Psychodynamic Approach To Prevent Of Positive Youth Development

Prior to the advent of positive youth development (PYD), adolescence was viewed as a tumultuous time typified by “storm and stress” (Hall, 1904). Positive youth development challenged this deficit focus through viewing adolescents as resources and focusing on their “manifest potentials” to develop positively into adults who effectively engage with society (Damon, 2004, pp. 15). The focus of PYD is to holistically build the developmental assets of adolescents, specifically those of, moral well-being, civic engagement, and resilience (Lerner, Theokas, & Jelicic, 2005). It is this focus on positive holistic development that contrasts with previous notions of adolescent development (Damon, 2004). Although a relatively new developmental theory,

PYD is a holistic approach to adolescence that focuses on the untapped potential of youths. According to Damon, (2004, pp. 17) “PYD assumes the nature of the child – every child – is marked my considerable resiliency and vast potential” and functions on the premise that the best defence is a good offence (Lerner and Benson, 2003). The theory emerged from the work of researchers in the late 1990s to early 2000s (Gabrialaviciute et al., 2014) from theoretical interest in how the ecology of human development is impacted by macro level systems (Brofenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner, 2005). According to Silbersisen & Learner the researchers pivotal to this ideological shift were biologists Novikoff and von Bertalanffy, as well as comparative psychologists Scheirla and Gottieb, who studied the relation between a fusion of “biological and contextual levels of organisation”(2007, pp. 4). Moreover, Damon (2004) suggests this shift was further influenced by dissatisfaction with the predominant deficit models and media distortion of adolescence. Thus PYD is holistic in its approach and centres on the developing the Five C’s, competence, confidence,

Whilst there is evidence of increase in youth well-being there is also evidence of negative outcomes (Arbeit et al., 2013). In her research regarding civic engagement Sherrod (2007) found an increase in developmental assets and self-regulation. Whereas Flanagan, Syversten & Wray-Lake (2007) concluded that social activism provided no indicator to the “long-term positive effects on the individual” or how these effects were brought about. Similarly Hiliard et al. (2014) reported a positive performance trend within bullies however the research also concluded youth who weren’t involved in bullying experienced significantly less positive growth. However, some intervention programs results were purely positive. Catalano et al’s program resulted in better youth health management and practices, increased decision making and interpersonal skills, the ability to problem-solve, increased empathy and academic achievement, as well as a higher capacity for youth self-regulation in reactions and behaviour (Catalano et al., 2004). Moreover Catalano et al’s research indicated improvement in at risk behaviours where trends in “drug and alcohol use, school misbehaviour, aggressive behaviour, violence, truancy, high-risk sexual behaviour, and smoking”, were reduced (2004, pp. 117). Similarly, Larson (2000) suggests participation in youth programs increases adolescent self-confidence and