Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Oct 11.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychol. 2015 Nov 30;52(1):130–142. doi: 10.1037/dev0000067

Developmental Change in Social Responsibility during Adolescence: An Ecological Perspective

Laura Wray-Lake 1, Amy K Syvertsen 2, Constance A Flanagan 3
PMCID: PMC5634966  NIHMSID: NIHMS728758  PMID: 26619322

Abstract

Social responsibility can be defined as a set of prosocial values representing personal commitments to contribute to community and society. Little is known about developmental change – and predictors of that change – in social responsibility during adolescence. The present study used an accelerated longitudinal research design to investigate the developmental trajectory of social responsibility values and ecological assets across family, school, community, and peer settings that predict these values. Data come from a three-year study of 3,683 U.S. adolescents enrolled in upper-level elementary, middle school, and high schools in rural, semi-urban, and urban communities. Social responsibility values significantly decreased from age 9 to 16 before leveling off in later adolescence. Family compassion messages and democratic climate, school solidarity, community connectedness, and trusted friendship positively predicted within-person change in adolescents’ social responsibility values. These findings held after accounting for other individual-level and demographic factors and provide support for the role of ecological assets in adolescents’ social responsibility development. In addition, fair society beliefs and volunteer experience had positive between- and within-person associations with social responsibility values. The manuscript discusses theoretical and practical implications of the conclusion that declines in ecological assets may partly explain age-related declines in social responsibility values.

Keywords: civic development, contextual factors, social capital, positive youth development, prosocial, trajectory

Scholars across disciplines consider social responsibility to be a reflection of concern for the greater good and the welfare of others that extends beyond personal wants, needs, or gains (Gallay, 2006). When examined from a developmental perspective, social responsibility is recognized as an important indicator of psychosocial maturity (Greenberger, 1984), a marker of well-being (Rossi, 2001), an outgrowth of positive youth development (Lerner, Dowling, & Anderson, 2003), a motivator of prosocial and civic actions (Wray-Lake & Syvertsen, 2011), and a crucial element of a vibrant civic society (Youniss & Yates, 1997). Despite its relevance, very little research has focused on the development of social responsibility during adolescence.

Viewed through the lens of relational developmental systems (RDS) theory, development is considered plastic, and adaptive development results from mutually beneficial and reinforcing exchanges between an individual and his/her environment that unfold over time (Lerner, Lerner, Bowers, & Geldhof, 2015; Overton, 2013). Applied to social responsibility, this perspective suggests that adolescents’ concerns for the greater good likely exhibit plasticity, and change in concert with experiences of support and socialization across settings. In the present study, we examined a subset of positive contextual and relational features of socializing systems – referred to here as ecological assets (Benson, Scales, & Syvertsen, 2011; Lerner & Benson, 2003). The aims of this study were three-fold: (a) document the developmental pattern of change in adolescents’ social responsibility values, (b) examine the role of ecological assets in predicting change over time in social responsibility values, and (c) examine the role of select individual-level factors (e.g., demographic characteristics, beliefs about society, volunteer experience, substance use, experiencing a school transition) in predicting social responsibility values.

Development of Social Responsibility Values

We define social responsibility as a set of values or personal commitments to improve one’s community and society. These values are considered part of a prosocial orientation and an integral component of youth civic engagement (Flanagan, 2003; Sherrod & Lauckhardt, 2009; Wray-Lake & Syvertsen, 2011). Value constructs are higher-order beliefs that guide attitudes and behaviors (cf. Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). Social responsibility values predict a range of prosocial behaviors such as volunteering (Pratt, Hunsberger, Pancer, & Alisat, 2003), voting (Caprara, Schwartz, Capanna, Vecchione, & Barbaranelli, 2006), political activism (Mayton & Furnham, 1994), environmental behaviors (Verplanken & Holland, 2002), and lower substance use (Wray-Lake et al., 2012). Values have traditionally been considered stable (Schwartz, 1992), but that conclusion is based on research conducted with adults. Values are widely understood to be forming during adolescence (Flanagan, 2003), with empirical evidence suggesting developmental change in youth’s achievement and work values across the second decade of life (Johnson, 2005; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). Constructs that overlap with social responsibility like sympathy, prosocial reasoning, and prosocial behaviors exhibit mean-level changes during adolescence (e.g., Carlo, Crockett, Randall, & Roesch, 2007; Kanacri et al., 2014; Malti, Eisenberg, Kim, & Buchmann, 2013). Thus, age-related change in social responsibility values during adolescence is plausible, but not has been studied. Research on adolescents’ social responsibility has mostly been cross-sectional and considered social responsibility a predictor of other outcomes, and most of the research on value change has focused on adults. Thus, it is necessary to draw from related lines of literature to generate theory about the development of social responsibility values. We propose and test two competing hypotheses regarding change in social responsibility across adolescence: normative growth and middle adolescence decline.

Normative growth hypothesis

Gains that adolescents experience in cognitive, identity, and autonomy development may parallel or portend corresponding increases in social responsibility values. For example, perspective taking and abstract thinking normatively increase from early to late adolescence (Murphy, Rowe, Ramani, & Silverman, 2014; Van der Graaff et al., 2014), and these capacities are essential to have before one can prioritize the importance of helping others and contributing to society. As identity exploration normatively increases across adolescence, youth increasingly explore their views about others and the world (Flanagan, 2004). Importantly, values constitute part of one’s identity content (Hitlin, 2003): Social responsibility has been strongly positively linked to moral identity (Hardy, Walker, Olsen, Woodbury, & Hickman, 2014), which is thought to become more consolidated in late adolescence (Hardy & Carlo, 2011). Increased decision-making autonomy across adolescence may also underlie age-related growth in social responsibility, as autonomy enables adolescents to proactively formulate and act on their values (Flanagan, 2003; Wray-Lake & Syvertsen, 2011). In sum, research on adolescents’ cognitive, identity, and autonomy development suggests the possibility of age-related increases in adolescents’ social responsibility. A similar argument has been posited for prosocial behavior, with some studies showing expected increases from childhood to adolescence (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2007).

Middle adolescence decline hypothesis

Despite the reasons to expect incremental increases in social responsibility across adolescence, evidence on declining perceptions of contextual supports and sociocognitive reasoning in middle adolescence suggests that social responsibility may also dip during these years. From a contextual perspective, middle adolescence is a time when parent-adolescent conflict increases (Shanahan, McHale, Crouter, & Osgood, 2007) and schools are generally perceived by students as less friendly (Eccles et al., 1993; Wang & Dishion, 2012). From a sociocognitive perspective, a small body of literature points to a U-shaped trend in moral development such that moral choices are higher in early and later adolescents compared to middle adolescents (Eisenberg, 1990; Nucci & Turiel, 2009), and some find that youth in middle adolescence reason more selfishly about helping (Smetana et al., 2009). Middle adolescents experience declines in social trust (positive beliefs in humanity; Flanagan & Stout, 2010); public health beliefs (endorsements of collective responsibility to promote health) are also lowest in middle adolescence compared to early and late adolescence (Flanagan, Stout, & Gallay, 2008). Thus, middle adolescence could be a time of declining social responsibility, as families and schools (institutions in which youth are likely to learn social responsibility values) are perceived as more unfriendly and middle adolescents prioritize personal issues over social and moral concerns. Overall, the developmental literature offers competing perspectives on how adolescents’ social responsibility values change with age. By documenting age-related change in social responsibility in a large three-wave longitudinal study of adolescents ages 9 to 18, our work could add evidence to support one of these views. Given RDS theory’s emphasis on plasticity (Overton, 2013), examining age-related changes in social responsibility offers a significant step forward for developmental theory in this domain.

Ecological Assets in Relation to Social Responsibility

From a RDS theoretical perspective, optimal development unfolds as a result of reciprocal and mutually beneficial interactions between individuals and their contexts (Lerner et al., 2015). Likewise, theory and research on positive youth development (PYD) has been instrumental in specifying ecological assets that are important for optimal development in adolescence (Benson et al., 2011; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Theokas & Lerner, 2006). Ecological assets – defined here as social resources including supportive relationships and bonds with others – are key ingredients of settings that foster positive youth development (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). The social capital perspective similarly posits that bonds of trust and support built within social networks are instrumental for fostering individuals’ health, well-being, and civic beliefs and actions (Coleman, 1988; Lenzi, Vieno, Pastore, & Santinello, 2013; Putnam, 2001; Rothon, Goodwin, & Stansfeld, 2012). Social capital theory articulates a mechanism for this link, such that positive bonds and trusting relationships engender positive feelings and the desire to reciprocate through community contributions (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2001). Thus, PYD and social capital theoretical perspectives align to suggest that relationships characterized by support, mutual respect, and trust are the ecological assets that build adolescents’ social responsibility (Gunnoe, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999). Although little research has focused on social responsibility per se, a wealth of relevant empirical evidence suggests that ecological assets in family, school, and community settings foster prosocial and civic development.

A family climate of respect and trust plays a vital role in prosocial and civic development. For example, democratic parenting and positive family bonds have been positively linked to social responsibility (Gunnoe et al., 1999; Lenzi, Vieno, Santinello, Nation, & Voight, 2013) and more broadly to prosocial values (Kasser, Ryan, Zax, & Sameroff, 1995; Kanacri et al., 2014; Pratt et al., 2003) and civic engagement (Bebiroglu, Geldhof, Pinderhughes, Phelps, & Lerner, 2013; Duke, Skay, Pettingell, & Borowsky, 2009; Fletcher, Elder, & Mekos, 2000). Parental communication about compassion, fairness, and equality has also been associated with prosocial and civic development (Carlo, Mestre, Samper, Tur, & Armenta, 2011; Flanagan, Bowes, Jonsson, Csapo, & Sheblanova, 1998; Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012).

In schools, feeling bonded to others and a school climate of trust and respect positively predict civic commitments (Ballard, Caccavale, & Buchanan, 2014; Campbell, 2008; Flanagan, Cumsille, Gill, & Gallay, 2007; Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013). A similar story emerges with community or neighborhood bonds: when adolescents reported positive social connections and trust in neighbors, they also reported higher civic engagement (e.g., Cicognani et al., 2008; Duke et al., 2009; Lenzi, Vieno, Pastore, et al., 2013; Zaff, Malanchuk, & Eccles, 2008). Although the role of supportive peer relationships has been relatively less well studied in prosocial and civic domains (Flanagan & Syvertsen, 2006), positive connections with peers have been associated with prosocial behavior (Padilla-Walker, Fraser, Black, & Bean, 2014) and civic engagement (Duke et al., 2009; Zaff et al., 2008).

Thus, extant evidence lends support for the idea that relationships characterized by democratic climates of respect and positive bonds with others in family, school, community, and peer settings promote social responsibility. However, relatively few studies investigate multiple contexts simultaneously (but see Duke et al., 2009; Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Lenzi, Vieno, Pastore et al., 2013; Theokas & Lerner, 2006; Zaff et al., 2008). Examining multiple ecological assets offers a more rigorous test of the role of each asset in social responsibility development by accounting for variance predicted by other assets. This approach is important for ensuring that the role of one asset is not due to the presence of others; failing to account for multiple assets simultaneously could overestimate the role of a given asset. Examining assets simultaneously can determine whether particular assets are more central to social responsibility development and also whether some assets have more stable, time-invariant associations with adolescents’ social responsibility while other assets predict change in social responsibility over time.

A RDS theoretical perspective calls for examining change in contexts in relation to individual change (Lerner et al., 2015). Examining change in adolescents’ perceptions of ecological assets in relation to changes in social responsibility values advances developmental theory by endeavoring to explain intraindividual change. As alluded to above, ecological assets may change across adolescence. For example, longitudinal data have demonstrated declines in parent-adolescent warmth from ages 10 to 16, with some recovery later (Shanahan et al., 2007), and school climate and peer supports decline during the middle school years (Wang & Dishion, 2012). Family compassion messages also decline across adolescence (Wray-Lake, Flanagan, & Maggs, 2012). Notably, Mahatmya and Lohman (2012) found that longitudinal increases in family and school ecological resources during adolescence predicted more civic engagement in young adulthood. Thus, adolescence may be a time of change in ecological assets, and these changes may correspond to changes in adolescents’ social responsibility values.

Individual Beliefs, Behaviors, and Experiences

A comprehensive approach to understanding social responsibility development requires examining ecological assets alongside other individual beliefs, behaviors, and experiences that may predict adolescents’ social responsibility values. Of particular interest to this study are adolescents’ beliefs about societal fairness, prosocial (e.g., volunteerism) and antisocial (e.g., substance use) behaviors, and school transition experiences. Beyond accounting for these factors to better understand the role of ecological assets, these individual factors are also substantively important to examine in relation to social responsibility values. Furthermore, our examination of fair society beliefs, volunteerism, and substance use extends previous literature by considering them as time-varying predictors of social responsibility values and thus assessing whether change in these factors is associated with change in social responsibility values.

Beliefs that society is fair are considered a precursor to civic engagement, as these beliefs constitute affective bonds or “ties that bind” individuals to their society (Easton & Dennis, 1969; Flanagan, 2013; Flanagan et al., 2007). Indeed, fair society beliefs positively predicted civic commitments (a measure very similar to social responsibility values) in a cross-sectional sample (Flanagan et al., 2007). Meta-analyses on service-learning indicate that adolescents’ participation in community service increases prosocial attitudes toward others (Conway, Amel, & Gerwien, 2009; van Goethem, Hoof, Castro, Aken, & Hart, 2014). Through volunteering in the community, adolescents may be learning what it means to take responsibility for others and commit to improving one’s community (Youniss & Yates, 1997). Furthermore, according to self-perception theory (Bem, 1972), individuals come to know their own attitudes and values by inferring them through observations of their own behavior. This idea may apply to the link from volunteering to social responsibility values, and is also an impetus for examining the link from alcohol, tobacco, and drug use to social responsibility. Prior research has found negative cross-sectional and longitudinal links from social responsibility to substance use (Roberts & Bogg, 2004; Wray-Lake et al., 2012), and these constructs may be reciprocally linked.

Transitions to middle school put adolescents at risk for a variety of disruptions such as declines in academic competencies and motivation, self-esteem, and mental health (e.g., Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Rudolph, Lambert, Clark, & Kurlakowsky, 2001). Transitions to high school involve many of the same risks (Barber & Olsen, 2004; Newman, Newman, Griffen, O’Connor, & Spas, 2007). If adolescents perceive school climates as more unfriendly and as placing more emphasis on competition and achievement after transitioning to middle or high school, they may also perceive less support for prioritizing concerns for others.

Current Study

A primary aim of this study was to document age-related change in social responsibility values across adolescence. Two rival hypotheses – a normative growth hypothesis and a middle adolescence decline hypothesis – are put forth and tested here. A second aim was to understand ecological assets in family, school, community, and peer contexts as predictors of social responsibility values. Entering ecological assets as time-varying predictors of change in social responsibility values, we hypothesized that change in ecological assets across these settings would positively covary with change in social responsibility values. Third, select individual-level factors were studied to gain a more comprehensive understanding of social responsibility development: Adolescents’ fair society beliefs, volunteerism, substance use, and experience of a school transition were entered as time-varying predictors of change in social responsibility. We hypothesized that fair society beliefs and volunteerism would predict higher social responsibility, whereas substance use and school transitions would predict lower social responsibility over time. Gender, race-ethnicity, parental education, and family structure were also included as demographic correlates of social responsibility values. Given extant literature showing females are higher on prosocial values and behaviors (e.g., Hardy & Carlo, 2005; Schwartz & Rubel, 2005), females were expected to report higher social responsibility values. The literature provides no clear expectations regarding other demographic factors. Demographic indicators were also tested as moderators of age-related change in social responsibility to determine whether social responsibility values trajectories differed across subgroups. These moderation tests were exploratory, conducted to determine whether the trajectory of social responsibility values was generalizable across subgroups.

Method

Data come from the Social Responsibility and Prevention Project, a three-year longitudinal study aimed at understanding adolescents’ social responsibility and intentions to intervene in the alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use of friends. An accelerated longitudinal cohort research design was used. Adolescents in grades 5–12 were surveyed annually for three years in social studies classrooms across eight school districts in rural, semi-urban, and urban communities in a northeastern and midwestern state. Adolescents and parents actively consented to participation, resulting in a Wave 1 adolescent response rate of 79%. In Wave 2, researchers surveyed adolescents who had participated in the first wave and were still in the same school district, as well as recruited new students, resulting in a Wave 2 response rate of 54%. In Wave 3, only students who previously participated in either Wave 1 and/or Wave 2 and were still in the same school district were sought for the study, resulting in a Wave 3 response rate of 65%. In total, 4,155 adolescents completed at least one wave, 2,068 completed at least two waves, and 838 completed all three waves.

SAS PROC MIXED limits models to complete cases on time-invariant variables (i.e., our demographic indicators), giving us an analysis sample size of 3,683 adolescents. Adolescents ranged in age from 9 to 18 (M = 13.7) at Wave 1, and 55.4% were female. The racial-ethnic breakdown of the sample was 71.8% White, 14.9% Black, 5.7% Hispanic, and 1.5% Asian with 2.9% identifying as another race-ethnicity and 3.3% choosing not to self-identify. The sample varied in terms of parental education: 5.2% of mothers and 6.4% fathers had not graduated from high school; 43.5% of mothers and 43.1% of fathers had a high school degree only; 51.2% of mothers and 50.4% of fathers had attended some college.

Measures

Measures were assessed at all three waves using the same items. Unless otherwise noted, response options ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and Table 2 shows the bivariate correlations among social responsibility values, ecological assets, and individual factors from Wave 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics on Individual Factors, Ecological Assets, and Social Responsibility Values

Categorical Measures Percentage
W1 W2 W3
Individual Factors
   Volunteerism 36.2 48.4 54.2
   Transition to Middle School 7.9 8.8 6.1
   Transition to High School 7.1 13.2 16.7
Continuous Measures Mean (SD)
W1 W2 W3
Individual Factors
   Fair Society Beliefs 3.18 (1.02) 3.20 (.98) 3.08 (.92)
   Substance Use 5.02 (3.09) 4.94 (3.07) 5.07 (3.15)
Ecological Assets
   Family Democratic Climate 4.25 (.50) 4.16 (.49) 4.14 (.48)
   Family Compassion Messages 4.23 (.64) 4.21 (.65) 4.17 (.63)
   School Solidarity 2.93 (.94) 2.90 (.90) 2.93 (.83)
   School Democratic Climate 3.75 (.80) 3.64 (.81) 3.61 (.73)
   Community Connectedness 3.44 (.75) 3.38 (.76) 3.39 (.75)
   Trusted Friendship 4.23 (.72) 4.20 (.77) 4.17 (.73)
Dependent Variable
   Social Responsibility Values 3.88 (.75) 3.83 (.74) 3.83 (.71)
Open in a new tab

Note. For continuous variables, response options ranged from 1 to 5, except for substance use, which was summed and ranged from 1 to 18.

Table 2.

Correlations between Continuous Wave 1 Individual Factors, Ecological Assets, and Social Responsibility Values

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Fair Society Beliefs —
2. Substance Use −.329*** —
3. Family Democratic Climate .030 −.070* —
4. Family Compassion Messages .284*** −.160*** .088** —
5. School Solidarity .533*** −.279*** −.023 .279*** —
6. School Democratic Climate .516*** −.335*** .021 .287*** .595*** —
7. Community Connectedness .414*** −.245*** .040 .366*** .490*** .434*** —
8. Trusted Friendship .150*** −.007 −.016 .299*** .183*** .199*** .293*** —
9. Social Responsibility Values .467*** −.300*** .047 .464*** .325*** .463*** .446*** .453*** —
Open in a new tab

Note.

†

p < .10.

*

p ≤. 05.

**

p ≤.01.

***

p ≤ .001.

Social responsibility values

Adolescents’ social responsibility values were assessed by averaging six items (Wave 1, 2, 3 α = .88, .88, .88) adapted from the work of Schwartz (1992) and Whitbeck, Simons, Conger, and Lorenz (1989) and used in previous studies (e.g., Flanagan & Tucker, 1999) and began with the stem “It is very important to me…”. Items included: “to help those who are less fortunate,” “to help people in my community,” “to serve my country,” “to help my society,” “to help other students in school,” and “to make new students feel welcome.”

Ecological assets

We measured adolescents’ perceptions of ecological assets across family, school, community, and peer contexts, focusing on social resources and relationships.

Ecological assets in the family were measured with two distinct scales, confirmed by a factor analysis. Family democratic climate was adapted from Fuligni and Eccles (1993) and used previously (Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012). Four items assessed the extent to which the family climate prioritized respect and trust (Wave 1, 2, 3 α = .79, .79, .81). Items included: “I can talk to my parents about what is bothering me,” “My parents let me have a say, even if they disagree,” “My parents respect my opinions,” and “My parents trust me to do what they expect without checking up on me.” Family compassion messages were loosely adapted from Katz and Hass’ (1988) Humanitarian-Egalitarianism scale and used previously (Flanagan et al., 1998; Flanagan & Tucker, 1999; Wray-Lake, Flanagan, & Maggs, 2012). Five items measured adolescents’ perceptions of parental messages about treating others with equality and respect (Wave 1, 2, 3 α = .80, .82, .84). Items began with “My parents tell me…”, and content included: “respect people no matter who they are,” “not to judge people before you get to know them,” “treat everyone equally,” “stand up for others, not just yourself,” and “be helpful to others, especially the less fortunate.”

School solidarity and school democratic climate scales were confirmed as distinct by factor analyses and prior work (Flanagan & Stout, 2010; Syvertsen et al., 2009). School solidarity taps students’ sense of belonging to school and was assessed by averaging four items (Wave 1, 2, 3 α = .82, .83, .84): “Students feel like they are an important part of the school,” “Everyone tries to keep the school looking good,” “Most students take pride in our school,” and “Most students seem to care about each other, even people they don’t know.” School democratic climate was measured by averaging three items (Wave 1, 2, 3 α = .76, .83, .84): “In my school, students can disagree with teachers as long as they are respectful,” “In my school, students have an opportunity to debate and discuss issues,” and “In my school, students are encouraged to voice their opinions, even if they are different from what most people think.” The last item was excluded from the middle school survey in Waves 1 and 2; the scale average was taken from available items at each wave.

Community connectedness was measured with 8 items used in earlier studies that focused on adolescents’ perceptions of trust, bonding, social support, and inclusive relationships in the neighborhood and include aspects of bonding and bridging social capital (Flanagan et al., 2007; Flanagan, Kim, Collura, & Kopish, 2014). Items were: “Most people trust each other,” “People feel safe,” “Most people try to make this a good place to live,” “Adults are nice to young people,” “When someone moves here, people are nice to them,” “If someone has a problem, they can usually count on others to help them out,” “In general, people in my community work together to solve problems,” and “There are adults I could talk to about something important.” Alphas across waves were .85, .86, and .88.

Trusted friendship was measured with a four-item scale, previously validated in Syvertsen, Flanagan, and Stout (2009): “I have at least one good friend can talk to,” “I have friends I can trust to keep secret,” “I have friends I can trust to keep promises,” and “My friends mean a lot to me, and I would do anything for them” (Wave 1, 2, 3 α = .75, .81, .83).

Individual factors

Fair society beliefs, a 3-item scale, assessed adolescents’ beliefs that America offers equal opportunity regardless of background (Flanagan et al., 2007; Phinney, DuPont, Espinosa, Revill, & Sanders, 1994). Alphas across waves were .81, .85, and .86 with the items: “In America you have an equal chance no matter where you came from or what race you are,” “America is basically a fair society where everyone has an equal chance to get ahead,” and “Basically people get fair treatment in America, no matter who they are.” Adolescents’ volunteer experience was measured with a single item at each wave. Adolescents reported any volunteer or community service work, yes (1) or no (0). Frequency of adolescents’ use of cigarettes; beer, wine, or liquor; and marijuana-other drugs was reported on a 6-point scale ranging from never (1), quit, don’t do it anymore (2), once or twice ever (3), once or twice in the last month (4), once or twice in the last week (5), and more than twice a week (6). Reliability was adequate across waves (Wave 1, 2, 3 α = .78, .78, .78), and responses were summed across substances.

Two separate dichotomous variables represented whether adolescents transitioned from elementary to middle school (no = 0; yes = 1) and from middle school to high school (no = 0; yes = 1). There were three possible patterns for each transition variable, as the transition could have occurred at Wave 1 (1, 0, 0), Wave 2 (0, 1, 0), or Wave 3 (0, 0, 1). Variables were mutually exclusive for all but four students who made both transitions across 3 years because they skipped a grade.

Demographic characteristics

Demographic data were taken from Wave 1 adolescent report; missing values were replaced with parent report and later waves where possible to minimize missing data. Demographics included gender (female = 0, male = 1) and race-ethnicity (dummy coded as Black, Hispanic, and Other Race; White as the reference group). Parental education was measured with the average of mother and father education (or, one parent if the other was missing). Response categories were less than high school (1), high school graduate (2), and at least some college (3). Family structure was assessed with a dichotomous variable for two-parent household (1=yes, 0 = no).

Missing Data

Attrition analyses examined differences between adolescents who completed all three waves compared to adolescents missing at Waves 2 or 3 (see Online Appendix). Adolescents who dropped out at Wave 2 or 3 were more likely to be older, White, have less educated parents, use more substances, and report lower fair society beliefs, lower social responsibility values, and lower ecological assets of all types except for school democratic climate. SAS PROC MIXED handles missing data with a likelihood-based estimation method that uses all available data for analyses. This strategy assumes data are missing at random (MAR). In line with the MAR assumption, predictors of attrition were included in the full model.

Analytic Plan

Multilevel modeling was conducted using SAS PROC MIXED 9.3 with occasions nested within persons. Models were estimated using restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). First, unconditional growth curve models were estimated to identify the best-fitting developmental pattern of social responsibility values across adolescence. Linear and quadratic fixed effects models were sequentially tested, as was the inclusion of random intercepts and slopes. The best-fitting fixed effects were determined by statistical significance of model parameters, and fit of random effects was determined by comparing log likelihood values using a chi-square difference test. Given the accelerated longitudinal cohort design, i.e., participants of wide-ranging ages (9 to 18) followed over three years, models included between-person (level 2) age parameters to reflect cohort effects. Between-person (level 2) age parameters are individuals’ means for age, centered at age 14 (the mean age across the sample); these predict variance in social responsibility due to being in an older or younger age group across the study. Within-person (level 1) age effects refer to within-person or intraindividual change over time.

After finding the best-fitting unconditional growth curve, a model with demographic factors and other covariates was used to estimate between-person (level 2) effects. Then, all predictors were simultaneously entered as within- and between-person (level 1 and 2) predictors into a full model. Including means of all time-varying predictors at level 2 eliminates potential bias in estimation of level 1 effects; these level 2 means are substantively interpreted similar to cross-sectional regression parameters (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). School transition variables were only included at the within-person level (level 1); as almost every student had one transition, the level 2 mean is the same across individuals and therefore not meaningful. Within-person (level 1) predictors were group-mean centered and thus predict variation over time above or below one’s own mean level of social responsibility. Supplemental analyses examined growth curves for each ecological asset to better determine whether ecological assets and social responsibility values exhibit similar trajectories for the sample on average.

Results

Unconditional Growth Curve

In the unconditional social responsibility growth curve model, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = .44) revealed substantial variance at each level; 44% of the variance in social responsibility values was between-person and 56% of the variance was within-person.

Fixed effects of age were tested in linear and quadratic models. The best-fitting model had a positive quadratic age slope. A random intercept improved fit of the model, but a random slope did not. In other words, an intercept was estimated for each individual, but the shape of the trajectory was similar across individuals.

Social responsibility values significantly decreased from age 9 to 16 (γlinear age = −.07, p < .001) and then leveled off (γquadratic age = .03, p < .001). A significant negative between-person (level 2) quadratic term indicated that social responsibility showed less positive quadratic increase for participants who started the study at older ages (γ = −.01, p = .002), meaning that adolescents who were older did not recover from the downward trend to the same extent. Figure 1 illustrates the growth curve and shows adequate fit between the growth curve and raw data.

Figure 1. Unconditional Quadratic Growth Curve for Adolescents’ Social Responsibility Values.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Note. Social responsibility values scale ranged from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating higher self-reported social responsibility values. The shorter gray lines in the graph are raw means plotted by age, each with three time points. The predicted values growth curve is extrapolated from the three-waves of data provided by multiple cohorts. The twenty-five 9-year olds at wave 1 and six adolescents who turned 19 during the 12th grade were included in analyses but excluded from the graph, given that they were unlikely to be representative of their age group.

Demographic Characteristics

Demographic variables were next added to the model. Males reported lower social responsibility values than females (γ = −.21, p <.001). Compared to White adolescents, Black adolescents reported lower social responsibility values (γ = −.16, p < .001). Higher parental education was associated with higher levels of social responsibility values (γ = .10, p <.001). Adolescents residing in two-parent households also reported higher social responsibility values (γ = .06, p = .02). Age × demographics interactions were conducted to determine demographic factors were associated with different linear or quadratic patterns of change. Separate models tested age interactions with gender, ethnicity, parental education, and two-parent household. After a Bonferroni correction (12 interactions, p = .004), no interactions were significant.

Full Predictor Model

A full model including ecological assets and individual factors alongside age and demographics was estimated (see Table 3). As a reminder, predictors were entered at level 1 and level 2 of the model and therefore predict within-person change and between-person differences, respectively, in social responsibility values.

Table 3.

Full Predictor Model for Adolescents’ Social Responsibility Values

Between-Person
(Level 2)		 Within-Person
(Level 1)
γ SE γ SE
Intercept 3.736*** .020 — —
Age and Demographics
   Age – Linear −.038*** .012 .008 .011
   Age – Quadratic −.009* .004 .014*** .003
   Male −.056*** .017 — —
   Blacka −.054 .033 — —
   Hispanica .040 .049 — —
   Other Race-Ethnicitya .033† .019 — —
   Two-Parent Household −.017 .021 — —
   Parental Education −.0001 .016 — —
Individual Factors
   Fair Society Beliefs .132*** .012 .107*** .016
   Volunteerism .086** .033 .160*** .027
   Substance Use −.044*** .009 −.033* .016
   Transition to Middle School — — −.001 .026
   Transition to High School — — −.051** .019
Ecological Assets
   Family Democratic Climate −.023† .012 .096*** .017
   Family Compassion Messages .334*** .017 .123*** .024
   School Solidarity .082*** .014 .067*** .017
   School Democratic Climate .055*** .014 .028† .016
   Community Connectedness .103*** .016 .135*** .022
   Trusted Friendship .143*** .014 .110*** .019
Open in a new tab

Note. Model also includes a random intercept.

†

p ≤ .10.

*

p ≤. 05.

**

p ≤ .01.

***

p ≤ .001.

a

Reference = White.

Regarding the family context, family compassion messages had a positive between-person effect on social responsibility values: adolescents reporting higher family compassion messages on average predicted higher social responsibility values on average. Within-person effects showed that on occasions when adolescents reported more democratic climate and compassion messages in the family, they reported higher social responsibility values. Regarding peers, significant between- and within-person effects showed that adolescents with higher trusted friendship had higher social responsibility on average and on occasions when adolescents reported higher trusted friendship, they also reported higher social responsibility values. School solidarity had positive between- and within-person effects on social responsibility values: adolescents with higher perceptions of school solidarity had higher social responsibility values on average, and on occasions when adolescents reported higher school solidarity, they reported higher social responsibility values. Higher school democratic climate predicted higher social responsibility values on average, but the within-person effect was not significant. Community connectedness had positive between- and within-person effects on social responsibility values: adolescents reporting more community connectedness on average had higher social responsibility values on average, and on occasions when adolescents reported more community connectedness, they reported more social responsibility values. In sum, every ecological asset examined – except for family democratic climate – predicted between-person differences in social responsibility values at the intercept. Every ecological asset examined – except for school democratic climate – predicted within-person change in social responsibility values over time.

Regarding individual-level factors, fair society beliefs and volunteer experience had positive between- and within-person effects on social responsibility values. Adolescents with higher fair society beliefs reported higher social responsibility values on average, and on occasions when adolescents reported higher fair society beliefs, their social responsibility values were also higher. Similarly, adolescents who reported more volunteerism had higher social responsibility values on average, and on occasions when they had volunteered, their social responsibility values were also higher. Substance use had negative between- and within-person effects on social responsibility values: Higher substance use was related to lower social responsibility values on average, and on occasions when adolescents reported more substance use, social responsibility values were lower. Time-varying school transition variables indicated that on occasions when youth transitioned to high school, their social responsibility values decreased. The transition to middle school was not associated with social responsibility values.

Comparing the full model to the unconditional model (i.e., model with age parameters only), the pseudo R2 for Level 2 was .64 and the pseudo R2 for Level 1 was .26 (Singer & Willett, 2003). Thus, the full set of predictors explained 64% of between-person variance in social responsibility, and level 1 predictors accounted for 26% of within-person change in social responsibility. Several effects were reduced to non-significance in the full model, including the level 1 linear age effect and level 2 effects for being Black, parental education, and living in a two-parent household. Thus, variance in social responsibility once predicted by these factors was better explained by variations in contextual and individual factors.

Ecological Asset Growth Curves

Ecological assets explained within-person variance in social responsibility values and were implicated in explaining the linear decline (which was reduced to non-significance). The within-person level pattern of findings suggested that ecological assets and social responsibility may change in concert for many youth. To follow-up full model results, unconditional growth curves of ecological assets were also examined. We used the same analytic steps described above for fitting the social responsibility values growth curve model.

Similar to the pattern in social responsibility values, a quadratic model with a random intercept best fit the data for family democratic climate, family compassion messages, and school solidarity. Adolescents’ perceptions of these ecological assets declined until middle adolescence and in late adolescence either increased (family democratic climate, family compassion) or leveled off (school solidarity; see Figure 2). A linear model with a random intercept best fit for trusted friendship, school democratic climate, and community connectedness: Adolescents’ perceptions of these ecological assets declined steadily with age. Thus, all ecological assets showed a declining pattern across adolescence.

Figure 2. Unconditional Growth Models of Ecological Assets.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Note. Growth models for ecological assets are pictured alongside social responsibility values (line in gray). All scales ranged from 1 to 5. The twenty-five 9-year olds at wave 1 and six adolescents who turned 19 during the 12th grade were included in analyses but excluded from the graph, given that they were unlikely to be representative of their age group.

Discussion

Our study provides new empirical evidence that social responsibility values change across adolescence. The pattern of change was mostly characterized by decline, supporting the middle adolescence decline hypothesis. Every ecological asset in our study (except for school democratic climate) predicted within-person change in adolescents’ social responsibility values. These findings held after accounting for other ecological assets, individual factors, and demographics and provide support for the role of ecological assets in adolescents’ social responsibility development. Declining trajectories of ecological assets further underscored the strong link between ecological assets and social responsibility values, suggesting that adolescent perceptions of the relational climate in their families, schools, communities, and friendships decline synchronously with social responsibility values. Findings contribute to developmental theory and advance understanding of the development of social responsibility values.

A Contextual Explanation for Declining Social Responsibility Values

Two competing ideas offered testable hypotheses regarding age-related change in adolescents’ social responsibility values: the normative growth and middle adolescence decline hypotheses. A growth curve model indicated a decline in social responsibility values across ages 9–16, with a leveling off thereafter. These data support the idea of a middle adolescence decline, which has been suggested by research showing that early to middle adolescents report lower frequencies of moral and prosocial moral judgments and declines in endorsements of collective responsibility to promote health (Eisenberg, 1990; Flanagan et al., 2008; Nucci & Turiel, 2009). Finding age-related change in levels of social responsibility contributes to value theory, which has mostly focused on adults and assumed values crystallize after adolescence to remain relatively stable in adulthood (Jennings, 1989; Schwartz, 1992). Along with other developmental scientists studying change in adolescents’ values (e.g., Johnson, 2005; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010), our findings extend thinking on values by documenting plasticity and pointing to the role of ecological assets in partially explaining that change.

Given our RDS theoretical perspective and view of social responsibility as growing out of mutually reinforcing relationships with others in context (Lerner, Wang, Champine, Warren, & Erikson, 2014; Wray-Lake & Syvertsen, 2011), our study positioned ecological assets as a primary mechanism explaining change in social responsibility across adolescence. Indeed, results supported a strong link between ecological assets and social responsibility values, as evidenced by the multiple, unique within-person effects of ecological assets on social responsibility values as well as by similar trajectories of social responsibility values and ecological assets, which all indicated decline over time. The link between ecological assets and social responsibility values was posited by multiple theoretical frameworks, including RDS, positive youth development, and social capital theories (Lerner et al., 2014; Lerner et al., 2015; Putnam, 2001). Our findings newly contribute to theory and research by showing that five distinct ecological assets each predicted unique within-person variance in social responsibility values. This pattern suggests that these ecological assets each have a rather robust association with intraindividual change in social responsibility values, given that effects held after accounting for similar relational resources across settings. The strength of these findings is notable and perhaps a bit surprising, given the difficulties in identifying significant predictors of within-person change (Singer & Willett, 2003). Although our findings do not provide any causal evidence, the results are exciting because they powerfully suggest that the ecological assets we measured can independently and additively change adolescents’ social responsibility values. Although relatively few studies of prosocial or civic development consider multiple contexts simultaneously, our study suggests that simultaneously examining multiple ecological assets across settings can produce a richer understanding of the contextual determinants of positive youth development.

Our findings further contribute to theory by demonstrating that adolescents feel less connected and respected in their contexts over time and declines in these ecological assets predict corresponding declines in social responsibility values. Articulating when and why to expect changes in ecological assets advances developmental theory, given the implications for adolescents’ positive development. Specifically, our study suggests that during middle adolescence, there may be a void in the supportive environments adolescents need to thrive. Other studies have found similar evidence of declines in family and school climate during middle adolescence (e.g., Eccles et al., 1993; Shanahan et al., 2007; Wang & Dishion, 2012; Wray-Lake et al., 2012). Moreover, transitioning to high school may negatively affect functioning, as adolescents are likely to perceive less teacher support and more hostile and competitive school climates (Barber & Olsen, 2004; Newman et al., 2007; Otis et al., 2005).

From an applied perspective, our findings point to the need to identify and address the reasons adolescents increasingly feel less bonded to and respected by others in their day-to-day lives. As we show, social responsibility values likely develop out of routine conversations and interactions adolescents have with family members, friends, teachers, classmates, and neighbors. Yet, these exchanges may be overlooked as potential pathways to promoting social responsibility. Although our within-person change findings coupled with parallel trajectories suggest a disheartening story of decline in both ecological assets and social responsibility values, it is worth underscoring that we identified positive covariations between ecological assets and social responsibility values. Thus, when youth perceive ecological assets in their surrounding contexts, they likely increase the value they place on social responsibility. Certainly, interventions rooted in a PYD perspective already recognize the importance of fostering ecological assets and democratic relationships (Lerner et al., 2012), and social responsibility could be an important result of these efforts. Interventions and other youth programming efforts may be stimulated by our results to cultivate democratic relationships across an array of settings to support adolescents’ positive value development. Given that we found associations between social responsibility and family, school, community, and peer assets, our study suggests multiple plausible points of intervention to enhance the development of social responsibility.

Role of Beliefs and Behaviors for Social Responsibility Values

Although the paper focused on ecological assets, a sub-story emerged regarding the role of individual beliefs and behaviors for social responsibility development. Fair society beliefs, volunteerism, and substance use predicted within-person change in social responsibility values. Findings with fair society beliefs fit with the broader literature on these beliefs and the argument that youth who feel more attached to the democratic principles of society also feel more committed to serving society (Flanagan, 2013). The current study extended past literature by revealing that this association unfolds dynamically over time: Change in adolescents’ fair society beliefs predict changes in social responsibility values. The link between fair society beliefs and social responsibility should be further studied in diverse cultural contexts, as some work indicates that fair society beliefs may only be positively associated with social responsibility for certain ethnic groups (Wray-Lake, Rote, Gupta, Godfrey, & Sirin, 2015), whereas other work finds no group differences in this association (Flanagan et al., 2007). Moreover, previous research has identified ecological assets that predict fair society beliefs (Wray-Lake et al., 2015), and these findings suggest that more complex theoretical models of social responsibility development should be tested. For instance, individual factors like fair society beliefs may mediate the links between ecological assets and social responsibility values.

Finding that volunteerism and substance use uniquely predict change in social responsibility contributes new evidence to value theory, which has primarily assumed unidirectionality going from values to behavior but less commonly examines transactional links (cf. Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). Again, our study does not offer causal evidence, but at least suggests that behaviors could predict changes in values. Within-person links from behaviors to social responsibility values highlight that adolescents are active agents in their own positive development. The volunteerism finding is notable for its application: When youth volunteered, they reported higher social responsibility values. Likewise, other studies have shown that service-learning experiences enhance civic attitudes and values (Conway et al., 2009; van Goethem et al., 2014) and volunteering in adolescence predicts voting, volunteering, and joining community organizations in adulthood (Hart, Donnelly, Youniss, & Atkins, 2007; McFarland & Thomas, 2006). We extend extant research by illustrating a longitudinal time-varying association between volunteerism and social responsibility values during adolescence.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite this paper’s strengths, several weaknesses should be noted. There was a large amount of missing data across the three waves, although this was in part a design feature, as high school graduates were not recruited for follow-up. Steps were taken to minimize bias due to missing data by using all available data in analyses and including factors related to attrition; however, missing data could reduce generalizability. Generalizability is also limited by the relative lack of ethnic diversity in our sample. Furthermore, accelerated cohort designs are valuable for efficient estimation of long-term curves with fewer waves of data (Duncan, Duncan, & Hops, 1996), and our analyses were strengthened by accounting for cohort effects of age. Yet following the same individuals across the full age range may give more accurate estimates of age-related change in social responsibility values.

There are several alternative explanations of our findings that warrant further attention in future studies. Perhaps most importantly, declines in social responsibility values may correspond with broader patterns of sociocognitive development suggesting that moral and prosocial judgments come into conflict with other personal and social concerns (Eisenberg, 1990; Nucci & Turiel, 2009). In middle adolescence, youth may expand their personal domain and thus evaluate more issues in terms of personal interests (Smetana et al., 2009). These sociocognitive processes may even be a third variable explanation for our ecological asset findings: Increasing desire for authority over personal issues and more self-focused reasoning may lead adolescents to feel less well-understood and less supported by others. Declines in social responsibility values could also be because the youngest adolescents in our sample may have been overly positive and unrealistic in their responses and perceptions of social responsibility values and ecological assets become lower, and more realistic, with age and experience. Research on adolescents’ self-perceptions suggests that young people tend to be overly positive in their self-appraisals in middle childhood (Harter, 2012). Although our measures were equally reliable across ages, we cannot rule out this alternative possibility. Replication of associations with objective measures of ecological assets or other reporters would enhance the impact of the findings. Moreover, experimental studies that increased adolescents’ affective bonds with others or perceptions of positive climate and found resulting increases in social responsibility values would lend clear support for the contextual perspective. For example, a school-based intervention designed to increase prosocial behavior through bolstering school climate showed positive results (Caprara et al., 2014).

Conclusion

Declining trends in social responsibility values suggest a call to action: For scientists, more theoretical and empirical work is needed to verify the role of ecological assets and understand other reasons for these declines. Perhaps these findings will also stimulate additional research that assesses the implications of declines in social responsibility values for other domains of adolescent development. Given that declines in social responsibility seem to go hand in hand with declines in ecological assets, perhaps youth and adult leaders in various settings will heed the call to reflect on how to strengthen relational resources. Ultimately, research and applied efforts that continue to develop youths’ priorities of caring for others may also be helping to create a more sustainable and democratic society.

Supplementary Material

1

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by Grant RO1 DA13434 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse awarded to Constance A. Flanagan. We thank Aaron Metzger for comments on a draft of the paper, and we are grateful to the adolescents and parents who participated in this study.

Contributor Information

Laura Wray-Lake, University of Rochester

Amy K. Syvertsen, Search Institute

Constance A. Flanagan, University of Wisconsin – Madison

References

  1. Ballard PJ, Caccavale L, Buchanan CM. Civic orientation in cultures of privilege: What role do schools play? Youth & Society. 2014:1–25. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barber BK, Olsen JA. Assessing the transitions to middle and high school. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2004;19:3–30. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bebiroglu N, Geldhof GJ, Pinderhughes EE, Phelps E, Lerner RM. From family to society: The role of perceived parenting behaviors in promoting youth civic engagement. Parenting. 2013;13(3):153–168. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bem DJ. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 6. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1972. Self-perception theory. [Google Scholar]
  5. Benson PL, Scales PC, Syvertsen AK. The contribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. Advances in Child Development and Behavior. 2011;41:197–230. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-386492-5.00008-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Campbell DE. Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior. 2008;30:437–454. [Google Scholar]
  7. Caprara GV, Schwartz S, Capanna C, Vecchione M, Barbaranelli C. Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology. 2006;27(1):1–28. [Google Scholar]
  8. Caprara GV, Kanacri BPL, Gerbino M, Zuffianò A, Alessandri G, Vecchio G, Caprara E, Pastorelli C, Bridglall B. Positive effects of promoting prosocial behavior in early adolescence Evidence from a school-based intervention. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2014;38(4):386–396. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlo G, Crockett LJ, Randall BA, Roesch SC. A latent growth curve analysis of prosocial behavior among rural adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2007;17(2):301–324. [Google Scholar]
  10. Carlo G, Mestre MV, Samper P, Tur A, Armenta BE. The longitudinal relations among dimensions of parenting styles, sympathy, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2011;35:116–124. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cicognani E, Pirini C, Keyes C, Joshanloo M, Rostami R, Nosratabadi M. Social participation, sense of community and social well being: A study on American, Italian and Iranian university students. Social Indicators Research. 2008;89(1):97–112. [Google Scholar]
  12. Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology. 1988;94:S95. [Google Scholar]
  13. Conway JM, Amel EL, Gerwien DP. Teaching and learning in the social context: A meta-analysis of service learning’s effects on academic, personal, social, and citizenship outcomes. Teaching of Psychology. 2009;36:233–245. [Google Scholar]
  14. Duke NN, Skay CL, Pettingell SL, Borowsky IW. From adolescent connections to social capital: Predictors of civic engagement in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2009;44(2):161–168. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.07.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Duncan SC, Duncan TE, Hops H. Analysis of longitudinal data with accelerated longitudinal designs. Psychological Methods. 1996;1(3):236–248. [Google Scholar]
  16. Easton D, Dennis J. Children in the political system: Origins of political legitimacy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1969. [Google Scholar]
  17. Eccles JS, Gootman JA. Committee on Community-Level Programs for Youth. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002. Community programs to promote youth development. [Google Scholar]
  18. Eccles JS, Midgley C. Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. Research on Motivation in Education. 1989;3:139–186. [Google Scholar]
  19. Eccles JS, Midgley C, Wigfield A, Buchanan CM, Reuman D, Flanagan CA, Mac Iver D. Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist. 1993;48(2):90–101. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.48.2.90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Eccles JS, Roeser RW. School and community influences on human development. In: Bornstein MH, Lamb ME, editors. Developmental science: An advanced textbook. 6th ed. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2011. pp. 571–643. [Google Scholar]
  21. Eisenberg N. Prosocial development during early and mid-adolescence. In: Montemayor R, Adams GR, Gullotta TP, editors. From childhood to adolescence: A transitional period? Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990. pp. 240–268. [Google Scholar]
  22. Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Spinrad TL. Handbook of child psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2007. Prosocial develoment; pp. 646–718. [Google Scholar]
  23. Flanagan CA. Developmental roots of political engagement. PS: Political Science & Politics. 2003;36(2):257–261. [Google Scholar]
  24. Flanagan CA. Volunteerism, leadership, political socialization, and civic engagement. In: Lerner RM, Steinberg L, editors. Handbook of adolescent psychology. 2nd. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. pp. 721–7450. [Google Scholar]
  25. Flanagan CA. Teenage citizens: The political theories of the young. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  26. Flanagan CA, Bowes JM, Jonsson B, Csapo B, Sheblanova E. Ties that bind: Correlates of adolescents’ civic commitments in seven countries. Journal of Social Issues. 1998;54(3):457–475. [Google Scholar]
  27. Flanagan CA, Kim T, Collura J, Kopish MA. Community Service and adolescents’ social capital. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2015;25(2):295–309. [Google Scholar]
  28. Flanagan CA, Cumsille P, Gill S, Gallay LS. School and community climates and civic commitments: Patterns for ethnic minority and majority students. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007;99(2):421–431. [Google Scholar]
  29. Flanagan CA, Stout M. Developmental patterns of social trust between early and late adolescence: Age and school climate effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2010;20(3):748–773. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00658.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Flanagan CA, Stout M, Gallay LS. It’s my body and none of your business: Developmental changes in adolescents’ perceptions of rights concerning health. Journal of Social Issues. 2008;64(4):815–834. [Google Scholar]
  31. Flanagan CA, Syvertsen AK. Youth as a social construct and social actor. In: Sherrod L, Flanagan CA, Kassimir R, Syvertsen AK, editors. Youth activism: An international encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing; 2006. pp. 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  32. Flanagan CA, Tucker CJ. Adolescents’ explanations for political issues: Concordance with their views of self and society. Developmental Psychology. 1999;35(5):1198–1209. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.35.5.1198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Fletcher A, Elder G, Mekos D. Parental influences on adolescent involvement in community activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2000;10:29–48. [Google Scholar]
  34. Fuligni AJ, Eccles JS. Perceived parent-child relationships and early adolescents’ orientation toward peers. Developmental Psychology. 1993;29(4):622–632. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gallay LS. Social responsibility. In: Sherrod L, Flanagan CA, Kassimir R, Syvertsen AK, editors. Youth activism: An international encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing; 2006. pp. 599–602. [Google Scholar]
  36. Greenberger E. Defining psychosocial maturity in adolescence. Advances in Child Behavioral Analysis & Therapy. 1984;3:1–37. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gunnoe ML, Hetherington EM, Reiss D. Parental religiosity, parenting style, and adolescent social responsibility. Journal of Early Adolescence. 1999;19:199–225. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hardy SA, Walker LJ, Olsen JA, Woodbury RD, Hickman JR. Moral identity as moral ideal self: Links to adolescent outcomes. Developmental Psychology. 2014;50(9):45–57. doi: 10.1037/a0033598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hardy SA, Carlo G. Religiosity and prosocial behaviours in adolescence: the mediating role of prosocial values. Journal of Moral Education. 2005;34(2):231–249. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hardy SA, Carlo G. Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action? Child Development Perspectives. 2011;5(3):212–218. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hart D, Donnelly TM, Youniss J, Atkins R. High school community service as a predictor of adult voting and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal. 2007;44(1):197–219. [Google Scholar]
  42. Harter S. The construction of the self: Developmental and cultural foundations. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hitlin S. Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2003;66(2):118. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hitlin S, Piliavin JA. Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology. 2004;30:359–393. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jennings MK. The crystallization of orientations. In: Jennings MK, Van Deth J, editors. Continuities in political action: A longitudinal study of political orientations in three western democracies. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter; 1989. pp. 313–348. [Google Scholar]
  46. Johnson MK. Family roles and work values: Processes of selection and change. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005;67:352–369. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kahne JE, Sporte SE. Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on students’ commitment to civic participation. American Educational Research Journal. 2008;45(3):738–766. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kasser T, Ryan RM, Zax M, Sameroff AJ. The relations of maternal and social environments to late adolescents’ materialistic and prosocial values. Developmental Psychology. 1995;31(6):907–914. [Google Scholar]
  49. Katz I, Hass RG. Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988;55:893–905. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lenzi M, Vieno A, Pastore M, Santinello M. Neighborhood social connectedness and adolescent civic engagement: An integrative model. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2013;34:45–54. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lenzi M, Vieno A, Santinello M, Nation M, Voight A. The role played by the family in shaping early and middle adolescent civic responsibility. Journal of Early Adolescence. 2013;34:251–278. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lerner RM, Benson P, editors. Developmental assets and asset-building communities: Implications for research, policy, and practice. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  53. Lerner J, Bowers E, Minor K, Boyd MJ, Mueller MK, Schmid KL, et al. Positive youth development: processes, philosophies, and programs. In: Lerner RM, Easterbrooks MA, Mistry J, Weiner Irving B, editors. Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Developmental psychology. Vol. 6. New York: Wiley; 2012. pp. 365–392. Editor-in-Chief. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lerner RM, Dowling EM, Anderson PM. Positive youth development: Thriving as the basis of personhood and civil society. Applied Developmental Science. 2003;7(3):172–180. doi: 10.1002/yd.14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Lerner RM, Lerner JV, P Bowers E, John Geldhof G. Positive Youth Development and Relational-Developmental-Systems. In: Lerner RM, editor. Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. 7th ed. Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2015. pp. 607–651. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lerner RM, Wang J, Champine RB, Warren DJ, Erickson K. Development of civic engagement: Theoretical and methodological issues. International Journal of Developmental Science. 2014;8(3):69–79. [Google Scholar]
  57. Kanacri BP, Pastorelli C, Eisenberg N, Zuffianò A, Castellani V, Caprara GV. Trajectories of prosocial behavior from adolescence to early adulthood: Associations with personality change. Journal of Adolescence. 2014;37:701–713. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Mahatmya D, Lohman BJ. Predictors and pathways to civic involvement in emerging adulthood: Neighborhood, family, and school influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2012;41:1168–1183. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9777-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Malti T, Eisenberg N, Kim H, Buchmann M. Developmental trajectories of sympathy, moral emotion attributions, and moral reasoning: The role of parental support. Social Development. 2013;22(4):773–793. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mayton DM, Furnham A. Value underpinnings of antinuclear political activism: A cross-national study. Journal of Social Issues. 1994;50:117–128. [Google Scholar]
  61. McFarland DA, Thomas RJ. Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations influence adult political participation. American Sociological Review. 2006;71:401–425. [Google Scholar]
  62. Murphy PK, Rowe ML, Ramani G, Silverman R. Promoting critical-analytic thinking in children and adolescents at home and in school. Educational Psychological Review. 2014;26:561–578. [Google Scholar]
  63. Newman BM, Newman PR, Griffen S, O’Connor K, Spas J. The relationship of social support to depressive symptoms during the transition to high school. Adolescence. 2007;42:441–459. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Nucci L, Turiel E. Capturing the complexity of moral development and education. Mind, Brain, and Education. 2009;3(3):151–160. [Google Scholar]
  65. Otis N, Grouzet FME, Pelletier LG. Latent motivational change in an academic setting: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2005;97(2):170–183. [Google Scholar]
  66. Overton WF. A new paradigm for developmental science: Relationism and relational-developmental systems. Applied Developmental Science. 2013;17(2):94–107. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-397947-6.00002-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Overton WF, Lerner RM. Fundamental concepts and methods in developmental science: A relational perspective. Research in Human Development. 2014;11(1):63–73. [Google Scholar]
  68. Padilla-Walker LM, Fraser AM, Black BB, Bean RA. Associations between friendship, sympathy, and prosocial behavior toward friends. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2014:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  69. Phinney JS, DuPont S, Espinosa C, Revill J, Sanders K. Ethnic identity and American identification among ethnic minority youths. In: Bouvy A, van de Vijvery FJ, Boski P, Schmitz P, editors. Journeys into cross-cultural Psychology: Selected papers from the Eleventh International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  70. Pratt MW, Hunsberger B, Pancer SM, Alisat S. A longitudinal analysis of personal values socialization: Correlates of a moral self-ideal in late adolescence. Social Development. 2003;12:563–585. [Google Scholar]
  71. Putnam RD. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster; 2001. p. 541. [Google Scholar]
  72. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  73. Roberts BW, Bogg T. A longitudinal study of the relationships between conscientiousness and the social-environmental factors and substance-use behaviors that influence health. Journal of Personality. 2004;72:325–354. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00264.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Rossi AS, editor. Caring and doing for others: Social responsibility in the domains of family, work, and community. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  75. Rothon C, Goodwin L, Stansfeld S. Family social support, community “social capital” and adolescents’ mental health and educational outcomes: A longitudinal study in England. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2012;47:697–709. doi: 10.1007/s00127-011-0391-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Rudolph KD, Lambert SF, Clark aG, Kurlakowsky KD. Negotiating the transition to middle school: The role of self-regulatory processes. Child Development. 2001;72(3):929–946. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues. 1992;50(4):19–45. [Google Scholar]
  78. Schwartz SH, Rubel T. Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;89(6):1010–1028. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Shanahan L, McHale SM, Crouter AC, Osgood DW. Warmth with mothers and fathers from middle childhood to late adolescence: within- and between-families comparisons. Developmental Psychology. 2007;43(3):551–563. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Sherrod LR, Lauckhardt J. Handbook of adolescent psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2009. The development of citizenship; pp. 372–407. [Google Scholar]
  81. Singer JD, Willett JB. Applied longitudinal data analyses: Modeling change and event occurrence. Cambridge: United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  82. Smetana JG, Tasopoulos-Chan M, Gettman DC, Villalobos M, Campione-Barr N, Metzger A. Adolescents’ and parents’ evaluations of helping versus fulfilling personal desires in family situations. Child Development. 2009;80(1):280–294. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01259.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Syvertsen AK, Flanagan CA, Stout MD. Code of silence: Students’ perceptions of school climate and willingness to intervene in a peer’s dangerous plan. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009;101(1):219–232. doi: 10.1037/a0013246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Thapa A, Cohen J, Guffey S, Higgins-D’Alessandro A. A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research. 2013;83:357–385. [Google Scholar]
  85. Theokas C, Lerner RM. Observed ecological assets in families, schools, and neighborhoods: Conceptualization, measurement, and relations with positive and negative developmental outcomes. Applied Developmental Science. 2006;10(2):61–74. [Google Scholar]
  86. Van der Graaff J, Branje S, De Wied M, Hawk S, Van Lier P, Meeus W. Perspective taking and empathic concern in adolescence: Gender differences in developmental changes. Developmental Psychology. 2014;50(3):881–8. doi: 10.1037/a0034325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. van Goethem A, van Hoof A, Orobio de Castro B, Van Aken M, Hart D. The role of reflection in the effects of community service on adolescent development : A meta-analysis. Child Development. 2014;85(6):2114–2130. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Verplanken B, Holland RW. Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002;82(3):434–447. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.3.434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Wang M, Dishion TJ. The trajectories of adolescents’ perceptions of school climate, deviant peer affiliation, and behavioral problems during the middle school years. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2012;22(1):40–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00763.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Whitbeck LB, Simons RL, Conger RD, Lorenz FO. Value socialization and peer group affiliation among early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence. 1989;9:436–453. [Google Scholar]
  91. Wigfield A, Cambria J. Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review. 2010;30(1):1–35. [Google Scholar]
  92. Wray-Lake L, Flanagan CA. Parenting practices and the development of adolescents’ social trust. Journal of Adolescence. 2012;35:549–560. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.09.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Wray-Lake L, Flanagan CA, Maggs JL. Socialization in context: Exploring longitudinal correlates of mothers’ value messages of compassion and caution. Developmental Psychology. 2012;48(1):250–256. doi: 10.1037/a0026083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Wray-Lake L, Maggs JL, Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O’Malley PM, Schulenberg JE. Associations between community attachments and adolescent substance use in nationally representative samples. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2012;51:325–331. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Wray-Lake L, Rote W, Gupta T, Godfrey E, Sirin S. Examining correlates of civic engagement among immigrant adolescents. Research on Human Development. 2015;8:95–104. [Google Scholar]
  96. Wray-Lake L, Syvertsen AK. The developmental roots of social responsibility in childhood and adolescence. New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development. 2011:11–25. doi: 10.1002/cd.308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Youniss J, Yates M. Community service and social responsibility. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  98. Zaff JF, Malanchuk O, Eccles JS. Predicting positive citizenship from adolescence to young adulthood: The effects of a civic context. Applied Developmental Science. 2008;12(1):38–53. doi: 10.1080/10888690801910567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS728758-supplement-1.pdf (33.3KB, pdf)

RESOURCES