Interrogating ergodicity and specificity in youth development programs in El Salvador

Enhancing the International Study of Positive Youth Development: Process, Specificity, and the Sample Case of Character Virtues

“…For instance, the researchers found commonality across gender in all analyses, but some ruralurban differences existed in intentional self-regulation (which was stronger in urban youth), and some differences between CI and non-CI youth existed at specific times of testing. Tirrell et al (2021) found that no association between hopeful future expectations and intentional selfregulation existed among CI or non-CI youth at the time of initial assessment. However, at subsequent testing, this relation-which is expected to exist in programs effective in promoting PYD (e.g., Callina et al, 2014;Schmid et al, 2011)-was significant for CI youth but once again was absent among non-CI youth.…”

“…with what specific features of the context to produce specific outcomes of benefit to these coactions. As documented in the international PYD research that we have discussed (e.g., Cote & Bornstein, 2021;Tirrell, Gansert, et al, 2019;Tirrell et al, 2021), this approach to the SP enables practitioners and program evaluators to learn what is common across individuals, place, and time as well as what is specific in regard to these dimensions. However, the great promise for enhancing PYD around the world that may be found through the coupling of the RDS-approach to the PYD process and the SP-a potential that we have illustrated in the sample case of the PYD attribute of character virtues-is still incompletely actualized.…”

“…In a follow-up assessment of CI program effects involving the above-noted indicators of thriving, Tirrell et al (2021) Tirrell et al (2021) found evidence that reflected specificity of relations among place (program sites), time (differences across waves of longitudinal assessment,) and variables reflecting or associated with PYD.…”

“…Therefore, the SP enables practitioners to identify if, when, and how their specific program practices/actions are associated with specific meaningful and important impacts on PYD or on theoretically associated constructs. Moreover, as illustrated in the findings of Tirrell et al (2021) and other international research (e.g., Cote & Bornstein, 2021), use of the SP can enable practitioners and program evaluators to identify developmental processes and/or facets of program practices that are common or generalizable across participants, program sites, and time and, as well, facets that are specific to individuals, sites, and program duration. These uses of the SP have increasingly become foci of international efforts to understand both PYD in general and, as well, the role of other constructs in contributing to the development of PYD (such as hope for the future, intentional self-regulation, or spirituality) (e.g., Lerner, 2018b).…”

“…Several of these models include a focus on such virtues in general and/or on specific character virtues as fundamental components of PYD (e.g., Benson, 2008;Damon, 2008;King et al, 2011;Lerner, 2018b;Lerner at al., 2015). Based on theory and on world events current at this writing that pertain to the importance of promoting a link between youth character virtue development and youth contributions to social justice and to the institutions of civil society and democracy, we note that, in the international study of PYD, interest in the development of character virtues is a burgeoning focus among researchers and practitioners (e.g., Banati, 2021;Lerner et al, 2019;Petersen et al, 2017;Tirrell, Gansert, et al, 2019;Tirrell et al, 2020Tirrell et al, , 2021 Templeton World Charity Foundation, and the International Youth Foundation). Accordingly, we focus on the development of character virtues as a sample case of how an RDS-based conception of process and of specificity can enhance a vital, but as yet incompletely realized, way in which the mutually-beneficial individualcontext coactions involved in PYD can be enhanced around the globe.…”