic activities, less is known about diverse contribution patterns and their links to demographics. This study examines the heterogeneity of adolescents’ contribution behaviors and associations with demographic variables, PYD, purpose, hope, and critical consciousness. The sample included 723 U.S. adolescents (average age = 15.76, SD = 1.22; 54.9% female/non-binary). Latent Profile Analysis identified four profiles: Less-engaged, Digital Advocates (high online, low offline), Local Helpers (high interpersonal helping), and Contributors (high across all domains). Chi-square and ANOVA revealed no significant age, gender, or race/ethnicity differences, but socioeconomic status was higher among Contributors and Local Helpers. PYD, purpose, hope, and critical consciousness varied, with more engaged groups reporting higher levels. Findings underscore the multifaceted nature of contribution and opportunities to support diverse civic engagement.

Keywords

Positive Youth Development (PYD)5C model 7C model contribution Latent Profile Analysis

Introduction

Given that engagement with civic society among youth in the United States is lower than desirable (Jung & Gopalan, 2024; Kahne & Sporte, 2008), there has been growing interest in exploring the types of civic activities youth participate in and the factors that facilitate or hinder their involvement. The Positive Youth Development (PYD) framework, particularly the 7C model, emphasizes the development of competence, confidence, connection, character, caring, and creativity to foster well-rounded and healthy young individuals who contribute to themselves, their families, their communities, and civic society (Dimitrova & Wiium, 2021; Lerner et al., 2005). Understanding how youth engage in and value different forms of contribution can provide insights into promoting greater civic involvement. While considerable research has focused on the general attributes of youth development, there remains a gap in understanding the heterogeneous patterns of adolescent contribution. This study aims to address this gap by exploring distinct profiles of adolescents based on their involvement in contribution activities. Furthermore, the study investigates how these contribution profiles relate to sociodemographic factors, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Additionally, the study will explore whether there are differences in PYD, purpose in life, hopeful future expectations, and critical consciousness across profiles of contribution. The findings can further help determine whether contribution behavior should be studied as a singular or multifaceted construct.

The Scope of Adolescent Contribution

Understanding the nuances of contribution behaviors youth engage and value is essential for advancing research in PYD. The 5C model of PYD, proposed by Lerner et al. (2005), identifies five core indicators of thriving: competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring. These Cs are theorized to lead to the sixth C, contribution to self, family, community, and civic society (Lerner et al., 2005). The 7C model expands the original 5C model by adding creativity, while maintaining contribution as a key outcome (Dimitrova & Wiium et al., 2021). According to the PYD framework, thriving adolescents have a sense of moral and civic duty that enables them to contribute to society (Lerner, 2004). Contribution has two components: ideological (e.g., beliefs about civic responsibility) and behavioral (e.g., volunteering, helping; Lerner et al., 2005). When youth believe they should contribute to themselves and their contexts and act on it, they improve both their personal development and social environment. Research shows that contribution is linked to favorable developmental outcomes, such as enhanced social skills, moral development, and a sense of purpose (Hershberg et al., 2014; Shek et al., 2019), though how adolescents contribute varies across different individuals and social contexts.

Contribution is a concept that can be understood under an umbrella encompassing civic engagement, civic character, active and engaged citizenship, community service, activism, volunteerism, social action, and political participation across various disciplines such as psychology, education, and political science. Much of the research on contribution in the PYD literature is based on active and engaged citizenship and includes a range of developmentally appropriate behaviors such as helping parents at home, holding leadership roles in student government, volunteering at homeless shelters, participating in social media campaigns, and engaging in protests for political changes (Hershberg et al., 2015). Both theory and empirical studies underscore the importance of contribution as a predictor of positive youth outcomes and a driver of societal prosperity (Hershberg et al., 2014; Lerner et al., 2005; Shek et al., 2019). Understanding the diverse forms of contribution and their impact is crucial for promoting greater civic engagement and fostering positive developmental outcomes.

The types of contributions adolescents engage in are often influenced by the opportunities available to them. For instance, Wray-Lake et al. (2021) note that civic leadership and voting may be inaccessible to younger youth or discouraged in some contexts. In contrast, volunteer work or social media activism offers more accessible meaningful avenues for youth to express their civic engagement (Kenna & Hensley, 2019). Social media, in particular, has emerged as a powerful tool for political participation among adolescents, providing an inclusive platform that circumvents the age restrictions of traditional civic activities like voting (Kenna & Hensley, 2019). The recent increase in social media usage, particularly among adolescents (Bhatia, 2023), underscores its rising role in civic contribution (Kenna & Hensley, 2019).

While access to civic opportunities shapes the ways adolescents contribute, individual characteristics such as demographic factors can also play a role in influencing both the type and intensity of their contribution behaviors. For instance, Metzger and Ferris (2013) found that older adolescents placed greater importance on conventional political participation, such as voting, whereas younger adolescents viewed community gathering activities as more obligatory. In terms of gender, research shows that girls tend to be more civically involved, express stronger future intentions (Malin et al., 2015), volunteer more, and endorse stronger social responsibility, while boys lean toward political acts (Metzger et al., 2018; Oosterhoff & Wray-Lake, 2020).

Race and ethnicity shape civic engagement, particularly in multicultural societies like the U.S., where systemic exclusion influences how youth of color engage differently than White peers (Wray-Lake et al., 2020; Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020). Research from the early 2000s showed that White and African American youth are more likely to vote than their Asian American and Latinx peers. However, Asian American adolescents are more likely to volunteer, and Latinx youth demonstrate the highest rates of protest participation (Kahne & Sporte, 2008). More recent studies have also found that Black and Latinx groups value nontraditional forms of political participation, such as protesting more than White individuals (Anoll, 2018). Differences also extend to the effectiveness of civic education across racial and ethnic groups. For example, Nelsen (2021) found that civic education courses are associated with greater external political efficacy among White youth, but not among Black and Latinx youth. Conversely, it raises public voice behaviors in Black and Latinx adolescents, but not White peers.

Socioeconomic status also influences the forms of contribution in which young people engage. Metzger et al. (2020) found that adolescents from less educated households show lower political efficacy and are less likely to view engagement as a civic duty. Prior research similarly shows that adolescents from lower-income and minority backgrounds tend to be less involved in traditional civic activities, such as voting and volunteering (Astuto & Ruck, 2017). However, these adolescents may participate in alternative forms of contribution that fall outside conventional frameworks, including caring for siblings and holding jobs (Burton, 2007), or generating new social and cultural expressions. These alternative forms often occur beyond the direct influence of traditional authority figures who shape civic norms in capitalist democracies (Watts & Flanagan, 2007).

At the same time, internal motivations and beliefs such as having a sense of purpose, hope for the future, and awareness of systemic injustices also shape how and why adolescents choose to contribute. While Lerner et al. (2005) PYD framework has played a foundational role in shaping the field, scholars have raised critiques regarding its limited consideration of structural inequalities, and insufficient attention to sociopolitical forms of youth engagement (e.g., Camiré et al., 2022). To address this, the present study includes purpose, hope, and critical consciousness to better capture youth’s psychological and sociopolitical orientations. These constructs reflect how adolescents not only make meaning of their lives but also relate to their broader social and structural environments.

A psychological sense of purpose in life is a strong predictor of adolescents’ contribution (Abdul Kadir & Mohd, 2021; Yu & Deutsch, 2020) and is an important variable related to PYD (Yu & Deutsch, 2020). The pursuit of purpose, defined by Damon (2008) as trying to achieve something meaningful that extends beyond personal gain, often motivates youth to contribute to the well-being of others and their broader communities. Similarly, hopeful future expectations have been shown to predict adolescents’ contributions to society (Schmid & Lopez, 2011). Youth who are optimistic about the future are more likely to engage with their environments in proactive, goal-oriented ways (Callina et al., 2014, 2015). In addition to purpose and hope, critical consciousness, defined as an awareness of systemic inequities and the recognition of how institutional, historical, and structural forces shape life opportunities (Gonzalez et al., 2020), has also been linked to higher levels of civic engagement (Camiré et al., 2022; Plummer et al., 2022). Critical consciousness has been promoted to advance social justice (Cadenas & McWhirter, 2022) because youth who perceive societal orders as unjust are more likely motivated to participate in civic activities that address injustices (Plummer et al., 2022). Taken together, purpose, hope, critical consciousness reflect adolescents’ orientation toward a life that is not only meaningful but also socially responsive. Recognizing and understanding the diverse forms of contribution available to adolescents is crucial for fostering greater civic engagement and positive developmental outcomes. Since the opportunities for contribution differ depending on the context, it is crucial for researchers to consider these variations and their relationship with PYD.

The Present Study

While prior studies have described the nature and types of contribution activities adolescents engage in, there remains a gap regarding the potentially heterogeneous patterns of these activities. This study aims to paint a more nuanced picture of adolescent contribution within the 7C model of PYD by investigating profiles of U.S. adolescents based on their engagement in contribution. Building on the hypothesis that such profiles exist, this research explores how they may be associated with sociodemographic factors. To address these objectives, the study pursues the following research questions:

Do distinct profiles of contribution activities exist among adolescents in the data?

If so, how do these identified profiles of contribution relate to sociodemographic variables such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status?

How do these identified profiles of contribution relate to PYD, purpose in life, hopeful future expectations, and critical consciousness?

Exploring relationships between contribution profiles, sociodemographic factors, and PYD-related constructs deepens understanding of how individual characteristics and contexts shape contribution. Findings may challenge the assumption that contribution is a homogeneous construct, offering a more nuanced perspective that acknowledges the diverse ways in which young people engage with their contexts.

Methods

This study used cross-sectional survey data collected from U.S. adolescents aged 13 to 17 through Qualtrics Market Research Panels (Qualtrics, 2020). The goal of the sampling strategy was to examine patterns of contribution activities across a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth. To this end, purposive sampling obtained approximately 20% of participants from each major racial/ethnic group: White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and Multiracial. This approach ensured balanced representation across demographic groups and enhance the ability to detect meaningful patterns related to sociodemographic variation in contribution behaviors.

To identify distinct patterns of adolescent contribution, we employed Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), a person-centered mixture modeling technique that groups individuals based on their responses to continuous variables. This method identifies homogeneous subgroups (latent profiles) within a heterogeneous population, enabling researchers to explore differences in adolescent engagement across contribution activities (Mathew & Doorenbos, 2022). After identifying profiles, we examined their relationships with age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status using Chi-square and Welch’s ANOVA to determine whether specific demographic groups were more likely to belong to particular profiles, offering insight into how individual and contextual factors shape adolescent contribution.

Procedures

Data for the present study were collected using a survey distributed through a Qualtrics panel to adolescents aged 13 to 17 between January and March 2025. Qualtrics maintains high data quality through rigorous scrubbing procedures designed to ensure responses come from real humans. Their system detects and removes duplicates (based on IP and matching demographics), survey speeding (completing in less than half the median pilot time), nonsensical open-ended responses (e.g., random symbols, irrelevant or overly brief answers), and straightlining on matrix items. Only responses that pass these checks are included in the final dataset (Qualtrics, 2020). To supplement this, our study included multiple attention checks following Agans et al. (2024) Responses were flagged as invalid if they indicated physically impossible (e.g., heights below 4 feet or above 7 feet) or inconsistent responses. Two embedded checks also instructed participants to select a specific response. Participants who failed two or more checks were excluded, resulting in the removal of 54 participants (approximately 7% of the initial sample). After screening, data were exported to SPSS for further analysis, including checks for missing data, outliers, normality, and multicollinearity.

Participants

The sample consisted of 723 U.S. adolescents (average age = 15.76, SD = 1.22; 45.1% male, 50.8% female, 4.1% non-binary). Due to the small number of non-binary participants, we categorized gender as male and female/non-binary for analysis, with non-binary participants grouped with female participants. This decision was made because collapsing across groups was necessary to retain non-binary participants rather than excluding them, and also prior research has suggested that female and non-binary youth often report more marginalization, in comparison with male youth (Lereya et al., 2024). Participants reported their racial and ethnic identities by selecting from: Asian or Asian American, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino/a of any race, Multiracial, White, or other. In this sample, 147 (20.3%) identified as Asian or Asian American, 140 (19.4%) as Black or African American, 137 (18.9%) as Hispanic or Latino/a, 145 (20.1%) as White, 108 (14.9%) as Multiracial, and 46 (6.4%) as other.

Measures

Demographics: As mentioned earlier, participants reported on age, gender, and race. Age was entered as an open-ended response to the question: “What is your current age in years?.”

Socioeconomic status: Socioeconomic status was assessed using items from Wardle et al.’s (2002) adolescent SES scale. Participants responded to questions about household ownership, access to resources (e.g., car, computer), and parental education and employment. One example item is: “Do your parents own or rent your home?” To ensure inclusivity and cultural relevance, references to “father” in the original scale were adapted to “parents.”

Contribution: Several types of contribution behaviors were assessed and included in the Latent Profile Analysis. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with response options ranging from 1 (strongly disagree or never) to 5 (strongly agree or very often), depending on item wording. The full text of all items is provided in Table 2. To measure contribution within the 5C model of PYD, we used the 12-item scale developed by Lerner et al. (2005), consisting of two equally weighted subscales: ideology (e.g., value placed on contributing to others and society) and actions (e.g., helping, leadership, service), each comprising six items. Additionally, to capture a broader range of civic actions, we included the 11 items of civic behavior subscale from the Search Institute’s Civic Engagement Scale (Syvertsen et al., 2015), which measures the frequency of adolescents’ informal helping and political engagement. We also included four author-developed items assessing adolescents’ contribution within the family context (e.g., helping with household responsibilities). Finally, four items adapted from Velasquez and LaRose’s (2015) scale measured adolescents’ perceived efficacy in civic and political expression via social media and the internet.

Positive Youth Development: Levels of PYD were measured using Geldhof et al.’s (2014) 34-item short measure of the five Cs of PYD and the creativity items used by Dimitrova and Wiium (2021). The short measure assessed a total PYD score with subscales for each of the five Cs: competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring. To measure the 7th C of creativity, 9 items from the Reisman Diagnostic Creativity Assessment (Reisman et al., 2016) were used, consistent with Dimitrova and Wiium’s (2021) approach for evaluating creativity within the 7C model of PYD. Although the original creativity scale used a 6-point Likert scale, we used a 5-point Likert scale to ensure consistency with the other Cs of PYD. Cronbach’s alpha for the total score was .92.

Purpose in life: This study used a brief measure of general purpose in life developed by Hill et al. (2013). This measure consists of four Likert scale items. Participants used a 5-point Likert scale to indicate their level of agreement with items. In addition, the four beyond-the-self purpose items of the Claremont Purpose Scale were used to measure beyond-the-self purpose (Bronk et al., 2018). Participants rated how often statements applied to them using a 5-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha was .786 for the total purpose score.

Hopeful Future Expectations: Individual hopeful future expectations were assessed using four items from the 4-H Study survey (Callina et al., 2014). Four additional items were developed by the authors to measure collective hopeful future expectations. All items were on a 5-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alphas was 0.78 for the total hope score.

Critical Consciousness: Critical consciousness was assessed using 9 items from Diemer et al’. (2017) Critical Consciousness Scale, capturing three subscales: Critical Reflection (perceived inequality), Critical Action (sociopolitical participation), and Critical Reflection - Egalitarianism (beliefs in equality). The original scale used 6-point Likert scaling for Critical Reflection and 5-point scaling for Critical Action. To maintain consistency, we used a 5-point scale for all items. Cronbach’s alpha was .64 for the full scale.

Data Analysis

The data were initially analyzed using the Mplus statistical software to perform Latent Profile Analysis (LPA). LPA identifies distinct subgroups or profiles within a sample based on response patterns across observed variables, estimating the likelihood of individuals belonging to different groups (Ferguson et al., 2020). Model selection was informed by both theoretical and statistical factors, with models compared sequentially to determine best fit (Ferguson et al., 2020; Johnson, 2021). A combination of criteria was used to determine the optimal number of profiles, based on common methods including information-theoretic indices (AIC, BIC, and sample-size adjusted BIC [sBIC]), likelihood ratio tests (LMRT and BLRT), and entropy (Tein et al., 2013). Lower AIC, BIC, and sBIC values indicate better model fit (Mathew & Doorenbos, 2022). T The Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (LMRT) and the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT) compare a model with k classes to one with k–1; significant p-values (p < .05) suggest the k-class model fits better. Entropy reflects classification accuracy, with values closer to 1 indicating clearer delineation between classes (Masyn, 2013; Mathew & Doorenbos, 2022). The second research question was addressed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square analysis. To assess missing data patterns, Little’s MCAR test was employed to explore whether missingness was completely at random. Additionally, checks for normality of the data were conducted to ensure that appropriate analysis methods were selected.

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Before addressing the specific research questions, descriptive statistics were examined among all variables and items used in this study. Skewness and kurtosis values were within acceptable ranges, indicating that the data followed a normal distribution. No missing data were identified, confirming the completeness of the dataset for subsequent analyses.

Profiles of Contribution

As shown in Table 1, the information criteria decreased with each additional profile in the LPA, and the BLRT remained significant, supporting models more complex models. However, the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin test (VLMR) was only significant for the comparison between the one- and two-profile models, indicating that model fit did not significantly improve beyond the two-profile solution. This result is not uncommon, as the LMR often underestimates the number of groups, suggesting too few (Johnson, 2021; Tein et al., 2013), particularly when the sample size is below 1,000 (Tofighi & Enders, 2008). All the models from two-profile onward had high entropy values (ranging from 0.903 to 0.917), suggesting that the models do a good job of clearly classifying individuals into profiles.

Table 1.

Model Fit Indices for Contribution LPA Solutions With Each Tested Number of Profiles.

Model	AIC	BIC	sBIC	Entropy	Smallest class	LMRT p-value	BLRT p-value	Groups
1 profile	82,666.02	82,996.03	82,767.41	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
2 profiles	78,922.39	79,421.98	79,075.87	0.917	47%	.000	.000	2 > 1
3 profiles	77,735.08	78,404.26	77,940.67	0.903	26%	.204	.000	3 > 2
4 profiles	76,858.4	77,697.16	77,116.08	0.908	19%	.644	.000	4 > 3
5 profiles	76,335.17	77,343.52	76,644.95	0.909	16%	.213	.000	5 > 4

Given the limitations of each criterion, researchers typically select a model that is both statistically justifiable and substantively meaningful (Schmidt et al., 2021). Therefore, despite the non-significant VLMR p-value for the four-profile model (p = .204), we selected this model based on multiple considerations. First, the four-profile solution offered more theoretically meaningful and interpretable subgroups. Second, it showed continued improvements in AIC, BIC, and sBIC values, suggesting better overall model fit than the three-profile model. Third, the four-profile model’s entropy (0.908) indicated strong classification. Lastly, all profiles comprised a substantial portion of the sample, with the smallest at 19.4%, supporting the model’s interpretability and generalizability (Ferguson et al., 2020). Labels for each profile were generated based on the items that most differentiated each profile. The four profiles were labeled as Less-engaged (N = 155) Digital advocates (N = 137), Local helpers (N = 241), and Contributors (N = 190; Table 2 and Figure 1).

Table 2.

Contribution Item Means for Each Profile.

Sub-scale	Items	Less-engaged	Digital advocates	Local Helpers	Contributors
		N = 155	N = 137	N = 241	N = 190
		Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
Contribution Ideology	I often think about doing things so that people in the future can have things better.	3.31	3.21	3.96	4.21
	It is important to me to contribute to my community and society.	3.28	3.25	3.88	4.39
	It’s not really my problem if my neighbors are in trouble and need help (reverse coded).	3.35	3.21	3.60	3.24
	If I had to choose between helping to raise money for a neighborhood project and enjoying my own free time, I’d keep my freedom (reverse coded).	2.92	2.85	3.10	2.96
	Think about how you see your future. What are your chances for being involved in community service?	2.80	2.84	3.52	3.89
	Think about how you see your future. What are your chances for being involved helping other people?	3.41	3.27	4.12	4.23
Contribution Action	How often do you do help a friend.	3.83	3.72	4.42	4.46
	How often do you help a neighbor.	2.67	2.54	3.36	3.75
	During the last 12 months, how many times have you been a leader in a group or organization?	2.19	2.23	2.91	3.19
	Volunteering time (at a hospital, day care center, food bank, youth program, community service agency)	1.68	2.05	2.42	3.15
	Volunteering time: Mentoring/peer advising	1.96	2.33	2.66	3.40
	Volunteering time: School government	2.12	2.17	2.53	3.04
Civic engagement Helping	I have stood up for a classmate who was being picked on.	2.44	2.65	3.35	3.79
	I have helped a classmate with homework.	3.43	3.16	4.22	4.26
	I have helped out around the house by doing chores such as cleaning, cooking, or yard work.	3.73	3.31	4.36	4.32
	I have shared school supplies with a fellow student who needed them.	3.68	3.46	4.33	4.31
	I have helped my neighbors with projects for no pay.	2.08	1.99	3.05	3.35
Civic engagement NewsConsumption and Politics	In a typical week, how often do you access information about politics and current events on TV, the radio, in the newspaper, or on news websites?	2.49	3.27	3.22	3.91
	Attend community meetings about an issue that affects people where I live.	1.92	2.65	3.01	3.71
	Volunteer to campaign for a political candidate.	1.61	2.38	2.37	3.56
	Contact politicians, governments, or authorities about issues that are important to me.	1.65	2.56	2.61	3.57
	Participate in a rally or protest for a cause.	1.78	2.94	2.66	3.67
	Have you ever done or plan to vote in national elections	2.76	3.55	3.77	4.19
ContributionFamily	I help with household tasks, such as cleaning, cooking, or taking care of younger siblings.	3.98	3.54	4.59	4.33
	I offer emotional support to my family members when they are feeling stressed, upset, or in need of encouragement.	3.40	3.18	4.40	4.29
	I actively participate in family discussions and decision-making processes, such as planning family activities or solving problems.	3.28	2.90	4.24	4.10
	I take initiative to do things that contribute to the overall well-being of my family	3.31	2.98	4.33	4.23
Social Media	Express your opinion online regarding a political issue	1.52	3.01	2.04	3.98
	Post a comment on a societal issue	1.56	3.16	2.18	4.09
	Discuss a political issue online	1.25	2.88	1.86	3.88
	Visit a social media site of an activist or political group	1.64	2.99	2.34	3.72
	Look at the content of a link posted online by an activist or political group	1.76	3.20	2.56	3.78
	Influence others online regarding an issue in society	1.55	2.96	2.29	3.93
	Argue with others online regarding an issue in society	1.49	3.14	2.17	3.82
	Use relevant information online to express your views regarding an issue in society	1.72	3.40	2.75	4.09
	Keep informed about political issues you care about using online social media sites and applications	2.02	3.54	3.24	4.16

Figure 1.

Estimated means of contribution items across the four profiles. The x-axis represents the individual contribution items, with the full text of each item provided in Table 2.

Less-engaged youth reported the lowest levels of contribution across nearly all dimensions. They endorsed low ideological beliefs about contribution, helping, leadership, volunteering, civic, or online contribution activities. Their online civic engagement was particularly low. This profile appears to be less engaged from both offline and online forms of contribution. Digital Advocates also showed low ideological and behavioral engagement but reported high levels of online civic activity. Despite limited community involvement, they were the most active online contributors apart from the Contributor group, suggesting a preference for online forms of civic expression. Local Helpers were characterized by moderate to high engagement in interpersonal helping and community contribution (e.g., helping friends, neighbors, and family) but had moderate ideological and political engagement, especially online. They represent youth who contribute actively in immediate social circles but are less involved in broader civic or digital spheres. Contributors, the most engaged group across, showed the highest ideological and behavioral contribution. They strongly valued societal contribution and had high expectations for future involvement in community service. They were also the most active across all forms civic domains, online and offline, and showed high family-based contribution, reflecting a holistic orientation across personal, community, and digital contexts.

Demographic Differences Within Profiles of Contribution

A chi-square test examined gender distribution across the four profiles. The association between gender and profile membership was not statistically significant (χ² (6, N = 723) = 10.51, p = .105), suggesting gender was relatively evenly distributed across the profiles. Similarly, the chi-square test for race/ethnicity was also non-significant (χ² (15, N = 723) = 17.90, p = .268), indicating comparable racial/ethnic composition across profiles.

A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant age differences across profiles, F(3, 719) = 0.44, p = .727, with a negligible effect size (η² = 0.002). In contrast, SES differed significantly across profiles (F (3, 719) = 9.14, p < .001) with a small but meaningful effect size (η² = 0.037), suggesting that youth with different SES backgrounds were represented differently across the profiles. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s HSD test showed that: Less-engaged reported significantly lower SES than Local helpers (p = .007) and Contributors (p < .001). Digital advocates also had significantly lower SES than Contributors (p < .00).

PYD, Purpose, Hope, and Critical Consciousness Differences Within Profiles of Contribution

Levene’s test, test of homogeneity of variances, was conducted to determine whether the assumption of equal variances across groups was met. The results indicated that this assumption was not met for purpose in life (F(3, 719) = 4.58, p = .003), and critical consciousness (F(3, 719) = 3.39, p = .017). Then, Welch’s ANOVA was conducted to examine whether the four latent profiles differed significantly on PYD, purpose, hope, and critical consciousness. Results indicated statistically significant group differences across all four constructs. PYD differed significantly across the four profiles (F(3, 719) = 92.92, p < .001) with a large effect size (η² = 0.279). Post hoc Games-Howell tests revealed that all pairwise comparisons between profiles were significant (p < .05), with Contributors scoring highest and Less-engaged scoring lowest. Purpose scores also varied significantly by profile (F(3, 719) = 193.93, p < .001 with a very large effect size (η² = 0.452). Contributors reported the highest levels of purpose, significantly higher than all other profiles. Each profile differed significantly from the others (p < .01). Hope showed significant differences between profiles as well (F(3, 719) = 197.92, p < .001) again with a very large effect size (η² = 0.452). Post hoc comparisons indicated that Contributors reported significantly greater hope than all other profiles, while Less-engaged reported the lowest levels. Finally, critical consciousness scores significantly differed by profile (F(3, 719) = 95.274, p < .001) with a large effect size (η² = 0.284). Local helpers and Contributors had higher levels of critical consciousness compared to Less-engaged and Digital advocates. Digital advocates did not significantly differ from Less-engaged, but all other pairwise comparisons were significant (Table 3).

Table 3.

PYD, Hope, Purpose, and Critical Consciousness Differences Between Profiles.

ANOVA tests	η²	F	F	p Value
PYD	0.279	0.276	92.92	<.001
Purpose	0.447	0.395	193.93	<.001
Hope	0.452	0.401	197.92	<.001
Critical consciousness	0.284	0.369	95.27	<.001
ANOVA Post hoc comparisons using Games-Howell
	Mean difference		Std. error	p Value
PYD
Less-engaged vs Digital advocates	−0.44*		0.05	<.001
Less-engaged vs Local helpers	−0.70*		0.06	<.001
Less-engaged vs Contributors	−0.86*		0.05	<.001
Digital advocates vs Local helpers	−0.26*		0.04	<.001
Digital advocates vs Contributors	−0.42*		0.03	<.001
Local helpers vs Contributors	−0.16*		0.05	.030
Purpose
Less-engaged vs Digital advocates	−0.90*		0.05	<.001
Less-engaged vs Local helpers	−1.24*		0.06	<.001
Less-engaged vs Contributors	−1.45*		0.06	<.001
Digital advocates vs Local helpers	−0.33*		0.05	<.001
Digital advocates vs Contributors	−0.54*		0.04	<.001
Local helpers vs Contributors	−0.21*		0.05	<.001
Hope
Less-engaged vs Digital advocates	−0.68*		0.05	<.001
Less-engaged vs Local helpers	−0.94*		0.06	<.001
Less-engaged vs Contributors	−1.33*		0.05	<.001
Digital advocates vs Local helpers	−0.25*		0.04	<.001
Digital advocates vs Contributors	−0.64*		0.04	<.001
Local helpers vs Contributors	−0.38*		0.05	<.001
Critical consciousness
Less-engaged vs Digital advocates	−0.17*		0.05	.017
Less-engaged vs Local helpers	−0.88*		0.06	<.001
Less-engaged vs Contributors	−0.30*		0.05	<.001
Digital advocates vs Local helpers	−0.70*		0.04	<.001
Digital advocates vs Contributors	−0.13*		0.03	<.001
Local helpers vs Contributors	0.57*		0.05	<.001

Note. *Significant at the 0.05 level.

Discussion

This study provides novel insights into the heterogeneity of adolescent contribution by identifying four distinct profiles, Less-engaged, Digital advocates, Local helpers, and Contributors, within a diverse youth U.S. sample. As their names suggest, these profiles reflect varying levels and types of contribution, suggesting that contribution is a multifaceted construct. This diversity affirms that youth may express their civic identity in varied ways based on access, values, and opportunity structures. For instance, Less-engaged youth may lack values or opportunities for contribution, while Digital advocates may primarily lack opportunities for offline action. This profile aligns with emerging literature highlighting how social media creates accessible avenues for civic expression among youth, particularly those with limited offline opportunities (Kenna & Hensley, 2019). Recent research indicates that U.S. adolescents spend nearly 9 hr per day on entertainment screen media, with social media among the most common activities (Haddock et al., 2022; Rideout et al., 2022). The emergence of a Digital Advocate profile highlights the increasing relevance of digital spaces as arenas for youth contribution and suggests that online and offline contributions may represent distinct pathways of civic engagement.

At the same time, the Local Helper profile illustrates that not all youth translate their civic commitments into digital spheres; instead, some may concentrate their contribution in immediate relational and community contexts. Local helpers engaged in interpersonal helping and community-level support but scored lower in ideological or political engagement, indicating that contribution may be grounded in immediate relational contexts rather than abstract civic ideals. Finally, Contributors were the most holistically engaged group, demonstrating strong belief in contribution and active involvement across online and offline contexts. These patterns affirm the need to move beyond traditional assessments and recognize diverse pathways through which adolescents engage with their communities.

Interestingly, demographic characteristics such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity did not significantly differ across profiles, suggesting that patterns of contribution may be shaped more by other factors than by demographic identity alone While some studies have identified developmental trends based on age, gender, and race/ethnicity (e.g., Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Malin et al., 2015; Metzger et al., 2018; Metzger & Ferris, 2013), our findings suggest that forms of contribution may not follow predictable demographic patterns. Although our cross-sectional design limits causal claims, the absence of demographic differences suggests that contribution behaviors may reflect current access to resources, values, and developmental supports. This carries important implications for intervention, suggesting that youth can move toward more engaged forms of contribution when provided with opportunities to develop internal assets.

In contrast, socioeconomic status varied across profiles, with higher SES linked to more engaged forms of contribution. This supports research showing that youth from lower-income backgrounds face structural barriers to formal civic opportunities (Astuto & Ruck, 2017) and may instead turn to less institutionally sanctioned or visible forms. These structural barriers may include lack of safe, supportive community spaces where adolescents can gather, build connections, and engage civically, or the need to prioritize paid work and family responsibilities over participation in organized activities (Burton, 2007; Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020). In this study, youth in the Less-engaged and Digital Advocate profiles tended to come from lower-SES backgrounds, possibly explaining their lower levels of traditional civic involvement. However, these adolescents may still contribute in meaningful but informal ways. Examples include caring for siblings, engaging in localized actions, or working to sustain their households (Burton, 2007; Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020) in addition to the Digital Advocate group’s contributions via social media. Recognizing alternative forms of contribution, such as informal support, is essential for developing more inclusive civic education and PYD interventions.

Findings also revealed significant differences across profiles in PYD, purpose, hope, and critical consciousness, suggesting that these constructs meaningfully relate to patterns of contribution. PYD showed a large effect size, with Contributors reporting the highest levels, followed by Local helpers, Digital advocates, and Less-engaged. This pattern reflects the expanding scope and intensity of contribution across profiles, reinforcing the idea that contribution serves as an indicator of thriving in adolescence (Hershberg et al., 2014; Lerner et al., 2005; Shek et al., 2019). Purpose and hope also emerged as particularly strong differentiators, with Contributors showing the highest levels and Less-engaged the lowest. These findings align with developmental theories emphasizing purpose and hope as core components of youth contribution (Abdul Kadir & Mohd, 2021; Schmid & Lopez, 2011).

Critical consciousness also varied significantly across profiles with Local Helpers and Contributors reporting higher levels. This aligns with prior research showing that adolescents’ awareness of and engagement with sociopolitical issues often co-occur with contribution (Camiré et al., 2022; Plummer et al., 2022). Adolescents who perceive societal structures as unjust are more likely to engage in civic activities to address injustices (Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020). Local helpers reported the highest critical consciousness, suggesting that sociopolitical awareness may be more closely tied to community-based action than to digital or advocacy-oriented contributions. Prior studies show that adolescents with higher critical agency and behavior engage more in helping others (McWhirter & McWhirter, 2016), possibly because critical consciousness is associated with adaptive outcomes like social-emotional development, which often manifest as helping behaviors (Castro et al., 2022; Heberle et al., 2020)

These findings underscore the complex interplay between PYD, future-oriented constructs (purpose and hope), and sociopolitical awareness (critical consciousness) in shaping who contributes and how. They also underscore the importance of treating contribution as a multifaceted construct. Distinct forms of contribution, such as helping behaviors, leadership, and political engagement may not develop together and may be shaped by different motivational or contextual factors. The emergence of a Less-engaged profile with low behavioral and ideological commitment further reinforces this complexity. For youth in this group, interventions that foster purpose, hope, and critical consciousness, and empower them to see themselves as agents of change, may be especially impactful in catalyzing meaningful contribution. Taken together, these insights underscore the value of a holistic, strengths-based approach to youth development that nurtures internal assets while honoring the diverse ways young people contribute to their communities and society.

Limitation and Future Directions

One limitation of this study lies in the LPA approach and the decision-making process surrounding model selection. While multiple fit indices were considered, the final decision to select the four-profile solution was made despite a non-significant Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin (VLMR) test. Although this test is known to be conservative, particularly in samples under 1,000 (Tofighi & Enders, 2008), relying on a combination of statistical and substantive criteria introduces some subjectivity and potential overfitting. The selected model demonstrated strong entropy, yet the lack of convergence across fit indices raises concerns about the stability and generalizability of the profiles. Future studies should replicate this analysis with larger samples to strengthen the robustness of profile solutions.

Secondly, while the profiles revealed distinct contribution patterns, the measures may not fully capture the complexity or culturally nuanced expressions of contribution, particularly in non-dominant cultural contexts. Future work should integrate qualitative or mixed-methods approaches to better understand how adolescents define and experience contribution on their own terms (see Yoshikawa et al., 2008). Additionally, the use of a Qualtrics panel means that our findings reflect broader patterns rather than being rooted in specific community or regional contexts and cultures. As such, they may not be generalizable to adolescents in local environments where opportunities and expectations for contribution differ.

Another limitation concerns the handling of gender identity in this study. Although our sample included non-binary adolescents, their numbers were too small to allow for meaningful statistical comparisons across male, female, and non-binary groups (see Ferguson et al., 2020). To avoid excluding these participants, we merged them with female participants, following prior work suggesting that female and non-binary youth often share experiences of marginalization relative to male youth (Lereya et al., 2024). However, we recognize that this decision reduces the nuance of our findings and may not adequately capture the unique perspectives of non-binary adolescents. Future studies should intentionally recruit larger samples of non-binary adolescents to better examine how gender identity shapes contribution.

Lastly, while the sample was diverse, it may not fully capture adolescents in more marginalized or rural contexts, where contribution opportunities may differ significantly (e.g., see Le & Kelly, 2024). This study also focused on U.S. adolescents; research in other countries is needed to expand our understanding of contribution across contexts. Future research should also prioritize developing or using measures that reflect a broader range of contribution behaviors, particularly those relevant to underrepresented populations.

Conclusion

This study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of adolescent contribution by identifying distinct profiles of contribution behaviors and exploring how they relate to sociodemographic variables, PYD, purpose, hope, and critical consciousness. Using a person-centered approach, it moves beyond variable-level analyses to uncover heterogeneity in how youth participate in various forms of contribution. The analysis identified four profiles of contribution: Less-engaged, Digital Advocates, Local Helpers, and Contributors. Importantly, while demographic variables such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity did not distinguish profile membership, differences in socioeconomic status, PYD, purpose, hope, and critical consciousness were significant. These findings suggest that fostering these developmental strengths may be key to supporting more engaged forms of contribution. From a practical standpoint, the findings highlight the importance of designing youth programs that moves beyond one-size-fits-all approaches. Efforts to foster contribution should support multiple, contextually grounded pathways to engagement. In particular, reducing structural barriers, especially those affecting lower-SES youth, may be critical for expanding access to meaningful civic experiences. Supporting youth in ways that align with their contribution patterns may foster deeper engagement and promote more equitable opportunities for civic participation.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Kimia Shirzad

Ethical Considerations

APA ethical standards were followed in the conduct of the study; and the Institutional Review Board at the Pennsylvania State University approved the study.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by funding from the Pennsylvania State University College of Health and Human Development.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be requested from the last author.

Author Biographies

Kimia Shirzad is a graduate researcher in Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management at Pennsylvania State University with a minor in Human Development and Family Studies. Her research focuses on Positive Youth Development, with particular attention to character development, and the role of structured and unstructured out-of-school contexts in adolescents’ development.

Pete Allison is an associate teaching Professor in Recreation, Park and Tourism Management at Penn State. His research focuses on values and experiential learning and his work is mainly focused in Hahn legacy organizations such as Outward Bound, United World Colleges and with the Duke of Edinburgh International Award. He has worked in expeditions and youth development in the UK, Greenland, Africa and the Himalaya.

Jennifer P. Agans is an Associate Professor of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management at the Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on adolescent and young adult experiences in sport and other recreational contexts and the links between these experiences and positive development and health across the life span. She also collaborates with practitioners to evaluate youth programs and understand their impact on participants.

References

Abdul Kadir

N. B.

Mohd

R. H

. (2021). The 5Cs of positive youth development, purpose in life, hope, and well-being among emerging adults in Malaysia. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 641876. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.641876

Agans

J. P.

Schade

S. A.

Hanna

S. R.

Chiang

S. C.

Shirzad

Bai

(2024). The inaccuracy of data from online surveys: A cautionary analysis. Quality & Quantity, 58(3), 2065–2086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01733-5

Anoll

A. P.

(2018). What makes a good neighbor? Race, place, and norms of political participation. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000175

Astuto

Ruck

(2017). Growing up in poverty and civic engagement: The role of kindergarten executive function and play predicting participation in 8th grade extracurricular activities. Applied Developmental Science, 21(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2016.1257943

Bhatia

(2023). Impact of increasing media use on mental health of children and adolescents. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 36(6), 449–454. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000897

Bronk

K. C.

Riches

B. R.

Mangan

S. A.

(2018). Claremont Purpose Scale: A measure that assesses the three dimensions of purpose among adolescents. Research in Human Development, 15(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2018.1441577

Burton

(2007). Childhood adultification in economically disadvantaged families: A conceptual model. Family Relations, 56(4), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00463.x

Cadenas

G. A.

McWhirter

E. H.

(2022). Critical consciousness in vocational psychology: A vision for the next decade and beyond. Journal of Career Assessment, 30, 411–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727221086553

Callina

K. S.

Johnson

S. K.

Buckingham

M. H.

Lerner

R. M.

(2014). Hope in context: Developmental profiles of trust, hopeful future expectations, and civic engagement across adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 869–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0096-9

10.

Callina

K. S.

Mueller

M. K.

Buckingham

M. H.

Gutierrez

A. S.

(2015). Building hope for positive youth development: Research, practice, and policy. In Promoting positive youth development: Lessons from the 4-H study (pp. 71–94). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17166-1_5

11.

Camiré

Newman

T. J.

Bean

Strachan

(2022). Reimagining positive youth development and life skills in sport through a social justice lens. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 34(6), 1058–1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2021.1958954

12.

Castro

Wray-Lake

Cohen

(2022). Critical consciousness and wellbeing in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 7, 499–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-022-00188-3

13.

Damon

(2008). The path to purpose: Helping our children find their calling in life. Simon and Schuster.

14.

Diemer

M. A.

Rapa

L. J.

Park

C. J.

Perry

J. C.

(2017). Development and validation of the critical consciousness scale. Youth & Society, 49(4), 461–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x14538289

15.

Dimitrova

Wiium

(2021). Handbook of positive youth development: Advancing the next generation of research, policy and practice in global contexts.In Dimitrova

Wiium

(Eds.), Handbook of positive youth development: Advancing research, policy, and practice in global contexts (pp. 3–16). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70262-5_1

16.

Ferguson

S. L. G.

Moore

E. W.

Hull

D. M.

(2020). Finding latent groups in observed data: A primer on latent profile analysis in Mplus for applied researchers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(5), 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419881721

17.

Geldhof

G. J.

Bowers

E. P.

Mueller

M. K.

Napolitano

C. M.

Callina

K. S.

Lerner

R. M.

(2014). Longitudinal analysis of a very short measure of positive youth development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 933–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0093-z

18.

Gonzalez

Kokozos

Byrd

C. M.

McKee

K. E.

(2020). Critical positive youth development: A framework for centering critical consciousness. Journal of Youth Development, 15(6), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2020.859

19.

Haddock

Ward

O’Dea

(2022). Positive effects of digital technology use by adolescents: A scoping review of the literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 14009. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114009

20.

Heberle

A. E.

Rapa

L. J.

Farago

(2020). Critical consciousness in children and adolescents: A systematic review, critical assessment, and recommendations for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 146, 525–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000230

21.

Hershberg

R. M.

DeSouza

L. M.

Warren

A. E.

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 and Adolescence, 43, 950–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0102-2

22.

Hershberg

R. M.

Johnson

S. K.

DeSouza

L. M.

Hunter

C. J.

Zaff

(2015). Promoting contribution among youth: Implications from positive youth development research for youth development programs. In Bowers

E. P.

Geldhof

G. J.

Johnson

S. K.

Hilliard

L. J.

Hershberg

R. M.

Lerner

J. V.

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Promoting positive youth development: Lessons from the 4-H study (pp. 211–228). Springer International Publishing.

23.

Hill

P. L.

Burrow

A. L.

Sumner

(2013). Addressing important questions in the field of adolescent purpose. Child Development Perspectives, 7(4), 232–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12048

24.

Johnson

S. K.

(2021). Latent profile transition analyses and growth mixture models: A very non-technical guide for researchers in child and adolescent development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2021(175), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20398

25.

Jung

Gopalan

(2024). The stubborn unresponsiveness of youth voter turnout to civic education: Quasi-experimental evidence from state-mandated civics tests. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 46(4), 764–787. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231195887

26.

Kahne

J. E.

Sporte

S. E.

(2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on students’ commitment to civic participation. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 738–766. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208316951

27.

Kenna

J. L.

Hensley

M. A.

(2019). Utilizing social media to promote civic engagement in the social studies classroom. Social Studies, 110(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2018.1524360

28.

A. D.

Kelly

S. W.

(2024). 124. Rural vs. Urban differences in climate change anxiety and the role of CIVIC engagement among California adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 74(3), S67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2023.11.323

29.

Lereya

S. T.

Norton

Crease

Deighton

Labno

Ravaccia

G. G.

Bhui

Brooks

English

Fonagy

Heslin

Edbrooke-Childs

(2024). Gender, marginalised groups, and young people’s mental health: A longitudinal analysis of trajectories. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 18(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-024-00720-4

30.

Lerner

R. M.

(2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth. Sage.

31.

Lerner

R. M.

Lerner

J. V.

Almerigi

J. B.

Theokas

Phelps

Gestsdottir

Von Eye

(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(1), 17–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604272461

32.

Malin

Tirri

Liauw

(2015). Adolescent moral motivations for civic engagement: Clues to the political gender gap? Journal of Moral Education, 44(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2015.1014324

33.

Masyn

K. E.

(2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In Little

T. D.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods: Statistical analysis (pp. 551–611). Oxford University Press.

34.

Mathew

Doorenbos

A. Z.

(2022). Latent profile analysis – An emerging advanced statistical approach to subgroup identification. Indian Journal of Continuing Nursing Education, 23(2), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcn.ijcn_24_22

35.

McWhirter

E. H.

McWhirter

B. T.

(2016). Critical consciousness and vocational development among Latina/o high school youth. Journal of Career Assessment, 24, 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715599535

36.

Metzger

Alvis

Oosterhoff

(2020). Adolescent views of civic responsibility and civic efficacy: Differences by rurality and socioeconomic status. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 70, 101183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101183

37.

Metzger

Alvis

L. M.

Oosterhoff

Babskie

Syvertsen

Wray-Lake

(2018). The intersection of emotional and sociocognitive competencies with civic engagement in middle childhood and adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1663–1683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0842-5

38.

Metzger

Ferris

(2013). Adolescents' domain-specific judgments about different forms of civic involvement: Variations by age and gender. Journal of Adolescence, 36(3), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.03.003

39.

Nelsen

M. D.

(2021). Teaching citizenship: Race and the behavioral effects of American civic education. Journal of Race Ethnicity and Politics, 6, 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2019.19

40.

Oosterhoff

Wray-Lake

(2020). Risky politics? Associations between adolescent risk preference and political engagement. Child Development, 91(4), e743–e761. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13313

41.

Plummer

J. A.

Wray-Lake

Alvis

Metzger

Syvertsen

A. K.

(2022). Assessing the link between adolescents’ awareness of inequality and civic engagement across time and racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51, 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01545-6

42.

Qualtrics. (2020). Unlock breakthrough insights with market research panels. https://www.qualtrics.com/research-services/online-sample/

43.

Reisman

Keiser

Otti

(2016). Development, use and implications of Diagnostic Creativity Assessment App, RDCA – Reisman Diagnostic Creativity Assessment. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162643

44.

Rideout

Peebles

Mann

Robb

M. B.

(2022). Common Sense census: Media use by tweens and teens, 2021. Common Sense.

45.

Schmid

K. L.

Lopez

S. J.

(2011). Positive pathways to adulthood: The role of hope in adolescents’ constructions of their futures. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 41, 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386492-5.00004-X

46.

Schmidt

M. N.

Seddig

Davidov

Mørup

Albers

K. J.

Bauer

J. M.

Glückstad

F. K.

(2021). Latent profile analysis of human values: What is the optimal number of clusters? Methodology, 17(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.5479

47.

Shek

D. T.

Dou

Zhu

Chai

(2019). Positive youth development: Current perspectives. Adolescent Health Medicine and Therapeutics, 10, 131–141. https://doi.org/10.2147/AHMT.S179946

48.

Syvertsen

A. K.

Wray-Lake

Metzger

(2015). Youth civic and character measures toolkit. Search Institute. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2413.9602

49.

Tein

J. Y.

Coxe

Cham

(2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(4), 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.824781

50.

Tofighi

Enders

C. K.

(2008). Identifying the correct number of classes in growth mixture models. Advances in Latent Variable Mixture Models, 2007(1), 317.

51.

Velasquez

LaRose

(2015). Youth collective activism through social media: The role of collective efficacy. New Media & Society, 17(6), 899–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813518391

52.

Wardle

Robb

Johnson

(2002). Assessing socioeconomic status in adolescents: The validity of a home affluence scale. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56(8), 595–599.

53.

Watts

R. J.

Flanagan

(2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20178

54.

Wray-Lake

Abrams

L. S.

(2020). Pathways to civic engagement among urban youth of color. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 85(2), 7–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12415

55.

Wray-Lake

Arruda

E. H.

Schulenberg

J. E.

(2020). Civic development across the transition to adulthood in a national US sample: Variations by race/ethnicity, parent education, and gender. Developmental Psychology, 56(10), 1948–1967. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001101

56.

Wray-Lake

Gniewosz

Benavides

Wilf

(2021). Youth civic engagement: Exploring micro and macro social processes. In Kostić

Chadee

(Eds.), Positive psychology: An international perspective (pp. 152–176). Wiley Blackwell.

57.

Yoshikawa

Weisner

T. S.

Kalil

Way

(2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative research in developmental science: Uses and methodological choices. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 344–354.

58.

M. V. B.

Deutsch

N. L.

(2020). Supporting youth purpose in adolescence: Youth-adult relationships as ecological assets. In Burrow

A. L.

Hill

P. L

(Eds.), The ecology of purposeful living across the lifespan: Developmental, educational, and social perspectives (pp. 115–135). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52078-6_7

Exploring Profiles of Adolescent Contributions: A Person-Centered Approach Within the 7C Model of Positive Youth Development

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The Scope of Adolescent Contribution

The Present Study

Methods

Procedures

Participants

Measures

Data Analysis

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Profiles of Contribution

Demographic Differences Within Profiles of Contribution

PYD, Purpose, Hope, and Critical Consciousness Differences Within Profiles of Contribution

Discussion

Limitation and Future Directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Author Biographies

References