Skip to main content
NCBI home page
HHS Author Manuscripts logoLink to HHS Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Appl Dev Psychol. 2022 Nov;83:10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101458. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101458

Psychological empowerment as a route for positive adjustment during adolescence

Elizabeth Messman a,*, Briana Scott a, Joanne Smith-Darden b, Kai Cortina a, Elyse Thulin a, Marc Zimmerman a, Poco Kernsmith c
PMCID: PMC12212102  NIHMSID: NIHMS2088842  PMID: 40600121

Abstract

Empowerment theory (Zimmerman, 2000) provides a framework for understanding and promoting positive youth development during adolescence. The current study considers reciprocal associations between psychological empowerment and adolescents’ prosocial behavior, responsible decision making, social support giving, and delinquent behavior across the school year (n = 837 8th grade youth; 50.5% female). Results from cross-lagged analyses support Zimmerman’s (2000) model of empowerment. Psychological empowerment was related to increases in prosocial behavior, responsible decision making and social support giving, and decreases in delinquent behavior over time, controlling for prior levels. Also in support of empowerment theory, we found less evidence for behavior predicting changes in empowerment. Results suggest that supporting adolescents’ empowerment provides a route for positive youth development above and beyond prior behavioral tendencies.

Keywords: Empowerment theory, Positive youth development, Cross-lagged models, Behavior

Adolescence represents a period of substantial change when youth explore different identities and goals (Eccles, 2009). Adjustment during adolescence sets the stage for individuals’ long term social and emotional functioning (e.g., Becht, Nelemans, Branje, Vollebergh, & Meeus, 2021). Empowerment theory (Zimmerman, 2000) provides a framework for understanding and promoting positive adjustment during adolescence. When psychologically empowered, youth demonstrate confidence in their ability to make a positive difference in their school or community and possess the necessary skills and resources to do so (e.g., Reischl et al., 2011; Zimmerman et al., 2018;). Considerable research shows the positive effects of psychological empowerment on a wide range of outcomes, including health behaviors (e.g., Bergsma, 2004), substance use (e.g., Peterson & Reid, 2003) and domestic violence (e.g., Wright, Perez, & Johnson, 2010). Yet, the bulk of research on psychological empowerment concerns adults. Of the studies that examine psychological empowerment among adolescents (e.g., Eisman et al., 2016; Ozer & Schotland, 2011), none explore bidirectional effects between psychological empowerment and youths’ adjustment. By examining bidirectional associations over time between adolescents’ psychological empowerment and four indicators of adjustment (i.e., prosocial behavior, responsible decision making, social support giving, and delinquency), the current study addresses this critical gap in the literature and provides new insights into positive youth development among adolescents.

Empowerment theory

Empowerment refers to individuals’ possessing the skills, awareness, and opportunities to enact positive change in their lives. Zimmerman (1995) identifies three distinct aspects of psychological empowerment–intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral. Intrapersonal empowerment refers to one’s self-beliefs about their ability to enact change (self-esteem), as well as their beliefs about being able to work with others to further a common goal (leadership efficacy and civic efficacy). Interactional empowerment refers to the knowledge, social capital, and resources necessary to enact positive change in one’s environment. Behavioral empowerment refers to an individual’s engagement in opportunities or behaviors that contribute to positive change in one’s environment.

Consider a hypothetical example of a youth-led school beautification project. In this example, intrapersonal empowerment refers to students’ beliefs about their own skills and abilities for completing the beautification project, as well as their beliefs about how well they can work with their peers to complete the project. Interactional empowerment refers to students’ relationships with supportive adult mentors who can impart the skills and knowledge necessary for completing a school beautification project, and who can bridge connections between the youth and other adults to complete the project. Finally, behavioral empowerment refers to youths’ engagement in activities related to the school beautification project, such as fundraising, volunteering time and supplies, and recruiting peers to help work on the project.

Empirical research has examined the association of individual empowerment components with adjustment outcomes among youth. When adolescents feel confident in their ability to contribute positively to their environment (intrapersonal empowerment) they are less likely to engage in risk-taking or delinquent behaviors (e.g., drug use, vandalism, violence) (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Leather, 2009). Supportive mentoring relationships with adults that provide access to social capital and resources (interactional empowerment) support youths’ educational attainment and protect against negative mental health outcomes and delinquency (Hurd, Sánchez, Zimmerman, & Caldwell, 2012; Hurd & Zimmerman, 2010). Engaging in after-school activities and participating in opportunities to better one’s community (behavioral empowerment) relate to improved academic outcomes among youth (e.g., Lauer et al., 2006) and reduce the likelihood of aggression and delinquency among youth (e.g., Mahoney & Stattin, 2000). Taken together, the three components of empowerment contribute to an individuals’ sense of control or mastery over their environment (Zimmerman, 2000) which, in turn, supports positive adjustment.

Direction of effects

Although researchers have theorized that empowerment leads to changes in behavior, few researchers have studied the issue of directionality in the association of psychological empowerment with positive and negative behaviors among youth. Specifically, most prior researchers have examined unidirectional effects from one (or more) aspects of empowerment contributing to changes in a given behavior or outcome (e.g., Hurd et al., 2012; Leather, 2009; Mahoney & Stattin, 2000; Zimmerman et al., 2018), but have not examined whether behaviors are associated with changes in empowerment. Theoretically, empowerment-based interventions lead to positive outcomes by supporting youths’ efficacy for making positive change (intrapersonal empowerment), giving youth access to the resources and social capital to achieve one’s goals (interactional empowerment), and providing opportunities for youth to engage in opportunities to positively influence their environment (behavioral empowerment). It may also be the case that youth who engage in more positive behaviors (and fewer negative behaviors) tend to feel more empowered. Examining reciprocal associations of empowerment and youths’ adjustment outcomes will enhance our understanding of empowerment interventions and will determine if empowerment outcomes contribute to positive youth development.

Adjustment during adolescence

We situate the current study during adolescence, a stage of life characterized by immense growth and change. Against the backdrop of puberty and identity development, adolescents navigate new and complex social relationships (Eccles et al., 1993). Adolescents are more likely than their younger or older peers to accept or endorse negative behaviors (e.g., Bukowski, Newcomb, & Hartup, 1998) and engage in risk taking or sensation-seeking behavior (Arnett, 1999; Steinberg, 2009). At the same time, individuals’ cognitive capabilities mature during adolescence, as youth develop strategies for cognitive and emotional self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2002). Thus, while adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to negative behaviors, they simultaneously develop strategies and competencies that set the stage for their long-term social and emotional adjustment.

Given the developmental processes specific to adolescence, psychological empowerment may be particularly important for supporting positive youth development during this stage of life. For example, the tendency for adolescents to endorse and engage in negative behaviors has been explained in terms of a desire to demonstrate autonomy (e.g., Moffitt, 1993) and fit in with peers (Dishion & Tipsord, 2011). Empowering interventions equip youth with the knowledge, skills, and resources to demonstrate their autonomy and connect with peers in a constructive way (such as through being a leader in a group). Empowering interventions may also further the development of adolescents’ cognitive and emotional self-regulatory strategies through providing opportunities for youth to engage in planning and goal-oriented behavior. Patterns of behavior and interaction that develop during adolescence set the stage for individuals’ long-term functioning (e.g., Crosnoe & Benner, 2015), and empowerment may play a key role in establishing a positive trajectory of adjustment.

The current study considers bidirectional associations among psychological empowerment and four indicators of adjustment, encompassing both positive and negative behaviors. With a longitudinal design, we can understand how adjustment and empowerment develop in tandem over time, and whether empowerment contributes to positive youth outcomes. We consider prosocial behavior, responsible decision making, social support giving, and delinquent behavior as indicators of adjustment in the current study, which is the issue we turn to next.

Empowerment and positive behaviors

We examine psychological empowerment in relation to three positive behaviors: prosocial behavior, social support giving, and responsible decision making. Social relationships and interactions take on increased importance for adolescents (e.g., Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). Prosocial behavior (i.e., kind, cooperative, and helpful acts) and social support giving (i.e., checking in on friends and showing concern for friends’ well-being) represent adaptive social behaviors that foster the development of positive relationships with peers (Wentzel & McNamara, 1999), and thus serve as an important marker of social functioning during adolescence. The development of self-regulatory behaviors is also a critical developmental task during adolescence (Lerner et al., 2011). Responsible decision making (i.e., making right choices and prioritizing how to spend one’s time) is one indicator of adolescent self-regulation that has implications for youths’ academic and social functioning (Byrnes, 2013). Taken together, prosocial behavior, social support giving, and responsible decision making comprise a concise set of outcomes indicative of positive psychosocial development during adolescence.

Psychologically empowered youth feel a sense of control or mastery over their environment and possess the skills and capital to enact positive change (Zimmerman, 2000). We expect that psychological empowerment will predict more prosocial behavior among youth, more social support giving, and more responsible decision making. Indeed, prior researchers have indicated that psychological empowerment is positively associated with prosocial behavior among youth (e.g., Eisman et al., 2016; Thulin et al., 2022). However, researchers have not empirically examined the association of psychological empowerment with social support giving or responsible decision making. It may be the case that psychologically empowered youth provide more social support to their friends, due to possessing the self-efficacy, social skills, and social capital for engaging positively with others. Furthermore, psychologically empowered youth may be more likely to engage in responsible decision making due to having access to the adult mentors and resources necessary to achieve their goals. In the current study, we build on prior research on youth empowerment by examining the association of psychological empowerment with prosocial behavior, as well as social support giving and responsible decision making. This will contribute to a fuller understanding of how and why empowerment may contribute to positive adjustment among adolescents.

Empowerment and negative behaviors

We also examine empowerment as it relates to negative behavior among adolescents, specifically, delinquency (i.e., risk-taking or rule-breaking acts). Adolescence is often characterized as a time when youth tend to engage in negative behaviors such as risk-taking or rule-breaking (Arnett, 1999; Steinberg, 2009). This trend has been explained in terms of a desire to exert autonomy (e.g., Moffitt, 1993), and a vulnerability to negative peer influence (e.g., Smith, Chein, & Steinberg, 2014) during this stage of life. Psychological empowerment may provide a route for youth to demonstrate their autonomy in a constructive manner (rather than acting out) and may increase youths’ resilience in the face of negative peer pressure. Researchers have demonstrated that empowerment is associated with lower levels of negative behaviors, namely aggression (e.g., Eisman et al., 2016; Thulin et al., 2022), but to our knowledge this study is the first to examine the association of empowerment with delinquent behavior.

Gender differences

Extant research indicates that gender differences in behavior may be particularly pronounced during adolescence (e.g., Perry & Pauletti, 2011). This may be due, in part, to the increased salience of gender roles during this stage of life (e.g., Hill & Lynch, 1983). In general, researchers find that females are more likely to endorse prosocial behaviors and helping behaviors compared to males (Garaigordobil, Maganto, Pérez, & Sansinenea, 2009), whereas males are more likely to engage in delinquent or aggressive behavior compared to females (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008). Whether or not empowerment operates differently for adolescent females or males has yet to be studied. Given established gender differences in the adolescent developmental trajectory, this is an important issue to consider.

Current study

In the current study, we examine whether psychological empowerment is associated with changes in prosocial behavior, responsible decision making, social support giving, and delinquent behavior across the school year, controlling for prior levels of these behaviors. We also considered the opposite direction of effects (e.g., if prosocial behavior, responsible decision making, social support giving, and delinquent behavior are associated with changes in empowerment over time). Based on prior research on psychological empowerment (Eisman et al., 2016; Hurd et al., 2012; Thulin et al., 2022; Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman et al., 2018), we expected that empowerment would be associated with increases in positive behavioral outcomes and decreases in negative behavioral outcomes over time, but that behaviors would not relate to changes in empowerment over time. Finally, we examined gender differences in reciprocal associations of empowerment and positive and negative behavior. Although mean level differences in behaviors have been reported for male and female adolescents in regard to prosocial behaviors and aggression (i.e., Card et al., 2008; Garaigordobil et al., 2009; Perry & Pauletti, 2011), less is known about how gender differences might manifest in relation to empowerment. Thus, we examined gender differences in associations of empowerment and adjustment as an exploratory aim of the study.

Method

Study setting

The study was conducted in six schools in the midwestern U.S. as part of a larger Center for Disease Control and Prevention intervention study examining the efficacy of the Youth Empowerment Solutions for Healthy Relationships (YES-HR) curriculum. Participating school districts were selected based on community risk factors, developed from a composite rating of publicly available community data, including crime rate, poverty rate, minority composition, and percent rental properties. Two school districts were recruited for participation in each community risk (low, medium, high) stratum.

The current study uses data from both intervention and control schools participating in the research, for a total of six middle schools. We do not report the intervention outcomes for this study because the current study reflects the pilot year when the curriculum was still being developed and implementation varied across intervention schools. Furthermore, to eliminate the possibility that the intervention may be driving the results, preliminary analyses compared youth in the intervention condition to the control condition. Students in the intervention group did not differ from students in the control group in mean levels of study variables, and concurrent and longitudinal associations of study variables were highly similar in magnitude and direction for both groups.

Participants and procedure

Participants comprised of 837 8th grade students distributed across the six middle schools that took part in the research study (51% Female; 55.2% White, 37.3% Black, 9.5% Hispanic, 1.5% Asian, 7.3% Native American, 1.3% Arab American, 2.9% Other). Multiple methods were used to inform students and families of the project, including mailings sent home to parents, providing information at school open houses, and advertisement on the school website explaining the study. Because the project was integrated into the school curriculum, a passive parental consent procedure was used. Students’ home addresses were obtained from the school and packets including an introduction letter and a supplemental information sheet outlining the study purpose and procedure, risks and benefits, costs and compensation, confidentiality, participation and withdrawal, and the passive consent process were sent to parents. Parents could decline their student’s participation in the study by returning the completed form to the student’s school or contacting the school or principal investigator within two weeks of receiving the letter. In the event that a mailed letter was returned undeliverable, a copy of the materials was provided to the student to bring home prior to seeking youth assent to participate. Parents retained authority to withdraw their student from the study at any point without consequence, even after granting permission. All study materials, including copies of surveys and assent forms, were made available to parents in the school office. The study protocol was approved by the [Blinded for Review] Institutional Review Boards.

Documentation of assent was obtained from the student participants prior to completion of the survey. A research team member distributed consent forms and explained the purpose of the study and their rights and protections as a participant. Per Institutional Review Board requirements, oral assent forms were read to students younger than 13 years old and signed by the research staff. Students older than 13 years old received a written copy of the assent which they signed and submitted. As described in the parent information letter and both student assent forms, student participation in the study was voluntary and the student could choose not to answer any question that made them uncomfortable and opt out of the study at any point without consequence. Youth assent was obtained on a different day than survey administration to allow adequate time to explain the study and the rights as a participant. Researchers returned on a different day to administer the survey.

Participants received $15 gift cards as incentive for the completion of each survey. In addition to individual incentives, participating schools received $1000 in non-discretionary funds at the end of each year to demonstrate the research team’s appreciation for their ongoing partnership, support, and the time and effort to support the research.

At the beginning of the school year, paper-and-pencil surveys were administered in classrooms. This included an initial data collection and two subsequent make up days for students who were absent. No school staff were involved with data collection. Students were spread out for privacy and asked not to speak with one another. Questions and concerns were answered by research staff. Data were collected in the Fall and Spring over two time points approximately 6 months apart. The follow-up questionnaire in the spring (time 2) was collected in the same way as the administration of the questionnaire in the fall (time 1).

Measures

The survey instrument included demographic questions (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, birthdate), psychological empowerment measures, and positive and negative developmental outcomes.

Psychological empowerment

Intrapersonal component.

Consistent with Zimmerman’s (2000) model of empowerment, the intrapersonal component included measures for leadership efficacy, civic efficacy, and self-esteem. These measures have been validated with samples of adolescents and have been used in other research examining youth empowerment (e.g., Eisman et al., 2016; Zimmerman et al., 2018).

Leadership efficacy was assessed using a 3-item scale adapted from Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991; e.g., “I am good at leading in groups”). The scale included 5-point Likert scale items ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) pertaining to students’ self-beliefs about their ability to be a leader in groups and organize people to get things done. Internal consistency ranged from α = 0.72 to 0.85.

Civic efficacy was assessed with 3 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) adapted from Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991; e.g., “I can make my community a better place by helping others in need”). Items asked participants if they felt they could be involved in community change or make their community better by helping others. Internal consistency ranged from α = 0.78 to 0.88.

Self-esteem was assessed using 6 items from the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (e.g., “I take a positive attitude toward myself”). Participants used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to indicate their level of agreement to the statements. Internal consistency ranged from α = 0.83 to 0.86 in our sample.

Participants’ scores for leadership efficacy, civic efficacy, and self-esteem were summed and averaged to compute an overall intrapersonal empowerment score.

Interactional component.

In line with Zimmerman’s theory of empowerment, the interactional component included measures for adult mentorship, adult resources, and resource mobilization. A similar subset of items assessing interactional empowerment was also used by Zimmerman et al. (2018) and Reischl et al. (2016) to assess the effectiveness of a youth empowerment after-school program.

Adult mentor support was assessed with 5 items adapted from Vinokur and Van Ryn (1993); e.g., “How often does the adult encourage and reassure you when you need it?”), Participants indicated how often a mentor engaged in behaviors such as encouragement and providing advice. Responses ranged from 1 (once a year or less) to 5 (every day). Internal consistency ranged from α = 0.92 to 0.95.

Adult resources were measured using 3 items measuring how many adults young people knew who could help them with solving neighborhood, school, and city/town problems (Vinokur & Van Ryn, 1993; e.g., “How many adults do you know who can help solve problems at your school?”). Responses ranged from 1 (none) to 5 (four or more). Internal consistency ranged from α = 0.70 to 0.79 in our sample.

Resource mobilization was assessed using 3 items adapted from Vinokur and Van Ryn (1993); e.g., “I know what things are needed to do a community project”). Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistency in our sample ranged from α = 0.70 to 0.80.

Participants’ scores for adult mentorship, adult resources, and resource mobilization were summed and averaged to compute an overall interactional empowerment score.

Behavioral component.

Consistent with empowerment theory, the behavioral component of psychological empowerment included measures for leadership behavior and extracurricular activities and work.

Leadership behaviors were assessed using 3 items adapted from Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991; e.g., “How often do you organize people to get things done?”). Responses ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (always).

Extracurricular activities and work were assessed using a 6-item assessment adapted from the “California Healthy Kids” survey (California Department of Education, 2004; e.g., “Were you involved in community service or volunteer work?”). Participants responded to items pertaining to their involvement in various activities outside of school on a scale ranging from 0 (no) to 1 (yes). A summary score was created from the six items for each participant.

Participants’ scores for leadership behavior and extracurricular activities and work were standardized and summed to create an overall behavioral empowerment score.

Prosocial behaviors.

Prosocial behaviors were measured using 5 items adapted from the Prosocial Behaviors subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 2001; e.g., “I try to be nice to people”). Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistency coefficients ranged from α = 0.80 to 0.87 in our sample.

Responsible decision-making.

Responsible decision-making was measured using a 4-item Likert scale regarding time management, treating others fairly, and making positive choices (e.g., “I make good choices to help me achieve my goals”). This measure is a subscale of the Youth Asset Survey (YAS) which was developed by Oman et al. (2002) and was tested on a diverse sample of youth. Responses ranged from 1 (not at all like me) to 4 (very much like me). Internal consistency coefficients in our sample ranged from α = 0.65 to 0.77.

Social support giving.

A 5-item Likert scale adapted from Borsky, McDonnell, Rimal, and Turner (2016) was used to assess the likelihood of students providing social support to friends (e.g., “How likely are you to ask friends when they are upset if they are okay?”). Responses ranged from 1 (not at all likely) to 5 (very likely). Internal consistency coefficients in our sample ranged from α = 0.82 to 0.85.

Delinquency.

To assess delinquency within the last year, students completed the 15-item Delinquency Scale from the National Youth Survey (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; e.g., “Purposely damaged or destroyed property belonging to your parents or other family members”). Youth reported how many times in the last year they have done the items in the scale. Responses ranged from 0 (never) to 5 (10 or more times). Internal consistency coefficients ranged from α = 0.80 to 0.81.

Analytic plan

To test the cross-lagged relationships between empowerment outcomes and prosocial behavior, responsible decision making, social support giving, and delinquent behavior (Fig. 1), we used structural equation modeling with Mplus 8.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Evaluation of model fit was completed using standard fit criteria that included the chi-square fit statistic as well as the CFI, TLI, SRMR, and RMSEA (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Multigroup SEM analyses examined whether the strength of associations differed between boys and girls by using the χ2 difference test (McHugh, 2013). Missing data in the current analysis was Missing at Random. We used full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation. FIML estimation uses all available data for each individual, regardless of if they have data on every variable (Enders & Bandalos, 2001).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual model of the cross-lagged associations between empowerment and adjustment.

First, descriptive statistics and correlations among variables were examined (Table 1). Next, a baseline model was fit which included paths indicating bidirectional associations over time between students’ empowerment and their positive and negative behavioral outcomes. See Fig. 1 for an illustration of the theoretical model. Cross lagged paths and autoregressive paths between empowerment and the four behaviors were estimated.

Table 1.

Correlation coefficients, means and standard deviations for study variables in the fall and spring.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Fall
1. Leadership Efficacy –
2. Civic Efficacy 0.52** –
3. Self-Esteem 0.33** 0.24** –
4. Adult Mentorship 0.23** 0.21** 0.18** –
5. Adult Resources 0.17** 0.17** 0.12* 0.34** –
6. Resource Mobilization 0.50** 0.72** 0.26** 0.21** 0.21** –
7. Leadership Behavior 0.64** 0.43** 0.28** 0.22** 0.30** 0.41** –
8. Extracurriculars and Work 0.34** 0.29** 0.15** 0.09 0.18** 0.27** 0.40** –
9. Prosocial Behavior 0.37** 0.45** 0.23** 0.29** 0.24** 0.43** 0.40** 0.31** –
10. Responsible Decision Making 0.40** 0.47** 0.33** 0.33** 0.21** 0.43** 0.37** 0.26** 0.57** –
11. Social Support Giving 0.31** 0.33** 0.07 0.26** 0.18** 0.32** 0.35** 0.22** 0.52** 0.40** –
12. Delinquency 0.02 −0.12** −0.14** −0.01 0.07 −0.14** −0.16 −0.03 −0.22** −0.24** −0.10** –
Mean (SD) 3.58 (0.87) 3.73 (0.87) 3.71 (0.94) 4.15 (0.99) 2.43 (1.39) 3.67 (0.84) 2.32 (1.51) 2.08 (1.00) 4.00 (0.72) 3.89 (0.77) 3.97 (0.82) 0.24 (0.44)
Spring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Leadership Efficacy –
2. Civic Efficacy 0.51** –
3. Self-Esteem 0.35** 0.26** –
4. Adult Mentorship 0.27** 0.28** 0.18** –
5. Adult Resources 0.18** 0.23** 0.11* 0.28** –
6. Resource Mobilization 0.47** 0.71** 0.31** 0.33** 0.23** –
7. Leadership Behavior 0.67** 0.43** 0.31** 0.32** 0.24** 0.40** –
8. Extracurriculars and Work 0.31** 0.25** 0.20** 0.08 0.09* 0.22** 0.35** –
9. Prosocial Behavior 0.40** 0.52** 0.18** 0.26** 0.18** 0.49** 0.33** 0.18** –
10. Responsible Decision Making 0.44** 0.49** 0.34** 0.27** 0.14** 0.47** 0.42** 0.21** 0.58** –
11. Social Support Giving 0.30** 0.34** 0.02 0.28** 0.17** 0.30** 0.24** 0.12** 0.45** 0.39** –
12. Delinquency −0.03 −0.16** −0.07* 0.01 0.02 −0.10** −0.00 −0.03 −0.19** −0.25** −0.04 –
Mean (SD) 3.53 (0.88) 3.68 (0.85) 3.72 (0.93) 4.10 (1.04) 2.35 (1.40) 3.64 (0.82) 2.19 (1.46) 1.99 (1.02) 3.97 (0.74) 3.84 (0.75) 3.99 (0.80) 0.28 (0.42)
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

Next, the baseline model was estimated separately for males and females. To determine if the paths differed between males and females, the model was specified as a two-group model initially forcing each cross-lagged path between empowerment and behavior to be equal between the two groups. For each coefficient at a time, a model was run without the equality constraint. The χ2 -difference test with df = 1 was used to determine if the magnitude of association differed. The final model left all those coefficients constrained to be equal across grades that did not significantly improve the fit when allowed to differ. Coefficients from the final model are presented in Table 3 and are discussed below. When gender differences were found, separate coefficients for males and females are presented. When gender differences were not found, coefficients from the full sample are presented.

Table 3.

Standardized estimates for the cross-lagged paths between empowerment and adjustment from fall to spring.

Spring Empowerment Prosocial Behavior Responsible Decision Making Social Support Giving Delinquent Behavior
Fall
Empowerment 0.60*** 0.17*** 0.29*** 0.12*** −0.06*
Prosocial Behavior 0.04 Females 0.56 **
Males 0.45***
Responsible Decision Making 0.07* 0.37***
Social Support Giving 0.01 0.52***
Delinquent Behavior 0.05 Females 0.69***
Males 0.65***
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001.

Paths were constrained to be equal across gender, unless otherwise noted. Coefficients for females and males are noted separately for the unconstrained paths.

As indicated in the conceptual model (Fig. 1), the cross-lagged model was run with all four behavior variables together in the same model with empowerment. Model fit indices for each step of model testing and the final model are presented in Table 2. Effect sizes for associations of empowerment and behavior are reported in Table 4.

Table 2.

Model fit indices for model testing and examining gender differences.

Step 1: Baseline model
χ 2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
48.84 12 0.00 0.98 0.95 0.07 0.04
Step 2: Two group model examining gender differences
χ 2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
All paths equal 114.98 37 0.00 0.96 0.93 0.08 0.07
Final Model 88.02 35 0.00 0.98 0.95 0.07 0.05
Open in a new tab

Table 4.

Additional explained variance after controlling for autoregressive paths (effect size).

Standardized Residual Variance
Outcome Model with Autoregressive Paths Final Model Additional Explained Variance (%)
Empowerment 0.66 0.58 11%
Prosocial Behavior 0.62 0.57 7%
Responsible Decision Making 0.79 0.67 15%
Social Support Giving 0.82 0.79 4%
Delinquent Behavior 0.52 0.51 1%
Open in a new tab

Results

Empowerment predicting behavior

We found a significant association between empowerment and all four indicators of adjustment from fall to spring among both females and males. These associations were similar in magnitude and direction for males and females, indicating that empowerment has a similar effect on students’ behavior regardless of gender. Thus, coefficients from the overall model (rather than two-group model) are described below.

Empowerment was related to increases in prosocial behavior (β = 0.17, p < .001) from fall to spring. Similarly, empowerment was associated with increases in responsible decision making across the school year (β = 0.29, p < .001), as well as increases in social support giving (β = 0.12, p < .001). Our results also indicate that empowerment is related to declines in delinquent behavior across the school year (β = −0.06, p < .05).

Behavior predicting empowerment

We found a positive association between students’ responsible decision making in the fall and their empowerment in the spring (β = 0.07, p < .05). Yet, we found no significant association between prosocial behavior, social support giving, or delinquency in the fall and changes in empowerment across the school year.

Gender differences

While we found no evidence for gender differences in the associations of empowerment and behavior, gender differences did emerge in the stability of prosocial behavior and delinquent behavior across time. Using the chi-squared difference test, we compared models where the autoregressive pathways for prosocial and delinquent behavior were separately constrained to be equal for both genders to models that allowed these pathways to vary by gender. Results indicated significant improvement in model fit when we left the autoregressive pathways unconstrained.

Results from the two-group model indicate greater stability of prosocial and delinquent behavior for girls than boys. Specifically, the autoregressive pathway of prosocial behavior from fall to spring was stronger for females and males (β females = 0.56, β males = 0.45, χ2 = 11.95, p < .001). Similarly, the autoregressive pathway of delinquent behavior was stronger for females and males (β females = 0.69, β males = 0.65, χ2 = 14.93, p < .001).

Discussion

The current study examined the bidirectional associations of psychological empowerment with positive and negative behaviors among adolescents. Our results align with Zimmerman’s (2000) model of empowerment. Using cross-lagged modeling, we found that empowerment is associated with changes in adolescents’ adjustment (i.e., prosocial behavior, responsible decision making, social support giving, and delinquency), while controlling for prior levels of behavior. Behavior did not relate to empowerment to the same extent; except for responsible decision making, behaviors did not predict changes in empowerment from fall to spring. In general, our results support our hypotheses and suggest that supporting adolescents’ empowerment provides a route for positive youth development above and beyond prior behavioral tendencies.

The current study advances empowerment theory by operationalizing empowerment as a multidimensional construct consisting of intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral components. Whereas much of the prior research examined the different components of empowerment separately (e.g., Kirk, Lewis, Brown, Karibo, & Park, 2016; Lardier Jr, 2019), we examine the collective effect of all three types of empowerment on positive and negative behaviors. Our results add to a growing literature supporting the conceptualization of empowerment as a higher-order construct with three aspects that work collectively to influence behavior (e.g., Eisman et al., 2016; Peterson et al., 2006). Thus, efforts to support adolescents’ intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral empowerment may be an effective strategy for enhancing positive development.

The current study also contributes to the empowerment literature by examining bidirectional associations of empowerment and adjustment. Much prior research on empowerment has examined unidirectional associations (e.g., does empowerment lead to changes in behavior?) but not vice versa (e.g., Hurd et al., 2012; Leather, 2009; Mahoney & Stattin, 2000; Zimmerman et al., 2018). By examining bidirectional associations of empowerment and adjustment, we gain a clearer understanding of the mechanism through which empowerment promotes positive development. Our findings indicated that empowerment was associated with changes in adjustment, but adjustment was not associated with changes in empowerment to the same extent (with the exception of responsible decision making). These findings support the notion that interventions focusing on empowering youth, rather than just changing behavior, might be a more effective route for supporting positive adjustment. That is, supporting youth in developing self-efficacy and competencies, and providing them with access to resources, mentorship, and opportunities, is likely to facilitate positive changes in behavior, over and above prior behavioral tendencies.

Our results indicate that empowerment has similar effects on adjustment for females and males. That is, empowerment predicted changes in prosocial behavior, responsible decision making, social support giving, and delinquency in a similar fashion for males and females. Although differences in behaviors and social interactions among males and female adolescents have been well documented (e.g., Card et al., 2008; Garaigordobil et al., 2009; Perry & Pauletti, 2011; Rose & Rudolph, 2006), we found no evidence for gender differences in the associations of empowerment and behavior. Even though male adolescents typically report higher levels of delinquent behavior than females (e.g., Perry & Pauletti, 2011), and females report higher levels of prosocial behaviors than males (e.g., Garaigordobil et al., 2009), empowerment operated similarly on these outcomes for males and females. Of note, gender differences did emerge in the stability of prosocial behavioral attitudes and delinquency; males exhibited greater fluctuation in their prosocial behavioral attitudes and delinquent behaviors than females over the course of the school year. Taken together, our results suggest that empowerment interventions may be equally effective at supporting positive adjustment for both genders.

Our findings are useful for informing empowerment-based interventions. Components that address youths’ self-efficacy for leadership and civic engagement (intrapersonal), provide access to social capital and resources (interactional) and opportunities to engage in positive change (behavioral) are likely to foster positive adjustment and reduce the likelihood of negative behavioral outcomes during adolescence. One example of such a program is Youth Empowerment Solutions (YES; e.g., Reischl et al., 2016; Zimmerman et al., 2018). This evidence-based after school program aims to help youth gain confidence in themselves, think critically about their community, and work with adults to create positive community change. Using an active learning curriculum, YES empowers youth to engage in an action project with peers and adult mentors to support positive change in their community. Evaluations of the effectiveness of YES have indicated that the program is associated with increased prosocial behaviors and decreases in aggressive behavior among youth (e.g., Thulin et al., 2022; Zimmerman et al., 2018). Our results contribute new insights into this line of research by considering a broader set of outcomes in relation to psychological empowerment. By examining the association of empowerment with social support giving, responsible decision making, and delinquency (in addition to prosocial behavior, which has been previously examined), our results provide further support for the efficacy of empowerment-based approaches for supporting positive youth development. Our results also suggest that empowerment operates similarly among both females and males, despite gender differences in behavioral tendencies. Finally, our results suggest that empowerment-based approaches may benefit from incorporating content addressing developmental and contextual factors that influence both prosocial and antisocial behaviors.

Limitations

Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, our study was situated in one metropolitan area and our findings may not be generalizable to other community settings. Even so, our study included youth from diverse racial/ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Second, our study was conducted during the pilot year of a larger intervention study examining the effects of an evidenced-based empowerment intervention (Youth Empowerment Solutions; see Reischl et al., 2011; Zimmerman et al., 2018) that we adapted to focus on healthy relationships and dating violence prevention. It is possible, therefore, that some aspects of the intervention did get through to youth in the program condition which may have inflated our findings. These effects may be limited, however, because our study was conducted while we were in the process of adapting the curriculum and the implementation was not consistent across intervention schools. The fact that we found no differences between youth in the intervention and control conditions of the intervention helps to eliminate this contamination concern. In addition, the lead-lag approach controlled for prior variance for both psychological empowerment and behavioral outcomes which adds confidence in our results. Finally, data for the analyses were collected through self-reports, and the assessments could not be cross-validated (e.g., comparing self-reported delinquency with school discipline records). Nevertheless, self-report measures are generally valid and reliable for youth, as they directly reflect youths’ experience and are widely used to assess adolescent outcomes (Sieving et al., 2001; Thompson et al., 2007).

Conclusion

Despite limitations, our study adds empirical evidence to empowerment theory and provides useful insights for the development of empowerment-based interventions. First, our results extend empowerment theory by providing evidence for a conceptual model of psychological empowerment for youth (Zimmerman, 1995) in a new sample of middle school adolescents with different, but conceptually consistent, measures (Eisman et al., 2016). Second, our results support the notion that empowerment can be a useful tool for promoting positive youth development. Our data suggest that helping youth feel a sense of control and confidence in their ability to make a difference (intrapersonal component), think about the resources and support they might need to be successful (interactional component), and getting opportunities to operationalize these feelings and thoughts (behavioral component) may be an effective strategy to promote positive behaviors and reduce negative behaviors. In addition, our results suggest that efforts to help youth establish a sense of empowerment through creating structured opportunities for youth to experience successful change in their school or community would be a useful direction for future research.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported through the following grant: “Youth Empowerment Solutions for Healthy Relationships: Engaging Youth to Prevent Sexual Violence” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Cooperative Agreement: (1U01CE002843) Detroit, MI, MPIs: Kernsmith, Smith-Darden, & Zimmerman (Funded: $1,762,932)

Footnotes

Declarations of interest

None.

References

  1. Anderson CA, & Dill KE (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772–790. 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnett JJ (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist, 54(5), 317–326. 10.1037/0003-066X.54.5.317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Becht AI, Nelemans SA, Branje SJ, Vollebergh WA, & Meeus WH (2021). Daily identity dynamics in adolescence shaping identity in emerging adulthood: An 11-year longitudinal study on continuity in development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(1), 1616–1633. 10.1007/s10964-020-01370-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergsma LJ (2004). Empowerment education: The link between media literacy and health promotion. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(2), 152–164. 10.1177/0002764204267259 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Borsky AE, McDonnell K, Rimal RN, & Turner M (2016). Assessing bystander behavior intentions toward friends to prevent dating violence: Development of the bystander behavior intentions-friends scale through concept mapping and exploratory factor analysis. Violence and Victims, 31(2), 215–234. 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brechwald WA, & Prinstein MJ (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166–179. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bukowski WM, Newcomb AF, & Hartup WW (1998). The company they keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Byrnes JP (2013). The nature and development of decision-making: A self-regulation model. Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. California Department of Education. (2004). California healthy kids survey. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/at/chks.asp.
  10. Card NA, Stucky BD, Sawalani GM, & Little TD (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185–1229. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Crosnoe R, & Benner A (2015). Children at school. In Bornstein M, & Leventhal T (Eds.), Vol. 4. Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Ecological settings and processes (pp. 268–304). New York, NY: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dishion TJ, & Tipsord JM (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 189–214. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eccles J (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89. 10.1080/00461520902832368 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eccles J, & Gootman J (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Eccles JS, Midgley C, Wigfield A, Buchanan CM, Reuman D, Flanagan C, & Mac Iver D (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48(2), 90–101. 10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Eisman AB, Zimmerman MA, Kruger D, Reischl TM, Miller AL, Franzen SP, & Morrel-Samuels S (2016). Psychological empowerment among urban youth: Measurement model and associations with youth outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58(3–4), 410–421. 10.1002/ajcp.12094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Elliot DS, Huizinga D, & Ageton SS (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  18. Enders CK, & Bandalos DL (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430–457. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Garaigordobil M, Maganto C, Pérez JI, & Sansinenea E (2009). Gender differences in socioemotional factors during adolescence and effects of a violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44(5), 468–477. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodman R (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(11), 1337–1345. 10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hill JP, & Lynch ME (1983). The intensification of gender-related role expectations during early adolescence. In Brooks-Gunn J, & Petersen AC (Eds.), Girls at puberty (pp. 201–228). Boston, MA: Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4899-0354-9_10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hurd N, Sánchez B, Zimmerman M, & Caldwell C (2012). Natural mentors, racial identity, and educational attainment among African American adolescents: Exploring pathways to success. Child Development, 83, 1196–1212. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01769.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hurd N, & Zimmerman M (2010). Natural mentors, mental health, and risk behaviors: A longitudinal analysis of African American adolescents transitioning into adulthood. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 36–48. 10.1007/s10464-010-9325-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kirk CM, Lewis RK, Brown K, Karibo B, & Park E (2016). The power of student empowerment: Measuring classroom predictors and individual indicators. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(6), 589–595. 10.1080/00220671.2014.1002880 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lardier DT Jr. (2019). Substance use among urban youth of color: Exploring the role of community-based predictors, ethnic identity, and intrapersonal psychological empowerment. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(1), 91–103. 10.1037/cdp0000237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lauer PA, Akiba M, Wilkerson SB, Apthorp HS, Snow D, & Martin-Glenn ML (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275–313. 10.3102/00346543076002275 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Leather N (2009). Risk-taking behaviour in adolescence: A literature review. Journal of Child Health Care: For Professionals Working with Children in the Hospital and Community, 13, 295–304. 10.1177/1367493509337443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lerner RM, Lerner JV, Bowers EP, Lewin-Bizan S, Gestsdottir S, & Urban JB (2011). Self-regulation processes and thriving in childhood and adolescence: A view of the issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(133), 1–9. 10.1002/cd.300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mahoney JL, & Stattin H (2000). Leisure activities and adolescent antisocial behavior: The role of structure and social context. Journal of Adolescence, 23(2), 113–127. 10.1006/jado.2000.0302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. McHugh ML (2013). The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23(2), 143–149. 10.11613/BM.2013.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Moffitt TE (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. 10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  34. Oman RF, Vesely SK, Mcleroy KR, Harris-Wyatt V, Aspy CB, Rodine S, & Marshall L (2002). Reliability and validity of the youth asset survey (YAS). Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(3), 247–255. 10.4278/ajhp.081009-QUAN-242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ozer EJ, & Schotland M (2011). Psychological empowerment among urban youth: Measure development and relationship to psychosocial functioning. Health Education & Behavior, 38(4), 348–356. 10.1177/1090198110373734 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Perry DG, & Pauletti RE (2011). Gender and adolescent development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 61–74. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00715.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Peterson NA, Lowe JB, Hughey J, Reid RJ, Zimmerman MA, & Speer PW (2006). Measuring the intrapersonal component of psychological empowerment: Confirmatory factor analysis of the sociopolitical control scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 287–297. 10.1007/s10464-006-9070-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Peterson NA, & Reid RJ (2003). Paths to psychological empowerment in an urban community: Sense of community and citizen participation in substance abuse prevention activities. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1), 25–38. 10.1002/jcop.10034 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Reischl TM, Zimmerman MA, Morrel-Samuels S, Franzen SP, Faulk M, Eisman AB, & Roberts E (2011). Youth empowerment solutions for violence prevention. Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, 22(3), 581–600. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rose AJ, & Rudolph KD (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98–131. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Sieving RE, Beuhring T, Resnick MD, Bearinger LH, Shew M, Ireland M, & Blum RW (2001). Development of adolescent self-report measures from the National Longitudinal Study of adolescent health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28(1), 73–81. 10.1016/s1054-139x(00)00155-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith AR, Chein J, & Steinberg L (2014). Peers increase adolescent risk taking even when the probabilities of negative outcomes are known. Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1564–1568. 10.1037/a0035696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Steinberg L (2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 459–485. 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Thompson JK, Shroff H, Herbozo S, Cafri G, Rodriguez J, & Rodriguez M (2007). Relations among multiple peer influences, body dissatisfaction, eating disturbance, and self-esteem: A comparison of average weight, at risk of overweight, and overweight adolescent girls. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32(1), 24–29. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsl022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Thulin EJ, Lee DB, Eisman AB, Reischl TM, Hutchison P, Franzen S, & Zimmerman MA (2022). Longitudinal effects of youth empowerment solutions: Preventing youth aggression and increasing prosocial behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology. 10.1002/ajcp.12577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Vinokur AD, & Van Ryn M (1993). Social support and undermining in close relationships: Their independent effects on the mental health of unemployed persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 350–359. 10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.350 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wentzel KR, & McNamara CC (1999). Interpersonal relationships, emotional distress, and prosocial behavior in middle school. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(1), 114–125. 10.1177/0272431699019001006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Wright CV, Perez S, & Johnson DM (2010). The mediating role of empowerment for African American women experiencing intimate partner violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 2, 266–272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Zimmerman BJ (2002). Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence. In Pajares F, & Urdan T (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 1–28). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zimmerman MA (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581–599. 10.1007/BF02506983 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Zimmerman MA (2000). Empowerment theory. In Rappaport J, & Seidman E (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43–63). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zimmerman MA, Eisman AB, Reischl TM, Morrel-Samuels S, Stoddard S, Miller AL, … Rupp L (2018). Youth empowerment solutions: Evaluation of an after-school program to engage middle school students in community change. Health Education & Behavior, 45(1), 20–31. 10.1177/1090198117710491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Zimmerman MA, & Zahniser JH (1991). Refinements of sphere-specific measures of perceived control: Development of a sociopolitical control scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 19(2), 189–204. 10.1002/1520-6629(199104)19:2<189::AID-JCOP2290190210>3.0.CO;2-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES