Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2024 Aug 16;34(4):1431–1444. doi: 10.1111/jora.13011

Does grit predict thriving or is it the other way around? A latent cross‐lagged panel model on the triarchic model of grit and the 5Cs of positive youth development

Jet Uy Buenconsejo 1,✉, Jesus Alfonso D Datu 2, Duo Liu 1
PMCID: PMC11606245  PMID: 39150081

Abstract

Grit, defined as passion and perseverance to achieve long‐term goals, has been associated with adolescents' optimal academic and psychological functioning. However, the role of grit in adolescents' positive youth development (PYD)—characterized by the 5Cs known as competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring—remains unknown. Using latent cross‐lagged panel modeling, this study examined the longitudinal relations between the triarchic model of grit (TMG) dimensions (i.e., perseverance of effort, consistency of interest, and adaptability to situations), and the 5Cs of PYD while controlling for specific socio‐demographic covariates (gender, age, SES, and school type). Data were obtained from 1620 Filipino adolescents (M age = 17.15; SDage = 1.00) in November 2021 and May 2022. Results show that grit dimensions predicted subsequent PYD dimensions, but not vice versa. Specifically, while perseverance and adaptability were linked to higher levels of competence, confidence, and character, consistency was associated with lower levels of competence and confidence six months later. Results highlight the importance of grit's dimensions in facilitating PYD characteristics among adolescents, especially efficacy‐related Cs (competence and confidence). Theoretical and practical implications in promoting adolescent thriving and well‐being are discussed.

Keywords: 5Cs, adolescent development, grit, positive youth development

INTRODUCTION

Recent trends in the study of adolescence have shifted from a deficit perspective to a more optimistic view of the life stage (Qi et al., 2020). Instead of viewing adolescence as a period of storm and stress, more recent studies have emphasized the use of strength‐based models, as well as the identification and positive characteristics among young people (Arnold & Silliman, 2017; Lewin‐Bizan et al., 2010). Aside from the advances in developmental research, which revealed greater plasticity during adolescence than previously thought, this shift in perspective has also been fuelled by the emergence and popularity of ecological systems theories in the 1980s and positive psychology in the 2000s, which focus on understanding resources and opportunities that may enhance positive characteristics and well‐being (Buenconsejo & Datu, 2022; Lerner et al., 2010). Two positive constructs that have been extensively studied in relation to adolescents' well‐being are grit (Datu et al., 2018) and positive youth development (PYD) (Qi et al., 2020). Grit is defined as one's disposition to demonstrate passion and perseverance for long‐term goals (Duckworth et al., 2007). PYD, on the other hand, is conceptualized as a set of characteristics (e.g., 5Cs) that define adolescent thriving (Lerner et al., 2005).

The triarchic model of grit (TMG; Datu et al., 2017) and the 5Cs model (Lerner et al., 2005) are frameworks that have been used to conceptualize grit and PYD, respectively. Specifically, the TMG defines grit with three dimensions: perseverance of effort, consistency of interest, and adaptability to situations (Datu et al., 2017), while the 5Cs model defines adolescent thriving in terms of five interrelated but distinct constructs: competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring (Lerner et al., 2005). Previous research using the TMG has established associations between grit dimensions as well as optimal academic (e.g., academic performance and engagement) and psychological functioning (e.g., subjective well‐being) among young people (Datu et al., 2017, 2018, 2020). Similarly, studies using the 5Cs model have found that possessing these characteristics is related to higher positive developmental outcomes (e.g., school engagement and contribution) and lower negative ones (e.g., depression and risk‐taking behaviors; Geldhof et al., 2014; Lerner et al., 2010).

Although the specific dimensions of grit and PYD have been associated with optimal developmental outcomes (Buenconsejo & Datu, 2022; Datu, 2021), there is a lack of understanding of how these constructs may influence each other. Grit facets have the potential to shape thriving characteristics by maintaining focus, adapting to challenges, and exerting sustained effort on meaningful long‐term goals (Datu et al., 2020). PYD characteristics, on the other hand, may enhance passion and perseverance for remote goals by establishing important internal (e.g., self‐efficacy) and external (e.g., social support) psycho‐social resources among young people (Lerner et al., 2010). Given that both constructs may be considered as predictors and outcomes (Christopoulou et al., 2018; Lerner et al., 2010), it is also possible to anticipate a bi‐directional association between grit and PYD, where their specific domains may enhance or reinforce each other (Hill & Jackson, 2016; Jayawickreme et al., 2012). Unfortunately, to date, no published study has clarified these links between the dimensions of grit and PYD. Further, most of the existing research on these constructs has been conducted in high‐income societies in the minority world, despite the fact that a majority of the world's adolescent population resides in low‐to‐middle‐income countries (Catalano et al., 2019).

To address these gaps, the present investigation sought to clarify the longitudinal relations between the dimensions of the TMG and the 5Cs of PYD using a large sample of Filipino secondary school students. Specifically, we utilized latent cross‐lagged panel modeling to explore how these psychosocial resources relate to each other in two timepoints, while controlling for the participants' socio‐demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, age, SES, and school type). Understanding the temporal associations between grit and PYD can provide valuable insights for researchers and practitioners working with adolescents, especially in understudied contexts. By identifying concrete pathways that promote adolescent well‐being and thriving, youth practitioners can better tailor interventions and support systems to the specific needs of young people in diverse cultural and socio‐contextual settings.

Grit and its correlates

Grit was originally conceptualized as having two dimensions: perseverance of effort and consistency of interest (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Specifically, perseverance of effort entails persistence despite hardships, failures, and adversities to achieve long‐term goals, while consistency of interest includes sustained interest in activities that can lead to goal achievement (Duckworth et al., 2007). As such, grittier individuals are said to be less distracted by short‐term goals and less discouraged by setbacks and failures (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009).

There is a substantial body of evidence supporting the positive associations between these two facets of grit, as well as optimal academic (Christopoulou et al., 2018) and psychological functioning (Datu, 2021) among young people. Specifically, these dimensions have been associated with students' academic achievement (Akos & Kretchmar, 2017; Bowman et al., 2015; Duckworth et al., 2007), academic engagement (Datu et al., 2016; Hodge et al., 2017), school motivation, and academic conscientiousness (Eskreis‐Winkler et al., 2014), as well as self‐regulated learning strategies (Wolters & Hussain, 2015). In terms of young people's psychological functioning, these dimensions have been associated with greater subjective well‐being (Datu et al., 2016), basic psychological needs satisfaction (Jin & Kim, 2017), pro‐environmental attitudes and behaviors (Datu & Buenconsejo, 2021), as well as lower levels of depression (Jin & Kim, 2017).

However, recent reviews have noted criticisms of the conflicting results of the two dimensions of grit as well as the applicability of its two‐factor model in non‐Western and collectivistic contexts (Christopoulou et al., 2018; Credé et al., 2017; Disabato et al., 2019). For example, while perseverance of effort consistently showed positive associations with optimal academic and psychological outcomes, consistency of interest did not always exhibit similar relationships (Akos & Kretchmar, 2017; Credé et al., 2017; Datu et al., 2016, 2018, 2020). This dimension has also yielded lower reliability estimates in these settings (Datu et al., 2016; Disabato et al., 2019). Interestingly, in some cases, consistency of interest has shown negative relations with academic achievement (Dixson et al., 2016) and well‐being (Disabato et al., 2019).

Studies conducted in Asian and Latin American contexts, have also questioned the validity of the hierarchical factor structure of grit and observed varying associations between its dimensions (Credé et al., 2017; Datu et al., 2016; Disabato et al., 2019). It has been argued that a multidimensional factor structure of grit may be more appropriate in collectivistic societies (Datu et al., 2016; Disabato et al., 2019). Likewise, socio‐cultural factors, such as relatedness with parents, teachers, and friends, may influence one's passion and perseverance for long‐term aspirations in such contexts (Datu et al., 2017). These findings highlight the importance of considering socio‐contextual factors when examining and promoting grit among adolescents. Further research is needed to explore the specific nuances of the dimensions of grit in different cultural contexts to have a more holistic understanding of its correlates and implications.

The triarchic model of grit

Building on the inadequacy of the two‐factor model of grit, Datu et al. (2017, 2018) proposed the TMG, which included adaptability to situations in addition to perseverance of effort and consistency of interest. Distinct from the first two facets of grit, adaptability pertains to anticipating challenges, accepting changes, exhibiting flexibility, and manifesting the drive to overcome obstacles as they arise (Datu et al., 2017). Whereas perseverance entails persisting despite hardships, failures, and adversities to achieve long‐term goals, highly adaptive individuals may adjust their efforts and find alternative pathways to achieve remote goals in life. Similarly, while consistency of interest involves maintaining a set of interests for a prolonged period of time, highly adaptive individuals tend to adopt flexible plans and strategies to achieve temporally remote aspirations (Datu et al., 2017). As individuals in collectivist societies are inclined to show a context‐sensitive self (Suh, 2007; Vignoles et al., 2016) and adopt socially oriented motivational orientations (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), they are likely to benefit from showing adaptability to situations – by flexibly adjusting goal‐related pathways and unrealistic features of long‐term ambitions based on contextual, social, and situational considerations – rather than consistency of interests. Integrating adaptability as a dimension of grit also coheres with prior research (Disabato et al., 2019) that underscores the relational and dynamic feature of grit, especially in non‐Western societies.

A series of empirical investigations provide evidence on the utility of the TMG in predicting optimal academic and psychological outcomes, particularly among students from collectivistic societies (Datu et al., 2017, 2018, 2020). For example, in a sample of Filipino secondary school students, the TMG exhibited positive associations with agentic, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional school engagement (Datu et al., 2018). Recent studies have also linked the specific dimensions of the TMG to academic engagement in math and science (Datu et al., 2023). Aside from school‐related outcomes, the TMG was also found to be correlated with increased life satisfaction, positive affect, and interdependent happiness in another sample of Filipino high school students (Datu et al., 2018). Extending the TMG to other cultural contexts, perseverance was found to be related with flourishing among Japanese students, while adaptability was linked to flourishing among students in Japan, the Philippines, and Poland (Datu et al., 2020). Notably, while perseverance and adaptability showed positive relations with Filipino high school students' social–emotional competence, consistency exhibited negative relations with it (Datu & Restubog, 2020).

Although the TMG has shown positive associations with optimal academic and psychological functioning, to date, no investigation has examined the relations of its facets with the specific dimensions of positive youth development. This endeavor is important given that perseverance of effort, consistency of interest, and adaptability to situations have yielded nuanced associations with adolescent outcomes. Moreover, as there are few investigations that have examined the antecedents of grit (Christopoulou et al., 2018; Datu, 2021), it is important to identify internal and external psycho‐social factors that may facilitate grittiness among young people.

The 5Cs model of positive youth development

As PYD gained popularity among youth researchers and practitioners in various fields including developmental psychology, education, public health, social work, and sociology, several frameworks have been proposed to conceptualize adolescent thriving (Arnold & Silliman, 2017; Buenconsejo & Datu, 2021). While early investigations focused on unidimensional constructs of PYD, more recent research has adopted multidimensional models, such as the 40 developmental assets framework and the 15 PYD constructs (Buenconsejo & Datu, 2022; Qi et al., 2020). Among these frameworks, the 5Cs model of Lerner et al. (2005) is argued to be the most empirically supported model because of the number of youth studies and programs anchored on this model as well as its relative parsimony compared to other models (Arnold & Silliman, 2017).

Specifically, the 5Cs model characterizes adolescent thriving with five interrelated but distinct constructs: competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring (Lerner et al., 2005). Specifically, competence pertains to a positive view of one's actions in specific domains such as academic, cognitive, and social tasks. Confidence is a global sense of self‐worth and self‐efficacy as opposed to the domain‐specific areas captured by competence. Connection encompasses positive relationships with people and institutions that include mutually beneficial interactions. Character includes integrity, respect for societal and cultural norms, a moral sense of right and wrong, as well as having a set of standards for correct behaviors. Lastly, caring includes having sympathy and empathy for others (Lerner et al., 2005). The 5Cs model proposes that adolescents who exhibit these characteristics are more likely to experience higher adaptive developmental outcomes and lower maladaptive ones. Further, they are more likely to contribute meaningfully to their own growth, their families, schools, and communities (Lerner et al., 2010).

Indeed, past studies on the 5Cs model have supported the beneficial impacts of these characteristics on adaptive developmental outcomes, including as increased life satisfaction and psychological empowerment (Holsen et al., 2017), flourishing (Buenconsejo et al., 2022), spirituality (Buenconsejo & Datu, 2023; Tirrell et al., 2019), involvement in extracurricular activities (Urban et al., 2009), math achievement (Kozina et al., 2019), as well as higher levels of contribution (Conway et al., 2015) and prosocial tendencies like empathy and altruism (Buenconsejo et al., 2024). Conversely, PYD characteristics have shown inverse associations with maladaptive developmental outcomes, such as anxiety and depression (Geldhof et al., 2014; Yang & McGinley, 2021), suicidal ideation (Wong et al., 2021), as well as risk‐taking behaviors such as substance use, delinquency, and early sex initiation (Phelps et al., 2007; Urban et al., 2009).

Extending the 5Cs model in diverse contexts

Although the 5Cs model was initially validated among adolescents in North America (Geldhof et al., 2014; Lewin‐Bizan et al., 2010), efforts have been made to examine its applicability in non‐U.S. contexts including Ireland (Conway et al., 2015), Norway (Geldhof et al., 2019; Holsen et al., 2017), Slovenia (Kozina et al., 2019), and Spain (Gomez‐Baya et al., 2021). More recently, the 5Cs model has also been extended to non‐European societies such as El Salvador (Tirrell et al., 2019), mainland China (Chen et al., 2018), Hong Kong (Wong et al., 2021), Taiwan (Yang & McGinley, 2021), and in select Southeast Asian countries including the Philippines (Buenconsejo et al., 2022, 2024), Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand (Buenconsejo et al., 2024).

While these investigations generally support the hypothesized relations between the 5Cs as well as positive and negative developmental outcomes, researchers have also noted nuanced findings on these characteristics (Conway et al., 2015; Yang & McGinley, 2021). For example, among Irish adolescents, confidence was negatively related to contribution and positively related to risky behaviors (Conway et al., 2015). In Norway, caring exhibited positive associations with symptoms of anxiety and depression (Geldhof et al., 2019; Holsen et al., 2017). Similar nuanced results have been found in Slovenia, where confidence and character were positively associated with math achievement, while connection showed a negative correlation with it (Kozina et al., 2019).

Recent research has also made a distinction between the clusters of efficacy‐related Cs (competence and confidence) and socio‐emotional Cs (connection, character, and caring) within the 5Cs model (Buenconsejo et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2018; Wong et al., 2021; Yang & McGinley, 2021). It has been suggested that efficacy‐related Cs tend to be emphasized in individualistic societies like the United States, while socio‐emotional Cs may be more valued in collectivistic contexts like mainland China (Chen et al., 2018; Yang & McGinley, 2021). Interestingly, adolescent boys in Spain reported higher levels of competence and confidence, while adolescent girls reported higher levels of connection, character, and caring (Gomez‐Baya et al., 2021). In the Philippines, the socio‐emotional C of connection has yielded the strongest relations with students' well‐being outcomes, highlighting the importance of interpersonal relations in this context (Buenconsejo et al., 2022).

Taken together, the findings from these cross‐cultural investigations highlight the salience of socio‐contextual factors in shaping adolescents' experience and expression of adolescent thriving. Additionally, the nuanced results on efficacy‐related Cs and socio‐emotional Cs underscore the importance of carefully examining how specific dimensions of PYD relate to various adolescent outcomes, including grit. Although the abovementioned studies generally support the links between the 5Cs as well as positive and negative developmental outcomes, to date, no study has specifically examined the relations between these characteristics and the dimensions of grit. Given the multidimensionality of grit (Datu et al., 2017) and PYD (Geldhof et al., 2014), it is important to examine how their specific facets are related to each other.

The present study

From a theoretical point of view, there is reason to argue that grit's dimensions may relate to higher levels of the 5Cs, and vice versa. According to the invest‐and‐accrue model (Hill & Jackson, 2016), individuals with conscientiousness‐like dispositions (e.g., diligence, industriousness, reliability, self‐control), akin to grit, are more likely to invest their psychological assets in life domains (e.g., health, occupations, relationships) that are directed toward long‐term growth and success as opposed to short‐term gains. These investment behaviors then yield psychological benefits (e.g., higher well‐being and more satisfying relationships), which then accrue and create a feedback loop that reinforces these conscientiousness‐like dispositions. From this model, one can hypothesize that grit, a conscientiousness‐like disposition that highlights the achievement of long‐term goals, can promote positive developmental outcomes such as the 5Cs, which may then serve as psycho‐social resources that can reinforce grittiness among young people.

Although the specific associations between grit and PYD dimensions have not been explored, it is plausible to argue that exhibiting perseverance, consistency, and adaptability to achieve long‐term goals can enhance competence and confidence, given that grittier students tend to perform well at school (Akos & Kretchmar, 2017; Bowman et al., 2015; Duckworth et al., 2007), exhibit higher engagement and motivation (Datu et al., 2018; Hodge et al., 2017), and are more likely to be self‐efficacious learners (Christopoulou et al., 2018; Wolters & Hussain, 2015). These traits may also be perceived as markers of a responsible character, which may strengthen social connections and one's sense of caring by working cooperatively with others. However, considering the nuanced relations of the TMG dimensions with well‐being outcomes (Datu et al., 2017, 2018, 2020), we may anticipate perseverance and adaptability to have stronger relations with PYD characteristics, compared to consistency.

Similarly, as psychosocial resources that are associated with optimal developmental outcomes (Geldhof et al., 2014; Lerner et al., 2010), we may expect the 5Cs of PYD to contribute to students' perseverance, consistency, and adaptability dispositions. The efficacy‐related Cs of competence and confidence, especially from past mastery experiences (Kozina et al., 2019), may enhance persistence, commitment, and flexibility in achieving long‐term goals even as they become more difficult or challenging. Students who exhibit high levels of character may also perceive grit dimensions as a set of correct or exemplary behaviors. Additionally, as past studies have highlighted the importance of interpersonal relationships with parents, teachers, and peers in promoting grittiness among students (Christopoulou et al., 2018; Datu et al., 2017), we anticipate their sense of connection and caring to also enhance these dispositions through positive and supportive bonds formed with mentors and peers.

Aside from the invest‐and‐accrue model, another framework that may support the beneficial impacts of the dimensions of grit and PYD on each other is the engine theory of well‐being (Jayawickreme et al., 2012). Accordingly, there are important input variables (e.g., positive traits and characteristics) that fuel or facilitate well‐being outcomes (e.g., goal‐driven functioning, sense of accomplishment, good relationships). As evidenced by past investigations on the dimensions of grit and PYD (Buenconsejo & Datu, 2022; Datu, 2021), these positive traits and characteristics may be conceptualized as input variables that may promote well‐being outcomes among young people. However, as noted by Jayawickreme et al. (2012), input variables and well‐being outcomes are highly correlated and tend to influence each other; hence, it is important to disentangle these associations in order to distinguish which variables are the predictors and which variables are the outcomes.

The current investigation, therefore, sought to clarify if the dimensions of the TMG (i.e., perseverance of effort, consistency of interest, and adaptability to situations) could predict the 5Cs (i.e., competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring), and vice versa. Specifically, we employed latent cross‐lagged panel modeling (Baribeau et al., 2022), a statistical technique that allows researchers to explore the causal associations between two variables while accounting for the auto‐regressive effects of those variables. Figure 1 presents the conceptual diagram of the latent cross‐lagged panel model. Additionally, we controlled for the influence of participants' socio‐demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, age, socio‐economic status [SES], and school type) as such demographic factors relate to both grit and PYD. Previous studies have suggested that older individuals with higher SES tend to exhibit higher levels of grit (Datu, 2021; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Similarly, younger adolescent girls from families with higher SES tend to report greater levels of PYD (Lewin‐Bizan et al., 2010; Phelps et al., 2007; Urban et al., 2009). Also, adolescent boys tend to report higher efficacy‐related Cs while adolescent girls are more likely to report higher socio‐emotional Cs (Gomez‐Baya et al., 2021). Additionally, we controlled for school type since public school students in the Philippines tend to report lower academic achievement, motivation, and support compared to private school students (Bernardo et al., 2015).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Conceptual model of the latent cross‐lagged panel model between positive youth development (PYD) and grit dimensions. Manifest variables, co‐movements, and error terms were intentionally omitted in this figure for the purpose of parsimony.

METHOD

Participants

Data were obtained from 1620 Filipino secondary school students aged 15–21 years old (M age = 17.15; SDage = 1.00) in two timepoints separated by a six‐month interval. There were 2082 students who answered the survey in Time 1 (T1, December 2021) and 2556 students who participated in Time 2 (T2; May 2022) from 18 different schools in the National Capital Region and nearby provinces in the Philippines. After matching the datasets between T1 and T2, there were 1620 matched data points among the student participants, yielding a 77.81% retention rate.

Majority of the respondents were girls (60.12%) enrolled as Grade 12 students (59.57%) in private schools (74.26%). As for their academic tracks, 54.26% are in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, 24.88% are in accountancy, business, and management, 10.74% are in humanities and social sciences, while the rest (10.12%) are enrolled in various tracks including information and communications technology, culinary arts, home economics, technical‐vocational‐livelihood, and tourism operations. As for their socio‐economic status(SES), 34.38% reported having an average family monthly income of less than Php 20,000 (around US$ 350), 38.83% reported having an average family monthly income of Php 20,001 to Php 60,000, while 26.79% reported having an average family monthly income of Php 60,001 (around US$ 1050) and above. This study was part of a larger project that examined the cross‐sectional and longitudinal correlates of PYD among Filipino high school students.

Procedures

After obtaining the necessary permission from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Education University of Hong Kong, approval was sought from the principals and research coordinators of the schools for data gathering. Consent letters were then distributed to parents and/or legal guardians of the students asking their permission to allow their child to participate in the study. Active consent forms were sent to students before the actual online survey administration. Teachers assisted in the distribution of the Qualtrics link to the students, who answered the online survey at their most convenient time. Students' participation was completely voluntary. To ensure data completeness, the participants were asked to answer all questions in the survey. Otherwise, they had the option of withdrawing from the data collection without any negative consequence if they chose not to proceed. There were no missing responses in the dataset as only data with complete responses were encoded in the system. All instruments were administered in English, one of the two official languages of instruction in the Philippines. Three validity questions were placed throughout the online survey to detect students who may have answered randomly. As a token for their participation, each student respondent had the chance of joining a raffle draw of 40 gift certificates worth PHP 1500 (around US$ 28) each, which was administered after the survey administration in T2.

Measures

Grit

The 10‐item TMG Scale (Datu et al., 2017) was used in measuring participants' perseverance of effort (e.g., “New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones”), consistency of interest (e.g., “I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one”), and adaptability to situations (e.g., “I appreciate new opportunities that come into my life”). The reliability coefficients of the overall grit and its dimensions in T1 and T2 are presented in Table 1. All grit constructs yielded adequate reliability estimates. Respondents rated each item using a 5‐point scale (1 = not like me at all to 5 = very much like me).

TABLE 1.

Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of positive youth development (PYD) and grit dimensions in Time 1 and Time 2 (n = 1620).

N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach's α
T1 Overall PYD 1620 1.41 5.00 3.92 0.43 −0.40 0.83 .89
T1 Competence 1620 1.67 5.00 3.43 0.66 −0.12 −0.21 .73
T1 Confidence 1620 1.00 5.00 3.79 0.90 −0.66 0.01 .88
T1 Connection 1620 1.00 5.00 3.77 0.64 −0.42 0.38 .81
T1 Character 1620 1.75 5.00 4.17 0.47 −0.69 1.00 .75
T1 Caring 1620 1.00 5.00 4.42 0.58 −1.26 2.59 .81
T1 Overall Grit 1620 1.80 5.00 3.89 0.56 −0.25 0.18 .76
T1 Perseverance of Effort 1620 1.00 5.00 3.91 0.80 −0.50 −0.12 .80
T1 Consistency of Interest 1620 1.00 5.00 3.65 0.91 −0.49 −0.13 .70
T1 Adaptability to Situations 1620 1.00 5.00 4.06 0.72 −0.64 0.50 .79
T2 Overall PYD 1620 1.29 5.00 3.91 0.46 −0.48 1.40 .91
T2 Competence 1620 1.00 5.00 3.42 0.68 −0.10 0.24 .76
T2 Confidence 1620 1.00 5.00 3.74 0.88 −0.66 0.16 .89
T2 Connection 1620 1.00 5.00 3.76 0.65 −0.54 1.04 .83
T2 Character 1620 1.00 5.00 4.18 0.50 −0.96 2.54 .73
T2 Caring 1620 1.00 5.00 4.37 0.59 −1.07 1.58 .83
T2 Overall Grit 1620 1.50 5.00 3.91 0.58 −0.26 0.10 .80
T2 Perseverance of Effort 1620 1.00 5.00 3.95 0.80 −0.53 0.03 .84
T2 Consistency of Interest 1620 1.00 5.00 3.69 0.89 −0.46 −0.12 .73
T2 Adaptability to Situations 1620 1.00 5.00 4.05 0.71 −0.51 0.03 .82
Open in a new tab

Positive youth development

The 17‐item measure of PYD for older adolescents (Geldhof et al., 2014) was used in measuring the 5Cs of PYD. Competence included items on academic, social, and skill competence (e.g., “I do a good job at school”). Confidence included items on self‐worth, positive identity, and physical appearance (e.g., “I am happy with who I am most of the time”). Connection included items pertaining to relationships in their families, neighborhoods, schools, and peers (e.g., “I feel useful in my family”). Character included items on social conscience, diversity valuation, conduct behavior, and personal values (e.g., “It is important for me to help the world become a better place to live”). Finally, caring included items on experiencing sympathy and empathy for others (e.g., “I feel bad for people who are hurt or are upset”). The reliability coefficients of the overall PYD and the 5Cs in T1 and T2 are presented in Table 1. All PYD constructs yielded adequate reliability estimates. Items were rated using a 5‐point scale (1 = very untrue of me; strongly disagree; not important; never true to 5 = very true of me; strongly agree; extremely important; always true).

Socio‐demographic covariates

In addition to the measures on grit and PYD, we also asked for the respondents' gender, age, SES (i.e., family monthly income), and school type (i.e., public or private school). These covariates were controlled in the latent cross‐lagged panel models to establish incremental validity for grit and PYD.

Data analyses

Descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtoses), reliability coefficients (i.e., Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's Omega), and Pearson's r correlations were calculated using the 29th version of the SPSS for the TMG and PYD. Individual confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on each construct at each timepoint before performing the succeeding analyses. In evaluating the fit indices of the measurement models, we relied on the following cut‐off values recommended by Hair et al. (2018): (a) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker‐Lewis Index (TLI) greater than 0.90 and (b) Standardized Mean Square Residual (SRMR) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) less than 0.08. Although a non‐significant chi‐square (χ 2) statistic is indicative of a good fit, this index is difficult to obtain in studies involving large sample sizes (Barrett, 2007).

Prior to specifying the latent cross‐lagged panel model, longitudinal measurement invariance was first performed to ensure that constructs were measured comparatively across occasions and that changes in the observed scores over time can really be attributed to changes in the actual constructs under investigation and not to random measurement errors (Widaman et al., 2010). We followed the specifications of Mackinnon et al. (2022) in performing longitudinal measurement invariance and latent cross‐lagged panel modeling using the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012) in R (R Core Team, 2019). Specifically, we tested a series of measurement models with increasing constraints: configural model (equivalence in factor structure across timepoints), metric model (equivalence in factor loadings across timepoints), scalar model (equivalence in item intercepts across timepoints), and residual model (equivalence in item errors across timepoints). Longitudinal measurement invariance is met if there are no significant changes in CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR values across timepoints, that is, changes are less than 0.010, 0.015, and 0.010, respectively (Chen, 2007; Mackinnon et al., 2020).

After establishing longitudinal measurement invariance, latent cross‐lagged panel modeling was then performed between the dimensions of the TMG (i.e., perseverance of effort, consistency of interest, and adaptability to situations) and PYD (i.e., competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring) in T1 and T2. In a cross‐lagged panel model, the longitudinal associations (i.e., cross‐lagged effects) of the variables were examined while controlling for the temporal stability (i.e., auto‐regressive effects) and contemporaneous correlations (i.e., co‐movements) of the variables between two assessment occasions (Baribeau et al., 2022). Additionally, we also controlled for the influence of the socio‐demographic covariates (i.e., gender, age, SES, and school type) to establish incremental validity for grit and PYD. All parameter estimates were obtained using robust maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and a Satorra‐Bentler scaled chi‐square test statistic (SB χ2). Similarly, we relied on the cut‐off values recommended by Hair et al. (2018) in evaluating the fit indices of the latent cross‐lagged panel model.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of PYD and grit dimensions in T1 and T2 are presented in Table 1. All constructs in both timepoints satisfied the assumptions of normality as indicated by their acceptable skewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al., 2014). Likewise, all constructs exhibited adequate reliability estimates (Hair et al., 2014). The Cronbach's alpha values of the constructs ranged from 0.73 (T1 Competence, T2 Character, and T2 Consistency of Interest) to 0.91 (T2 Overall PYD).

The concurrent (i.e., T1 to T1 and T2 to T2) and longitudinal (i.e., T1 to T2) bivariate correlations of the grit and PYD dimensions are presented in Table 2. In general, concurrent correlations are stronger than longitudinal ones. Overall grit, perseverance of effort, and adaptability to situations concurrently and longitudinally showed significant positive associations with all 5Cs. The highest positive correlation among which can be observed between T2 adaptability to situations and T2 overall PYD (r = .50, p < .01) as well as T2 perseverance of effort and T2 overall PYD (r = .50, p < .01), while the lowest can be observed between T1 overall grit and T2 competence (r = .18, p < .01). However, consistency of interest exhibited varying associations with the 5Cs. In general, consistency of interest showed significant negative correlations with overall PYD, efficacy‐related Cs (competence and confidence), and connection, ranging from −0.06 to −0.13. Notably, it showed significant positive correlations with the socio‐emotional Cs of character and caring, ranging from 0.07 to 0.11.

TABLE 2.

Bivariate correlations of positive youth development (PYD) and grit dimensions in Time 1 and Time 2 (n = 1620).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
1. T1 PYD –
2. T1 Competence .67** –
3. T1 Confidence .76** .46** –
4. T1 Connection .78** .42** .51** –
5. T1 Character .62** .23** .26** .31** –
6. T1 Caring .50** .11** .11** .24** .44** –
7. T1 Overall Grit .40** .25** .23** .27** .34** .30** –
8. T1 Perseverance .45** .31** .29** .34** .34** .26** .70** –
9. T1 Consistency −.06* −.07** −.12** −.09** .07** .07** .59** .02 –
10. T1 Adaptability .45** .28** .32** .32** .31** .31** .82** .50** .18** –
11. T2 PYD .62** .44** .47** .50** .35** .29** .31** .37** −.07** .35** –
12. T2 Competence .48** .63** .38** .37** .13** .07** .18** .26** −.11** .24** .70** –
13. T2 Confidence .49** .33** .59** .37** .16** .07** .18** .25** −.13** .27** .76** .51** –
14. T2 Connection .50** .32** .37** .56** .20** .15** .20** .28** −.09** .24** .80** .48** .52** –
15. T2 Character .37** .14** .15** .23** .46** .33** .28** .31** .04 .25** .69** .29** .32** .39** –
16. T2 Caring .35** .10** .09** .19** .39** .53** .27** .24** .08** .25** .57** .17** .16** .31** .57** –
17. T2 Overall Grit .33** .21** .18** .21** .28** .27** .48** .39** .21** .42** .47** .31** .30** .33** .39** .34** –
18. T2 Perseverance .39** .27** .25** .27** .28** .26** .43** .61** −.08** .40** .50** .35** .37** .38** .37** .31** .74** –
19. T2 Consistency −.03 −.04 −.10** −.06* .07** .08** .26** −.06* .49** .08** .02 .01 −.07** −.02 .11** .11** .61** .09** –
20. T2 Adaptability .37** .23** .25** .26** .26** .27** .39** .33** .03 .45** .50** .34** .36** .37** .38** .34** .84** .58** .24** –
Open in a new tab
*

Correlation significant at p < .05.

**

Correlation significant at p < .01.

Confirmatory factor analyses

Separate measurement models were specified for the 5Cs model of PYD and the TMG in T1 (n = 1620) and T2 (n = 1620). Specifically, we examined a five‐factor model for PYD and a three‐factor model for grit. All measurement models yielded adequate fit with the data across timepoints and no changes in the hypothesized measurement models were adopted based on our review of such models' modification indices. The fit indices of these measurement models are presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3.

Results of the confirmatory factor analyses on the 5Cs model of positive youth development (PYD) and the triarchic model of grit in Time 1 and Time 2 (n = 1620).

Model SB χ2 (df) p CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI SRMR AIC BIC
5Cs Model of PYD
Five‐factor model in T1 506.215 (109) <.001 0.922 0.901 0.048 0.044, 0.052 0.049 64,500.368 64,834.560
Five‐factor model in T2 552.569 (109) <.001 0.930 0.912 0.050 0.047, 0.054 0.056 62,467.413 62,801.604
Triarchic Model of Grit
Three‐factor model in T1 158.216 (32) <.001 0.965 0.951 0.049 0.043, 0.056 0.045 40,816.101 40,993.977
Three‐factor model in T2 222.110 (32) <.001 0.958 0.941 0.061 0.055, 0.067 0.046 38,480.108 38,657.984
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: 90% CI, 90% confidence intervals; AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; df, degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SB χ2, Satorra–Bentler scaled chi‐square test statistic; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; TLI, Tucker–Lewis Index.

Longitudinal measurement invariance

The results of the longitudinal measurement invariance are presented in Table 4. As there are no significant changes in the CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR values (Chen, 2007). Despite imposing increasing constraints across timepoints, there is evidence suggesting that the 5Cs model of PYD and the TMG have exhibited equivalence in T1 and T2 (Mackinnon et al., 2020). In other words, the measurement models of PYD and grit are comparable in terms of factor structure (configurable model), factor loadings (metric model), item intercepts (scalar model), and item errors (residual model) across both waves of data collection.

TABLE 4.

Results of the longitudinal measurement invariance on the 5Cs model of positive youth development (PYD) and the triarchic model of grit across Time 1 and Time 2 (n = 1620).

Model SB χ2 (df) CFI RMSEA SRMR ΔCFI ΔRMSEA Δ SRMR Invariant?
Configural model 2857.383 (1230) 0.941 0.032 0.048 – – – Yes
Metric model 2906.312 (1257) 0.941 0.031 0.050 0.000 −0.001 0.002 Yes
Scalar model 3019.945 (1284) 0.938 0.032 0.049 −0.003 0.001 −0.001 Yes
Residual model 3157.805 (1311) 0.933 0.033 0.049 −0.005 0.001 0.000 Yes
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CFI, Comparative Fit Index; df, degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SB χ2, Satorra–Bentler scaled chi‐square test statistic; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; ΔCFI, CFI change; ΔRMSEA, RMSEA change; ΔSRMR, SRMR change.

Latent cross‐lagged panel modeling

After establishing longitudinal measurement invariance at the level of item errors, we used the residual model in the latent cross‐lagged panel modeling phase to specify the cross‐lagged effects, auto‐regressive effects, and co‐movements between the dimensions of PYD and grit, while controlling for the influence of the participants' gender, age, SES, and school type. This latent cross‐lagged panel model yielded adequate fit with the data (SB χ2 = 3987.239 (1495), p < .001; CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.032, 90% CI [0.031, 0.033]; SRMR = 0.07; AIC = 198,860.33; BIC = 200,261.77). Figure 2 presents the significant standardized regression coefficients of the latent cross‐lagged panel model. All auto‐regressive effects from T1 to T2 were significant for all constructs, except for competence. This finding suggests that adolescents' positive view of their performance in different domain‐specific areas may be less stable over time.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Results of the latent cross‐lagged panel model showing the significant standardized regression coefficients between positive youth development (PYD) and grit dimension in Time 1 and Time 2 (n = 1620). Manifest variables, co‐movements, error terms, and non‐significant paths were intentionally omitted in this figure for the purpose of parsimony. Solid lines have significant positive associations while broken lines indicate significant negative associations (*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001).

In general, results of the latent cross‐lagged panel modeling show that the TMG dimensions significantly predicted subsequent PYD dimensions, particularly the efficacy‐related Cs of competence and confidence, but not the other way around. Controlling for the participants' socio‐demographic characteristics and the auto‐regressive effects of the variables, T1 perseverance of effort positively predicted T2 competence (β = .26, p < .05, 95% CI [0.06, 0.60]) and T2 character (β = .14, p < .05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.34]), while T1 adaptability to situations positively predicted T2 confidence (β = .10, p < .01, 95% CI [0.03, 0.20]). On the contrary, T1 consistency of interest negatively predicted the efficacy‐related Cs of competence (β = −.14, p < .05, 95% CI [−0.31, −0.04]) and confidence (β = −.08, p < .05, 95% CI [−0.17, −0.02]) in T2.

Additionally, T2 perseverance of effort was predicted by higher levels of adaptability to situations in T1 (β = .09, p < .05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.22]) as well as lower levels of consistency of interest in T1 (β = −.11, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.21, −0.07]). Finally, prior levels of connection and character, both classified as socio‐emotional Cs, were found to predict subsequent levels of competence (β = .32, p < .05, 95% CI [0.07, 0.73]) and care (β = .29, p < .05, 95% CI [0.08, 0.62]), respectively.

As for the relations of the socio‐demographic covariates with the 5Cs of PYD, adolescent boys are more likely to report higher levels of competence (β = −.06, p < .05, 95% CI [−0.29, −0.01]), confidence (β = −.05, p < .05, 95% CI [−0.20, −0.02]), and connection (β = −.06, p < .01, 95% CI [−0.25, −0.04]), while younger adolescent girls tend to report higher levels of character (β age = −.02, p < .05, 95% CI [−0.02, −0.02]; β gender = .11, p < .001, 95% CI [0.14, 0.40]) and caring (β age = −.02, p < .05, 95% CI [−0.04, −0.00]; β gender = .07, p < .01, 95% CI [0.06, 0.29]). Students from private schools are also more likely to feel competent (β = .07, p < .05, 95% CI [0.03, 0.39]). With regard to the TMG facets, younger adolescents tend to be more persevering (β = −.02, p < .05, 95% CI [−0.03, −0.00]), while students from private schools are more likely to report higher levels perseverance (β = .08, p < .001, 95% CI [0.10, 0.35]) and consistency (β = .06, p < .05, 95% CI [0.02, 0.29]). No significant relations were found between the socio‐demographic covariates and adaptability.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Although existing literature has shown that either grit or PYD can boost optimal academic and psychological outcomes in adolescence, no published research has examined how grit and PYD dimensions are related to each other. This research examined the reciprocal associations of grit's dimensions with PYD's components among Filipino high school adolescents via a two‐wave latent cross‐lagged panel design. In general, results show that grit facets predicted subsequent PYD dimensions, but not vice versa. Specifically, while perseverance of effort and adaptability to situations were associated with higher levels of competence, confidence, and character, consistency was associated with lower levels of competence and confidence six months later.

Our research demonstrated that students with more perseverance of effort tend to report greater competence and character after six months, controlling for other grit's dimensions, auto‐regressive effects, and socio‐demographic covariates. These findings cohere with past studies that linked perseverance to the satisfaction of basic psychological needs for competence (Jin & Kim, 2017), academic engagement (Datu et al., 2016, 2018, 2023), and academic self‐efficacy (Datu et al., 2017; Wolters & Hussain, 2015). As with the invest‐and‐accrue model of conscientiousness (Hill & Jackson, 2016), one's inclination to show hard work, diligence, persistence, self‐discipline, and other related traits boosts eagerness to invest in actions that can promote success in specific performance domains. Put simply, adolescents with greater perseverance are more likely to spend more effort in academic (e.g., actively engaging in classroom activities and completing assignments), cognitive (e.g., reading, practicing math problem‐solving, and memorizing formulae in physics), and social (e.g., sharing hobbies and interests with friends, playing sports, and developing camaraderie with peers) activities, which in turn, may enhance their sense of competence.

Perseverance of effort was also found to be associated with subsequent levels of character, suggesting that students who persist amidst challenges and difficulties are more likely to develop a moral sense of right and wrong and a set of correct behaviors. Past studies have conceptualized perseverance as a character strength or a highly valued positive trait that can contribute to optimal human development including the development of virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and moral behaviors such as pro‐environmental actions (Datu & Buenconsejo, 2021). The influence of perseverance on character is particularly relevant in the Philippine setting where “sipag at tiyaga” or hard work and perseverance in Filipino (e.g., completing college education despite financial difficulties) are seen as the essential building blocks of eventual success (e.g., better employment and socio‐economic mobility for the family).

Aside from perseverance of effort, students with higher adaptability to situations reported greater confidence, which corroborated past studies on the positive associations of adaptability with self‐efficacy beliefs (Datu et al., 2017) and school engagement (Datu et al., 2023). It is plausible that students with more adaptability may experience greater overall self‐confidence as they may exhibit greater tolerance for unpredictable and challenging situations in their lives—a condition that can boost self‐appreciation. Future research, however, is necessary to test whether individual differences in uncertainty tolerance might account for the benefits of adaptability on confidence.

As with prior studies on the maladaptive role of consistency of interests (Credé et al., 2017; Datu, 2021; Disabato et al., 2019), our research showed that students with greater consistency reported lower levels of competence and confidence. Consistency may derail students' positive self‐perceptions as sticking to personal ambitions and interests might distort their capacity to fulfill social expectations from significant social agents, such as parents and teachers—a condition that might lead to relational conflict and poorer well‐being, more particularly in societies where espousing a highly interdependent self serves as a primary cultural imperative (Uchida & Ogihara, 2012). Further, as adolescence is a period of exploration, simply sticking with the same set of interests may not be the best way to achieve increased competence and confidence, and re‐assessing and switching one's passion and interest (e.g., adaptability to situations) during this phase may actually be a healthy form of psychological flexibility. Indeed, it is argued that high levels of consistency may also be indicative of rigidity and the lack of novelty‐seeking or openness to experience (Disabato et al., 2019; Dixson et al., 2016).

However, there was no evidence supporting the associations of PYD's dimensions with perseverance, consistency, and adaptability six months after, when controlling for auto‐regressive effects and specific socio‐demographic covariates. Referring to the engine theory of well‐being (Jayawickreme et al., 2012), the findings suggest that grit facets may be considered as important input variables while the 5Cs may treated as indicators of psychological well‐being. It is likely that the 5Cs, which are considered as more malleable psychological characteristics (Geldhof et al., 2014; Lewin‐Bizan et al., 2010; Phelps et al., 2007), may not predict grit dimensions since these domains operate as traits or dispositions that are relatively more stable over time (Datu, 2021; Duckworth et al., 2007). Further, is possible that PYD's links to grit's dimensions might be mediated by specific psychological processes (e.g., coping and self‐regulation strategies, internalization of values, and psychological support from parents, teachers, or classmates). As these reasons are rather speculative, future researchers are encouraged to tease out particular insights into the non‐significant relationships of the 5Cs with grit dimensions.

Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the socio‐emotional Cs of connection and character subsequently predicted higher levels of competence and caring, respectively. Connected students are more likely to receive support and encouragement from adults and peers, which may help them deal with academic and social challenges and boost their sense of competence. On the other hand, having a solidified sense of right and wrong can encourage the development of perspective‐taking skills and empathic concern for others. Taken together, these results lend support to the salience of socio‐emotional PYD characteristics in collectivistic cultures (Buenconsejo et al., 2022, 2024; Wong et al., 2021; Yang & McGinley, 2021), where interpersonal relationships and group harmony are particularly emphasized (Uchida & Ogihara, 2012).

The relations of the socio‐demographic covariates with the specific dimensions of grit and PYD also provide insights into the nuanced associations between youth characteristics and their developmental assets. Specifically, the results showing that boys reported higher efficacy‐related Cs and connection, while younger girls had higher socio‐emotional C, align with gendered socialization patterns emphasized among adolescents (Gomez‐Baya et al., 2021; Lewin‐Bizan et al., 2010). These findings are also in line with research showing that girls mature earlier in socio‐emotional skills compared to boys (Chaplin & Aldao, 2013). Private school attendance was also linked to heightened competence, perseverance, and consistency, possibly reflecting greater educational and psycho‐social resources afforded by private school students compared to public school students in the Philippines (Bernardo et al., 2015). These results lend context for interpreting the primary analyses of this study, highlighting that both individual and contextual factors shape developmental strengths differentially according to gender and school milieu during this dynamic period.

Taken together, the findings that perseverance and adaptability relate to greater PYD indicators over time contribute to existing literature about the psychological payoffs linked to grit in diverse cultural contexts (Datu, 2021). Adolescents with higher levels of perseverance and adaptability are likely to experience greater competence, confidence, and character possibly through adaptive coping strategies, mastery experiences, and emotion regulation techniques (Datu et al., 2018, 2023; Datu & Restubog, 2020). In general, the results of the study align with existing discourse on the role that positive personality traits and other intrinsic resources play in optimal psychological functioning (engine theory of well‐being; Jayawickreme et al., 2012).

The findings also hold several practical implications for teachers, school psychologists, and counselors working with adolescents. Educators can intentionally develop perseverance and adaptability among students through challenging yet achievable tasks, acknowledging effort, and modeling perseverance when facing academic obstacles (Alan et al., 2019). Grit‐building interventions targeting these facets may help boost competence, confidence, character, and socio‐emotional skills (Datu et al., 2020; Datu & Restubog, 2020). Teachers can also facilitate connected learning experiences that support interpersonal relationships with peers. Lastly, educational practitioners should consider tailoring approaches based on gender, age, and school‐related differences (Bernardo et al., 2015; Chaplin & Aldao, 2013; Gomez‐Baya et al., 2021). Overall, purposefully instilling grit and PYD characteristics holds promise for advancing adolescents' academic achievement and well‐being in educational contexts.

Despite its theoretical and practical contributions, this study has a number of limitations. Due to the limited number of timepoints employed in this investigation, findings cannot draw precise insights into the potential effects of grit on PYD's dimensions. Future research can also test whether a grit‐based intervention (Alan et al., 2019) can have impacts on adolescents' PYD characteristics. Our reliance on self‐reported measures of explanatory and outcome variables might also increase the likelihood of common method bias. This shortcoming can be addressed by using alternative peer‐report measures of PYD and behavioral approaches in assessing grit (e.g., frequency of students' attempts to solve an unsolvable Sudoku puzzle). As with other scholars' observations (Credé et al., 2017; Disabato et al., 2019), fundamental measurement issues (e.g., negatively worded format and failure to capture the temporal aspect of long‐term ambitions) might account for the poor reliability estimates of consistency of interests. Future research can address this limitation by creating new items that tap individuals' tendencies to stick to passion or interests over time. Further, although past studies have shown strong associations between grit and conscientiousness (Credé et al., 2017; Duckworth et al., 2007), this study did not examine how TMG's dimensions contribute to PYD above and beyond the effects of conscientiousness. Future investigations, therefore, are warranted to explore whether grit demonstrated incremental validity over conscientiousness in predicting adolescent psychological outcomes. Given that we only recruited Filipino high school students in this study, we anticipate constraints to the generalizability of our findings to adolescents in other non‐Western societies (e.g., Southeast Asia). Larger cross‐cultural projects are needed to investigate whether our findings are applicable to adolescents' experiences in diverse cultural contexts.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

There is no potential conflict of interest in this investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by the Research Grant Council—Early Career Scheme (ECS Project No. 28611119) awarded to the corresponding author. Preparation of this article was partly supported by the Research Support Scheme of the Graduate School of the Education University of Hong Kong and the Research Grant Council Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded to the first author.

Buenconsejo, J. U. , Datu, J. A. D. , & Liu, D. (2024). Does grit predict thriving or is it the other way around? A latent cross‐lagged panel model on the triarchic model of grit and the 5Cs of positive youth development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 34, 1431–1444. 10.1111/jora.13011

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding and first authors upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES

  1. Akos, P. , & Kretchmar, J. (2017). Investigating grit at a non‐cognitive predictor of college success. Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 163–186. 10.1353/rhe.2017.0000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alan, S. , Boneva, T. , & Ertac, S. (2019). Ever failed, try again, succeed better: Results from a randomized educational intervention on grit. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(3), 1121–1162. 10.1093/qje/qjz006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold, M. E. , & Silliman, B. (2017). From theory to practice: A critical review of positive youth development program frameworks. Journal of Youth Development, 12(2), 1–20. 10.5195/jyd.2017.17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baribeau, D. A. , Vigod, S. , Brittain, H. , Vaillancourt, T. , Szatmari, P. , & Pullenayegum, E. (2022). Application of transactional (cross‐lagged panel) models in mental health research: An introduction and review of methodological considerations. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(3), 124–134. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9275371/ [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824. 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernardo, A. B. I. , Ganotice, F. A. , & King, R. B. (2015). Motivation gap and achievement gap between public and private high schools in The Philippines. The Asia‐Pacific Education Researcher, 24(4), 657–667. 10.1007/s40299-014-0213-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowman, N. A. , Hill, P. L. , Denson, N. , & Bronkema, R. (2015). Keep on truckin’ or stay the course? Exploring grit dimensions as differential predictors of educational achievement, satisfaction, and intentions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 639–645. 10.1177/1948550615574300 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Buenconsejo, J. , & Datu, J. A. D. (2022). Towards an integrative paradigm of positive youth development: Implications for research, practice, and policy. Human Development, 66, 381–396. 10.1159/000527122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Buenconsejo, J. U. , & Datu, J. A. D. (2021). Positive youth development: A brief review of literature with implications for school‐based psychological interventions. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 32, 275–282. 10.1017/jgc.2021.25 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Buenconsejo, J. U. , & Datu, J. A. D. (2023). Mere religiosity is not enough! Spirituality strengthens the relations between religiosity and positive youth development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 33, 1304–1319. 10.1111/jora.12878 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Buenconsejo, J. U. , Datu, J. A. D. , Chiu, M. M. , & Chan, R. C. H. (2022). Psychometric validity and measurement invariance of positive youth development in The Philippines during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Applied Developmental Science, 27, 336–351. 10.1080/10888691.2022.2078719 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Buenconsejo, J. U. , Krauss, S. , Abdul Kadir, N. B. , Suryani, A. , Aruta, J. J. B. , & Kittiteerasack, P. (2024). Positive youth development mediates the relations between religiousness, altruism, and empathy among southeast Asian emerging adults. Emerging Adulthood. 10.1177/21676968241267336 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Catalano, R. F. , Skinner, M. L. , Alvarado, G. , Kapungu, C. , Reavley, N. , Patton, G. C. , Jessee, C. , Plaut, D. , Moss, C. , Bennett, K. , Sawyer, S. M. , Sebany, M. , Sexton, M. , Olenik, C. , & Petroni, S. (2019). Positive youth development programs in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A conceptual framework and systematic review of efficacy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(1), 15–31. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.01.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chaplin, T. M. , & Aldao, A. (2013). Gender differences in emotion expression in children: A meta‐analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 735–765. 10.1037/a0030737 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen, B.‐B. , Wiium, N. , & Dimitrova, R. (2018). Factor structure of positive youth development: Contributions of exploratory structural equation modelling. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 12–15. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modelling, 14(3), 464–504. 10.1080/10705510701301834 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Christopoulou, M. , Lakioti, A. , Pezirkianidis, C. , Karakasidou, E. , & Stalikas, A. (2018). The role of grit in education: A systematic review. Psychology, 9, 2951–2971. 10.4236/psych.2018.915171 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Conway, R. J. , Heary, C. , & Hogan, M. J. (2015). An evaluation of the measurement properties of the 5Cs model of positive youth development. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1941. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Credé, M. , Tynan, M. C. , & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta‐analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 492–511. 10.1037/pspp0000102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Datu, J. A. D. (2021). Beyond passion and perseverance: Review and future research initiatives on the science of grit. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 545526. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.545526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Datu, J. A. D. , & Buenconsejo, J. U. (2021). The ecological benefits of staying gritty: Grit dimensions are associated with pro‐environmental passion, awareness, and behaviours. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(4), 416–425. 10.1080/00049530.2021.1967100 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Datu, J. A. D. , Buenconsejo, J. U. , Choy, Y. L. E. , Sou, K. L. E. , & Shek, C. Y. S. (2023). Grit, academic engagement in math and science, and well‐being outcomes in children during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A study in Hong Kong and Macau. School Psychology International, 44, 489–512. 10.1177/01430343221147273 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Datu, J. A. D. , McInerney, D. M. , Żemojtel‐Piotrowska, M. , Hitokoto, H. , & Datu, N. (2020). Is grittiness next to happiness? Examining the association of triarchic model of grit dimensions with well‐being outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22, 981–1009. 10.1007/s10902-020-00260-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Datu, J. A. D. , & Restubog, S. L. D. (2020). The emotional pay‐off of staying gritty: Linking grit with social‐emotional learning and emotional well‐being. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 48, 697–708. 10.1080/03069885.2020.1758922 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Datu, J. A. D. , Valdez, J. P. M. , & King, R. B. (2016). Perseverance counts but consistency does not! Validating the short grit scale in a collectivist setting. Current Psychology, 35(1), 121–130. 10.1007/s12144-015-9374-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Datu, J. A. D. , Yuen, M. , & Chen, G. (2017). Development and validation of the triarchic model of grit scale (TMGS): Evidence from Filipino undergraduate students. Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 198–205. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Datu, J. A. D. , Yuen, M. , & Chen, G. (2018). The triarchic model of grit is linked to academic success and well‐being among Filipino high school students. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(3), 428–438. 10.1037/spq0000234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Disabato, D. J. , Goodman, F. R. , & Kashdan, T. B. (2019). Is grit relevant to well‐being and strengths? Cross‐cultural evidence for separating out perseverance of effort and consistency of interests. Journal of Personality, 87, 194–211. 10.1111/jopy.12382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Dixson, D. D. , Worrell, F. C. , Olszewski‐Kubilius, P. , & Subotnik, R. F. (2016). Beyond perceived ability: The contribution of psychosocial factors to academic performance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377(1), 67–77. 10.1111/nyas.13210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Duckworth, A. L. , Peterson, C. , Matthews, M. D. , & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long‐term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Duckworth, A. L. , & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale (grit‐s). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166–174. 10.1080/00223890802634290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Eskreis‐Winkler, L. , Shulman, E. P. , Beal, S. A. , & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). The grit effect: Predicting retention in the military, the workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 36. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Geldhof, G. J. , Bowers, E. P. , Boyd, M. J. , Mueller, M. K. , Napolitano, C. M. , Schmid, K. L. , Lerner, J. V. , & Lerner, R. M. (2014). Creation of short and very short measures of the 5Cs of positive youth development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(1), 163–176. 10.1111/jora.12039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Geldhof, G. J. , Larsen, T. , Urke, H. , Holsen, I. , Lewis, H. , & Tyler, C. P. (2019). Indicators of positive youth development can be maladaptive: The example case of caring. Journal of Adolescence, 71, 1–9. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gomez‐Baya, D. , Santos, T. , & Matos, M. G. (2021). Developmental assets and positive youth development: An examination of gender differences in Spain. Applied Developmental Science, 26, 516–531. 10.1080/10888691.2021.1906676 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hair, J. F. , Babin, B. J. , Anderson, R. E. , & Black, W. C. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). CENGAGE. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hair, J. F. , Black, W. C. , Babin, B. J. , & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hill, P. L. , & Jackson, J. J. (2016). The invest‐and‐accrue model of conscientiousness. Review of General Psychology, 20(2), 141–154. 10.1037/gpr0000065 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hodge, B. , Wright, B. , & Bennett, P. (2017). The role of grit in determining engagement and academic outcomes for university students. Research in Higher Education, 59, 448–460. 10.1007/s11162-017-9474-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Holsen, I. , Geldhof, J. , Larsen, T. , & Aardal, E. (2017). The 5Cs of positive youth development in Norway: Assessment and associations with positive and negative outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(5), 559–569. 10.1177/0165025416645668 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Jayawickreme, E. , Forgeard, M. J. C. , & Seligman, M. E. P. (2012). The engine of well‐being. Review of General Psychology, 16(4), 327–342. 10.1037/a0027990 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Jin, B. , & Kim, J. (2017). Grit, basic needs satisfaction, and subjective well‐being. Journal of Individual Differences, 38, 29–35. 10.1027/1614-0001/a000219 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kozina, A. , Wiium, N. , Gonzalez, J.‐M. , & Dimitrova, R. (2019). Positive youth development and academic achievement in Slovenia. Child and Youth Care Forum, 48(2), 223–240. 10.1007/s10566-018-9457-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lerner, R. M. , Lerner, J. V. , Almerigi, J. B. , Theokas, C. , Phelps, E. , Gestsdottir, S. , Naudeau, S. , Jeličić, H. , Alberts, A. , Ma, L. , Smith, L. M. , Bobek, D. L. , Richman‐Raphael, D. , Simpson, I. , Christiansen, E. D. , & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth‐grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4‐H study of positive youth development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71. 10.1177/0272431604272461 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lerner, R. M. , von Eye, A. , Lerner, J. , Lewin‐Bizan, S. , & Bowers, E. (2010). Special issue introduction: The meaning and measurement of thriving: A view of the issues. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 707–719. 10.1007/s10964-010-9531-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Lewin‐Bizan, S. , Lynch, A. D. , Fay, K. , Schmid, K. , McPherran, C. , Lerner, J. V. , & Lerner, R. M. (2010). Trajectories of positive and negative behaviors from early‐ to middle‐adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(7), 751–763. 10.1007/s10964-010-9532-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Mackinnon, S. P. , Curtis, R. , & O'Connor, R. (2022). A tutorial in longitudinal measurement invariance and cross‐lagged panel models using lavaan. Meta‐Psychology, 6, MP.2020.2595. 10.15626/mp.2020.2595 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. MacKinnon, D. P. , Valente, M. J. , & Gonzalez, O. (2020). The correspondence between causal and traditional mediation analysis: The link is the mediator by treatment interaction. Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 21(2), 147–157. 10.1007/s11121-019-01076-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Markus, H. R. , & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Peterson, C. , & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press; American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  51. Phelps, E. , Balsano, A. B. , Fay, K. , Peltz, J. S. , Zimmerman, S. M. , Lerner, R. M. , & Lerner, J. V. (2007). Nuances in early adolescent developmental trajectories of positive and problematic/risk behaviors: Findings from the 4‐H study of positive youth development. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 16(2), 473–496. 10.1016/j.chc.2006.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Qi, S. , Hua, F. , Zhou, Z. , & Shek, D. T. L. (2020). Trends of positive youth development publications (1995–2020): A scientometric review. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17, 421–446. 10.1007/s11482-020-09878-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. R Core Team . (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical Computing. https://www.R‐project.org/ [Google Scholar]
  54. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modelling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. 10.18637/jss.v048.i02 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Suh, E. M. (2007). Downsides of an overly context‐sensitive self: Implications from the culture and subjective well‐being research. Journal of Personality, 75, 1331–1343. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00477.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Tirrell, J. M. , Geldhof, G. J. , King, P. E. , Dowling, E. M. , Sim, A. T. R. , Williams, K. , Iraheta, G. , Lerner, J. V. , & Lerner, R. M. (2019). Measuring spirituality, hope, and thriving among Salvadoran youth: Initial findings from the compassion international study of positive youth development. Child and Youth Care Forum, 48(2), 241–268. 10.1007/s10566-018-9454-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Uchida, Y. , & Ogihara, Y. (2012). Personal or interpersonal construal of happiness: A cultural psychological perspective. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(4), 354–369. 10.5502/ijw.v2.i4.5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Urban, J. B. , Lewin‐Bizan, S. , & Lerner, R. M. (2009). The role of neighborhood ecological assets and activity involvement in youth developmental outcomes: Differential impacts of asset poor and asset rich neighborhoods. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 601–614. 10.1016/j.appdev.2009.07.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Vignoles, V. L. , Owe, E. , Becker, M. , Smith, P. B. , Easterbrook, M. J. , Brown, R. , González, R. , Didier, N. , Carrasco, D. , Cadena, M. P. , Lay, S. , Schwartz, S. J. , Des Rosiers, S. E. , Villamar, J. A. , Gavreliuc, A. , Zinkeng, M. , Kreuzbauer, R. , Baguma, P. , Martin, M. , … Bond, M. H. (2016). Beyond the ‘east–west’ dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 966–1000. 10.1037/xge0000175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Widaman, K. F. , Ferrer, E. , & Conger, R. D. (2010). Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: Measuring the same construct across time. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 10–18. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00110.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Wolters, C. A. , & Hussain, M. (2015). Investigating grit and its relations with college students' self‐regulated learning and academic achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 293–311. 10.1007/s11409-014-9128-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Wong, P. W.‐C. , Kwok, K.‐W. , & Chow, S.‐L. (2021). Validation of positive youth development scale and implications for adolescent in Hong Kong community. Child and Youth Care Forum, 51, 901–919. 10.1007/s10566-021-09658-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Yang, P.‐J. , & McGinley, M. (2021). Commonalities and specificities of positive youth development in the U.S. and Taiwan. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 73, 101251. 10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101251 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding and first authors upon reasonable request.

Articles from Journal of Research on Adolescence are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES