View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Investigating General and Specific Links from Adolescents' Perceptions of Ecological Assets to Their Civic Actions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Investigating General and Specific Links from Adolescents' Perceptions of Ecological Assets to Their Civic Actions
Language: English
Authors: Wray-Lake, Laura, Sloper, Michelle A.
Source: Applied Developmental Science. 2016 20(4):250-266.
Availability: Psychology Press. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2016
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Junior High Schools
High Schools
Descriptors: Citizen Participation, Volunteers, Political Attitudes, Correlation, Ethnic Groups, Computer Mediated Communication, Adolescent Development, Peer Relationship, Parent Role, Neighborhoods, Middle School Students, High School Students, Student Attitudes, Student Surveys, Statistical Analysis, Factor Analysis, Maximum Likelihood Statistics, Structural Equation Models
Geographic Terms: California
DOI: 10.1080/10888691.2015.1114888
ISSN: 1088-8691
Abstract: Civic engagement is an important marker of thriving among adolescents, and more research is needed that clarifies the ecological assets (positive supports across settings) that foster youth civic engagement. Simultaneously modeling associations between multiple ecological assets and civic behaviors can provide a nuanced view of the way adolescents' ecological assets relate to distinct forms of civic engagement. To advance positive youth development theory, we used a bifactor modeling approach to examine general and specific ecological asset factors in relation to volunteering, conventional political, online political, and informal helping behaviors. In a large ethnically diverse sample of adolescents, the general ecological asset factor was positively associated with informal helping only. Classroom civic learning opportunities were positively associated with volunteering, conventional, and online political behaviors. Family political discussions were positively associated with conventional and online political behaviors. Our study suggests that civic engagement should be understood multidimensionally and that broad and specific ways of conceptualizing ecological assets have merit for understanding different types of youth civic engagement.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 86
Entry Date: 2016
Accession Number: EJ1114526
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHnTq5qZHtH_q4FIiRh3BjaAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHRMkHPLrCF-2xRg9AIBEICBmwj6CmafPDVildHEZQXIg4yMKe4lezLAaM2PpwzyldGbSo2Zl7MhVmMlkVI6agYk1grK0TKNH1rr0w6_xy48fFr9BPNpmJc8g2cEavhWDW9_-yfjfOgvcHF_lUls7bpUKQwBiyDlsyJYqxw3c7eWoreLzAAzNYFE-aoEeTEuSG4j4Fl4Wry4cEbjaIheTxrD-ta6MGRIQWOiXvAi
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0118246606;7lf01oct.16;2019Feb12.16:50;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0118246606-1">Investigating general and specific links from adolescents’ perceptions of ecological assets to their civic actions. </title> <p>Civic engagement is an important marker of thriving among adolescents, and more research is needed that clarifies the ecological assets (positive supports across settings) that foster youth civic engagement. Simultaneously modeling associations between multiple ecological assets and civic behaviors can provide a nuanced view of the way adolescents' ecological assets relate to distinct forms of civic engagement. To advance positive youth development theory, we used a bifactor modeling approach to examine general and specific ecological asset factors in relation to volunteering, conventional political, online political, and informal helping behaviors. In a large ethnically diverse sample of adolescents, the general ecological asset factor was positively associated with informal helping only. Classroom civic learning opportunities were positively associated with volunteering, conventional, and online political behaviors. Family political discussions were positively associated with conventional and online political behaviors. Our study suggests that civic engagement should be understood multidimensionally and that broad and specific ways of conceptualizing ecological assets have merit for understanding different types of youth civic engagement.</p> <p>Civic engagement is defined as individuals' commitments and contributions to community and society, which are multifaceted and include a wide range of actions such as political participation and volunteering (Flanagan & Faison, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref1">25</reflink>]; Sherrod & Lauckhardt, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref2">66</reflink>]). Civic engagement is essential for healthy democracy. When individuals are civically engaged, they make communities more vibrant and find solutions to pressing social issues (Levine, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref3">51</reflink>]). Civic engagement has long been viewed as key to a full meaningful life, and likewise, positive youth development (PYD) theory positions civic engagement as an important indicator of thriving for youth (Benson, Scales, & Syvertsen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]; Lerner, Wang, Champine, Warren, & Erickson, 2014). Adolescents' civic engagement is linked to gains in academic achievement, socioemotional competencies, and health (Schreier, Schonert-Reichl, & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref5">63</reflink>]; van Goethem, van Hoof, Orobio de Castro, Van Aken, & Hart, 2014), and early civic engagement cultivates habits for civic engagement in adulthood (Hart, Donnelly, Youniss, & Atkins, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref6">35</reflink>]). Thus, promoting youth civic engagement is good for society and can enhance developmental opportunities for growth and well-being during adolescence.</p> <p>The goal of our study is to advance theory and research on the contextual factors in family, school, community, and peer settings that support youth civic engagement. Our PYD theoretical perspective is rooted in relational developmental systems (RDS) meta-theory, which posits that civic engagement results from dynamic and mutually beneficial individual-context relations that unfold over time (Lerner et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref7">50</reflink>]). We examined a subset of positive contextual features of ecological systems – referred to here as ecological assets (Benson et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>]) – to better understand how young people develop civically. Although previous research has already identified various ecological assets that relate to greater youth civic involvement (e.g., Duke, Skay, Pettingell, & Borowsky, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]; Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref10">41</reflink>]; Lenzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref11">47</reflink>]; Zaff, Malanchuk, & Eccles, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref12">85</reflink>]), the field lacks precision in understanding how multiple ecological assets function simultaneously in relation to various types of civic engagement. Particular ecological assets may support specific types of civic actions; alternatively, ecological assets could function similarly to promote civic engagement, suggesting that more support across settings could facilitate youth civic action. By employing a bifactor latent variable approach to estimating ecological assets, we simultaneously examined six different ecological assets across school, family, neighborhood, and peer settings and a general ecological asset factor in relation to volunteering, conventional and online political behaviors, and informal helping behaviors. After first articulating our multidimensional approach to studying civic behavior, we selectively review theory and research regarding the role of ecological assets in civic engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-2">A multidimensional approach to civic engagement</hd> <p>The majority of empirical research on civic engagement remains focused on unidimensional measures of youth civic behavior, such as volunteering (e.g., van Goethem et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref13">74</reflink>]), voting and intentions to vote (e.g., Hooghe & Boonen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref14">38</reflink>]), or activism (e.g., Kirshner, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref15">45</reflink>]). Conceptually, however, this multidisciplinary field is beginning to move away from singular behavioral measures of civic engagement in favor of recognizing that youth express commitments to community and society in multiple ways (Amnå, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>]; Haste & Hogan, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref17">36</reflink>]). The present study embraces the multidimensional approach to civic engagement, but unlike broader models that also include values, attitudes, skills, and knowledge (Bobek, Zaff, Li, & Lerner, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref18">8</reflink>]; Sherrod & Lauckhardt, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref19">66</reflink>]), we focused only on civic behaviors. Youth civic behaviors are heterogeneous and offer substantial complexity in and of themselves; moreover, studying the ecological assets that may encourage direct actions has clear practical applications.</p> <p>Considering multiple indicators of civic engagement within a single study can advance civic developmental theory in at least three ways. First, this multidimensional approach can help to identify similar developmental processes that underlie multiple types of civic engagement (Boyd, Zaff, Phelps, Weiner, & Lerner, 2011; Duke et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>]). For example, Boyd et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref21">11</reflink>]) found that family communication mediated the link between news media exposure and four behavioral and attitudinal measures of civic engagement; in other words, the indirect effect operated identically across types of civic engagement. Documenting consistent associations between contextual factors and different types of civic engagement can elevate the importance of consistent predictors in the civic development process, leading to prioritizing consistent predictors in theory and research as well as maximizing the impact of applied efforts by emphasizing key factors that broadly build civic engagement.</p> <p>Second, a multidimensional approach is also theoretically useful in highlighting distinct developmental processes that pertain to specific types of civic engagement (Crocetti, Jahromi, & Meeus, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>]; Duke et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]; Metzger & Smetana, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref24">56</reflink>]). For example, Duke et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref25">20</reflink>]) found that stronger bonds with family and community contexts were positively associated with voting and volunteering, but were less consistently related to political actions. Crocetti et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref26">19</reflink>]) found that adolescents' identity status was differentially related to volunteering and political behavior. Thus, some previous research emphasizes distinctions between helping (e.g., volunteering) and political domains of civic engagement, yet different correlates of behaviors in these domains are not always systematically tested. Policymakers, educators, and youth workers could benefit from more precise knowledge of the particular ecological assets that matter most for encouraging diverse types of civic behavior.</p> <p>Third, a multidimensional approach could illuminate subgroup variations in civic engagement. For example, ethnic minorities (particularly Hispanics and African Americans) and youth from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are typically described as participating less frequently in volunteering and political behaviors (Kirby & Kawashima-Ginsberg, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref27">43</reflink>]; Kirby, Marcelo, & Kawashima-Ginsberg, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref28">44</reflink>]). A recent study suggested that Hispanic youth were less likely to be highly engaged compared to White youth (Voight & Torney-Purta, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref29">76</reflink>]). Studies of gender also illustrate nuances that come from examining multiple types of civic engagement: Females tend to volunteer more, whereas males tend to participate in political-oriented activities (e.g., Marcelo, Lopez, & Kirby, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref30">54</reflink>]). Although informal helping behaviors are not commonly studied as civic engagement, Hispanic youth may gravitate toward more informal ways of supporting local communities (Sánchez-Jankowski, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref31">62</reflink>]). Informal helping behaviors directed at family, friends, and neighbors also may be one of few forms of civic participation available to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, who often lack access to formal civic participation opportunities (Balsano, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>]). A multidimensional approach to measuring civic engagement can best recognize diversity in how different youth choose to participate and could inform applied practices designed to cultivate civic engagement in diverse populations of youth.</p> <p>In summary, operationalizing youth civic engagement multidimensionally within a study offers vast potential to better understand youth civic development. Despite significant advances in measurement and conceptualization of distinct types of youth civic engagement (e.g., Amnå, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>]; Flanagan, Syvertsen, & Stout, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]; Geller, Voight, Wegman, & Nation, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]; Metzger & Smetana, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref36">56</reflink>]; Zaff, Boyd, Li, Lerner, & Lerner, 2010), validated measures are still lacking and boundaries remain blurred between specific types of behaviors. Distinctions between political and helping behaviors have been emphasized across conceptual and empirical models, yet more research is needed on a wider range of civic behaviors. We examined volunteering, conventional and online forms of political behavior, informal behaviors to help family and others, and environmental behaviors. Given the lack of conceptual and measurement clarity, our first analytic step was to identify the best-fitting measurement model for civic engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-3">Adolescents' perceived ecological assets</hd> <p>The science and practice of positive youth development is firmly rooted in a RDS meta-theoretical perspective, with a core principle being that optimal development unfolds as a result of reciprocal and mutually beneficial interactions between individuals and their contexts (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]; Overton, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref38">59</reflink>]). When applied to civic development, RDS theory emphasizes the importance of environments rich with positive relationships and resources that cultivate youth's capacities for contribution (Lerner et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref39">50</reflink>]). As noted, positive contextual features of ecological systems are often termed ecological assets; considerable attention has been devoted to assessing these assets and their role in optimal youth development (Benson et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]; Gootman & Eccles, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref41">32</reflink>]; Theokas & Lerner, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref42">71</reflink>]). Given space limitations, we provide a representative sampling of key research focused on assets in school, family, neighborhood, and peer contexts that are associated with civic engagement in the following sections.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-4">School</hd> <p>In school settings, civic education takes many forms (Gould, Hall Jamieson, Levine, McConnell, & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>]). Participating in civic education classes or curricula has been empirically linked to greater political knowledge, willingness to vote, and community service among adolescents (Bos, Williamson, Sullivan, Gonzales, & Avery, 2007; Finkel & Ernst, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref44">22</reflink>]; Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref45">41</reflink>]; Niemi & Junn, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref46">58</reflink>]; Torney-Purta, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref47">72</reflink>]). Schools also play an important role in increasing students' commitments to society, as climates of trust, support, and respect have been associated with community and political actions (Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref48">13</reflink>]; Duke et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref49">20</reflink>]; Flanagan, Cumsille, Gill, & Gallay, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>]; Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref51">41</reflink>]). Thus, civic learning opportunities and positive school climate may be instrumental in the development of civic engagement during adolescence.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-5">Family</hd> <p>The role of parents in civic development has been examined by developmental and political scientists for decades, and various aspects of parent-child interactions have been shown to predict higher civic engagement among adolescents, including relationship quality (Fletcher, Elder, & Mekos, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref52">29</reflink>]), behavioral modeling (Zaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref53">85</reflink>]), and discussion of political and social issues (McIntosh, Hart, & Youniss, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref54">55</reflink>]). Of these constructs, family discussions are of particular interest in terms of implications for practice, given the tangible and teachable nature of this direct civic socialization method (McIntosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref55">55</reflink>]). Youth who discuss politics more often with family report greater volunteering, news consumption, and political activism (Andolina, Jenkins, Zukin, & Keeter, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>]; Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>]; Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref58">41</reflink>]). Although less studied, parents' efforts to socialize compassion and social responsibility values have been linked to greater civic values, community involvement, and social trust (Flanagan, Bowes, Jonsson, Csapo, & Sheblanova, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref59">23</reflink>]; Fletcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref60">29</reflink>]; Wray-Lake & Flanagan, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref61">79</reflink>]). Similarly, parents' encouragement of civic actions was positively associated with adolescents' civic responsibility (Lenzi, Vieno, Santinello, Nation, & Voight, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref62">48</reflink>]). Parents' care-oriented reasoning has also been associated with prosocial behavior and values (Carlo, Mestre, Samper, Tur, & Armenta, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref63">14</reflink>]; Pratt, Hunsberger, Pancer, & Alisat, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref64">60</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-6">Neighborhood</hd> <p>Neighborhoods are a primary setting in which youth's competencies and positive behaviors are cultivated (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lerner & Benson, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref65">49</reflink>]). From the lens of PYD, positive bonds with non-familial adults in one's neighborhood represent a key ecological asset (Benson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref66">5</reflink>]; Bowers et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref67">10</reflink>]). The importance of positive and trusting bonds with neighbors is echoed in social capital theory, which argues that these positive bonds encourage feelings of reciprocity to give back to the community (Balsano, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>]; Putnam, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref69">61</reflink>]). Likewise, when people report a positive sense of community or neighborhood climate—such as feelings of belonging, safety, and trust in their local surroundings—they also tend to report more volunteering, political actions, extracurricular activities, and commitments to future civic participation (Cicognani et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref70">18</reflink>]; Duke et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref71">6</reflink>]; Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref72">41</reflink>]; Mahatmya & Lohman, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref73">53</reflink>]). Individual-level perceptions of relationships with neighbors—more so than community-level indicators—may be a powerful influence on civic actions (Lenzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref74">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-7">Peers</hd> <p>Adolescents' positive relationships with their peers have been theoretically linked to civic engagement, as supportive peer relationships can offer a training ground to practice civic skills (Syvertsen & Flanagan, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref75">68</reflink>]). Furthermore, social integration through positive friendships may encourage youth to become more connected to society through civic participation (Settle, Bond, & Levitt, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref76">65</reflink>]). Only a few studies of civic engagement have incorporated measures of positive peer relationships: Positive connections with peers were empirically associated with volunteering, voting, and political voice (Duke et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]; Zaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref78">85</reflink>]), and being part of a socially integrated peer group was positively related to political behavior (Settle et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref79">65</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-8">Multidimensional assessments</hd> <p>Most previous studies focus exclusively on one setting: Investigating a single setting is undoubtedly important for in-depth exploration of positive development in that setting, yet this approach may overestimate the importance of a particular setting by not accounting for broader contexts. A few studies have examined multiple ecological assets simultaneously in relation to civic engagement (Duke et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref80">20</reflink>]; Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref81">41</reflink>]; Lenzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref82">47</reflink>]; Mahatmya & Lohman, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref83">53</reflink>]; Wilkenfeld, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref84">78</reflink>]; Zaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref85">85</reflink>]). These studies used large, impressive samples and have advanced understanding of civic engagement by elucidating the unique contribution of each asset for civic engagement relative to the other assets modeled. However, some studies utilized a single measure of civic engagement (Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref86">41</reflink>]; Lenzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref87">47</reflink>]; Zaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref88">85</reflink>]), and thus lack information about how ecological assets uniquely relate to distinct forms of civic engagement. Other studies assessed multiple types of civic engagement, but with attitudinal measures (Wilkenfeld, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref89">78</reflink>]) or with measures assessed in young adulthood (Duke et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref90">20</reflink>]; Mahatmya & Lohman, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref91">53</reflink>]). Notably, in line with the extant body of research, each of these multidimensional studies conceptualized ecological assets by dividing them according to setting (Duke et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref92">20</reflink>]; Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref93">41</reflink>]; Lenzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref94">47</reflink>]; Mahatmya & Lohman, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref95">53</reflink>]; Wilkenfeld, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref96">78</reflink>]; Zaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref97">85</reflink>]). Although this division is certainly logical, these studies lack consideration of the idea that assets may transcend settings and offer cumulative benefits to youth in terms of fostering civic engagement. Moreover, these studies employed regression models, and as such, shared variance between assets was factored out of the equation. This shared variance may be substantively important (Benson et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref98">7</reflink>]; Sesma, Mannes, & Scales, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref99">64</reflink>]), and excluding it may underestimate the shared function of ecological assets across settings for fostering youth civic actions.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-9">Cumulative asset models</hd> <p>In contrast to research examining individual assets in particular settings in relation to youth civic engagement, cumulative asset models assume that more ecological assets are better for positive youth development. Notably, the developmental assets framework articulates a taxonomy of ecological assets and theorizes that more assets enhance developmental success; in other words, when assets accumulate or 'vertically pile-up,' adolescents are more likely to thrive (Benson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref100">5</reflink>]). The developmental assets model organizes ecological assets into four types of resources: supportive relationships, empowering roles, boundaries and expectations, and opportunities for constructive time use (Benson et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref101">7</reflink>]; Sesma et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref102">64</reflink>]). This list overlaps considerably with other efforts to define common features of positive developmental settings (e.g., Barber & Olsen, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref103">4</reflink>]; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Theokas & Lerner, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref104">71</reflink>]). These categories of ecological assets cut across family, school, and neighborhood settings and are organized in terms of their function, or the type of support they offer youth. To assess the cumulative assets hypothesis, empirical work typically sums assets or combines them into a global factor to test the idea that more ecological resources are associated with more positive, constructive behaviors (e.g., Benson & Scales, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref105">6</reflink>]; Leffert et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref106">46</reflink>]; Theokas et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref107">70</reflink>]). Findings support the idea that assets accumulate across settings to foster positive development. From a different theoretical tradition, the social capital perspective similarly posits that an accumulation of social and relational resources across settings fosters civic engagement (Putnam, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref108">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>Individual versus cumulative assets approaches differ in their implications for theory and practice. Individual assets approaches assume that specific ecological assets should be examined separately to determine their unique roles. Thus, results highlight unique roles played by parents, teachers, neighbors, and friends in civic development and suggest specific ecological assets that can be targeted to cultivate specific civic behaviors (Li, Lerner, & Lerner, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref109">52</reflink>]; Theokas & Lerner, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref110">71</reflink>]). Cumulative assets approaches place less priority on identifying whether a particular asset in a given setting is present. Instead, cumulative models emphasize the need for multiple assets across settings for supporting youth and thus would be applied by broadly building many positive assets across settings (Benson et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref111">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>We recognize the utility of the cumulative view of ecological assets as well as the merits of identifying unique roles of specific ecological assets for understanding civic engagement. Thus, our study aims to integrate these two conceptualizations of ecological assets by employing a bifactor latent variable model for ecological assets to <emph>simultaneously assess</emph> the role of specific ecological assets in multiple settings <emph>and</emph> the role of a general ecological asset factor in relation to multiple youth civic behaviors. Bifactor modeling offers a way to model general and specific variance in a multifaceted construct without having to choose between a total score versus individual subscale score approach (Chen, Hayes, Carver, Laurenceau, & Zhang, 2012). This method partitions variance into a general latent variable that accounts for commonality among facets (e.g., general ecological asset factor) and a set of specific latent variables that are comprised of unique variance over and above the general factor (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref112">17</reflink>]). Bifactor models offer significant advantages over second-order factor models, notably that both general and specific factors can easily be used as independent variables (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref113">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-10">The current study</hd> <p>In summary, the overarching goal of our study is to build on theory of positive youth development and extend existing research on adolescents' civic engagement by examining associations between multiple ecological assets and multiple civic behaviors. Specifically, we assessed the role of classroom civic learning opportunities and positive school climate, family political discussions and family value messages of compassion, positive neighborhood climate, and trusted friendships. Our measures of civic engagement included items focused on volunteering, various political behaviors, informal helping, and environmental behaviors. To address our research question of how ecological assets are associated with multiple types of youth civic behavior, we used two analytic approaches. We first tested separate models with each ecological asset entered as a separate predictor of multiple youth civic behaviors. We expected that these models would mostly replicate previous research that finds positive associations between each ecological asset and multiple civic behaviors. Second, we tested the same research question by estimating a bifactor model of ecological assets, such that each individual ecological asset and a general asset factor were examined in relation to multiple civic behaviors. We expected this model to show fewer significant paths from individual assets given that analyses account for shared variance among assets, and we thought it plausible that both general and specific asset factors would relate to youth civic behaviors. Including demographic factors of age, gender, parent education, and ethnicity as correlates of youth civic engagement and ecological assets served to more rigorously assess links between ecological assets and civic engagement and to document associations between demographics and specific civic behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-11">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0118246606-12">Participants</hd> <p>Students were surveyed in Southern California middle and high schools (<emph>N</emph> = 702; 54% female). Students ranged in age from 11.55 to 19.75 (<emph>M</emph> = 15.51, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.86). The sample was ethnically diverse; 46% of participants were Hispanic, 13% were White, 8% were Asian, 6% were African American or Black, 1% was Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 20% selected multiple ethnicity categories (with 58% of these youth reporting Hispanic as one ethnicity and no other clear pattern evident), and 6% indicated other ethnicities or left this item blank. In addition, 42% of participants were second-generation immigrants and 9% were first generation immigrants. Based on student reports, 38% of mothers and 40% of fathers had a high school degree or less. The ethnicity of students at these schools (e.g., 47% Hispanic, 27% White, on average) closely mirrored the ethnicity of our sample. Based on school-level data, 10% of students from each school surveyed were classified as "Limited English Proficient" and approximately 43% of students at each school were classified as "Socioeconomically Disadvantaged" (California Department of Education, 2010–2011).</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-13">Procedures</hd> <p>Data were collected from students in 31 classrooms across two high schools (grades 9–12) and two middle schools (grades 7–8) in one large, suburban school district in Southern California. A paper and pencil survey was administered in history, social studies, health, and homeroom class sessions during the regular school day; classrooms were selected in consultation with principals to achieve a sample across grade levels that reflected school demographics. Active parental consent and student assent resulted in a 66% response rate. Survey items were counter-balanced to randomize missingness due to fatigue and time constraints.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-14">Measures</hd> <p>The study assessed multiple civic behaviors, ecological assets, and demographic indicators (see Table 1 for correlations and descriptive statistics). The survey items and their standardized factor loadings are shown in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Range</td><td>Mean (<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Civic Engagement</td></tr><tr><td>1. Volunteering</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.0–5.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">2.29 (1.12)</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. Conventional Political Behaviors</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.0–4.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">2.20 (0.58)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.39<sup>***</sup></td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. Online Political Behaviors</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.0–4.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">2.16 (0.70)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.23<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.73<sup>***</sup></td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4. Informal Helping Behaviors</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.0–5.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">3.38 (0.71)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.41<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.49<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.39<sup>***</sup></td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ecological Assets</td></tr><tr><td>5. Classroom Civic Learning</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.0–5.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">3.56 (0.85)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.38<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.38<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.37<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.56<sup>***</sup></td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6. Positive School Climate</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.0–5.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">2.99 (0.80)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.10</td><td char="." charoff="50">.16<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.15<sup>*</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.32<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.35<sup>***</sup></td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7. Family Value Messages</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.0–5.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">4.20 (0.77)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.15<sup>*</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.14<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.11</td><td char="." charoff="50">.34<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.31<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.25<sup>***</sup></td><td>–</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>8. Family Political Discussions</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.0–5.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">3.32 (1.05)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.09</td><td char="." charoff="50">.40<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.36<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.38<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.33<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.08</td><td char="." charoff="50">.35<sup>***</sup></td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td>9. Neighborhood Climate</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.0–5.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">3.50 (0.76)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.12<sup>*</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.16<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.16<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.27<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.25<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.39<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.25<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.22<sup>***</sup></td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>10. Trusted Friendships</td><td char="." charoff="50">1.0–5.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">4.42 (0.70)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.10</td><td char="." charoff="50">.09</td><td char="." charoff="50">.07</td><td char="." charoff="50">.18<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.22<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.17<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.25<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.11<sup>*</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.22<sup>***</sup></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 <emph>Note.</emph> Correlations come from the initial measurement model, not including the general asset factor.</item> </ulist> <p>1 <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> < .05. <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> < .01. <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>Table 2. Standardized factor loadings for latent variables and general ecological asset factor.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Survey items</td><td>Standardized factor loadings</td></tr><tr><td>Individual factors</td><td>General factor</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Civic Engagement Behaviors</td></tr><tr><td>Conventional Political Behaviors</td><td>Participate in a rally or protest for a cause.</td><td>0.57</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Express my views in front of a group of people.</td><td>0.56</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Collect money for a political party or cause.</td><td>0.60</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Contact politicians, governments, or authorities about issues that are important to me.</td><td>0.67</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Display a poster, sticker, button, or t-shirt that endorses a political point of view.</td><td>0.69</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Volunteer to campaign for a political candidate.</td><td>0.67</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Sign a petition.</td><td>0.49</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Participate in a political party or club.</td><td>0.33</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Online Political Behaviors</td><td>Get political information from a social networking website.</td><td>0.66</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Friend a candidate on a social networking website.</td><td>0.64</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Post political news, pictures, or videos on a website.</td><td>0.72</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Use online communities or online tools to discuss political issues or current events.</td><td>0.69</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Stay informed about current events or political issues through the internet.</td><td>0.73</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Participate in online protest.</td><td>0.63</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Receive emails about important issues or campaigns.</td><td>0.73</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Visit websites of political candidates, political parties, or political organizations.</td><td>0.74</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Informal Helping</td><td>I recycle empty bottles and cans.</td><td>0.48</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>I learn about environmental issues in the media.</td><td>0.64</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>I point out environmentally friendly behaviors to others.</td><td>0.60</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>I help out around the house by doing chores.</td><td>0.34</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>I help my friends and neighbors without being paid.</td><td>0.46</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>I tell an adult when I see a person being bullied.</td><td>0.42</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Volunteering</td><td>Participate in unpaid volunteer work or community service.</td><td>0.84</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Participate in community service or charity organization.</td><td>0.75</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Ecological Assets</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Civic Learning Opportunities</td><td>Learned in classroom about things in society that need to be changed.</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.43</td></tr><tr><td>Met people in classroom who work to make society better.</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>Learned in classroom about ways to improve community.</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.54</td></tr><tr><td>Positive School Climate</td><td>Students feel proud to be part of the school.</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Students feel like they are an important part of the school.</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><td>Everyone tries to keep the school looking good.</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.31</td></tr><tr><td>Most students care about each other.</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Family Value Messages</td><td>My parents tell me it is wrong to judge people.</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.46</td></tr><tr><td>My family tells me to respect people no matter who they are.</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.39</td></tr><tr><td>My family tells me that everyone deserves a fair chance.</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><td>My family tells me to treat everyone equally.</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><td>Neighborhood Climate</td><td>Most people in my neighborhood feel safe.</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.26</td></tr><tr><td>Most people in my neighborhood try to make this a good place to live.</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>If someone has a problem, they can usually count on others to help.</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>No one in this neighborhood cares much about what happens here. (<italic>R</italic>)</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.29</td></tr><tr><td>Trusted Friendships</td><td>I have at least one good friend I can talk to.</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>When I'm having trouble, I have friends I can ask to help.</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>My friends count on me to keep a secret.</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>I have friends I can trust to keep their promises.</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Family Political Discussions</td><td /><td>–</td><td>0.53</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note.</emph> Standardized factor loadings come from the second measurement model, including the general asset factor (bifactor model). <emph>R</emph> = Reverse-coded.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-15">Civic engagement</hd> <p>Given that no gold standard civic behavior measures yet exist, we first conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and then confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm the EFA solution and identify a good-fitting and parsimonious solution. The 4-factor EFA was a good-fit to the data, <emph>χ</emph>(<reflink idref="bib249" id="ref114">249</reflink>) = 41668.86, <emph>p</emph> < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .92, TLI = .89) and factors included volunteering, conventional political behaviors, online political behaviors, and informal helping.</p> <p>Adolescents responded to two survey items about <emph>volunteering</emph> in the community. Adolescents reported how often they participated in unpaid volunteer work or community service on a scale from 1 (<emph>never</emph>) to 5 (<emph>always</emph>). In addition, adolescents indicated how often they participated in a community service or charity organization on a 5-point scale: 1 (<emph>never</emph>), 2 (<emph>few times a year</emph>), 3 (<emph>monthly</emph>), 4 (<emph>weekly</emph>), and 5 (<emph>daily</emph>) (<emph>r</emph> = .63, <emph>p</emph> < .001).</p> <p> <emph>Conventional political behaviors</emph> were measured with 8 items (α = .80). Adolescents rated whether they had ever done or planned to do several behaviors, adapted from Flanagan, Syvertsen, and Stout ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref115">24</reflink>]), e.g., "Display a poster, sticker, button, or t-shirt that endorses a political point of view" (see Table 2). Response options were 1 (<emph>I would never do this</emph>), 2 (<emph>I probably won't do this</emph>), 3 (<emph>I probably will do this</emph>), and 4 (<emph>I have already done this</emph>). This response scale was used in the national Monitoring the Future Study; responses capture intentions and actual behaviors, recognizing that political behaviors are relatively rare among youth (Syvertsen, Wray-Lake, Flanagan, Osgood, & Briddell, 2011). Lastly, one item asked adolescents to indicate how often they participated in a political party or club on a 5-point scale: 1 (<emph>never</emph>), 2 (<emph>few times a year</emph>), 3 (<emph>monthly</emph>), 4 (<emph>weekly</emph>), and 5 (<emph>daily</emph>). In addition, 8 items measuring <emph>online political behavior</emph> were written for the present study (α = .88), e.g., Get political information from a social networking website" (see Table 2). Response options were the same as mentioned previously. Although both of these scales capture political behaviors, CFA confirmed that the EFA two-factor solution was an acceptable fit to the data (χ(<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref116">103</reflink>) = 412.29, <emph>p</emph> < .001, RMSEA = .07, CFI = .92, TLI = .90).</p> <p>Six <emph>informal helping</emph> items were used to examine everyday environmental behaviors and informal helping behaviors toward family and local community. The first environmental item in Table 2 came from Kaiser, Oerke, and Bogner's ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref117">42</reflink>]) adolescent environmental behavior scale. Two additional items were written for this study to capture informal environmental behaviors that adolescents would be able to autonomously enact, e.g., "I learn about environmental issues in the media (newspaper, magazines, Internet, or TV)." Three original items were also developed to capture informal helping behaviors at home, e.g., "I help out around the house by doing chores such as cleaning, cooking, or gardening." Response options ranged from 1 (<emph>never</emph>) to 5 (<emph>always</emph>). Conceptually, we expected environmental and other informal helping items to load onto distinct factors, yet the EFA suggested a one-factor solution. CFA indicated a two-factor solution was a better fit for the data, yet the two factors were very highly correlated. Internal reliability was also highest (α = .64) when all items were included together. Thus, to enhance model parsimony and measurement reliability, a one-factor solution was used for structural model estimation, demonstrating adequate model fit (χ(<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref118">9</reflink>) = 37.94, <emph>p</emph> < .001, RMSEA = .07, CFI = .95, TLI = .91).</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-16">Ecological assets</hd> <p>Unless otherwise noted, response options for ecological assets measures ranged from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Items are listed in Table 2. We measured the school context using two scales. <emph>Classroom civic learning opportunities</emph> were assessed by a three-item scale in which students reported experiences in at least one class in the past year, e.g., "I learned about ways to improve my community" (Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref119">41</reflink>]; α = .70). Four items assessed <emph>positive school climate</emph>, e.g., "Students feel proud to be part of the school," (α = .76; Flanagan, Syvertsen, & Stout, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref120">24</reflink>]). CFA suggested that the two school scales formed separate factors (χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref121">13</reflink>) = 79.55, <emph>p</emph> < .001, RMSEA = .09, CFI = .93, TLI = .89).</p> <p>Family level assets were assessed with two scales. <emph>Family value messages</emph> of compassion were measured with four items, for example, "My family tells me to treat everyone equally," (Flanagan & Tucker, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref122">28</reflink>]; Wray-Lake & Flanagan, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref123">79</reflink>]; Wray-Lake, Flanagan, & Maggs, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref124">80</reflink>]; α = .87). The second two-item scale measured <emph>family political discussions</emph> (<emph>r</emph> = .51, <emph>p</emph> < .001). Items were taken from Flanagan, Syvertsen, and Stout ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref125">24</reflink>]): "In my home, we discuss current events or politics," and "My parents are interested in my opinions about current events." CFA supported a two-factor solution (χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref126">8</reflink>) = 31.01, <emph>p</emph> < .001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .98, TLI = .96). A mean was calculated for family political discussions for model parsimony.</p> <p>Four items measured <emph>positive neighborhood climate</emph>, e.g., "Most people in my neighborhood feel safe" (α = .74; Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref127">41</reflink>]). Participants reported on their <emph>trusted friendships</emph> using four items, e.g., "I have at least one good friend I can talk to" (α = .82; Flanagan & Gallay, 2006).</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-17">Demographic covariates</hd> <p>Youth reported age, gender, ethnicity, and parent education were entered into structural models as control variables. Age was operationalized by subtracting birthdate from survey date. Gender was coded as 0 (<emph>male</emph>) and 1 (<emph>female</emph>). For analyses, ethnicity was dichotomized into two dummy-coded variables: <emph>Hispanic</emph> and <emph>non-Hispanic ethnic minorities</emph>, with <emph>non-Hispanic White</emph> as the reference category. Students indicated mother and father education level on a scale from 0 (<emph>finished middle school or less</emph>) to 6 (<emph>master's degree or doctorate degree</emph>), and highest value reported for either parent was used.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-18">Analytic approach</hd> <p>Structural equation models were estimated in M<emph>plus</emph> 7 using maximum-likelihood estimation (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref128">57</reflink>]). To control for the nested nature of students within classrooms, classroom was utilized as a cluster variable (<emph>n</emph> = 31). Models were evaluated using absolute fit indices (Chi-square test of model fit; Root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA), and comparative fit indices (Comparative Fit Index, CFI; Tucker-Lewis Fit Index, TLI). Acceptable model fit values for RMSEA are.05 or lower and for CFI and TLI are greater than.90, with values greater than.95 preferred (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref129">39</reflink>]). Item-level missing data were handled using full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation methods in M<emph>plus</emph>, a missing data algorithm that maximizes use of available data and reduces bias to parameter estimates in a single step (Enders, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref130">21</reflink>]). Variances of exogenous variables were estimated so that all cases (<emph>N</emph> = 702) could be included in analyses through missing data estimation.</p> <p>First, measurement models were examined to identify best fitting multidimensional models for civic engagement and ecological assets. Second, six individual structural models were estimated for each ecological asset predicting all the civic engagement indicators to examine the role of each ecological asset individually, prior to controlling for shared variance with other assets. These models also controlled for the effects of demographics (i.e., age, gender, parent education, and ethnicity) on civic engagement. Next, to control for shared variance among ecological assets, a final model was estimated that included a bifactor model of ecological assets. To specify the bifactor aspect of the model, each ecological asset item was loaded onto its specific ecological asset latent variable and onto a general asset latent variable. Correlations among the six individual ecological asset latent variables were set to zero, and as such, the general asset factor is comprised of shared variance among the individual ecological assets (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref131">17</reflink>]). Civic behaviors were regressed on the general asset factor, each specific ecological asset factor, and the demographic controls. The general asset factor was also regressed on demographics. Dependent variables were allowed to correlate. Correlations among several demographic covariates were added based on modification indices. Standardized coefficients are interpreted as a measure of effect size.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-19">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0118246606-20">Measurement model and descriptive statistics</hd> <p>The first measurement model included all variables shown in the conceptual model (Figure 1), with correlations instead of structural paths estimated among substantive variables of interest. Model fit was acceptable without any modifications, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib858" id="ref132">858</reflink>) = 1677.68, <emph>p</emph> < .001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .91, TLI = .90. As shown in Table 1, adolescents were most highly involved in informal helping. Relatively few youth had engaged in conventional or online political behaviors. Overall, correlations showed significant positive associations among ecological assets and civic behaviors. Although correlations among conventional and online civic behaviors were high, EFA and CFA results supported separate latent factors, as previously noted.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Proposed conceptual bifactor model linking adolescents' perceptions of ecological assets to multiple civic behaviors. SEM conventions are used to indicate which variables were considered latent (circles) versus manifest (rectangles). Demographic controls are not pictured for ease of presentation, but were linked to each civic variable and the general assets factor.</p> <p>The second measurement model included the four civic behavior latent variables and the ecological assets variables estimated as a bifactor model. Model fit was acceptable without any modifications, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib873" id="ref133">873</reflink>) = 1791.38, <emph>p</emph> < .001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .90, TLI = .89. The factor loadings for the general asset factor illustrate how much each ecological asset item contributes to the general factor: trusted friendship items had contributed relatively little variance to this general factor, as shown by several factor loadings below.2. Given that we were interested in estimating shared variance in assets regardless of the amount each individual asset contributed to the general factor, all items were retained on the general factor despite several low loadings.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-21">Separate estimation of ecological assets in relation to civic behaviors</hd> <p>A series of individual models were estimated in which each ecological asset predicted civic behaviors. Paths from demographic factors (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, parental education) to ecological assets and civic behaviors were included. As Table 3 indicates, each ecological asset was positively associated with informal helping behaviors. With standardized coefficients ranging from.18 to.55, every ecological asset was more strongly related to informal helping than to any other civic behavior. Classroom civic learning had the strongest association with informal helping: Youth one SD higher on classroom civic learning were.55 SDs higher on informal helping on average. Each asset (except for trusted friendships) was positively associated with online and conventional political behaviors. Family political discussions and classroom civic learning had the largest effect sizes for both online (β = .35 and.36) and conventional political behaviors (β = .39 and.38) compared to other assets. Volunteering was positively predicted by every ecological asset except for family political discussions and trusted friendships. Classroom civic learning had the strongest association with volunteering: Youth one SD higher on classroom civic learning were.37 SDs higher on volunteering, on average.</p> <p>Table 3. Standardized parameter estimates from individual models of ecological assets predicting civic engagement.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Volunteering</td><td>Conventional political behaviors</td><td>Online political behaviors</td><td>Informal helping</td><td>Individual model fit</td></tr><tr><td>Beta (<italic>SE</italic>)</td><td>Beta (<italic>SE</italic>)</td><td>Beta (<italic>SE</italic>)</td><td>Beta (<italic>SE</italic>)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classroom Civic Learning</td><td char="." charoff="50">.37(.03)<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.38(.05)<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.36(.05)<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.55(.06)<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">χ<sup>2</sup>(424) = 1060.49, <italic>p</italic> < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .89, TLI = .88</td></tr><tr><td>Positive School Climate</td><td char="." charoff="50">.21(.09)<sup>*</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.14(.04)<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.16(.05)<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.24(.06)<sup>***</sup></td><td>χ<sup>2</sup>(455) = 1176.18, <italic>p</italic> < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .88, TLI = .86</td></tr><tr><td>Family Value Messages</td><td char="." charoff="50">.17(.05)<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.16(.04)<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.14(.04)<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.35(.06)<sup>***</sup></td><td>χ<sup>2</sup>(488) = 1080.98, <italic>p</italic> < .001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .91, TLI = .89</td></tr><tr><td>Family Political Discussions</td><td char="." charoff="50">.07(.05)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.39(.04)<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.35(.05)<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.39(.04)<sup>***</sup></td><td>χ<sup>2</sup>(371) = 973.10, <italic>p</italic> < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .89, TLI = .87</td></tr><tr><td>Neighborhood Climate</td><td char="." charoff="50">.13(.05)<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.18(.04)<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.17(.05)<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.27(.08)<sup>***</sup></td><td>χ<sup>2</sup>(455) = 1111.16, <italic>p</italic> < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .89, TLI = .87</td></tr><tr><td>Trusted Friendships</td><td char="." charoff="50">.10(.05)<sup>†</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.08(.05)<sup>†</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.06(.05)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.18(.06)<sup>**</sup></td><td>χ<sup>2</sup>(455) = 1095.73, <italic>p</italic> < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .90, TLI = .88</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>7 <emph>Note.</emph> Standardized estimates are presented from individual structural models and thus pathways were also estimated from demographic factors (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, and parents' education) to ecological assets (not included in this table).</item> <item>2 <sups>†</sups><emph>p</emph> < .10. <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> < .05. <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> < .01. <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0118246606-22">Bifactor model of ecological assets in relation to civic behaviors</hd> <p>We next examined the complete structural model (depicted in Figure 1), which achieved adequate model fit, χ<sups>2</sups>(1051) = 2079.80, <emph>p</emph> < .001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .89, TLI = .88. Table 4 provides standardized estimates of paths from ecological assets to civic behaviors. Coefficients in the full model represent the unique variance in each civic behavior predicted by each ecological asset, controlling for demographic covariates and shared variance among assets.</p> <p>Table 4. Standardized parameter estimates for demographic and ecological assets predicting civic engagement from bifactor model.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Volunteering</td><td>Conventional political behaviors</td><td>Online political behaviors</td><td>Informal helping</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Beta(<italic>SE</italic>)</td><td>Beta(<italic>SE</italic>)</td><td>Beta(<italic>SE</italic>)</td><td>Beta(<italic>SE</italic>)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Demographic Variables</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char="." charoff="50">.14(.07)<sup>*</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.12 (.05)<sup>*</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.13 (.06)<sup>*</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.12 (.05)<sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Gender <italic> (1 = female, 0 = male)</italic></td><td char="." charoff="50">.01 (.04)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.00 (.05)</td><td char="." charoff="50">−.07 (.04)<sup>*</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.09 (.04)<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic <italic>(0 = white)</italic></td><td char="." charoff="50">−.03 (.07)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.02 (.07)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.01 (.07)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.04 (.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Hispanic Ethnicities <italic>(0 = white)</italic></td><td char="." charoff="50">−.004 (.06)</td><td char="." charoff="50">−.04 (.06)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.09 (.05)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.05 (.07)</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Education</td><td char="." charoff="50">.13 (.05)<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.05 (.05)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.08 (.04)<sup>\†</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.07 (.05)</td></tr><tr><td>Ecological Assets</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Civic Learning</td><td char="." charoff="50">.32 (.08)<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.35 (.13)<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.29 (.12)<sup>*</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.15 (.12)</td></tr><tr><td>Positive School Climate</td><td char="." charoff="50">.003 (.09)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.15 (.10)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.12 (.09)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.01 (.10)</td></tr><tr><td>Family Value Messages</td><td char="." charoff="50">.08 (.10)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.09 (.15)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.02 (.15)</td><td char="." charoff="50">−.09 (.13)</td></tr><tr><td>Family Political Discussions</td><td char="." charoff="50">−.06 (.08)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.43 (.12)<sup>***</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.34 (.10)<sup>**</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.05 (.09)</td></tr><tr><td>Neighborhood Climate</td><td char="." charoff="50">.04 (.08)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.13 (.11)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.08 (.11)</td><td char="." charoff="50">−.10 (.10)</td></tr><tr><td>Trusted Friendships</td><td char="." charoff="50">.01 (.07)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.06 (.07)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.01 (.06)</td><td char="." charoff="50">−.08 (.08)</td></tr><tr><td>General Asset Factor</td><td char="." charoff="50">.23 (.12)<sup>†</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">−.09 (.24)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.03 (.24)</td><td char="." charoff="50">.70 (.19)<sup>***</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Combined <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td char="." charoff="50">.187</td><td char="." charoff="50">.349</td><td char="." charoff="50">.26</td><td char="." charoff="50">.59</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 <emph>Note.</emph> Standardized estimates are presented from the full bifactor structural model (Model fit: χ<sups>2</sups>(1051) = 2079.800, <emph>p</emph> < .001, RMSEA = .037, CFI = .894, TLI = .883), including correlations among civic engagement variables. Paths from demographic factors to the general ecological asset factor are not pictured due to space limitations but are available on request.</item> <item>3 <sups>†</sups><emph>p</emph> < .10. <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> < .05. <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> < .01. <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <p>The general asset factor was strongly, positively associated with informal helping behaviors: Youth one SD higher on the general asset factor were.70 SDs higher on informal helping, on average. Above and beyond the general asset factor, classroom civic learning opportunities were positively associated with three out of four civic behaviors: Youth one SD higher on classroom civic learning were.32 SDs higher on volunteering,.35 SDs higher on conventional political behaviors, and.29 SDs higher on online political behaviors, on average. Family political discussions were positively associated with both types of political behaviors: Youth one SD higher on family political discussions were.43 SDs higher on conventional political behavior and.34 SDs higher on online political behaviors, on average. Trusted friendships, positive school climate, positive neighborhood climate, and family value messages were not associated with any civic behaviors in the full model. Regarding demographics, age was positively associated with each civic behavior, indicating that older youth were more likely to participate. Females were less likely to report online political behaviors and reported more informal helping than males. Higher parental education was linked to more volunteering.</p> <p>In the full model, the <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> values for each dependent latent variable indicated that ecological assets and demographics explained 19% of the variance in volunteering, 35% of the variance on conventional political behavior, 26% of the variance in online political behavior, and 59% of the variance in informal helping behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-23">Discussion</hd> <p>Our study identifies general and specific ways that ecological assets promote adolescent civic engagement. Findings contribute to understanding what enables youth to thrive, given that we know adolescents' civic engagement boosts socioemotional competencies, academic achievement, and health (Schreier et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref134">63</reflink>]; van Goethem et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref135">73</reflink>]). Moreover, civically engaged youth are actively improving their communities and setting themselves on a path toward continued contributions in adulthood (Hart et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref136">35</reflink>]; Sherrod & Lauckhardt, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref137">66</reflink>]). Our innovative conceptual and methodological approach to examining ecological assets and civic engagement informs PYD theory, research, and practice. The large, ethnically diverse sample, inclusion of controls, and adjustments for clustered data adds rigor to our findings.</p> <p>Simultaneously modeling associations between multiple ecological assets and multiple civic behaviors extends previous research by providing a more in-depth view of the way adolescents' ecological assets relate to different forms of civic engagement. Whereas separate models linking individual ecological assets to civic behaviors suggested that nearly all measured ecological assets (except for trusted friendships) mattered for nearly all measured civic behaviors, nuances were uncovered by considering the relative contribution of general and specific ecological assets simultaneously. The general ecological asset factor was positively associated with informal helping only; political behaviors were associated with specific classroom civic learning opportunities and family political discussions. Utilizing a multidimensional conceptualization of youth civic behavior was absolutely essential to discerning this nuanced pattern of results, and our findings support the idea that political and helping behaviors may be fostered in different ways. We conclude that both broad and specific ways of conceptualizing ecological assets have merit for understanding youth civic engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-24">Evidence for a cumulative asset model</hd> <p>In finding that a general ecological asset factor was positively associated with adolescents' informal helping, our study partially supports the idea that ecological assets build cumulatively or "vertically pileup" to support youth civic engagement (Benson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref138">5</reflink>]). In other words, our general asset factor results imply that when adolescents perceive their ecological assets positively across settings, informal helping behaviors are more frequent. It is noteworthy that this shared variance in ecological assets was only associated with informal helping, but was less strongly related to volunteering and unrelated to political engagement. Conceptually, each ecological asset measure broadly shares an emphasis on caring, and relationships that emphasize care and compassion across settings have consistently been associated with the development of adolescents' prosocial behavior and volunteering (e.g., Carlo et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref139">7</reflink>]; Duke et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref140">6</reflink>]; Lenzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref141">47</reflink>]; Pratt et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref142">60</reflink>]). The implication of our findings for PYD theory is that an integration of ecological assets that emphasize care across settings may be particularly optimal for informal helping behaviors. Applying bifactor models to the study of ecological assets could further advance PYD theory by identifying general and specific process that operate to support a broader range of positive outcomes. As it is studied further, this cumulative approach to assets may have bearing on policy and practice by suggesting that building assets across multiple settings cultivates youth's commitments to caring and helping.</p> <p>Methodologically, the general asset factor is interpreted as shared variance between ecological assets. In separate models, each ecological asset was associated with informal helping, and these effects were larger than for other civic behaviors. However, only the general factor was associated with informal helping in the full model, illustrating that the individual relationships between each asset and informal helping were more parsimoniously explained with a general asset factor. Our inclusion of the bifactor model—and thus a general asset factor—has implications for future studies seeking to understand youth's ecological assets: Examining ecological assets separately or having ecological assets competes for variance in a model can obscure substantive findings about the way assets work together to inform youth development.</p> <p>An alternative interpretation of the shared variance among ecological assets is survey response bias or social desirability. It is possible that informal helping is more sensitive to social desirability bias than our other civic behavior measures, explaining the strong association between the general asset factor and informal helping. Structural equation modeling accounts for measurement error and reduces this concern to some extent, yet this alternative explanation cannot be fully ruled out. Further theoretical clarity on the links between cumulative ecological assets and youth civic behavior may come from replication with other (better) measures of informal helping, controlling for social desirability, and using more parallel ecological asset measures across settings to gain more precision in understanding their shared features.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-25">The role of individual ecological assets</hd> <p>Our study illustrates that multidimensional conceptualizations of both ecological assets and civic behaviors have utility in identifying links between certain ecological assets and specific civic behaviors. Two main findings were only evident after including all ecological assets and multiple facets of civic engagement in the same model: First, classroom civic learning opportunities remained powerfully associated with multiple types of civic behavior, even after accounting for shared variance among the assets. Second, family political discussions had specific associations with conventional and online political behaviors only. In the separate models, ecological assets (except trusted friendships) had positive and largely indiscriminate associations with civic behaviors, yet fewer significant pathways remained after controlling for shared variance among assets. These findings suggest that examining a single asset without accounting for the role of others has the potential to overestimate the role of that particular asset. Shared variance among ecological assets is implicit in the separate models, inflating observed associations between each ecological asset and civic behavior. Thus, separate models are fairly imprecise at drawing conclusions regarding whether a particular asset in a particular setting plays a role in youth civic behavior. Bifactor modeling offers a novel way to examine ecological assets as non-overlapping independent variables while also recognizing the substantive contribution of shared variance among the assets. Our findings with individual assets offer important specificity regarding which ecological assets are most relevant for distinct forms of civic engagement.</p> <p>Classroom civic learning opportunities were positively associated with volunteering and conventional political and online political behaviors. This finding supports previous research showing that classroom civic learning is positively linked to multiple civic indicators (e.g., Bos et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref143">9</reflink>]; Kahne & Sporte, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref144">41</reflink>]). Our work builds on previous work by extending the range of civic behaviors examined to online political behaviors and establishing the strength of the finding, which holds after accounting for correlations among civic behaviors, demographic factors, shared variance with other ecological assets, and adjustments made to standard errors due to clustering within classrooms. Thus, classroom opportunities to learn about ways to improve society likely constitute a broadly relevant ecological asset that supports an array of civic actions. The strength of the association between youth-reported classroom civic learning opportunities and civic actions suggests that developmental theory as well as practitioner models should consider elevating the importance of this ecological asset in the civic development process. Indeed, a wealth of theory and applied research focuses on educational practices that support civic engagement, and many emphasize that thoughtful consideration of real-world issues in the classroom fosters deep civic learning (Hess, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref145">37</reflink>]; Youniss, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref146">82</reflink>]). Importantly, the civic learning opportunities that we measured can take place in any academic subject, and thus may have straightforward and low-cost implementation in school settings.</p> <p>Our study tentatively offers new knowledge with respect to youth's political behaviors by suggesting that political behaviors are not likely to be produced by an accumulation of general assets, as the general asset factor was not associated with either type of political behavior. By implication, a broad emphasis on care across relational and learning environments may not socialize political engagement. Rather, youth political engagement may depend on more focused, concerted efforts to foster youth voice. Indeed, in our study, classroom civic learning and family political discussions were positively associated with both conventional and online political behaviors. These two assets share the common feature of fostering youth voice through discussion of political and social issues. Parents, educators, and youth development professionals who wish to encourage political development may want to be more intentional about sparking political discussion with adolescents. Future research could build on these findings by examining whether the content of political discussions matters for encouraging youth to become politically engaged, work that is already being done to an extent (e.g., McIntosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref147">55</reflink>]). Of course, our cross-sectional findings cannot determine causality or directionality in these links. More research is needed to further explore the unique roles of ecological assets for supporting specific civic behaviors. For example, our findings suggested that school climate, family value messages, and trusted friendships were less important on their own for encouraging civic behaviors, yet future work should seek to replicate these findings.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-26">Distinct dimensions of civic behavior</hd> <p>A key conclusion from our study is that ecological assets were differentially associated with political and helping behaviors. Some scholars have emphasized the importance of distinguishing between political and helping types of civic engagement on conceptual grounds, given clear differences in their form and function (e.g., Amnå, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref148">1</reflink>]; Haste & Hogan, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref149">36</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref150">67</reflink>]; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref151">75</reflink>]). Others have illustrated that different types of citizens can be defined by their commitments to localized helping behaviors carried out individually versus participatory or social justice forms of political action (Westheimer & Kahne, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref152">77</reflink>]). Furthermore, previous studies of adolescents have indicated distinct correlates of adolescents' political and volunteering behaviors (e.g., Crocetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref153">19</reflink>]; Duke et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref154">20</reflink>]; Metzger & Smetana, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref155">56</reflink>]). Our study adds to this body of work by suggesting that there may be distinct types of ecological assets associated with helping and political behaviors, with general assets building informal helping and political discussions in family and classrooms important for cultivating political behaviors. Clearly, a multidimensional approach to civic engagement is essential to understanding empirical distinctions between different types of civic behavior.</p> <p>Another utility of examining civic behaviors multidimensionally lies in the potential to identify distinctions in civic indicators by demographic factors. The few demographic findings that emerged align with previous work. Age was consistently positively associated with all measured civic behaviors, supporting a developmental argument and previous research suggesting that civic engagement increases with age (Zaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref156">84</reflink>]). Age-related increases in civic engagement could be due to normative gains in abstract thinking ability, identity exploration, or autonomy, or due to increased opportunity for civic engagement in schools and neighborhoods (Wray-Lake & Syvertsen, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref157">81</reflink>]; Zaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref158">84</reflink>]). Longitudinal studies could best test these ideas. Compared to boys, girls were more likely to report informal helping behaviors and less likely to engage in online political behaviors. This finding aligns with previous studies in which females are more helping-oriented and males are more politically-oriented (e.g., Marcelo et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref159">54</reflink>]). Furthermore, these findings again underscore the importance of a multidimensional approach to civic engagement, which allows for recognizing heterogeneity in how adolescents choose to engage in society. Finally, parental education was positively associated with volunteering. Conceptual and empirical work points to socioeconomic disparities in volunteering; youth with more educated parents may have more time and access to such formal opportunities and may view volunteering as a path toward college admission (e.g., Hart & Atkins, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref160">34</reflink>]; Syvertsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref161">69</reflink>]). Small samples of certain ethnicities may have precluded us from identifying significant differences among specific ethnic groups, and research among samples with larger subsets of ethnic minorities is greatly needed. Future theoretical and empirical research that explains demographic differences across multiple types of civic engagement would advance understanding of diverse civic pathways.</p> <p>Our work represents a significant step forward in advancing a multidimensional conceptualization of civic engagement, one that others are already actively embracing (e.g., Geller et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref162">31</reflink>]; Zaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref163">84</reflink>]), and we hope our paper stimulates more focused work in this area. We are certainly not trying to imply that we have demonstrated the best multidimensional model or measures of civic engagement. We reiterate Amnå's ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref164">1</reflink>]) call for greater conceptual clarity among dimensions of civic engagement and believe that this will be best achieved by gaining more precision in measuring civic engagement and testing the utility of different civic measurement models. Regarding measures, future studies could improve on our attempt in numerous ways, such as: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref165">1</reflink>) using a better measure of informal helping, perhaps by relying on a more established prosocial behavior scale; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref166">2</reflink>) adding more nuance to measures of volunteering to capture the diversity of this behavior; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref167">3</reflink>) continuing to measure online political behaviors to determine whether they are indeed distinct from other political behaviors (see e.g., Kahne, Middaugh, & Allen, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref168">40</reflink>]); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref169">4</reflink>) including social movement or activism forms of political behavior; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref170">5</reflink>) fleshing out measures of environmental behaviors to distinguish between informal actions like our items that overlap with prosocial actions and environmental actions that occur in the public sphere and may be more similar to political activism (see Chawla & Cushing, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref171">16</reflink>]). Of course, multidimensional conceptualizations of civic engagement incorporate nonbehavioral dimensions like values, attitudes, and knowledge (e.g., Amnå, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref172">1</reflink>]; Sherrod & Lauckhardt, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref173">66</reflink>]), and including these dimensions with civic behaviors in future work would enable more in-depth exploration of civic development (e.g., Voight & Torney-Purta, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref174">76</reflink>]). Multidimensional conceptualizations of civic engagement can be translated into a number of different empirical measurement models; we chose to maintain separate latent variables for each civic behavior to prioritize understanding similarities and differences in ecological assets, yet other plausible models include second-order models (e.g., Zaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref175">83</reflink>]) and typology approaches (e.g., Voight & Torney-Purta, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref176">76</reflink>]). Various models have different utility and may suggest different conclusions regarding correlates of civic engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-27">Limitations</hd> <p>Despite its strengths, the present study is perhaps most limited by its cross-sectional design, which precludes tests of directionality. Positive youth development and developmental contextual theoretical perspectives suggest that the interplay between civic engagement and ecological assets should be dynamic and reciprocal (Lerner et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref177">50</reflink>]). Civically engaged adolescents may seek out ecological assets that are supportive of further engagement, and longitudinal studies are paramount to examine complex, dynamic associations. Furthermore, our study was not an exhaustive examination of ecological assets that support civic engagement, and no contextual factors presumed to hinder civic engagement were examined. Going beyond adolescents' self-reported ecological assets may also deepen our understanding of civic engagement. Multilevel analyses have shown that aggregated contextual effects differ from individuals' perceptions of contexts in relating to civic engagement (Lenzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref178">47</reflink>]), suggesting the unique importance of both individuals' perceptions and external measures of ecological assets. Going forward, more clarity is needed about the functions of asset measures across different levels of analysis (Chan, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref179">15</reflink>]). Finally, as previously noted, our civic engagement measures could be improved in various ways, and replication in more diverse samples would help establish generalizability of findings.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-28">Conclusions</hd> <p>With our multidimensional approach and rigorous controls, the present study's findings can serve as a springboard for research and theory that further delves into the complex interplay between ecological assets and civic engagement. For example, testing interactive effects of ecological assets could further enhance knowledge regarding combinations of ecological assets best support youth civic engagement. Just as multipronged approaches to preventing adolescent problems are considered a best practice, building ecological assets across settings is likely to be beneficial for developing youth civic engagement (Zaff & Michelsen, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref180">86</reflink>]). At the same time, policymakers, educators, and youth workers could benefit from knowing which ecological assets matter most for encouraging diverse political and helping behaviors. In particular, youth political behaviors may arise out of concerted efforts on the part of parents and teachers to introduce youth to political issues. Further consideration of the role of ecological assets in basic and applied research on civic engagement is necessary to advance the promotion of positive youth development and thriving. Contexts that promote youth civic engagement can ultimately create a healthier society, in the process, set youth on a path toward growth and well-being in other domains of life.</p> <hd id="AN0118246606-29">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors would like to acknowledge Julie Bakhrakh and Jennifer Williams for assistance in early phases of the project.</p> <ref id="AN0118246606-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref16" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Amnå, E. (2012). How is civic engagement developed over time? Emerging answers from a multidisciplinary field. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 611–627. doi:10.2478/s13374-012-0024-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref56" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Andolina, M. W., Jenkins, K., Zukin, C., & Keeter, S. (2003). Habits from home, lessons from school: Influences on youth civic engagement. Political Science and Politics, 67, 333–337. doi:10.1017/S104909650300221X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref32" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Balsano, A. B. (2005). Youth civic engagement in the United States: Understanding and addressing the impact of social impediments on positive youth and community development. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 188–201. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0904_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref103" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Socialization in context connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family, school, and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2), 287–315. doi:10.1177/0743554897122008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref66" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Benson, P. L. (2007). Developmental assets: An overview of theory, research, and practice. In R. K. Silbereisen & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Approaches to positive youth development (pp. 33–58). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Benson, P. L., & Scales, P. C. (2009). The definition and preliminary measurement of thriving in adolescence. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 85–104. doi:10.1080/17439760802399240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., & Syvertsen, A. K. (2011). The contribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 41, 197–230. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-386492-5.00008-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref18" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bobek, D., Zaff, J., Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components of civic action: Towards an integrated measure of civic engagement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 615–627. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.07.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref118" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bos, A. L., Williamson, I., Sullivan, J. L., Gonzales, M. H., & Avery, P. G. (2007). The price of rights: High school students' civic values and behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1265–1284. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00212.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowers, E. P., Li, Y., Kiely, M. K., Brittian, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). The five Cs model of positive youth development: A longitudinal analysis of confirmatory factor structure and measurement invariance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(7), 720–735. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9530-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boyd, M. J., Zaff, J. F., Phelps, E., Weiner, M. B., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). The relationship between adolescents' news media use and civic engagement: The indirect effect of interpersonal communication with parents. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 1167–1179. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> California Department of Education. (2010–2011). Data and statistics. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/">http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, D. E. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior, 30, 437–454. doi:10.1007/s11109-008-9063-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlo, G., Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Tur, A., & Armenta, B. E. (2011). The longitudinal relations among dimensions of parenting styles, sympathy, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 116–124. doi:10.1177/0165025410375921</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chawla, L., & Cushing, D. F. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13, 437–452. doi:10.1080/13504620701581539</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J. P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 219–251. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cicognani, E., Pirini, C., Keyes, C., Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2008). Social participation, sense of community and social well being: A study on American, Italian and Iranian university students. Social Indicators Research, 89, 97–112. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9222-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crocetti, E., Jahromi, P., & Meeus, W. (2012). Identity and civic engagement in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 521–532. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.08.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N. N., Skay, C. L., Pettingell, S. L., & Borowsky, I. W. (2009). From adolescent connections to social capital: Predictors of civic engagement in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 161–168. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.07.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finkel, S. E., & Ernst, H. R. (2005). Civic education in post-apartheid South Africa: Alternative paths to the development of political knowledge and democratic values. Political Psychology, 26, 333–364. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00421.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flanagan, C. A., Bowes, J. M., Jonsson, B., Csapo, B., & Sheblanova, E. (1998). Ties that bind: Correlates of adolescents' civic commitments in seven countries. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 457–475. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01230.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flanagan, C. A., Cumsille, P., Gill, S., & Gallay, L. S. (2007). School and community climates and civic commitments: Patterns for ethnic minority and majority students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 421–431. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flanagan, C. A., & Faison, N. (2001). Youth civic development: Implications of research for social policy and programs (Social Policy Reports). Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flanagan, C., & Gallay, L. (2006). Social responsibility and prevention project. Unpublished codebook. University Park, PA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flanagan, C. A., Syvertsen, A. K. & Stout, M. D. (2007). Civic measurement models: Tapping adolescents' civic engagement (Working Paper 55). College Park, MD: CIRCLE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flanagan, C. A., & Tucker, C. J. (1999). Adolescents' explanations for political issues: Concordance with their views of self and society. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1198–1209. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fletcher, A. C., Elder, G. H. J., & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental influences on adolescent involvement in community activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 29–48. doi:10.1207/SJRA1001_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geldhof, G. J., Bowers, E. P., Johnson, S. K., Hershberg, R., Hilliard, L., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2014). Relational developmental systems theories of positive youth development: Methodological issues and implications. In P. C. Molenaar, R. M. Lerner, & K. M. Newell (Eds.), Handbook of developmental systems theory and methodology (pp. 66–94). New York, NY: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geller, J. D., Voight, A., Wegman, H., & Nation, M. (2013). How do varying types of youth civic engagement relate to perceptions of school climate? Applied Developmental Science, 17(3), 135–147. doi:10.1080/10888691.2013.804377</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gootman, J. A. & Eccles, J. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gould, J., Hall Jamieson, K., Levine, P., McConnell, T., & Smith, D. B. (Eds.). (2011). Guardian of democracy: The civic mission of schools. Philadelphia, PA: Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart, D., & Atkins, R. (2002). Civic competence in urban youth. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 227–236. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0604_10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart, D., Donnelly, T. M., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High school community service as a predictor of adult voting and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 197–219. doi:10.3102/0002831206298173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haste, H., & Hogan, A. (2006). Beyond conventional civic participation, beyond the moral-political divide: Young people and contemporary debates about citizenship. Journal of Moral Education, 35, 473–493. doi:10.1080/03057240601012238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hooghe, M., & Boonen, J. (2013). The intergenerational transmission of voting intentions in a multiparty setting: An analysis of voting intentions and political discussion among 15-year old adolescents and their parents in Belgium. Youth & Society, 47(1), 125–147. doi:10.1177/0044118X13496826</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahne, J. E., Middaugh, E., & Allen, D. (2014). Youth, new media, and the rise of participatory politics. Youth & Participatory Politics Research Network Working Papers No. 1. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://ypp.dmlcentral.net/sites/default/files/publications/YPP%5fWorkinPapers%5fPaper01%5f1.pdf">http://ypp.dmlcentral.net/sites/default/files/publications/YPP%5fWorkinPapers%5fPaper01%5f1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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, 738–766. doi:10.3102/0002831208316951</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B., & Bogner, F. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrument for adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 242–251. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby, E., & Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2009). Fact sheet: The youth vote in 2008. Medford, MA: CIRCLE at Tufts University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby, E., Marcelo, K., & Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2009). Fact sheet: Volunteering and college experience. Medford, MA: CIRCLE at Tufts University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirshner, B. (2007). Introduction to youth activism as a context for learning and development. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 367–379. doi:10.1177/0002764207306065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leffert, N., Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Sharma, A. R., Drake, D. R., & Blyth, D. A. (1998). Developmental assets: Measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2(4), 209–230. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0204_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Perkins, D. D., Santinello, M., Elgar, F. J., Morgan, A., & Mazzardis, S. (2012). Family affluence, school and neighborhood contexts and adolescents' civic engagement: A cross-national study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 197–210. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9489-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Santinello, M., Nation, M., & Voight, A. (2014). The role played by the family in shaping early and middle adolescent civic responsibility. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(2), 251–278. doi:10.1177/0272431613485822</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerner, R. M. & Benson, P. (Eds.). (2003). Developmental assets and asset-building communities: Implications for research, policy, and practice (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerner, R. M., Wang, J., Champine, R. B., Warren, D. J., & Erickson, K. (2014). Development of civic engagement: Theoretical and methodological issues. International Journal of Developmental Science, 8(3), 69–79. doi:10.3233/DEV-14130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levine, P. (2013). We are the ones we have been waiting for: The promise of civic renewal in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, Y., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). Personal and ecological assets and academic competence in early adolescence: The mediating role of school engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(7), 801–815. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9535-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahatmya, D., & Lohman, B. J. (2012). Predictors and pathways to civic involvement in emerging adulthood: Neighborhood, family, and school influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1168–1183. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9777-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcelo, K. B., Lopez, M. H., & Kirby, E. H. (2007). Fact Sheet: Civic engagement among young men and women. College Park, MD: CIRCLE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntosh, H., Hart, D., & Youniss, J. (2007). The influence of family political discussion on youth civic development: Which parent qualities matter? Political Science and Politics, 40, 495–499. doi:10.1017/S1049096507070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metzger, A., & Smetana, J. G. (2009). Adolescent civic and political engagement: Associations between domain-specific judgments and behavior. Child Development, 80, 433–441. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01270.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niemi, R. G., & Junn, J. (2005). Civic education: What makes students learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Overton, W. F. (2013). A new paradigm for developmental science: Relationism and relational-developmental systems. Applied Developmental Science, 17(2), 94–107. doi:10.1080/10888691.2013.778717</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B., Pancer, S. M., & Alisat, S. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of personal values socialization: Correlates of a moral self-ideal in late adolescence. Social Development, 12, 563–585. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sánchez-Jankowski, M. (2002). Minority youth and civic engagement: The impact of group relations. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 237–245. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0604_11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schreier, H. M., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Chen, E. (2013). Effect of volunteering on risk factors for cardiovascular disease in adolescents: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(4), 327–332. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.1100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sesma, A. Jr., Mannes, M., & Scales, P. C. (2013). Positive adaptation, resilience, and the developmental asset framework. In S. Goldstein & R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 427–442). New York, NY: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Settle, J. E., Bond, R., & Levitt, J. (2011). The social origins of adult political behavior. American Politics Research, 39, 239–263. doi:10.1177/1532673X10382195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sherrod, L. R., & Lauckhardt, J. (2009). The development of citizenship. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development, 3rd ed. (Vol. 2, pp. 372–408). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, E. S. (1999). The effects of investments in the social capital of youth on political and civic behavior in young adulthood: A longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology, 20(3), 553–580. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Syvertsen, A. K., & Flanagan, C. A. (2006). Peer influences on political development. In L. Sherrod, C. A. Flanagan, R. Kassimir, & A. K. Syvertsen (Eds.), Youth activism: An international encyclopedia (pp. 462–466). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Syvertsen, A. K., Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C. A., Osgood, D., & Briddell, L. (2011). Thirty-year trends in U.S. adolescents' civic engagement: A story of changing participation and educational differences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 586–594. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00706.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theokas, C., Almerigi, J. B., Lerner, R. M., Dowling, E. M., Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., & von Eye, A. (2005). Conceptualizing and modeling individual and ecological asset components of thriving in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 113–143. doi:10.1177/0272431604272460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theokas, C., & Lerner, R. M. (2006). Observed ecological assets in families, schools, and neighborhoods: Conceptualization, measurement, and relations with positive and negative developmental outcomes. Applied Developmental Science, 10(2), 61–74. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads1002_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torney-Purta, J. (2002). The school's role in developing civic engagement: A study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 203–212. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0604_7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Goethem, A., van Hoof, A., Orobio de Castro, B., Van Aken, M., & Hart, D. (2014). The role of reflection in the effects of community service on adolescent development: A meta‐analysis. Child Development, 85(6), 2114–2130. doi:10.1111/cdev.12274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Goethem, A. A. J., van Hoof, A., van Aken, M. G., Raaijmakers, Q. W., Boom, J., & de Castro, B. (2012). The role of adolescents' morality and identity in volunteering. Age and gender differences in a process model. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 509–520. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.08.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics (Vol. 4). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voight, A., & Torney-Purta, J. (2013). A typology of youth civic engagement in urban middle schools. Applied Developmental Science, 17, 198–212. doi:10.1080/10888691.2013.836041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. doi:10.3102/00028312041002237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkenfeld, B. (2009). Does context matter? How the family, peer, school and neighborhood contexts relate to adolescents' civic engagement. (Working Paper 64). Medford, MA: CIRCLE at Tufts University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wray-Lake, L., & Flanagan, C. A. (2012). Parenting practices and the development of adolescents' social trust. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 549–560. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.09.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C. A., & Maggs, J. (2011). Socialization in context: Exploring longitudinal correlates of mothers' value messages of compassion and caution. Developmental Psychology, 48, 250–256. doi:10.1037/a0026083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wray-Lake, L., & Syvertsen, A. K. (2011). The developmental roots of social responsibility in childhood and adolescence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 134, 11–25. doi:10.1002/cd.308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Youniss, J. (2011). Civic education: What schools can do to encourage civic identity and action. Applied Developmental Science, 15, 98–103. doi:10.1080/10888691.2011.560814</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaff, J. F., Boyd, M., Li, Y., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). Active and engaged citizenship: Multi-group and longitudinal factorial analysis of an integrated construct of civic engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 736–750. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9541-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaff, J. F., Kawashima-Ginsberg, K., Lin, E. S., Lamb, M., Balsano, A., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Developmental trajectories of civic engagement across adolescence: Disaggregation of an integrated construct. Journal of Adolescence, 34(6), 1207–1220. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.07.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaff, J. F., Malanchuk, O., & Eccles, J. S. (2008). Predicting positive citizenship from adolescence to young adulthood: The effects of a civic context. Applied Developmental Science, 12, 38–53. doi:10.1080/10888690801910567</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaff, J. F., & Michelsen, E. (2001). Background for community-level work on positive citizenship in adolescence: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors. Washington, DC: Child Trends.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Laura Wray-Lake and Michelle A. Sloper</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib249" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib858" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib873" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref180"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1114526
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Investigating General and Specific Links from Adolescents' Perceptions of Ecological Assets to Their Civic Actions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wray-Lake%2C+Laura%22">Wray-Lake, Laura</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sloper%2C+Michelle+A%2E%22">Sloper, Michelle A.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Applied+Developmental+Science%22"><i>Applied Developmental Science</i></searchLink>. 2016 20(4):250-266.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Psychology Press. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Citizen+Participation%22">Citizen Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Volunteers%22">Volunteers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Political+Attitudes%22">Political Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnic+Groups%22">Ethnic Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Mediated+Communication%22">Computer Mediated Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescent+Development%22">Adolescent Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Role%22">Parent Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neighborhoods%22">Neighborhoods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Surveys%22">Student Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Analysis%22">Factor Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Maximum+Likelihood+Statistics%22">Maximum Likelihood Statistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Structural+Equation+Models%22">Structural Equation Models</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California%22">California</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10888691.2015.1114888
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1088-8691
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Civic engagement is an important marker of thriving among adolescents, and more research is needed that clarifies the ecological assets (positive supports across settings) that foster youth civic engagement. Simultaneously modeling associations between multiple ecological assets and civic behaviors can provide a nuanced view of the way adolescents' ecological assets relate to distinct forms of civic engagement. To advance positive youth development theory, we used a bifactor modeling approach to examine general and specific ecological asset factors in relation to volunteering, conventional political, online political, and informal helping behaviors. In a large ethnically diverse sample of adolescents, the general ecological asset factor was positively associated with informal helping only. Classroom civic learning opportunities were positively associated with volunteering, conventional, and online political behaviors. Family political discussions were positively associated with conventional and online political behaviors. Our study suggests that civic engagement should be understood multidimensionally and that broad and specific ways of conceptualizing ecological assets have merit for understanding different types of youth civic engagement.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 86
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1114526
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1114526
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10888691.2015.1114888
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 250
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Citizen Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Volunteers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Political Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethnic Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Mediated Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescent Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neighborhoods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Maximum Likelihood Statistics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Structural Equation Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Investigating General and Specific Links from Adolescents' Perceptions of Ecological Assets to Their Civic Actions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wray-Lake, Laura
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sloper, Michelle A.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2016
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1088-8691
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 20
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Applied Developmental Science
              Type: main
ResultId 1