Developmental and Cross-Cultural Considerations in the Study of Well-Being Among Young People

Abstract

This chapter explores adolescence and emerging adulthood as socially constructed and culturally bound transitional phases between childhood and adulthood. It illustrates how these developmental periods are experienced differently by youth located in “tight” versus “loose” cultures. The authors also offer a review of the central aspects of well-being during these two developmental stages, while recognizing complexity of these stages as being simultaneously universal and contextually bound. The authors argue for a clear distinction between well-being and the absence of pathology and welfare, and they advance recommendations for youth wellness promotion by bringing together the developmental, cultural, and applied approaches to adolescent and emerging adult development. Finally, the authors advocate for the meaningful, active and culturally-sensitive integration of young people within “adult” society to maximize the future of youth throughout the world.

Full text

3© Springer International Publishing AG 2017
R. Dimitrova (ed.), Well-Being of Youth and Emerging Adults across Cultures,
Cross-Cultural Advancements in Positive Psychology 12,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68363-8_1
Developmental andCross-Cultural
Considerations intheStudy ofWell-Being
Among Young People
MariyaPetrova andSethJ.Schwartz
Abstract This chapter explores adolescence and emerging adulthood as socially
constructed and culturally bound transitional phases between childhood and adult-
hood. It illustrates how these developmental periods are experienced differently by
youth located in “tight” versus “loose” cultures. The authors also offer a review of
the central aspects of well-being during these two developmental stages, while rec-
ognizing complexity of these stages as being simultaneously universal and contex-
tually bound. The authors argue for a clear distinction between well-being and the
absence of pathology and welfare, and they advance recommendations for youth
wellness promotion by bringing together the developmental, cultural, and applied
approaches to adolescent and emerging adult development. Finally, the authors
advocate for the meaningful, active and culturally-sensitive integration of young
people within “adult” society to maximize the future of youth throughout the world.
Youth is largely a social construction. We know that children are not “little adults,”
but at what point does one cease to be a child and start being an adult? On the sur-
face this seems like a facetious question, but in reality there is no single answer–
and how we dene and treat the “state of being young” can have serious social
implications. Some societies and religious groups have specic rites of passage for
marking when a young person has reached maturity, such as the Jewish Bar/Bat
Mitzvah and the Samoan tattooing ceremony (see Arnett Jensen, 2003, for an exten-
sive review). In other societies, the transition is more gradual and amorphous, such
that it is not entirely clear when one has transitioned out of childhood or into
adulthood.
We know that childhood exists in all cultural contexts. Babies and young chil-
dren operate at a level of cognitive maturity that is quite different from that of adults
(Pascual-Leone, 1987). Some of these differences in cognitive maturity can be
M. Petrova (*) • S.J. Schwartz
Prevention Sciences and Community Health, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine,
Miami, FL, USA
e-mail: mpp72@med.miami.edu

4
explained in terms of brain development– such as the development of white matter,
which is associated with rationality, decision making, perspective taking, and logi-
cal reasoning (Barnea-Goraly et al., 2005; Lamm, Batson, & Decety, 2007). As
such, 4-year-olds would almost never be asked to hold a job and earn a living, would
not be expected to engage in intimate relationships, and would not be expected to
raise their own children. Such activities are clearly developmentally inappropriate
for a young child.
On the other hand, individuals in their 40s and 50s are almost universally
expected to contribute to society by working and raising families. Even though liv-
ing with extended family members is common within some cultural contexts,
healthy middle-aged adults are generally not emotionally or instrumentally depen-
dent on their parents or other older family members for extended periods of time
(Swartz, 2009). So, cross-culturally, childhood and adulthood are fairly universal
components of the lifespan– although, of course, there are important cross-cultural
variations within childhood and within adulthood (e.g., how elders are cared for;
Sokolovsky, 2009).
However, what about the time in betweenchildhood and adulthood? Is this time
characterized by a period of transition, or is there a specic moment or interval
where one moves from childhood into adulthood? This query harkens back to the
question we posed at the opening of this chapter– when does childhood end, and
when does adulthood begin? Although we can simply point to specic physiological
changes that take place during adolescence (cognitive, hormonal, neurological, and
sexual maturation), to fully answer these questions, we must consider the specic
cultural contexts in which people reside. The traditions and mores within which
youth and adults operate dictate the ways in which individuals, families, and other
social groups are “supposed” to behave and interact.
Tight Versus Loose Cultures
For a long time, social scientists have been investigating the cultural context of
human development. One key observation that has been reported in the late twenti-
eth and early twenty-rst centuries is that the world’s societies can be roughly
demarcated based on how they prioritize the individual person vis-à-vis the social
group. Triandis (1995), for example, proposed that “individualist” societies are
those where people have a great deal of autonomy and freedom to make their own
decisions, and that one’s needs and desires generally take precedence over obliga-
tions to family, friends, and other important others. On the other hand, “collectivist”
societies are those where pleasing, caring for, and remaining loyal to important oth-
ers is prioritized over the person’s individual wishes. Generally speaking, individu-
alist societies are located in Western Europe, North America, Oceania, and other
countries or regions where European-descent Whites comprise the majority of the
population or dominate the power structure (Hofstede, 2001). Collectivist societies,
M. Petrova and S.J. Schwartz

5
generally speaking, are those located in other parts of the world, such as Eastern
Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean.
This dichotomization of the world’s cultures into “individualist” and “collectiv-
ist” neglects a great deal of heterogeneity among “individualist” societies and
among “collectivist” societies. American individualism, for example, may not be
equated with British, French, or German individualism, and Peruvian collectivism
may be expressed quite differently than Taiwanese collectivism. Hofstede (2001)
and Gelfand etal. (2011) have developed rating scales to rank countries in terms of
cultural orientation. Gelfand etal. characterize countries in terms of tightness ver-
sus looseness, where “tight” cultural contexts are those where the life course is
largely scripted (i.e., strict gender role demarcations are enforced, deviance is not
tolerated, most people’s lives unfold according to normative cultural templates) and
a largely poor populace is ruled by corrupt and authoritarian governments.
Vignoles etal. (2016) unpack the individualist-collectivist/tightness-looseness
distinction into seven dimensions: (a) self-reliance versus dependence on others, (b)
self-containment versus connection to others, (c) individuality versus similarity, (d)
self-interest versus commitment to others, (e) consistency versus variability, (f) self-
direction versus receptiveness to outside inuence, and (g) self-expression versus
harmony. Unpacking the singular distinction between individualist and collectivist
(or loose and tight) cultural contexts allows us to more precisely dene those frame-
works in which a “socially invented” transitional period between childhood and
adulthood– a period that extends beyond a biological development– would be most
likely to exist. That is, although further research is surely needed to support or refute
the predictions we advance here, we might propose that a socially induced provi-
sional period between childhood and adulthood may be most likely to emerge or
appear in cultural contexts that foster self-direction, individuality, and self-
expression. That is, there must be room for the person to direct her/his own life path
(at least to some extent), to be different and unique from others and to follow an
individualized life path, and to express her/himself in ways that may not be entirely
consistent with others’expectations or desires. Côté and Levine (2002, 2015),
Erikson (1950), and Lerner and Busch-Rossnagel (1981) provide supportive theo-
retical and empirical evidence for these contentions.
Adolescence andEmerging Adulthood asTransitional Stages
Adolescence was the rst transitional stage proposed to exist between childhood
and adulthood. Psychologist G.Stanley Hall (1904) was among the rst to hypoth-
esize an adolescent life stage that followed childhood and preceded adulthood (see
Arnett, 2006, for an in-depth critical review of Hall’s work). Hall believed that
adolescence was the time when young people began to think abstractly, to question
authority, to prepare emotionally for adult roles, and to evolve physiologically from
child to adult. He was clear, however, that adolescents were not adults– they were
Developmental andCross-Cultural Considerations intheStudy ofWell-Being Among…

6
not ready for semi-permanent life commitments such as marriage, gainful employ-
ment, and parenting.
A number of writers (e.g., Erikson, 1950; Piaget, 1977) built on Hall’s concept
of adolescence by proposing this phase of life as the time when young people began
to think counterfactually, to develop a sense of themselves as unique individuals,
and to identify their life purpose and direction. Other theorists (e.g., Baumrind,
1989) embedded adolescence within the family context, proposing that adolescents
needed their parents to provide support, structure, and guidance so that the youth
could become productive and competent adults. That adolescents remained depen-
dent on their parents for guidance and support– and that the absence of such guid-
ance and support appeared to lead to problematic and socially destructive outcomes
such as substance abuse, crime, and violence– reinforced Hall’s contention that
adolescents are not adults and are not capable of functioning independently.
With all of that said, however, one could imagine contexts in which adolescents
and adults would be treated similarly and would play similar social roles. For exam-
ple, in hunter-gatherer tribes, the primary tasks that must be performed involve nd-
ing food, caring for children and elders, and identifying or constructing shelter (Hill
etal., 2011). Once a young person had matured physically, s/he would assumedly
be able to perform duties associated with hunting, collecting food, or caregiving.
Preparation for the kinds of permanent adult roles and commitments found in mod-
ern societies would likely not be necessary. Present examples of societies that do not
distinguish strongly between adults and teens are small cultural groups not inte-
grated into mainstream societies such as the Amish in the U.S., the Maori in New
Zealand, the Roma in Romania and Bulgaria, or the Santals and the Lothas in India
(Chatterjee, Bailey, & Aronoff, 2001). One might assume, then, that adolescence–
at least as conceptualized as a life stage between childhood and adulthood– might
not be recognized in all societies. Although hunter-gatherer societies and small,
segregated cultures within larger nations are rare in today’s world, these examples
suggest that adolescence may be thought of (at least in part) as a social construction
rather than simply as a biological reality.
As Western societies continued to evolve, especially during the second half of
the twentieth century and into the twenty-rst, the transition between adolescence
and adulthood became more amorphous and less well dened (Arnett & Taber,
1994; Côté & Allahar, 1994). During the agricultural era, and following the Industrial
Revolution in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, young people gener-
ally married and settled into adult work roles shortly after nishing formal school-
ing or apprenticeship. Divorce was uncommon, and many people stayed in the same
line of work (and often with the same company or working group) for most or all of
their working lives (Cherlin, 2004; Smith, 2010). Although adolescence was char-
acterized by some degree of self-direction, individuality, and uniqueness, the transi-
tion to adulthood was fairly standard for most people in Western societies.
As Western countries transitioned to more technology-based economies, and as
the sexual revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s ushered in new freedoms and greater
equality for women, the transition from adolescence to adulthood became lengthier
M. Petrova and S.J. Schwartz

7
and more complex for many people (MacMillan, 2007). The entry-level positions
that young people had previously used to enter the workforce were being mecha-
nized or otherwise made obsolete, and college degrees were increasingly required
for desirable jobs. Young people were delaying marriage and were spending more
time dating and sorting through potential partners – sometimes cohabiting with
partners before (or instead of) getting married (Wiik, 2009). In short, rather than
entering into permanent adult roles in their late teens and early twenties, youth were
spending more time “in between” adolescence and adulthood (Arnett, 1998) –
sometimes not entering into marriage and gainful employment until their mid to late
20s.
These changes in the Western transition to adulthood have created a new phase
of life. Arnett (2000) has referred to this phase as emerging adulthood. Arnett iden-
tied ve qualities associated with emerging adulthood – instability, self-focus,
feeling in between, identity exploration, and possibilities. In other words, he viewed
this phase of life as a time when many young people were relatively uncommitted
to permanent adult roles and saw the world as wide open to them. Other researchers
(e.g., Côté, 2014) disagree with Arnett’s optimistic view of this developmental
period, but nonetheless view this life phase as distinct from adolescence and from
adulthood– at least in Western societies where young people must nd their own
way into adult roles.
Emerging adulthood, however, is even more culturally bound than adolescence
once was (Schwartz, 2016). In societies where young people do not have the option
of delaying entry into adulthood, are not encouraged (or permitted) to date freely
prior to marrying, or are discouraged from engaging in self-directed exploration
prior to “settling down,” emerging adulthood may not exist. Particularly in tight
cultural contexts where individuality, freedom of expression, and self-direction are
discouraged, the goals of emerging adulthood (i.e., identifying a relationship part-
ner, career path, and set of beliefs) may go against cultural norms and expectations.
For example, in many Middle and Far Eastern countries, children’s marriages are
arranged by their families, and children are often expected to join or otherwise sup-
port the family business (Myers, Madathil, & Tingle, 2005). So an emerging adult
life stage– premised on self-direction, uniqueness, and self-expression– may not
exist within tight cultures where these kinds of individualistic value systems are
discouraged.
The transitional period between childhood and adulthood, then, is strongly
guided and constrained by social and cultural forces. Although there is emerging
evidence that rapid and intensive brain development occurs during the teens and
20s, and that this neural evolution supports a range of advanced cognitive, emo-
tional, and relational abilities (see Thompson, 2014, for a detailed review), the
sociocultural context appears to dictate how these capabilities are utilized, as well
as the extent to which their utilization creates a transitional period between child-
hood and adulthood.
Developmental andCross-Cultural Considerations intheStudy ofWell-Being Among…

8
Well-Being inAdolescence andAdulthood: Universal
andCulture-Specic Considerations
Well-being is one of the most commonly studied psychosocial outcomes among
children, adolescents, and adults (e.g., Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 2003).
Although the precise meaning of “well-being” is elusive, the term generally is taken
to refer to indices of positive adjustment, ourishing, and thriving (Linley, Joseph,
Harrington, & Wood, 2006)– both physical and psychological. However, the con-
struct of emotional/psychological well-being can be operationalized at several lev-
els, including not only the individual person but also the family, peer group,
community, and society as a whole (Evans & Prilleltensky, 2005).
At the individual level, a person might have high self-esteem and feel good about
her/his life, and be pursuing clear goals that s/he has established and that are expe-
rienced as challenging and rewarding (Waterman, 2008). At the relational level,
well-being might be conceptualized as fullling ties and bonds between and among
people who are close to each other (e.g., friends, family members; Greeneld &
Marks, 2006). At the community or societal level, well-being refers to social equal-
ity, appreciation for diversity, and afrmation for the various segments of the popu-
lation (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2010). Community well-being includes the concept
of collective efcacy, where neighborhood residents take ownership of their com-
munity, monitor what happens there, and advocate for social change when neces-
sary (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).
Even within individual approaches to well-being, there may be a demarcation
between “individualist” and “collectivist” variants. Many Western societies view
the self as contained within the person (i.e., “I” am separate from “you”; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991), whereas many non-Western (especially East Asian) cultural con-
texts generally view the self as interdependent with others. That is, the independent
model of selfhood tends to view a person’s life as a product of that person’s choices,
and suggests that “what happens in my life is none of anyone else’s business.” In
contrast, the interdependent model of selfhood holds that each person’s choices
affect everyone else, and as such, the process of making important life decisions and
experiencing their consequences is inherently a collective phenomenon.
In the United States and other Western countries, individual well-being is gener-
ally conceptualized in terms of how one is doing in one’s life– using indicators such
as self-esteem, life satisfaction, a sense of mastery over one’s environment, and a
feeling of meaning and purpose (Ryff & Singer, 2008). This constellation of indica-
tors is referred to as psychological well-being (Ryff, 2014). People with greater
well-being are assumed to be better adjusted and better suited to compete for
resources such as jobs, relationship partners, memberships in organizations, and so
forth (Côté, 1997, 2002).
In contrast, individual well-being in many East Asian cultural contexts is con-
ceptualized as being in touch with the present moment, feeling contented without
judging one’s circumstances, expressing gratitude, and feeling connected with
one’s surroundings– both social and physical (Kan, Karasawa, & Kitayama, 2009).
M. Petrova and S.J. Schwartz

9
This constellation of indicators is referred to as minimalist well-being (Kitayama,
Markus, & Kurokawa, 2000). The distinction between psychological and minimal-
ist well-being parallels Vignoles etal.’s (2016) dimensions of self-containment ver-
sus connection to others, individuality versus similarity, self-interest versus
commitment to others, and self-direction versus receptiveness to outside inuence.
More specically, psychological well-being implies a sense of the self as contained
and separate from others, a focus on one’s own needs and desires, concern with
oneself as a unique and special individual, and a belief that one is responsible for
directing one’s own life and for the consequences (for good or for bad) of one’s own
choices. For example, an item on the Rosenberg (1968) Self-Esteem Scale asks the
respondent whether “I view myself as a person of worth”; and two items on the
revised Scales for Psychological Well-Being (Ryff & Singer, 2008) ask whether “In
general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live” and “I judge myself by
what I think is important, not by the values of what others think is important”. In
contrast, items on the Minimalist Well-Being Scale ask about the extent to which “I
feel grateful that I am alive” and “I feel content in the moment” (Kan etal., 2009).
So what do these diverging conceptions of well-being have to do with adoles-
cence and emerging adulthood? Quite simply, they represent different benchmarks
for how well young people are doing in their lives, and for whether individuals,
families, communities, and societies have been successful in guiding the next gen-
erations of youth. The availability of different benchmarks raises an important ques-
tion– which benchmarks should be used within which cultural contexts? Should we
use one set of benchmarks in Western contexts grounded in individuality and self-
directedness, and another set of benchmarks in non-Western contexts grounded in
connectedness and inclusion of others within the self? Or should we use both sets of
benchmarks within any given cultural context that we study?
The answer to this question is far from straightforward, and at least two perspec-
tives might be advanced in response to the question. From a cultural relativity per-
spective, individuals within a given cultural context should be provided with
resources that are compatible with that context (e.g., Xie, Roy, & Chen, 2006)– and
their well-being should be evaluated according to the “rules” underlying which the
cultural contexts in which they reside. From a universal, global perspective, multi-
ple components and conceptualizations of well-being are essential (albeit to varying
extents) across cultural contexts (Jensen, Arnett, & McKenzie, 2011). Further, a
strict focus on comparability across contexts and countries would require that the
same indicators be measured within each context and that these indicators carry
equivalent meanings across contexts (e.g., Chen, 2008; Knight, Roosa, & Umaña-
Taylor, 2009).
Empirical comparisons across Western and non-Western (e.g., North American
and East Asian) cultural contexts have indicated that both “individualist” and “col-
lectivist” conceptions of well-being are facilitated by fullling the developmental
tasks of adolescence and emerging adulthood (e.g., consolidating a sense of identity
that will help guide one’s future path; Sheldon etal., 2004; Sugimura etal., 2016).
Further, Kan etal. (2009) found that both subjective and minimalist well-being are
endorsed strongly among American and Japanese youth.
Developmental andCross-Cultural Considerations intheStudy ofWell-Being Among…

10
In a similar study, Lee, Beckert, and Goodrich (2010) examined the psychologi-
cal development of Taiwanese rural and urban youth in relation to cultural value
orientation (individualism, transitional, and collectivism), uncovered comparable
results. Lee etal. concluded that, based on levels of globalization and technology
exposure, both urban and rural youth endorsed all three cultural value orientations.
Further, all three value systems appeared to promote developmental markers such as
identity and cognitive autonomy. Such ndings suggest that both psychological and
minimalist well-being may be important regardless of the cultural context in
question.
Unfortunately, the fact that we are somewhat able to grasp the complexities of
well-being as a culturally bound experience does not imply that we have fully mas-
tered the process of nurturing it in our youth. The past couple of decades have been
marked by major advances in public health, accomplished within epidemiology
through identifying vulnerable populations and developmental periods, and by pre-
vention science through addressing risk and protective factors for various problem
outcomes (Sloboda & Petras, 2014). These are important steps for identifying and
preventing disease and problem behaviors, but we cannot stop there. Avoiding prob-
lems is not necessarily the same as promoting wellness and ourishing.
Put differently, well-being is more than the absence of pathology. The fact that
one is not depressed, is not behaving in personally or socially destructive ways, and
is not physically ill does not automatically imply that one is “doing well” (Keyes,
2005). Attempts to prevent harmful behavior, substance use, depression, suicidality,
and other negative outcomes do not, in and of themselves, automatically promote
well-being (Kia-Keating, Dowdy, Morgan, & Noam, 2011). One can easily imagine
a person who is not clinically depressed, not using substances, not at risk for sui-
cide, and not actively violating the rights of others but who is nonetheless not espe-
cially happy, not pursuing self-fullling goals, and not experiencing a sense of
mastery over her/his life. As such, we should be clear that well-being involves the
presence of the positive and not simply the absence of the negative, and that efforts
to prevent problems may not promote well-being unless well-being is explicitly
targeted as a mechanism or outcome (Guerra & Bradshaw, 2008; Youngblade etal.,
2006).
The independence of well-being and problematic outcomes is particularly devel-
opmentally salient for youth. One of the core assumptions of the prevention science
approach is that, when negative behaviors or inuences are removed or ameliorated,
young people are “doing well.” Such an assumption may not be developmentally
appropriate: although adults may have ourished or thrived at an earlier point in
their lives, the same may not be true for adolescents given their more limited devel-
opmental history and the rootedness of their adjustment (or lack thereof) within
their families of origin. Because youth may have never learned healthy behavioral
patterns, “preventing” or extinguishing their unhealthy behaviors may leave them
“stranded” without any behavioral repertoire at all. Most “high risk” youth are fully
capable of explaining what depression, anger, abuse, or trauma feel like, but they
likely lack an understanding of what healthy functioning– much less thriving or
M. Petrova and S.J. Schwartz

11
ourishing– feel like. Thus, in the eld of adolescent health, we must emphasize
promotion– the instilment of “normality” (and excellence)– in addition to the elim-
ination of abnormality.
Where theRubber Meets theRoad: Promoting Well-Being
AcrossCultural Contexts
In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss approaches to intervention and ways in
which well-being can be promoted within and across cultural contexts. We also
review ways in which individual well-being can be used as a mechanism to promote
community and societal well-being, and to prevent or offset risks for problematic
outcomes.
The social invention of adolescence has led to implications in the way we
approach risk prevention and health promotion for teens and young adults. This
group of young people, although stuck in “nowhere land” between childhood and
adulthood, spend the majority of their waking hours together (Larson & Verma,
1999), growing intragroup norms, creating its own culture and utilizing global com-
munication tools to cross national/cultural boundaries.
Research still supports the notion of forming strong ecologies (families, schools,
and communities) that nurture healthy growth and maturation for our youth (Lopez
etal., 2010; Prado etal., 2010). However, the idea that people are the passive recipi-
ents of scientic knowledge has come under increasing criticism. The idea that
young people are producers of their own development (Lerner & Busch-Rossnagel,
1981) suggests that youth, within their families and communities, need to be placed
into a position of leadership and expertise vis-à-vis their own empowerment. As
such, public health researchers and interventionists are becoming increasingly
aware of the need to collaborate with young people rather than attempting to act
upon them (Zeldin etal., 2017). Indeed, the positive youth development movement
is based on collaborative approaches to empowerment (Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas,
& Lerner, 2005).
Prevention science has begun to implement this type of approach as well. Youth
suicide prevention researchers, for example, are recognizing the power of adoles-
cent peer norms and the need for youth-adult collaboration. The “codes of silence”–
the norm to not disclose to adults when a teen friend is at risk for suicide– has been
identied as one of the major barriers to saving young lives by connecting them
with trusted helpful adults. Data suggest that the old model of training adult gate-
keepers to recognize distress and offer help to at risk youth is not producing results
and cannot combat the stigma around engaging with adults for help (Wyman etal.,
2008). Thus, researchers in the eld of youth suicide prevention are designing,
implementing and testing school-based programs that empower young people to
work together with adult mentors and to establish help seeking from adult as the
norm for healthy living (LoMurray, 2005; Wyman etal., 2010).
Developmental andCross-Cultural Considerations intheStudy ofWell-Being Among…

12
We are beginning to recognize that youth are often segregated from most adults,
whether in schools, in after-school programs, or in peer groups. Although such age
segregation is helpful in many ways (e.g., providing dedicated time for education),
age segregation also widens the natural gap between generations, eliminates oppor-
tunities for mentorship, and may delay the assumption of adult responsibilities
(Zeldin, Christens, & Powers, 2013). In the U.S. in 1974, the President’s Science
Advisory Committee (1974) stated that “What was once done to protect youth from
manifest exploitation, now serves to reinforce the ‘outsider’ status of youth, to the
point where they deprive youth of experience important to their growth and devel-
opment” (PSAC, 1974). Indeed, youth-adult partnerships were the fundamental
component of youth prevention policy in the US in the 1970s (Zeldin, Krauss, Kim,
Collura, & Abdullah, 2015). Such a collaborative mindset needs to be restored if we
are to promote well-being, and prevent personally and socially destructive out-
comes, among young people.
Youth-adult partnerships are conceptualized as a developmental process and as a
form of community practice. This model emphasizes that healthy communities and
organizations are dependent on the voluntary contributions of all members. At its
best, the youth-adult partnership model underscores mutual responsibility and
respect between adults and young people, based on a goal oriented approach char-
acterized by shared leading and learning (Camino, 2000). Youth and adults are chal-
lenged to engage their own networks, bring their experiences and critical
perspectives. Li and Jullian (2012) and Hamilton and Hamilton (2005) contend that,
especially for adolescents, mentoring relationships that maintain a high degree of
adult control often lead to tension and lack of engagement among youth. These
researchers conclude that youth-adult relationships that provide balance and mutual
respect are most likely to promote healthy youth development. Indeed, collaborative
relationships with non-familial adult mentors have been found to strongly promote
well-being and thriving among youth (Schwartz, Chan, Rhodes, & Scales, 2013).
Research also indicates that youth contributions to communities and organizations
stimulate not only youth connectedness to prosocial institutions, but also adult and
staff positive development and stronger local institutions, policies, and programs
(Benson, Scales, Hamilton, & Sesma, 2006; Mitra, 2009; Sherrod, Torney-Purta, &
Flanagan, 2010; Zeldin, 2004). Unfortunately, in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, the
notion of youth-adult cooperation toward public health promotion was overshad-
owed by “just say no” and No Child Left Behind types of programs and policies that
put adults back “in charge” and further away from youth (Levine, 2007). Indeed,
many youth seek to be involved in their own empowerment, rather than being “lec-
tured to” by adults.
Currently, in spite of federal policy setbacks in the United States and elsewhere, a
community infrastructure accommodating youth participation is being built by private
foundations and corporations. Some have invited youth to serve on their boards of
directors, while others have directly involved them in program planning, implementa-
tion, and evaluation. Cities like Austin, Texas; Portland, Oregon; and San Francisco
M. Petrova and S.J. Schwartz

13
have issued explicit mandates for youth to be involved in policy making and fund
allocations (Frank & Dominguez, 2007; Sirriani, 2005).
The Western world is unfortunately not alone in identifying the notion of grow-
ing intergenerational isolation as a major primary risk factor for healthy youth
development and struggling to legitimize youth-adult collaboration as a necessary
component to promoting adolescent well-being. Other traditionally collectivistic
societies are tackling similar issues. Malaysia, for example, has experienced alike
isolation of teens and young adults from non-familial adults as the country has
industrialized and moved toward a technological economy. The transition into a
more automated society has also brought a growing sense of youth segregation from
decision making, civic engagement and community life connectedness (Zeldin
etal., 2015). In 2011, the Malaysian Institute for Research in Youth Development
noted increases in conicts between young people and adults at home, school and in
the community, as well as heightened political apathy and alienation in youth. As in
the U.S, Malaysian researchers are also looking for ways to bring generations closer
together with the aim of ensuring healthy youth development (Zeldinetal., 2015).
Although a full review of the intrapersonal and contextual determinants of well-
being is beyond the scope of this chapter, readers are referred to other sources (e.g.,
Currie etal., 2012). Predictors of well-being that could be targeted in intervention
programs include a warm and supportive family environment (Bhana, McKay,
Mellins, Petersen, & Bell, 2010), bonding to school and school personnel (Shochet,
Dadds, Ham, & Montague, 2006), afliation with prosocial peers (Buchanan &
Bowen, 2008), and availability of neighborhood adult mentors (Schwartz et al.,
2013). It may also be important to promote intrapersonal assets such as gratitude
(Froh, Seck, & Emmons, 2008) and self-determination/agency (Véronneau,
Koestner, & Abela, 2005). It would be advisable for intervention programs to target
each of these variables as mechanisms for increasing well-being and preventing
problematic outcomes in adolescents and emerging adults– although as noted ear-
lier, it is critical that youth be viewed as active participants in the program rather
than as passive recipients of adult wisdom.
It is also critical to ascertain the extent to which the same risk and protective
mechanisms serve to promote well-being and prevent problems across cultural con-
texts. Even if the same mechanisms do operate across cultures, the ways in which
these mechanisms are targeted may need to differ based on the local cultural stream
(e.g., Bernal, Jiménez-Chafey, & Domenich-Rodríguez, 2009). For example,
individual- based interventions may work in looser cultures but not in tighter cul-
tures, and the target behaviors (e.g., substance use, intimate partner violence) may
be more culturally normative– and therefore more difcult to prevent– in some
contexts than in others. A guiding principle might be that an emic approach, build-
ing off of the assumptions and norms embedded within the target cultural context,
is preferable to an etic approach, where an intervention designed for one context is
transported to another context with little or no adaptation. Well-being may be at
least somewhat culturally bound, and as a result, promoting it among young people
will likely involve maximizing the individual’s extent of “t” with the local culture
(see Xie etal., 2006, for an empirical example).
Developmental andCross-Cultural Considerations intheStudy ofWell-Being Among…

14
In closing, we have reviewed the extent to which adolescence and emerging
adulthood represent transitional phases between childhood and adulthood, the
extent to which both adolescence and emerging adulthood are culturally bound and
socially constructed, and the ways in which well-being is rooted within the cultural-
historical assumptions that underlie a given context. However, we also advocated
moving beyond the simplistic assumption that “individualist” forms of well-being
are most salient in Western contexts whereas “collectivist” forms of well-being are
most salient in non-Western contexts. Indeed, it appears that multiple dimensions of
well-being are important across contexts. We also emphasized the independence of
well-being from pathology and that “doing well” is not simply the absence of prob-
lems. Finally, we suggested that intervention approaches might consider actively
involving youth as agentic participants so as to maintain their interest and engage-
ment, and to help them to believe that they are capable of contributing to – and
making a difference in– their own lives (presently as young people and in the future
as adults). We ended by suggesting some possible avenues for focusing intervention
efforts, while recommending strongly that the delivery of any intervention program
must be copasetic with the cultural context in which the target population is embed-
ded. We hope that our recommendations will help to bring together developmental,
cultural, and applied approaches to adolescent and emerging adult development. It
is through such integrative efforts that the future of our youth might best be
maximized.
References
Arnett, J.J. (1998). Learning to stand alone: The contemporary American transition to adulthood
in cultural and historical context. Human Development, 41, 295–315.
Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the
twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.
Arnett, J.J. (2006). G.Stanley Hall’s Adolescence: Brilliance and nonsense. History of Psychology,
9, 186–197.
Arnett, J.J., & Taber, S. (1994). Adolescence terminable and interminable: When does adoles-
cence end? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 517–537.
Barnea-Goraly, N., Menon, V., Eckert, M., Tamm, L., Bammer, R., Karchemskiy, A., etal. (2005).
White matter development during childhood and adolescence: A cross-sectional diffusion ten-
sor imaging study. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1848–1854.
Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development today
and tomorrow (pp.349–378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Benson, P.L., Scales, P.C., Hamilton, S.F., & Sesma, A., Jr. (2006). Positive youth development:
Theory, research, and applications. In W.Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology, Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp.894–941). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Bernal, G., Jiménez-Chafey, M.I., & Domenich-Rodríguez, M. (2009). Cultural adaptation of
treatments: A resource for considering culture in evidence-based practice. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 361–368.
M. Petrova and S.J. Schwartz

15
Bhana, A., McKay, M.M., Mellins, C., Petersen, I., & Bell, C. (2010). Family-based HIV preven-
tion and intervention services for youth living in poverty-aff ected contexts: The CHAMP model
of collaborative, evidence-informed programme development. Journal of the International
AIDS Society, 13(Suppl 2).
Buchanan, R.L., & Bowen, G.L. (2008). In the context of adult support: The inuence of peer
support on the psychological well-being of middle-school students. Child and Adolescent
Social Work Journal, 25, 397–407.
Camino, L. (2000). Youth-adult partnerships: Entering new territory in community work and
research. Applied Developmental Science, 4(1), 11–20.
Chatterjee, P., Bailey, D., & Aronoff, N. (2001). Adolescence and old age in twelve communities.
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 28, 121–159.
Chen, F.F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of mak-
ing inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 1005–1008.
Cherlin, A.J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 66, 848–861.
Côté, J.E. (1997). An empirical test of the identity capital model. Journal of Adolescence, 20,
577–597.
Côté, J.E. (2002). The role of identity capital in the transition to adulthood: The individualization
thesis examined. Journal of Youth Studies, 5(2), 117–134.
Côté, J.E. (2014). The dangerous myth of emerging adulthood: An evidence-based critique of a
awed developmental theory. Applied Developmental Science, 18(4), 177–188.
Côté, J.E., & Allahar, A.L. (1994). Generation on hold: Coming of age in the late twentieth cen-
tury. Toronto, Canada: Stoddart.
Côté, J.E., & Levine, C.G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological
synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2015). Identity formation, youth, and development: A simplied
approach. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Currie, C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A., Currie, D., de Looze, M., Roberts, C., … Barnekow, V. (2012).
Social determinants of health and well-being among young people (Health Policy for Children
and Adolescents, No. 6). Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization.
Erikson, E.H. (1950). Childhood and society. NewYork, NY: Norton.
Evans, S.D., & Prilleltensky, I. (2005). Youth and democracy: Participation for individual, rela-
tional, and collective well-being. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 681–692.
Frank, L., & Dominguez, E. (2007). Our bill of rights: Fostering empowerment of youth for tomor-
row, lling the gaps in services today! Portland, OR: Multnomah Youth Commission.
Froh, J.J., Seck, W.J., & Emmons, R.A. (2008). Counting blessings in early adolescents: An
experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 46,
213–223.
Gelfand, M.J., Raver, J.L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L.M., Lun, J., Lim, B.C., … Yamaguchi, S. (2011).
Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100–1104.
Greeneld, E.A., & Marks, N.F. (2006). Linked lives: Adult children’s problems and their par-
ents’ psychological and relational well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 442–454.
Guerra, N.G., & Bradshaw, C.P. (2008). Linking the prevention of problem behaviors and positive
youth development: Core competencies for positive youth development and risk prevention.
New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 122, 1–17.
Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology,
sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education (Vol. I & II). NewYork, NY: D.Appleton & Co..
Hamilton, M.A., & Hamilton, S.F. (2005). Work and service. In D.L. DuBois & M.J. Karcher
(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp.348–363). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hill, K. R., Walker, R. S., Božičević, M., Eder, J., Headland, T., Hewlett, B., et al. (2011).
Co-residence patterns in hunter-gatherer societies show unique human social structure.
Science, 331, 1286–1289.
Developmental andCross-Cultural Considerations intheStudy ofWell-Being Among…

16
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. London, UK: Sage.
Jensen, L.A. (2003). Coming of Age in a multicultural world: Globalization and adolescent cul-
tural identity formation. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 189–196.
Jensen, L.A., Arnett, J.J., & McKenzie, J.(2011). Globalization and cultural identity. In S.J.
Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research
(pp.285–303). NewYork, NY: Springer.
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (2003). Well-being: Foundations of hedonic
psychology. NewYork, NY: Russell Sage.
Kan, C., Karasawa, M., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Minimalist in style: Self, identity, and well-being
in Japan. Self and Identity, 8, 300–317.
Keyes, C.L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete
state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548.
Kia-Keating, M., Dowdy, E., Morgan, M.L., & Noam, G.G. (2011). Protecting and promoting: An
integrative conceptual model for healthy development of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 48, 220–228.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well-being: Good
feelings in Japan and. the United States. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 93–124.
Knight, G.P., Roosa, M.W., & Umaña-Taylor, A.J. (2009). Studying ethnic minority and ethni-
cally disadvantaged populations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lamm, C., Batson, C.D., & Decety, J.(2007). The neural substrate of human empathy: Effects
of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 42–58.
Larson, R.W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world:
Work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 701–736.
Lee, C.T., Beckert, T.E., & Goodrich, T.R. (2010). The relationship between individualistic, col-
lectivistic, and transitional cultural value orientations and adolescents’ autonomy and identity
status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 882–893.
Lerner, R.M., Almerigi, J.B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J.V. (2005). Positive youth development: A
view of the issues. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 10–16.
Lerner, R.M., & Busch-Rossnagel, N. A. (Eds.). (1981). Individuals as producers of their own
development. NewYork, NY: Academic Press.
Levine, P. (2007). The future of democracy: Developing the next generation of American citizens.
Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.
Li, J., & Jullian, M. (2012). Developmental relationships as the active ingredient: A unify-
ing working hypothesis of “what works” across intervention settings. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 82, 157–186.
Linley, P.A., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., & Wood, A.M. (2006). Positive psychology: Past, present,
and (possible) future. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 3–16.
LoMurray, M. (2005). Sources of strength facilitators guide: Suicide prevention peer gatekeeper
training. Bismarck, ND: The North Dakota Suicide Prevention Project.
Lopez, B., Huang, S., Wang, W., Prado, G., Brown, C. H., Zeng, G., … Pantin, H. (2010).
Intrapersonal and ecodevelopmental factors associated with smoking in Hispanic adolescents.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 492–503.
MacMillan, R. (2007). Constructing adulthood: Agency and subjectivity in adolescence and adult-
hood. Advances in Life Course Research, 11, 3–29.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Mitra, D.L. (2009). Collaborating with students: Building youth-adult partnerships in schools.
American Journal of Education, 115, 407–436.
Myers, J.E., Madathil, J., & Tingle, L.R. (2005). Marriage satisfaction and wellness in India and
the United States: A preliminary comparison of arranged marriages and marriages of choice.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 83, 183–190.
Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky, I. (2010). Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation and well-
being. NewYork, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
M. Petrova and S.J. Schwartz

17
Pascual-Leone, J.(1987). Organismic processes for neo-Piagetian theories: A dialectical causal
account of cognitive account. International Journal of Psychology, 22, 531–570.
Piaget, J. (1977). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Prado, G., Huang, S., Maldonado-Molina, M., Bandiera, F., Schwartz, S.J., de la Vega, P., Brown,
C.H., & Pantin, H. (2010). An empirical test of ecodevelopmental theory in predicting HIV
risk behaviors among Hispanic youth. Health Education and Behavior, 37, 97–114.
President’s Science Advisory Committee. (1974). Youth: Transition to adulthood. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1968). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Ryff, C.D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of
eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83, 10–28.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, R. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic
approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 13–39.
Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A mul-
tilevel study of collective efcacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
Schwartz, S.E. O., Chan, C.S., Rhodes, J. E., & Scales, P.C. (2013). Community developmen-
tal assets and positive youth development: The role of natural mentors. Research in Human
Development, 10(2), 141–162.
Schwartz, S.J. (2016). Turning point for a turning point: Advancing emerging adulthood theory
and research. Emerging Adulthood, 4, 307–317.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Wu, C., et al. (2004). Self-
concordance and subjective well-being in four cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
35, 209–223.
Sherrod, L.R., Torney-Purta, J., & Flanagan, C.A. (2010). Research on the development of citi-
zenship: A eld comes of age. In L.R. Sherrod, J.Tornery-Purta, & C.A. Flanagan (Eds.),
Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp.1–20). NewYork, NY: Wiley.
Shochet, I.M., Dadds, M.R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an under-
emphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 170–179.
Sirriani, C. (2005). Youth civic engagement: Systems change and change in Hampton, Virginia.
Boston, MA: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Sloboda, Z., & Petras, H. (2014). Dening prevention science. NewYork, NY: Springer.
Smith, V. (2010). Enhancing employability: Human, cultural, and social capital in an era of turbu-
lent unpredictability. Human Relations, 63, 279–303.
Sokolovsky, J. (Ed.). (2009). The cultural context of aging: Worldwide perspectives (3rd ed.).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Sugimura, K., Nakama, R., Mizokami, S., Hatano, K., Tsuzuki, M., & Schwartz, S.J. (2016).
Working together or separately? The role of identity and cultural self-construal in well-being
among Japanese youth. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 362–373.
Swartz, T. T. (2009). Intergenerational family relations in adulthood: Patterns, variations, and
implications in the contemporary United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191–212.
Thompson, R.J., Jr. (2014). Beyond reason and tolerance: The purpose and practice of higher
education. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Véronneau, M.-H., Koestner, R.F., & Abela, J.R. Z. (2005). Intrinsic need satisfaction and well–
being in children and adolescents: an application of the self–determination theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 280–292.
Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P.B., Easterbrook, M. J., González, R., … Bond,
M.H. (2016). Beyond the “East-West” dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of self-
hood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 966–1000.
Developmental andCross-Cultural Considerations intheStudy ofWell-Being Among…

18
Waterman, A. S. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist’s perspective. Journal of
Positive Psychology, 3, 234–252.
Wiik, K.A. (2009). “You’d better wait!” Socioeconomic background and timing of rst marriage
versus rst cohabitation. European Sociological Review, 25, 139–153.
Wyman, P. A., Brown, C.H., Inman, J., Cross, W., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Guo, J., & Peña, J.B.
(2008). Randomized trial of a gatekeeper program for suicide prevention: 1-year impact on
secondary school staff. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 104–115.
Wyman, P.A., Brown, C.H., LoMurray, M., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Petrova, M., Yu, Q.,... & Wang,
W. (2010). An outcome evaluation of the Sources of Strength suicide prevention program
delivered by adolescent peer leaders in high schools. American Journal of Public Health, 100,
1653–1661.
Xie, J.L., Roy, J.-P., & Chen, Z. (2006). Cultural and individual differences in self-rating behavior:
An extension and renement of the cultural relativity hypothesis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27, 341–364.
Youngblade, L.M., Theokas, C., Schulenberg, J., Curry, L., Huang, I.-C., & Novak, M. (2006).
Risk and promotive factors in families, schools, and communities: A contextual model of posi-
tive youth development in adolescence. Pediatrics, 119, S47–S53.
Zeldin, S. (2004). Youth as agents of adult and community development: Mapping the processes
and outcomes of youth engaged in organizational governance. Applied Developmental Science,
8(2), 75–90.
Zeldin, S., Christens, B.D., & Powers, J.L. (2013). The psychology and practice of youth-adult
partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 385–397.
Zeldin, S., Krauss, S.E., Kim, T., Collura, J., & Abdullah, H. (2015). Pathways to youth empower-
ment and community connectedness: A study of youth-adult partnership in Malaysian after-
school, co-curricular programs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1–14.
Zeldin, S., Gauley, S., Krauss, S.E., Kornbluh, M., & Collura, J.(2017). Youth–adult partner-
ship and youth civic development: Cross-national analyses for scholars and eld professionals.
Youth and Society, 49, 851–878.
M. Petrova and S.J. Schwartz