Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1381–1391

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jado

Predictors of adolescent successful development after an exchange: Theimportance of activity qualities and youth input

Heather L. Lawford a,b,*, Heather L. Ramey c, Linda Rose-Krasnor a,b, Andrea S. Proctor b

aBrock University, Psychology Department, St. Catharines, Ontario, CanadabCentre of Excellence for Youth Engagement, Toronto, Ontario, Canadac School of Social & Community Services, Humber Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, Ontario, Canada

Keywords:ActivitiesSuccessful developmentQualities of programsYouth voice

* Corresponding author. Brock University, PsychoE-mail address: hlawford@gmail.com (H.L. Lawfo

0140-1971/$ – see front matter � 2012 The Foundahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.05.008

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of this study is to examine the factors involved in predicting successfuldevelopment after an intensive exchange experience in adolescence. Specifically, weconsidered the eight positive features, as conceptualized by Eccles and Gootman (2002), aswell as the amount of input youth had into their exchange experience as predictors ofsuccessful development after the exchange. In this short-term longitudinal study, 242young, middle, and older adolescents, who participated in a national short-term exchangesprogram, completed surveys before and after completion of the program. Overall, wefound that both the eight positive features and personal input were significantly related tooverall successful development after an exchange, controlling for initial reports ofsuccessful development. This research contributes to an understanding of the importanceof different qualities of activity experiences in overall youth development.� 2012 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier

Ltd. All rights reserved.

Although activity involvement has been linked to positive adolescent development, research on the nuances of thisassociation is still lacking (Mahoney, Vandell, Simpkins, & Zarrett, 2009). For example, although positive features of theactivity setting (Eccles & Gootman, 2002) and youth voice (Mitra, 2004; Zeldin, Larson, Camino, & O’Connor, 2005) have beenidentified as critical components of a successful activity opportunity, very little empirical research exists to validate this claim.Moreover, short-term intensive activity experiences have been overlooked with respect to their impact on successfuldevelopment in youth (Rose-Krasnor, 2009). Empirical findings in these areas would lend support to theories of positiveyouth development (PYD) and theories surrounding activity involvement and youth at both individual and context levels.

The purpose of this study was to examine the factors involved in predicting successful development after an intensiveexchange experience in adolescence. In this paper, we outline current research on high intensity experiences, successfuladolescent development, and the importance of youth voice and features of the activity setting. We then describe our study,which compared adolescents’ reports of successful development before and after participating in a short-term, intensivenational exchange program. This research contributes to an understanding of the importance of different qualities of activityexperiences in overall youth development.

Involvement in high intensity experiences

Involvement in short-term, immersive activities, such as camps, exchanges, outward bound programs, or youth confer-ences, have the potential to effect positive change in the psychosocial development of adolescents (Rose-Krasnor, 2009).

logy Department, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.rd).

tion for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

H.L. Lawford et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1381–13911382

There is a limited amount of research on the impact of these types of programs, although they are commonly assumed to havepositive benefits for youth in general (e.g., Hern, 2009; Ruedel & McInerney, 2007). Existing studies have found that youthwho participate in such intense short-term programs do report positive benefits such as increases in self-esteem (Grocott &Hunter, 2009), self-efficacy (Hunter et al., 2010), emotional intelligence, identity development (Duerden, Widmer, Taniguchi,&McCoy, 2009), and self-concept (Hindes, Thorne, Schwean, &McKeough, 2008). Often, the focus of the particular experiencealso results in specific outcomes, such as lowering of prejudicial bias or interest in different cultures or languages (e.g.,Sassenberg & Matschke, 2010).

Research to date on short-term intensive experiences for youth has focused primarily on exchange programs, volunteertourism, and youth conference experiences. An exchange program entails two groups (often students) taking turns to hostand visit the other group, in order to gain skills, knowledge, and wisdom through the experience. Most research on studentexchange programs examine long-term (i.e., one year or more) international programs. Also, research often focuses oncultural awareness, identity development, or political awareness (Eerdewijk, Westeneng, Hoop, & Ruben, 2009; Sassenberg &Matschke, 2010; Suanet & Van De Vijver, 2009).

Another popular form of intensive experiences, sometimes incorporated into exchange programs, is volunteer tourism, anexperiential education opportunity in which individuals experience and learn about other cultures and participate in actionsthat will benefit the host community. One longitudinal study found that college students reported increases in civic attitudeand openness overall after participating in a volunteer tourism program (Bailey & Russell, 2010).

In their studyof a different formof intensive experience, Pancer, Rose-Krasnor, and Loiselle (2002) analyzed youth reactions toparticipation in a five-day conference on creating social change, duringwhichyouth inputwas a central feature of the conferencedesign. Youth were given a voice in central aspects of the organization and implementation of the event, including choosingconference themes, leading discussions, and formulating plans of action related to social change. Overall, youth participating inthe conference reported positive benefits in their views of self, their relationships with others, and their hopes for the future.

Similar to the research on conferences, exchanges, and volunteer tourism, research on adventure programs (e.g., OutwardBound) has demonstrated that they can positively impact youth development, particularly in at-risk populations (Hattie,Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997). Although these varied types of programs offer unique experiences with differentemphases, there are some commonalities among them, including participant involvement in decision-making. Beames andRoss (2010) qualitatively examined an outdoor education program in which elementary students (aged 8–11 years) partici-pated in decision-making surrounding the educational curriculum. Students reportedmore learning andmore engagement inlearning as a result of being able to design the program around their interests.

Unfortunately, most research on intensive experience has been limited to qualitative reports. As such, quantitative analysisand evaluation of these types of programs is scarce (Durlak et al., 2007). Also, aside fromvariables such as self-esteem, there isvery little empirical research validating the claim that these high intensity experiences have positive influences on overalladolescent development, rather than on the specific abilities, attitudes, or knowledge areas targeted by the program.Moreover, there is little research examining how the qualities or aspects of the program might be associated with greater (orlesser) increases in positive benefits for youth. Recently, however, researchers have identified considering program qualitiesas an important issue with respect to youth development (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Mahoney, Lord, & Carryl, 2005; Shernoff,2010). Therefore, further quantitative studies examining the impact of short-term experiences for adolescents in terms ofmore general positive development, as well as an understanding of specific qualities of these experiences that might posi-tively contribute to youth development, are warranted.

PYD and activity involvement

Although there is no consensus in the literature on a single definition of PYD (Lerner, Phelps, Forman, & Bowers, 2009),recent research has commonly followed Lerner and colleagues’ definition, which views PYD as the development of the 5 Cs:competence and skills, social connections to others, caring and compassion, confidence, and character or positive values,morals, and integrity (Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000). The development of these five Cs then leads to a sixth C: youthcontributions to the self and others. More generally, PYD has been described as involving a strengths-based view of youth thatemphasizes positive qualities, outcomes, and capacity to thrive rather than deficits (Damon, 2004; Lerner et al., 2009). PYDhas become a prominent part of research on adolescent development (Lerner, von Eye, Lerner, Lewin-Bizan, & Bowers, 2010).Further, its link to activities and programs is key in applied approaches because of its potential to inform community andprogram settings (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Studies on associations between activities and PYD indicate that participationin sports and youth development programs, as well as greater participation breadth, is related to higher PYD (Lewis, Murphy,& Baker, 2008; Linver, Roth, & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Zarrett et al., 2009).

Although this current research indicates that activity involvement predicts successful adolescent development and PYD, asnoted by Mahoney et al. (2009), “with regard to PYD, all activities may not be equal” (p. 251). Activity quality, in particular,might serve as a better measure than type of activity or breadth, intensity, or duration of participation in predicting PYD. Thequality of developmental affordances provided by the specific activity context might be a prerequisite for successfuladolescent development, as the developmental context must furnish developmentally appropriate opportunities for youth toengage in growth-enhancing experiences (Bohnert, Fredricks, & Randall, 2010; Busseri & Rose-Krasnor, 2009). One frameworkfor assessing program quality is the model outlining eight features of successful developmental activity settings proposed byEccles and Gootman (2002).

H.L. Lawford et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1381–1391 1383

Positive features of activity settings

In an attempt to integrate the literature on young people’s daily settings, Eccles and Gootman (2002) reviewed awide baseof developmental literature and concluded that eight features of activity settings were critical for positive adolescentdevelopment. These were safety, structure, supportive relationships, feelings of belongingness, positive values and socialnorms, opportunities for efficacy, skill-building, and connections to family, school, and community. Despite the popularity ofthe Eccles and Gootman report (at the time of this writing, ERIC@Scholars Portal reported that the document has been cited95 times and Google Scholar reports that it has been cited 631 times), we have been unable to find any studies that directlymeasure these eight features of positive developmental settings. Recently, researchers have similarly highlighted a lack ofresearch on the quality or characteristics of activity settings in predicting youth outcomes (e.g., Bohnert et al., 2010; Gardner,Komesaroff, & Fensham, 2008).

Although the full set of features has not been assessed, individual features from Eccles and Gootman’s (2002) list, includingbelongingness and connections to family and community, have been examined. For example, Scales and colleagues (Scales,Benson, & Mannes, 2006; Scales, Benson, & Roehlkepartain, 2011) have found connections among activity involvement,support and relationships with adults, and youth thriving. In a recent evaluation of after-school programs for children andearly adolescents conducted by Arbreton et al. (2008), sense of belonging in the activity was found to be related to positivechanges in behaviors and attitude toward school. These studies provide support for at least some of the eight featuresidentified by Eccles and Gootman, but a more comprehensive consideration of these qualities is still needed. Moreover, wewere unable to locate any studies that examined Eccles and Gootman’s eight features within the context of short intensiveactivities, such as an exchange program.

Youth input

Likely related to the opportunities for efficacy feature described by Eccles and Gootman (2002), activity settings also areconsidered more likely to foster PYD when they provide an empowering, expecting, and supportive atmosphere, withopportunities for input and decision-making (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Youth input into program and organizationaldecision-making has been linked to a variety of positive developmental outcomes for youth. These include youth’s devel-opment of competencies related to programs or tasks, such as learning new skills around leadership and planning (Larson,Walker, & Pearce, 2005; Serido, Border, & Perkins, 2009; Zeldin, 2004), as well as identity exploration (Zeldin, 2004) anddemonstrations of strategic thinking (Larson & Hansen, 2005). Hansen and Larson (2007) also found that youth who hada lead role in their activity reported greater developmental experiences than those who did not have a leadership role.Similarly, Mitra (2004) found that involvement in student voice activities in schools improved youth’s agency and compe-tence, and that youth who were more involved experienced the greatest changes. Youth input also has been linked to greatercommunity connections and relationships (Jarrett, Sullivan, & Watkins, 2005; Komro et al., 1996; Zeldin, 2004).

The importance of youth involvement in decision-making has been identified as important for successful developmentboth in other contexts and at the theoretical level. For example, teachers who provide an autonomy-supported environmentby encouraging input have been found to be more likely to have students who report more academic success (Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipuer, Hanisch, Creed, & McGregor, 2006). Other research has found that for early adolescents, more decisionmaking autonomy was associated with more positive connections with parents (Brody, Moore, & Glei, 1994; Fuligni & Eccles,1993). Further, Gutman and Eccles (2007) found that decision making in the family was related to higher overall self-esteem.At the theoretical level, Self-Determination Theory highlights autonomy as being an essential component of health and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

The impact of input for adolescents, however, may depend on developmental differences among youth. It has been wellestablished theoretically and empirically that adolescence is a developmentally unique stage of life. Erikson (1968)emphasized that optimal development in adolescence requires the appropriate fit between the developmental needs ofthe adolescent and the opportunities and social environment provided by adults (see also Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000).Eccles et al. (1993) have purported that adolescence is a state of transition, in part, because of the dynamic nature of both thedevelopmental needs of the adolescent and the social contexts in which they live. Along these lines, some programs couldresult in greater gains for some adolescents and lesser gains for others, depending on their individual developmental needs.For example, the short-term, intense nature of exchange programs may afford what have been described as “turning point”experiences (Rose-Krasnor, 2009). Substantial changes in self-understanding and social development during these concen-trated activity experiencesmay differ depending on the adolescents’ stage of development readiness for them. There has beensome evidence, for example, that early adolescents who make decisions without input from parents (youth-alone decisionmaking) can have negative effects on adjustment (Dornbusch, Ritter, Mont-Reynaud, & Chen, 1990; Lamborn, Dornbusch, &Steinberg, 1996; Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Daddis, 2004).

Recent research has indicated however, that associations between early adolescent decision making and adjustment isqualified by factors such as the type of issue being considered, proportion of youth input. For example, Smetana andcolleagues reported that while concurrent associations for young adolescents indicated that family decision making wasassociated with negative outcomes, more autonomy in decision making in the personal domain (i.e., how to spend money,which friends to go, out with, when to do homework) was associated with better self-worth two years later. Further, Qin,Pomerantz, and Wang (2009) separated adolescent decision making opportunities into groups based on proportion of

H.L. Lawford et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1381–13911384

input (i.e., youth-alone, joint decision, parent alone). They found that early joint family decision making was associated withenhanced emotional functioning, both concurrently and over the course of two years.

There is a substantial literature on adolescent decision making in the family; however, few researchers have consideredthe age of participant as a potentially moderating factor in the effectiveness of activity programs. Age could be an especiallyimportant consideration in adolescence, given the transitional state of this developmental stage. Early adolescence is a periodwhen individuals begin to seek autonomy from parents and teachers, and yet in school and home life these opportunitiesmight not yet exist. A recent study by Flanagan and Stout (2010) demonstrated an association between a democratic climatein school and adolescent social trust that was strongest for early adolescents, compared to middle and older adolescents.Given these past findings, one might expect that receiving more opportunities from activity leaders to provide input intoa particular program would result in a greater change in successful development for younger adolescents compared to theirolder counterparts.

Goals and hypotheses

Overall, our research examined the role of positive features and youth involvement in predicting adolescents’successful development following participation in a national exchange program. Specifically, we tested a model of youthinput, positive features of the activity group, and positive development in adolescents participating in a national exchangeprogram.

First, there has yet to be a study that has examined all eight of Eccles and Gootman’s (2002) positive features simulta-neously. Thus, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis that included the positive features, successful development, anddecision making about the exchange. We expected that the eight positive features would load onto one factor and that thisfactor would be distinct from items designed to measure input and successful development.

Second, we expected that positive features of the exchange and input into the exchange would uniquely predict increasesin successful development over the course of the exchange. Further, in line with previous work and theory suggesting thatearly adolescents might benefit most from input into decision-making, we explored the possibility that younger youth wouldexperience greater developmental benefits from this input than would older adolescents.

Method

Sample and procedure

Participants in this study were derived from a larger sample of 656 adolescents across Canada who participated ina national exchange program hosted by the YMCA of Greater Toronto. The Youth Exchanges Canada program allows schoolclassrooms and community organizations to apply to take young people on an “exchange” to another part of the country,where they are partnered with and hosted by a matched group. Within a few weeks of the initial exchange, the group thenreciprocates by hosting their partner group. The exchanges could have included a variety of activities such as sight-seeing,educational field trips, and shopping. All groups were also required to participate in a half-day of community engagementactivities, which were planned by the hosting group.

In the current sample, exchange groups included a range of 9–27 youth and had between 2 and 5 leaders. There was alsoa range of youth-to-leader ratios from 4:1 to 20:1. A total of 242 adolescents (56% girls) completed both waves of surveycollection, one before and one after the exchange, and will be the focus of the analysis for this study. The age of sample rangedfrom 12 to 18 years old (M ¼ 14.74, SD ¼ 1.62, median ¼ 14). Age was normally distributed and entered as a continuousvariable in regression analyses, but the youth were divided into groups of early (ages 12–14; 28%), middle (ages 15–16; 38%),and late (ages 17 and 18; 34%) adolescence for descriptive purposes.

Almost all participants (97%) reported living with at least one of their parents, and a majority of participants (75%) re-ported that their parents had a high school education or greater. The largest group of youth self-identified as Caucasian orEnglish/French Canadian (49.3%) and a substantial number of participants chose not to endorse an ethnicity (22%).

A group of youth involved with the partnering community organizationwas given significant responsibilities in designingthe recruitment materials (including a short video presentation) and graphics included on the surveys; they also participatedin designing, assembling and distributing information packages to potential participants. Youthwere asked to complete a firstsurvey 2–4 weeks before their exchange began and a second survey 2–4 weeks after the exchange had been completed.Surveys were administered by exchange group leaders, who were provided with training materials prior to each wave of datacollection.

A set of randomly-chosen exchange groups were asked to complete the survey on paper (67%); the remaining groupswere asked to complete an online version of the same survey (33%). There were a few differences between online andpencil/paper responses with respect to missing data. Overall, participants who completed the pencil/paper version weremore likely to complete both waves of data (61%) compared to participants who completed an online version (13.5%).Individuals who completed the online version were significantly older (82% were late adolescents) than individuals whocompleted the paper survey (29% were late adolescents), c2 (df ¼ 2) ¼ 25.60, p < .05. Individuals in the online group re-ported having significantly less input into the exchange (M ¼ 1.84, SD ¼ .81) than the paper group (M ¼ 2.23 SD ¼ .91),t(26) ¼ 2.16, p < .05.

H.L. Lawford et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1381–1391 1385

Missing data and sample attrition

Only those participants who completed surveys for both waves were included in the analysis for this study. Theseparticipants did not differ from those who only completed one wave in terms of reporting that they had sufficient money forneeds or fun, or level of parental education, age, or gender (t(480) < 1.0, p > .10). Completion of only one survey was also notrelated to any of the variables in question, except for input into the exchange. Those who only completed onewave (M¼ 2.32,SD ¼ .73) reported having more input that those who completed both waves (M ¼ 2.08, SD ¼ .80), t(344) ¼ 2.32, p < .05. Forthe 242 youth who participated in both waves of the study, less than 2% of data were missing. Therefore, missing data werereplaced using an EM algorithm in SPSS (Schafer & Graham, 2002). Analyses were also tested using listwise deletion andyielded the same pattern of results.

Measures

Demographics, including gender, age and ethnicity, were measured with single items. A proximate aggregate measure ofsociometric status was used, with two combined items reflecting youth’s perception of income (e.g., do you have enoughmoney for needs) and two combined items regarding parents’ education.

Below is a description of the dependent and independent variables included in this study. All items were measured usinga 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 to 4, where 4 indicated a high rating of successful development, input, and positivefeatures. Table 2 contains the means, standard deviations, and (where applicable) alphas for these scales.

Successful development

Successful adolescent development was measured using an index of 6 items based on Lerner and colleagues’ (e.g., Lerner,Dowling, & Anderson, 2003) six Cs of youth positive development: competence (Do you think you are good at most things youdo?); confidence (In general, do you feel good about yourself and your life?); connection (How connected do you feel withyour parents, friends, and peers?); caring (Are you a caring person?); character (Is it important for you to do good things andmake the world better?); and contribution (Are you involved in activities at school and in the community that help makethem better?). Successful development was measured in both waves of the study.

Input into the exchange

Participants reported on the amount of personal input they had in the planning and the duration of the exchange. Thesetwo items were correlated .56, p > .001 and therefore were summed into one item.

Positive features of exchange group

Positive features of the exchange groupweremeasured using 8 items based on Eccles and Gootman’s (2002) description ofeight positive features of activities that promote successful development (see Table 1 for items). Items asked how safe,supported, included, and connected with the group participants felt, as well as to what extent the group demonstratedpositive values, was effective, and provided learning opportunities.

Table 1Factor loadings and communalities based on a principle axis factoring analysis with varimax rotation for 16 items regarding successful development, positivefeatures of the exchange group and input into the exchange (all from Time 2) (N ¼ 242).

Positive features Successful development Input Communality

Safe at meetings .67 .49Right amount of structure and guidance .81 .62Supportive and caring people .75 .57Felt included by the group .75 .26 .61People in the group showed positive values .72 .30 .59Could get things done in your exchange experience .75 .31 .65Opportunities to learn new things and develop new skills .71 .23 .58Involvement connected to family, school or other community work .51 .33 .43Good at most things you do .24 .55 .42Feel good about yourself/life .20 .65 .45Important to do good things .28 .55 .22 .43Connected to your parents .59 .38Caring person .66 .38Involved in activities to make the world better .20 .51 .37Personally had a lot of input or responsibility planning and preparing .81 .40Personally had a lot of input or responsibility during the exchange .63 .35

Note. Factor loadings < .2 are suppressed. The factor labels based on original scales suited the extracted factors and were retained.

Table 2Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s a across samples for variable constructs.

Full sample (N ¼ 249) Early adolescent (N ¼ 66) Mid-adolescent (N ¼ 98) Late adolescent (N ¼ 85)

Mean SD a Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Income .39 .70 .22 .55 .41 .74 .49 .72Successful development (T1) 2.94 .75 .79 2.94 .90 3.01 .63 2.87 .75Successful development (T2) 2.95 .64 .84 2.88 .69 2.97 .60 2.96 .65Positive features T2 3.03 .72 .90 3.02 .75 3.02 .77 3.04 .65Personal input 2.20 .90 .72 2.24 .97 2.14 .87 2.25 .90

H.L. Lawford et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1381–13911386

Results

Table 2 includes means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s a values for the variables used in the regression analysis.Descriptive statistics are provided for the full sample and for all three age groups separately. Table 3 includes bivariatecorrelations between all variables.

For the overall sample, adolescents reported modest levels of successful development, positive features, and personalinput. There was no association between youth to leader ratio, or online vs paper and successful development (r’s < .10;p> .10).1 Therewere no gender differenceswith respect toTime 1 successful development or input (t< 1.0; p> .10). Therewasa modest gender difference in reports of positive features, with female adolescents rating positive features (M ¼ 3.10,SD¼ .68) slightly higher thanmale adolescents (M¼ 2.92, SD¼ .77; t(240)¼ 1.82, p< .10). Successful development was stableover time (r ¼ .53) and did not differ in overall sample from T1 to T2.

Exploratory factor analysis successful development, input, and features

To test Eccles and Gootman’s framework, as well as to establish the independence of the dependent and the independentvariables, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted with a varimax rotation on all the items included in the Time 2subscales of youth input, positive features, and successful development. The analysis yielded 3 factors with eigenvalues over1.0. In total, the three factors accounted for 60% of the variance. The rotatedmatrix indicated that the items did indeed fit withtheir designated subscale, where items all loaded on their respective factor well above .4 and were well below .4 on all otherfactors (see Table 1).

Predictors of successful development

To test predictors of T2 successful development, a hierarchical linear regression was conducted. We expected to find thatboth input into the exchange and positive features of the exchange would be positively associated with adolescents’successful development. In order to test various interactions, we used a step-down approach (Aiken &West, 1991) to identifythe most parsimonious model, dropping non-significant interactions (p > .05). The final regression model is presented inTable 4, and includes coefficients for each variable (on the step they were entered, as well as the last step), the total varianceexplained by each step, and the partial correlations for each variable.

On the first step, control variables, including age, gender, and income for needs and fun, were entered, along with T1successful development. On the second step, main effects of the independent variables (composite of eight positive featuresand input into the exchange variables) were entered. Finally, age and gender interactions with the two independent variableswere added. The main effect of positive features was not moderated by gender or age. However, input was moderated by ageand therefore was included in the final model. The final model accounted for 44% of the variance in T2 successfuldevelopment.

Age was unrelated to successful development, and gender and income were only moderately associated. With respect togender, female youth reported slightly more successful development than male youth. With respect to income, althoughbivariate correlations indicated a negative association between income and successful development, when other factors wereconsidered (i.e., in the regression analysis), youth who reported higher levels of incomewere somewhat more likely to reporthigher levels of successful development.

As predicted, both input and positive features were uniquely and positively associated with successful development afterthe exchange, controlling for reports of successful development before the exchange. Moreover, input was moderated by age.Simple slopes were calculated according to the procedure outlined by Aiken and West (1991). Age was analyzed asa continuous variable, but was categorized into early (ages 12–14 yrs.) middle (ages 15–16 yrs.) and late (ages 17–18 yrs.) forfurther analysis. Consistent with our predictions, analysis of simple slopes demonstrated that input was associated withpositive scores of T2 successful development (controlling for T1 reports) for young and middle adolescence, t(236)’s ¼ 3.57,2.48, p < .001, .05 respectively, but not for older adolescents, t ¼ .191, p > .10 (see Fig. 1).

1 When these controls were entered into the regressions discussed in the main analysis, results were similar to those reported here.

Table 3Bivariate associations among variables.

Gender Age Income Suc dev T1 Suc dev T2 Pos features

Gender –

Age .048 –

Income �.104 .139* –

Suc dev T1 .072 �.024 �.313*** –

Suc dev T2 .127* .057 .106t .512*** –

Pos features .109t .047 �.187** .266*** .507*** –

Input .079 .035 .018 .246*** .345*** .271***

tp < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

H.L. Lawford et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1381–1391 1387

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to identify how Eccles and Gootman’s eight positive features, within the context ofa national exchange program, were associated with successful development in adolescence. Overall, we found that positivefeatures of the group involved in the exchange and input into the exchange were important positive predictors of successfuldevelopment. These findings highlight the importance of considering these two specific characteristics when designingprograms for adolescents. Below, we consider the implications of our findings with respect to current theory and literature onyouth voice, youth development settings, and PYD.

Positive features of youth development settings

In this study, we statistically differentiated the eight positive features outlined by Eccles and Gootman (2002) and from anindex of successful youth development that was based, in part, on Lerner’s six Cs of PYD. Although positive features have oftenbeen identified as essential to successful youth programs, they have rarely been included in empirical studies. Indeed, weknow of no other study that has examined them as a whole. Our findings also specifically address two qualifications thatEccles and Gootman made of their eight features: first, that the lines between the qualities were blurred, and second, that thelist was provisional and needed to be subjected to further study. Thus, it seemed most appropriate to analyze the features asa single construct, rather than analyzing them as separate dimensions. Further, it was unclear whether adolescents’perceptions of positive features simply tapped into their overall successful development. The factor analysis showed that theeight positive features “hung together” and that they were statistically separate from the items designed to measuresuccessful development.

Given that positive features and successful development were statistically separate, we were able to investigate theassociation between the adolescents’ perception of the features of the exchange and their overall successful development,after controlling for successful development reports prior to the exchange. We found that adolescents who rated theirexchange more positively with respect to the eight features were also more likely to report gains in successful developmentafter their experience. Notably, the variance accounted for by the eight positive features (12%) approached the varianceaccounted for by the Time 1 report of successful development (14%). This emphasizes the importance of considering this set ofcharacteristics in relation to effective youth programming. Moreover, our findings add to research, such as Scales et al.’s(2006, 2011) findings on the importance of measuring supportive opportunities and relationships in youth activities. Suchknowledge will be important in establishing the qualities of activity settings that researchers should measure when theyassess outcomes of youth activity and program participation.

Input into the exchange

Youth who reported having more input during the exchange also reported higher levels of successful development. Youthinput added significantly to the variance accounted for by the positive features. This evidence of its unique importance is inlinewith other studies that have found youth voice to be beneficial for school, home, and outside activity contexts (e.g., Serido

Table 4Hierarchical linear regression predicting T2 successful development.

B(SE)-step entered B(SE) last step R2 change sr2-last step

Gender .06t(.03) .04(.03) .28 .00Income .04(.04) .06(.03)t .01Age .04(.03) .03(.03) .00T1 successful development .34(.04)*** .26(.03)*** .14Input into exchange .09(.03)** .082(.03)* .164 .018 positive features .33(.05)*** .331(.05)*** .12Age � input �.07(.03)* �.073(.03)* .013 .01

Note. F(7,236) ¼ 28.09, p < .001; adj R2 for final model .438.tp < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Fig. 1. Interaction between amount of input into the exchange and age group predicting successful development.

H.L. Lawford et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1381–13911388

et al., 2010; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006). One possible explanation for this importance is that the opportunity to contributeincreases youth’s overall self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) stated that the development of self-efficacy in adolescence is key tooverall psychological health andwell being. Similarly, Damon (2004) described the importance of youth’s sense of purpose, orintention to accomplish something meaningful to the self and the greater world. Moreover, Larson (2000) emphasizedyouth’s initiative, or internal motivation in working toward a challenging goal. Lerner’s definition of PYD includes a sense ofcompetence, and efficacy, sense of purpose, and initiative, which may be key mechanisms in the association between youth’sinput and successful adolescent development. It is important to note, however, that it is yet unclear whether perceived inputis due to adult leader’s solicitation of input, the youth’s motivation to provide input, or both. Therefore, further study isrequired to differentiate youth input due to higher levels of self-efficacy, initiative, or purpose, and from input due to leaderencouragement, as well as the potential interactions among them.

Given the age range of participants, we were able to look at the potential moderating effects of age. As hypothesized, wefound stronger associations between input and successful development for younger adolescents than for older adolescents.There are a few possible explanations for this finding. First, opportunities to provide input might be less available in early tomid adolescence than at older ages. Grossman, Campbell, and Raley (2007), for example, found that although the associationbetween perceived input and program enjoyment and engagement was consistent across different age groups, the level ofinput gradually increased with age. Thus for the younger groups, the exchange activity may be one of a relatively few contextsin which to attain self-efficacy. Alternatively, input might be particularly beneficial at this developmental stage (Eccles et al.,1993). For example, Erikson (1968) purported that in late childhood and early adolescence individuals are focused onachieving a sense of industry and competence, compared to the primacy of identity issues in later adolescence.

The particular direction in which age affected the association between input and successful development seems coun-terintuitive to the decision making studies that have found more positive outcomes for older adolescents and more negativeoutcomes for early adolescents (e.g., Lamborn et al., 1996; Smetana et al., 2004). On the other hand, the type of input beingmeasured in this study is more closely aligned with the amount of joint decision making, as opposed to youth-alone decisionmaking. Thus, the opportunity for joint decision-making in the context of activity planning might offer more developmentalbenefits for younger adolescents, whereas older adolescents might be ready for more independent decision makingopportunities. This reasoning is in linewith current research indicating that increases in joint decisionmaking over timewereassociated with developmental benefits for younger adolescents. Further research is needed to examine whether differenttypes of decision making opportunities would benefit youth at different developmental stages and why such developmentaldifferences might occur.

Given these results, we might also encourage exchange program developers to consider how their program design meetsthe developmental needs of its participants as reflected in positive features identified by Eccles and Gootman. For example,the multi-site Canadian organization Youth Net/Réseau Ado, a for-youth-by-youth mental health promotion and preventionprogram is designed to have a youth advisory team of younger youth, who advise the overall program and implement mentalhealth promotion programs, and a team of older youth, who are trained to facilitate discussion groups about mental health(Davidson, Manion, Davidson, & Brandon, 2006). Ideally, youth then have the opportunity to transition from the youngeryouth advisory team role into a group facilitator role, building on their leadership skills and knowledge of mental health andproviding new career-related experience and networking contacts.

Implications

This study is one of few short-term longitudinal and quantitative investigations of short-term, intensive exchangeprograms.We examined how features of a programmight influence overall successful development. Therefore, this study has

H.L. Lawford et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1381–1391 1389

implications for policy, practice, and researchers. Our findings provide empirical support for the eight program featuresidentified by Eccles and Gootman (2002), and their relation to greater PYD overall. Our findings should encourage programimplementers and researchers to evaluate the role of these eight features further in predicting the value of various programsto youth. In addition, we found that youth’s perception of input into the exchangewas also an important factor in determiningsuccessful youth development. This suggests that organizations that involve youth with the goal of promoting PYD may bemore effective if they ensure that youth have opportunities for meaningful input into the program, perhaps through thecreation of relevant policies and procedures that require or encourage considerations of the eight features, and by offeringsupport and training to adult leaders in how to promote youth voice. This latter strategy might be especially worthy inprograms geared toward early adolescents.

Limitations and future research

The current study had a number of limitations and suggests several avenues for future research. Unfortunately, this studydid not include a control group, which would have allowed for an analysis of the effects of the exchange as a whole. Despitethis, we were able to identify several factors within the exchange program that were important to overall gains in adolescentdevelopment, an area that has recently been identified as understudied (Durlak, Weissberg & Pachan, 2010). Second, ourmeasures of positive features and successful development were somewhat abbreviated, and other studies have employedmore comprehensive measures (e.g., Lerner et al., 2005). However, the current study was a partnership between researchersand members of a community organization, and it was necessary to consider and balance the objectives of all those involved.Despite the small number of items, bothmeasures indicated strongwithin-measure intercorrelations, andwere differentiatedfrom each other in a factor analysis. Thus, these measures might be useful to other researchers interested in collecting datawithin a community sample in which time and resources are limited.

In this study there was also some attrition, although analysis reveals very little difference between the retained and theindividuals who dropped out. Moreover, more data on long-term outcomes of the exchange program were lacking. Futureresearch into the potential long-term associations between youth voice and positive features of exchange settings would helpto determine whether our findings would be sustained over time. Finally, the data from this study represented only theperspective of the youth. Past research has shown that children’s reports of their own decision making are a strongerpredictor of emotional functioning, compared to parents (Smetana et al., 2004). For the purposes of this study, this approachwas appropriate, because it was the youth’s perception of qualities of the exchange and decision-making power that was ofinterest. Future research that examined these factors from a multi-informant perspective, however, would be valuable.

Contributions of the study

Our findings have both theoretical and applied relevance. First, our factor analysis results help to establish positiveprogram features as a construct distinct from youth input and perceived successful development. Second, our studycontributes to our overall understanding of the role of intense, short-term activity involvement in predicting successfuladolescent development. These short-term extensive experiences, such as exchange programs, have the potential to providea rich context for positive growth in youth. In the current study, using a longitudinal design and quantitative data analysis, ourresearch supports and extends previous qualitative reports that highlight key features of a successful youth program. Further,we identified features of these exchange programs that are likely to facilitate successful development in adolescence.Awareness of these features should help program developers to increase the potential to “make a difference” for youthparticipants.

Acknowledgment

This study of the YMCA’s Youth Exchanges Canada (YEC) program stemmed from an ongoing partnership between TheYMCA of Greater Toronto and the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.Arbreton, A., Sheldon, J., Bradshaw, M., Goldsmith, J., Jucovy, L., & Pepper, S. (2008). Advancing achievement: Findings from an independent evaluation of

a major after-school initiative. NY: The James Irvine Foundation and Public/Private Ventures.Bailey, A. W., & Russell, K. C. (2010). Predictors of interpersonal growth in volunteer tourism: a latent curve approach. Leisure Sciences, 32(4), 352–368.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2010.488598.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY, US: W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.Beames, S., & Ross, H. (2010). Journeys outside the classroom. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 10(2), 95–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/

14729679.2010.505708.Bohnert, A., Fredricks, J., & Randall, E. (2010). Capturing unique dimensions of youth organized activity involvement: theoretical and methodological

considerations. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 576–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364533.Brody, G. H., Moore, K., & Glei, D. (1994). Family processes during adolescence as predictors of parent–young adult attitude similarity. Family Relations, 43,

369–373.Busseri, M. A., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2009). Breadth and intensity: salient, separable, and developmentally significant dimensions of structured youth activity

involvement. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 907–933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151008X397017.

H.L. Lawford et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1381–13911390

Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Special Issue: Positive Development:Realizing the Potential of Youth, 591, 13–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716203260092.

Davidson, M., Manion, I., Davidson, S., & Brandon, S. (2006). For youth by youth: innovative mental health promotion at Youth Net/Réseau Ado. VulnerableChildren and Youth Studies, 1(3), 269–273.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.), (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY, US: University of Rochester Press.Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Mont-Reynaud, R., & Chen, Z. (1990). Family decision making and academic performance in a diverse high school population.

Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 143–160.Duerden, M. D., Widmer, M. A., Taniguchi, S. T., & McCoy, J. K. (2009). Adventures in identity development: the impact of adventure recreation on adolescent

identity development. Identity, 9, 341–359.Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and

adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 294–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6.Durlak, J. A., Taylor, R. D., Kawashima, K., Pachan, M. K., DuPre, E. P., & Celio, C. I. (2007). Effects of positive youth development programs on school, family,

and community systems. American Journal of Community Psychology. Special Issue: Systems Change, 39(3–4), 269–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9112-5.

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.), (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: the impact of stage

environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist Special Issue: Adolescence, 48(2), 90–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90.

Eerdewijk, A., Westeneng, J., Hoop, T., & Ruben, R. (2009). Raising societal support for development cooperation: the role of students’ exchange programs.Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20(4), 351–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11266-009-9094-z.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Flanagan, C. A., & Stout, M. (2010). Developmental patterns of social trust between early and late adolescence: age and school climate effects. Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 20(3), 748–773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00658.x.Fuligni, A. J., & Eccles, J. S. (1993). Perceived parent-child relationships and early adolescents’ orientation toward peers.Developmental Psychology, 29, 622–632.Gardner, S. M., Komesaroff, P., & Fensham, R. (2008). Dancing beyond exercise: young people’s experiences in dance classes. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(6),

701–709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676260802393294.Grocott, A. C., & Hunter, J. A. (2009). Increases in global and domain specific self-esteem following a 10 day developmental voyage. Social Psychology of

Education, 12(4), 443–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9088-5.Grossman, J., Campbell, M., & Raley, B. (2007). Quality time after school: What instructors can do to enhance learning. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.Gutman, L. M., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). Stage-environment fit during adolescence: trajectories of family relations and adolescent outcomes. Developmental

Psychology, 43(2), 522–537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.522.Hansen, D. M., & Larson, R. W. (2007). Amplifiers of developmental and negative experiences in organized activities: dosage, motivation, lead roles, and

adult-youth ratios. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 360–374.Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and outward bound: out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference.

Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 43–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1170619.Hern, M. (2009). Tourism, tolerance, or hospitality? An assessment of a native/non-native, urban/rural youth exchange program between Fort Good Hope,

NWT, and East Vancouver, BC. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 31, 316–337.Hindes, Y. L., Thorne, K. J., Schwean, V. L., & McKeough, A. M. (2008). Promoting intrapersonal qualities in adolescents: evaluation of rapport’s teen

leadership breakthrough program. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(2), 206–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573508327307.Hunter, J. A., Kafka, S., Hayhurst, J., Clark, H., Dickerson, D., Harold, G., et al. (2010). Increased self-efficacy following a ten-day developmental voyage. Journal

of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 22, 63–65.Jarrett, R. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Watkins, N. D. (2005). Developing social capital through participation in organized youth programs: qualitative insights from

three programs. Journal of Community Psychology Special Issue: Youth-Adult Relationships in Community Programs: Diverse Perspectives on Good Practices,33(1), 41–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20038.

Komro, K. A., Perry, C. L., Murray, D. M., VeblenMortenson, S., Williams, C. L., & Anstine, P. S. (1996). Peer-planned social activities for preventing alcohol useamong young adolescents. Journal of School Health, 66, 328–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1996.tb03413.x.

Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Steinberg, L. (1996). Ethnicity and community context as moderators of the relations between family decision makingand adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 67, 283–301.

Larson, R.W. (2000). Toward apsychologyof positive youthdevelopment.American Psychologist, 55(1),170–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.170.Larson, R., & Hansen, D. (2005). The development of strategic thinking: learning to impact human systems in a youth activism program. Human Devel-

opment, 48(6), 327–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000088251.Larson, R., Walker, K., & Pearce, N. (2005). A comparison of youth-driven and adult-driven youth programs: balancing inputs from youth and adults. Journal

of Community Psychology Special Issue: Youth-Adult Relationships in Community Programs: Diverse Perspectives on Good Practices, 33(1), 57–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20035.

Lerner, R. M., Dowling, E. M., & Anderson, P. M. (2003). Positive youth development: thriving as the basis of personhood and civil society. Applied Devel-opmental Science, 7, 172–180.

Lerner, R. M., Fisher, C. B., & Weinberg, R. A. (2000). Toward a science for and of the people: promoting civil society through the application of develop-mental science. Child Development, 71(1), 11–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00113.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youthdevelopment programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youthdevelopment. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 17–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431604272461.

Lerner, J. V., Phelps, E., Forman, Y., & Bowers, E. P. (2009). Positive youth development. In R. M. Lerner, & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescentpsychology (3rd ed.).. Individual bases of adolescent development, Vol. 1 (pp. 524–558) Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Lerner, R. M., von Eye, A., Lerner, J. V., Lewin-Bizan, S., & Bowers, E. P. (2010). Special issue introduction: the meaning and measurement of thriving: a view ofthe issues. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 707–719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9531-8.

Lewis, S. R., Murphy, T., & Baker, M. (2008). The Nevada 4-H program: impacts on Nevada public school youth. In. Proceedings of the 2008 Western RegionAAAE Research Conference, Vol. 27, Retrieved from. http://www.usu.edu/aste/ag_ed/wraec/PDF/E3.pdf.

Linver, M. R., Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Patterns of adolescents’ participation in organized activities: are sports best when combined with otheractivities? Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 354–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014133.

Mahoney, J. L., Lord, H., & Carryl, E. (2005). Afterschool program participation and the development of child obesity and peer acceptance. Applied Devel-opmental Science, 9(4), 202–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0904_3.

Mahoney, J. L., Vandell, D. L., Simpkins, S., & Zarrett, N. (2009). Adolescent out-of-school activities. In R. M. Lerner, & L. Steinberg (Eds.) (pp. 228–269).Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Retrieved from. www.csa.com.

Mitra, D. L. (2004). The significance of students: can increasing “student voice” in schools leads to gains in youth development? Teachers College Record,106(4), 651–688.

Pancer, S. M., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Loiselle, L. D. (2002). Youth conferences as a context for engagement. In B. Kirshner, J. L. O’Donoghue, &M. McLaughlin (Eds.),Youth participation: Improving institutions and communities (pp. 47–64). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Qin, L., Pomerantz, E. M., & Wang, Q. (2009). Are gains in decision making autonomy during early adolescence beneficial for emotional functioning? Thecase of the United States and China. Child Development, 80, 1705–1725.

H.L. Lawford et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1381–1391 1391

Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: a summary ofresearch findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 443–471.

Rose-Krasnor, L. (2009). Future directions in youth involvement research. Social Development, 18(2), 497–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00506.x.

Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7,94–111.

Ruedel, K., & McInerney, M. (2007). Formative evaluation of the US-Brazil student exchange program: methods, findings and implications. Journal of AppliedRehabilitation Counseling, 38, 31–38.

Sassenberg, K., & Matschke, C. (2010). The impact of exchange programs on the integration of the hostgroup into the self-concept. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 40(1), 148–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.621.

Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., & Mannes, M. (2006). The contribution to adolescent well-being made by nonfamily adults: an examination of developmentalassets as contexts and processes. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 401–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20106.

Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., & Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2011). Adolescent thriving: the role of sparks, relationships, and empowerment. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 40, 263–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9578-6.

Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.Shernoff, D. J. (2010). Engagement in after-school programs as a predictor of social competence and academic performance. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 45(3–4), 325–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9314-0.Serido, J., Border, L. M., & Perkins, D. F. (2009). Moving beyond youth voice. Youth & Society, 43(1), 44–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X09351280.Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Daddis, C. (2004). Longitudinal development of family decision making: defining healthy behavioral autonomy for

middle-class African American adolescents. Child Development, 75, 1418–1434.Suanet, I., & Van De Vijver, F. J. R. (2009). Perceived cultural distance and acculturation among exchange students in Russia. Journal of Community & Applied

Social Psychology, 19(3), 182–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.989.Zarrett, N., Fay, K., Li, Y., Carrano, J., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). More than child’s play: variable- and pattern-centered approaches for examining

effects of sports participation on youth development. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 368–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014577.Zeldin, S. (2004). Youth as agents of adult and community development: mapping the processes and outcomes of youth engaged in organizational

governance. Applied Developmental Science, 8(2), 75–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0802_2.Zeldin, S., Larson, R., Camino, L., & O’Connor, C. (2005). Intergenerational relationships and partnerships in community programs: purpose, practice, and

directions for research. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20042.Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Chipuer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. A., & McGregor, L. (2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for

adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 911–933.