The Routledge International Handbook of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Character Development, Volume II: Moderators, Threats, and Contexts (Routledge International Handbooks) 1032172444, 9781032172446

Citation preview

THE ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES ON CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, VOLUME II

Drawing from philosophy, religion, biology, behavioral and social sciences, and the arts, The Routledge International Handbooks of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Character Development, Volumes I and II, present cutting-edge scholarship about the concept of character across the life span, the developmental and contextual bases of character, and the key organizations of societal sectors, within and across nations, that promote character development in individuals, families, and communities. This second volume, Moderators, Threats, and Contexts, focuses on the moderators and covariates of character development with chapters pertaining to cultural- and contextual-based exemplars of character development; grit, achievement, and resilience; hope for the future; and parenting and self-regulation. With contributions from international experts, Volume II goes on to discuss threats to moral, positive, or virtuous character development, as well as the different contexts wherein the character is studied and promoted. Special attention is paid to the centers of excellence at universities around the world that specialize in character development research and character education. This comprehensive publication is an essential reference for researchers and graduate students in behavioral sciences, biology, philosophy, theology, and economics, as well as practitioners leading or evaluating character education or character development programs around the world. Michael D. Matthews, Ph.D., is Professor of Engineering Psychology at the United States Military Academy. He has been a military psychologist since 1980. In the past 40 years, he has served on active duty as an Air Force officer (as a behavioral sciences officer), as a psychology professor at Drury University, as a research psychologist for the Army Research Institute, and, since 2000, in his current capacity at West Point. Richard M. Lerner, Ph.D., is the Bergstrom Chair in Applied Developmental Science and the Director of the Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development at Tufts University. He went from kindergarten through Ph.D. within the New York City public schools, completing his doctorate at the City University of New York in 1971 in developmental psychology. Lerner has more than 800 scholarly publications, including more than 80 authored or edited books.

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

THE ROUTLEDGE INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES ON CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, VOLUME II Moderators, Threats, and Contexts

Edited by Michael D. Matthews and Richard M. Lerner

Designed cover image: © marekuliasz / Getty Images First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Michael D. Matthews and Richard M. Lerner; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Michael D. Matthews and Richard M. Lerner to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN: 9781032172446 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032172453 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003252450 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450 Typeset in Times New Roman by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd. Access the Support Material: www.routledge.com/9781032172446

CONTENTS

List of Contributors Foreword   James Stavridis Preface

x xvii xix

SECTION I

Moderators and Covariates of Character Development  1 Culturally Sensitive and Contextually Adapted Exemplars of Character Development: Implications for Reimagining Frameworks Velma McBride Murry, Rachel A. Hanebutt, Hyemin Han, Marlena Debreaux, and Juliet M. Nyanamba

1 3

2 The Role of Grit in Achievement and Resilience: A Comprehensive Review 30 Ryan Erbe, Ray Fredrick, Yasmine L. Konheim-Kalkstein, Michael D. Matthews, Orin Strauchler, and Elizabeth Wetzler 3 Organizational Grit as a Cultural Phenomenon Celeste K. Raver and Andrew Ledford

56

4 Hope for the Future Nancy E. Snow

69

5 Parenting as Panacea: Toward Generational Advancements of Early Character Virtues and Mature Civic Responsibility Marc H. Bornstein

v

88

Contents

6 Resilience Andrew C. Pool, Samantha Costello, and Kenneth R. Ginsburg

116

7 Self-Regulation: A Character Development Perspective Christopher M. Napolitano, Madison N. Sewell, Heejun Yoon, Christopher Elmi, and Brent W. Roberts

137

SECTION II

Threats to Character Development

163

8 Can Exemplars Promote Character Development in the Wake of Adversity? Sara Mendonca, Michael Brady, and Eranda Jayawickreme

165

9 Why Good People Fail at Character?: The Character Risk Model Michael D. Matthews, Andrew Farina, Patrick J. Sweeney, and Jarle Eid

177

10 What’s Wrong with the World Anyway?: Psychological Origins of a Collective Failure of Humanity Robert J. Sternberg

193

11 Democratic Character and Virtues: Developmental Responses to Group Conflict and Oppression David Moshman

214

12 Racism and Positive Youth Development Eleanor K. Seaton and Rebecca M. B. White SECTION III

236

Contexts of Character Development

257

13 The Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues James Arthur

259

14 The Center for Character and Citizenship Marvin W. Berkowitz and Melinda C. Bier

274

15 The Center for Parent and Teen Communication at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Andrew C. Pool, Elyse Salek, Joanna Lee Williams, Eden Pontz, Jillian L. Baker, and Kenneth R. Ginsburg vi

286

Contents

16 The Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development: Understanding What Goes Right in the Lives of Youth Mary H. Buckingham, Paul A. Chase, Dian Yu, Jonathan M. Tirrell, Elizabeth M. Dowling, Kristina Schmid Callina, Yerin Park, Carolina Goncalves, Natasha Keces, and Roya Abbasi-Asl

297

17 Institute for the Study of Human Flourishing: A Cautionary Tale Nancy E. Snow

314

18 The Oxford Character Project Edward Brooks, Rebecca Park, and Anjali Sarker

325

19 The Montclair State University Institute for Research on Youth Thriving and Evaluation Jennifer Brown Urban and Miriam R. Linver 20 The Stanford Center on Adolescence Heather Malin

341 355

21 Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character: A Case Study Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend

369

22 The Application of Character Measurement and Development within Organizations Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

390

23 International Development Agencies and Their Emerging Role in Adolescent Character Development: Reflections and Opportunities Prerna Banati, Elizabeth M. Dowling, Nicola Jones, Keenan Madi, and Agnieszka Malachowska 24 International Faith-Based Organizations: Integrating Science and Ideology Alistair T. R. Sim, Elizabeth M. Dowling, Jonathan M. Tirrell, Jacqueline V. Lerner, and Kate Williams 25 Children’s Media and Development: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Considerations, and Potential Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow

vii

423

444

468

Contents

26 Character Development in Youth Programs: Lessons from Developmental Science Research and Practice Andrea Vest Ettekal, Jennifer P. Agans, Barbara Bolick, and Kimia Shirzad

494

27 Philanthropic Approaches to Character Development Sarah Clement, Richard Bollinger, and Alexandra Was

522

28 The Templeton Philanthropies Heather Templeton Dill and Jennifer Templeton Simpson

535

29 Character First, the Pathway to Excellence: A Case Study of NPX Point Avenue K12 Education Programs in Hanoi, Vietnam Trang U. Le and Daniel G. Hwang

550

30 Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach: Integrating Intellectual Virtues into the DNA of a School Eric Churchill, Jacquie Bryant, and Jason Baehr

559

31 A Developmental Journey: The Center for Character and Leadership Development at the United States Air Force Academy John Abbatiello and Douglas R. Lindsay

572

32 Leaders of Character, The Coast Guard Academy Way Leonard M. Giambra, Nathaniel K. Johnson, Andrew D. Ray, Jon Heller, and Ellyn D. Metcalf 33 Building Trusted Army Professionals: Character Development at West Point Jeffrey Peterson, Diane M. Ryan, and Elise Murray Dykhuis 34 Leadership and Character Development at the U.S. Naval Academy Jeffrey R. Macris, Joseph J. Thomas, Andrew Ledford, Kevin Mullaney, and Celeste K. Raver SECTION IV

581

592 612

Conclusions and Implications

631

35 Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership: Consequences of Ignoring Practice Margaret Beale Spencer

633

viii

Contents

36 Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding, Measuring, and Educating Character Blaine J. Fowers, Lukas F. Novak, Nona C. Kiknadze, and Alex C. Calder 37 Character Development: Then, Now, and Next Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews Afterword   William Damon Index

658

683

704 707

ix

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Roya Abbasi-Asl Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development Tufts University Boston, USA

Jillian L. Baker The Center for Parent and Teen Communication Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania, USA Prerna Banati Department of Maternal Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Aging World Health Organization

John Abbatiello The Center for Character and Leadership Development U.S. Air Force Academy

Marvin W. Berkowitz Center for Character and Citizenship University of Missouri-St. Louis Missouri, USA

Jennifer P. Agans Department of Recreations, Park, and Tourism Management The Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania, USA

Melinda C. Bier Center for Character and Citizenship University of Missouri-St. Louis Missouri, USA

James Arthur Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues University of Birmingham Birmingham, UK

Barbara Bolick Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management Texas A & M University Texas, USA

Jason Baehr Department of Philosophy Loyola Marymount University Los Angeles, USA

x

List of Contributors

Richard Bollinger Character Virtue Development The John Templeton Foundation Pennsylvania, USA

Paul A. Chase Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development Tufts University Boston, USA

Marc H. Bornstein Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maryland, USA

Eric Churchill Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach Long Beach, USA Sarah Clement Character Virtue Development The John Templeton Foundation Pennsylvania, USA

Michael Brady Department of Philosophy University of Glasgow Glasgow, UK

Samantha Costello The Center for Parent and Teen Communication Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania, USA

Edward Brooks Oxford Character Project Oxford University Oxford, UK

William Damon Director, Center on Adolescence Professor of Education Senior Fellow, the Hoover Institution Stanford University Stanford, USA

Jacquie Bryant Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach Long Beach, USA

Brian Davidson MindVue.com Kansas, USA

Mary H. Buckingham Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development Tufts University Boston, USA

Marlena Debreaux Department of Health Policy and Human and Organization Development Vanderbilt University Nashville, USA

Alex C. Calder Department of Educational and Psychological Studies University of Miami Miami, USA

Heather Templeton Dill President The John Templeton Foundation Pennsylvania, USA

Kristina Schmid Callina Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development Tufts University Boston, USA

Julie Dobrow Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development Tufts University Boston, USA xi

List of Contributors

Elizabeth M. Dowling Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development Tufts University Boston, USA

Ray Fredrick Character Integration Advisory Group, and Prep School U.S. Military Academy West Point, NY, USA Leonard M. Giambra U. S. Coast Guard Academy

Elise Murray Dykhuis Character Integration Advisory Group & Department of Mathematical Sciences U.S. Military Academy West Point, NY, USA

Kenneth R. Ginsburg The Center for Parent and Teen Communication Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania, USA

Jarle Eid Department of Psychological Science University of Bergen University of Bergen

Carolina Goncalves Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development Tufts University Boston, USA

Christopher Elmi Department of Educational Psychology University of Illinois Illinois, USA Ryan Erbe Character Integration Advisory Group, and Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership U.S. Military Academy West Point, NY, USA

Hyemin Han Department of Educational Studies in Psychology Research Methodology, and Counseling University of Alabama Alabama, USA

Andrea Vest Ettekal Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications Texas A & M University Texas, USA

Rachel A. Hanebutt Department of Health Policy and Human and Organization Development Vanderbilt University Nashville, USA

Andrew Farina Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership U.S. Military Academy West Point, NY, USA

Jon Heller U. S. Coast Guard Academy Lacey J. Hilliard Department of Psychology Suffolk University Massachusetts, USA

Blaine J. Fowers Department of Educational and Psychological Studies University of Miami Miami, USA

Daniel G. Hwang NPX Point Avenue xii

List of Contributors

Eranda Jayawickreme Department of Psychology Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, USA

Andrew Ledford Department of Leadership, Ethics, and Law U.S. Naval Academy

Nicola Jones Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence Overseas Development Institute

Jacqueline V. Lerner Applied Developmental and Educational Psychology Lynch School of Education and Human Development Boston College Massachusetts, USA

Natasha Keces Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development Tufts University Boston, USA

Richard M. Lerner Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development Tufts University Boston, USA

Nona C. Kiknadze Department of Educational and Psychological Studies University of Miami

Douglas R. Lindsay The Center for Character and Leadership Development U.S. Air Force Academy

Yasmine L. Konheim-Kalkstein Character Integration Advisory Group Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership U.S. Military Academy West Point, NY, USA

Miriam R. Linver The Montclair State University Institute for Research on Youth Thriving and Evaluation Montclair State University Montclair, USA

Nathaniel K. Johnson U.S. Coast Guard Academy

Michael Lamb Politics, Ethics, and Interdisciplinary Humanities, and Program for Leadership and Character Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, USA Trang U. Le Department of Counseling Applied Developmental and Educational Psychology Lynch School of Education and Human Development Boston College Massachusetts, USA

Jeffrey R. Macris Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership U.S. Naval Academy Keenan Madi Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence Overseas Development Institute Agnieszka Malachowska Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence Overseas Development Institute Heather Malin Stanford Center on Adolescence Stanford University Stanford, USA xiii

List of Contributors

Michael D. Matthews Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership U.S. Military Academy West Point, NY, USA

Lukas F. Novak Department of Educational and Psychological Studies University of Miami Miami, USA

Velma McBride Murry Department of Health Policy and Human and Organization Development Vanderbilt University Nashville, USA

Juliet M. Nyanamba Department of Health Policy and Human and Organization Development Vanderbilt University Nashville, USA

AnneMarie K. McClain Media Science College on Communication Boston University Massachusetts, USA

Rebecca Park Theology and Religion, and Oxford Character Project Oxford University Oxford, UK

Sara Mendonca Department of Psychology Program for Leadership and Character Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, USA

Yerin Park Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development Tufts University Boston, USA

Ellyn D. Metcalf U.S. Coast Guard Academy

Jeffrey Peterson Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic, and Character Integration Advisory Group U.S. Military Academy West Point, NY, USA

Troy Morgan Assistant Dean of Faculty Pima Medical Institute David Moshman Department of Educational Psychology University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, USA

Eden Pontz The Center for Parent and Teen Communication Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania, USA

Kevin Mullaney Department of Leadership, Ethics, and Law U.S. Naval Academy

Andrew C. Pool The Center for Parent and Teen Communication Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania, USA

Christopher M. Napolitano Department of Educational Psychology University of Illinois Illinois, USA

Celeste K. Raver Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership U.S. Naval Academy

xiv

List of Contributors

Andrew D. Ray U.S. Coast Guard Academy

Margaret Beale Spencer Department of Comparative Human Development University of Chicago Chicago, USA

Brent W. Roberts University of Illinois, Urbana University of Tubingen Tübingen, Germany

Jennifer Templeton Simpson Board of Trustees The John Templeton Foundation Pennsylvania, USA

Diane M. Ryan Tisch College of Civic Life Tufts University Boston, USA

Nancy E. Snow Department of Philosophy University of Kansas Lawrence, USA

Elyse Salek The Center for Parent and Teen Communication Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania, USA

James Stavridis Admiral (Retired) Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, 2009–2013 Vice Chair, Global Affairs The Carlyle Group Washington, DC, USA

Anjali Sarker Global Leadership Challenge, and Oxford Character Project Oxford University Oxford, UK

Robert J. Sternberg Professor of Psychology Cornell University New York, USA

Eleanor K. Seaton T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics Arizona State University Tempe, USA

Orin Strauchler Holistic Wellness Integrator U.S. Military Academy West Point, NY, USA

Madison N. Sewell Department of Educational Psychology University of Illinois Illinois, USA

Patrick J. Sweeney Allegacy Center for Leadership and Character School of Business Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, USA

Kimia Shirzad Department of Recreations, Park, and Tourism Management The Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania, USA

Joseph J. Thomas Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership U.S. Naval Academy

Alistair T. R. Sim Monitoring, Evaluation, Research & Learning Compassion International

xv

List of Contributors

Jonathan M. Tirrell Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development Tufts University Boston, USA

Rebecca M. B. White T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics Arizona State University Tempe, USA Joanna Lee Williams The Center for Parent and Teen Communication Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology Rutgers University Rutgers University, USA

Kenneth Townsend School of Law, and Program for Leadership and Character Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, USA Jennifer Brown Urban The Montclair State University Institute for Research on Youth Thriving and Evaluation Montclair State University Montclair, USA

Kate Williams Monitoring, Evaluation, Research & Learning Compassion International Heejun Yoon Department of Educational Psychology University of Illinois Illinois, USA

Alexandra Was Character Virtue Development The John Templeton Foundation Pennsylvania, USA

Dian Yu Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development Tufts University Boston, USA

Elizabeth Wetzler Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership U.S. Military Academy West Point, NY, USA

xvi

FOREWORD

For millennia, character development has been a concern among philosophers, scholars in the arts and sciences, leaders in government, organizations in civil society, and parents. The Routledge International Handbook of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Character Development, Volume II affirms this history. It also demonstrates the broad interests in the nature and development of character that continue into the first quarter of the 21st century. I have personally witnessed the fundamental importance of character in personal and organizational success throughout my nearly 50 years as a naval officer, a university dean, as the vice chairman for global affairs of a major international private equity firm, and chair of the board of trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation. This Handbook is greatly needed at this time in history when basic principles of honesty and integrity seem to take a backseat to self-interest and personal financial or political gain. The editors and authors contributing to this Handbook demonstrate the current broad and deep salience of understanding character and how to promote it. The Handbook covers all sectors of scholarship, national and international service and leadership, and education, both within families and in formal and informal educational settings. Perhaps at this moment in history, the importance for each nation and for the global community of having citizens of good character could not be more important. The chapters in the Handbook have repeated demonstrations of why this importance is the case. The Editors of this Handbook point out that President Theodore Roosevelt warned that if a person were educated in mind but not in character, such education would create a menace to society. All members of society, and particularly the individuals aspiring to leadership roles, must combine good character and good leadership skills. Leaders of character need to possess intellectual character virtues reflected by a commitment to truth and the courage to pursue it. They must also be humble, have the capacity to show gratitude and generosity to others, and have the strength to forgive human failings. Without these character strengths, individuals will fail in their leadership roles. All too often today, there is evidence of the untoward consequences of character flaws among failed leaders within all sectors of society. It is important, then, not to think about character as something that is just an addition to a person but as something that might be added to other facets of an individual. It is important to understand character in a holistic manner. Character impacts all that a person is and all that a person does. As xvii

Foreword

well, character is not only an attribute of an individual. It is also reflected in the culture or ethos of groups, organizations, and institutions within society. There are of course threats to the development of character. For instance, consider how social media can be used to manipulate beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Examples are online bullying, the spread of misinformation or baseless conspiracy theories, and attacks on institutions of democracy and civil society, including playing a part in the January 6 insurrection. Fortunately, there are several instances around the globe where people are committed to promoting good character. This Handbook documents this presence. The chapters from the four service academies in the United States – the United States Air Force Academy, the United States Coast Guard Academy, the United States Military Academy at West Point, and the United States Naval Academy – exemplify the commitment to provide the nation they serve with leaders of character. Of course, the commitment to educate individuals in mind and in character extends beyond these service academies. The Handbook documents the diverse academic disciplines and multiple sectors of civil society and government around the world that share in commitment to act and educate in the service of promoting character development in all their global endeavors. There is an urgent need to do still more, however. Actions need to be taken to promote character education from parents, in K-12 education, through college, in both national and local communitybased youth-serving programs, and within public and private organizations. Such innovations will require local and national policy initiatives to create such efforts and to provide the resources to design, enact, and evaluate them. In sum, this Handbook brings the good news that the goal that has existed for more than a score of prior centuries, of understanding and promoting the development of people of good character, continues unabated in the 21st Century. The Handbook may serve as a watershed event in the ongoing global quest to promote good character in all of the world’s people for centuries to come. James Stavridis, Ph.D. Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired) Vice Chair, Global Affairs, The Carlyle Group Chair of the Board of Trustees, The Rockefeller Foundation Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, 2009–2013 Dean, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (2013–2018)

xviii

PREFACE

Character and how it is developed has been a topic of interest across millennia. Human character and virtue are foundational ideas within all the world’s religions, and depictions of human nature, both good and bad, have been a common theme in literature from ancient times forward. In turn, the scientific study of character can be dated as emerging in the latter part of the 19th century and the early 20th century, and programs of both character education and moral education have existed both before and after the emergence of the scientific study of character and character development. The purpose of The Routledge International Handbook of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Character Development, Volume II is to bring together, in both breadth and depth, the past, present, and potential futures of basic and applied multidisciplinary and global scholarly activity about character and character development. To enact this purpose, we organized the Handbook as two volumes, involving 67 chapters. Volume I focuses first on conceptualizing and defining character and involves discussions of different disciplinary approaches to character development and, as well, presents research about the nature and development of different instances of positive character or character virtues. The multidisciplinary scholarly interests in character development include biological science, developmental science, economics, education, higher education, law, leadership and organizational studies, literature, military science, philosophy, political science, positive psychology, program evaluation, sociology, and theology. The instances of character development that are discussed include civic character, courage, fairness, forgiveness, gratitude, intellectual humility and other intellectual virtues, kindness, liberty, morality, the character system; personal liberty, mutual respect, and tolerance; prosociality, thankfulness; and purpose. The first focus of Volume II of the Handbook involves discussion of moderators and covariates of character development. Chapters here pertain to cultural- and contextual-based exemplars of character development; grit, achievement, and resilience; grit in organizations; hope for the future; parenting; resilience; and self-regulation. After these discussions we shift to considering threats to moral, positive, or virtuous character development, which include: adversity and the role of exemplars in promoting character development; the character risk model; collective failure and its psychological origins; democratic character and developmental responses to group conflict and oppression; and racism and positive youth development. The third section of Volume II includes chapters that discuss the different contexts wherein character is either studied and/or promoted. xix

Preface

Chapters in this section are organized into three groups: chapters about university institutes or centers devoted to character development research and/or character education; public and private organizations, both within nations and globally; and formal educational settings focused on either preschool/kindergarten classrooms through high school or on higher education institutions, including the special cases of the four United States military service academies. The university institutes or centers that are discussed include the Jubilee Centre of the University of Birmingham in the UK; the Center for Character and Citizenship of the University of Missouri-St. Louis; the Center for Parent and Teen Communication of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia; the Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development of Tufts University; the Institute for the Study of Human Flourishing at Oklahoma University; the Oxford Character Project at Oxford University, UK; the Institute for Research on Youth Thriving and Evaluation of Montclair State University; the Center on Adolescence of Stanford University; and the Program for Leadership and Character of Wake Forest University. Character development activities pursued within public and private organizations involve discussions of character measurement and development within organizations; international development agencies; international faith-based organizations; media impacts on the development of children and youth; youth programs aimed at promoting character development; the efforts of philanthropy to encourage and support research and applications pertinent to promoting positive instantiations of character development and in particular, the exemplary instance of such philanthropic endeavors provided by the three Templeton Philanthropies. The last portion of this section pertains to formal education settings aimed at promoting knowledge about and students who manifest positive or virtuous character across their lives. Chapters here include discussions of the programs of the NPX Point Avenue K-12 educational programs in Hanoi, Vietnam; the Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach, California; and chapters from the four military service academies with the United States that train leaders of character to enter the profession of arms: the United States Air Force Academy, the United States Coast Guard Academy, the United States Military Academy at West Point, and the United States Naval Academy. The final section of Volume II is devoted to presenting three chapters that draw conclusions from and discuss implications of the preceding chapters across the two volumes. One chapter discusses the interrelations among the nature and study of character virtue, especially in relation to scholarship in the social sciences, and in the service of leadership; the chapter points to the problematic consequences of social science scholarship that ignores implications for practice. The second chapter is focused on applications aimed at educational practice, and discusses progress to date, challenges for the future, and the promise for the future of concerns about character that can be derived from making advances in understanding, measurement, and character education. The third chapter summarizes the past, present, and potential future for truly integrative multidisciplinary and international scholarship and application about character development if advances in dynamic, relational developmental systems-based theoretical models and methods can be continued and enhanced. Finally, the Handbook closes with an Afterword written by internationally acclaimed developmental scientist and award-winning character development scholar William Damon. In sum, across the two volumes of this Handbook, the multidisciplinary and basic and applied scholarship that is presented illuminates both the breadth and depth of past and ongoing interest in and activities pertinent to gathering and using character development scholarship to contribute positively to making positive differences in our world. We believe that the varied and ongoing contributions of the sets of scholars and practitioners – academics, and leaders in the fields of education, military science, public and private organizations, programs, and philanthropy – reflect a vibrant and productive multidisciplinary, international, and multigenerational effort to enhance the xx

Preface

character of individuals across the course of life. We believe as well that this work holds the promise of providing a foundational basis of sustainable and scalable efforts to create a world where all people will be known, respected, and even loved for the content of their character in contributing to a socially just world in the centuries ahead. There are numerous people to whom we are grateful for making this Handbook a reality. Of course, first, we owe an inestimable debt to the scholars and practitioners who contributed their work to this publication. It is their efforts that created a singular work in the history of this field. If there are congratulations to be offered for this publication it is because of their superb work. Collectively, their collaborative spirit, collegiality, and creativity cannot be matched. We are also grateful to the two editors at Taylor and Francis who oversaw the beginning stages of the Handbook, Helen Pritt, and the final stages and production of this work, Molly Selby. Their judgments about and unwavering support of this project were essential elements of its completion and quality. We thank them and their colleagues in production for their contributions to creating this work. We had two irreplaceable partners in the work of launching, organizing, and completing the Handbook. Gretchen Bain Matthews is a broadly and deeply knowledgeable counselor about issues of style and substance and, as well, she is a wise, careful, and astute editor. She was always encouraging, insightful, and positive about our work. Her enthusiasm and support kept us moving forward through the two-plus years of our work on this project. Jarrett Lerner is a deeply experienced and productive editor of academic publications. This publication is the seventh handbook for which he served as a managing editor and, as well, his resume includes more than a decade of being the managing editor of a scientific journal and, as well, an editorial assistant for literally more than 300 scholarly articles and chapters. His productivity, organizational skill, knowledge of publication procedures, and imperturbable style have been an enormous asset in keeping our work organized and on time. We sincerely thank both Gretchen and Jarrett. Finally, there are two people whose influence on this Handbook and on the work included in it are incalculable. Both of them have passed, but neither this Handbook nor, even more, the scientific study of character development would be flourishing as it is without them: Sir John M. Templeton and John (Jack) M. Templeton, Jr., M.D. Sir John had the vision, capacity, and unflagging commitment to create three private foundations to develop, support, and catalyze exemplary scientific efforts in the service of a science of character development: The John Templeton Foundation, the Templeton Religion Trust, and the Templeton World Charity Foundation. Dr. Templeton shared his father’s vision for enacting rigorous science in the service of exploring the Big Questions involved in advancing theoretical and empirical understanding of character development and of creatively using this knowledge to make a gift to nations around the world by effectively educating their citizens to be individuals of character contributing indefatigably to democracy and social justice. As we observe in the final chapter in this Handbook, about two-thirds of the chapters in this work can be directly attributed to the vision and generosity of the three Templeton Foundations. More than this impact, however, is the fact that the vitality and generativity of all modern scholarship about character development and education owe their origin and their future to the efforts of Sir John and Dr. Templeton. With gratitude and humility, we are honored to dedicate this Handbook to them. Michael D. Matthews Richard M. Lerner

xxi

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

SECTION I

Moderators and Covariates of Character Development

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

1 CULTURALLY SENSITIVE AND CONTEXTUALLY ADAPTED EXEMPLARS OF CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT Implications for Reimagining Frameworks Velma McBride Murry, Rachel A. Hanebutt, Hyemin Han, Marlena Debreaux, and Juliet M. Nyanamba* Character is defined as “the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual” (Oxford University Press, 2022, n.p.). Although there are a multitude of theoretical frameworks and inherent value listicles to assess and evaluate the development of young people, the premise of character development includes not only how an individual child is expected to learn and develop but also how they are viewed by others in the process. In this sense, having “good character” is oftentimes defined by what a child does not do (e.g., drugs, smoking, bullying) or have (e.g., stability, support), rather than the attributes that actually undergird well-rounded, prosocial behavior (e.g., respect, responsibility, justice). Studies of character development also focus on the process of learning how to develop character through character education. According to Berkowitz (2012), character education is the process of teaching character, morality (including moral identity and moral reasoning), values, and virtue that will, in turn, guide decisions and behaviors that are ethical. From this perspective, the necessarily complex endeavor of character education relies on a “saliency strategy” to be effective with individuals, often in the context of evaluating children’s behaviors and interactions in school environments (Berkowitz, 2012, p. 3). This explanation of how character development is learned and exhibited assumes that there are key indicators of morality or values that are viewed as good and, as such, have shared universal societal meaning. Given this perspective, we pose two overarching questions: (1) Is the perception of what is deemed to be “good moral character” different based on culture and social and political contexts? And (2) if so, are pathways through which character development is learned and exhibited different based on culture and contexts? To tackle these questions, we conducted a critical review of extant studies of character development to identify the guiding theories and conceptual frameworks, with a focus on the extent to which * This study was supported by National Institute of Mental Health (MH063043; PI Murry), Lois Autrey Betts Endowed Chair, Vanderbilt University Clinical Translation Science Award (NIH/MCATS: UL1 TR000445).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-2

3

Velma McBride Murry et al.

what has been deemed “good character” considers the contributions of culture and context. In addition, we reimagined frameworks for explaining character development drawing on the tenets of the lenses of cultural and social justice. Finally, we offer summary guidance on ways to advance the field of character development by presenting three exemplar case studies that situate character development through the lived experiences of minoritized youth and their families. We begin with a brief overview of the history of character development.

A Brief Historical Overview of the Field of Character Development Across history, waves of character development have re-emphasized a focus on morality as a part of democratic education systems. French philosopher Charles Renouvier identified that a “lack of morals” seemingly led to decreases in academic achievement and in becoming an ethical participant in French society, and he proposed religion as the backbone of the solution to this problem (Stock-Morton, 1988). During the Enlightenment period, character development was temporarily unraveled from religious education; however, the new secular focus of character development accompanied a growing emphasis on who was qualified enough to teach good character: teachers (Watz, 2011). In the United States, key educational figures like Horace Mann – recognizing the same “undesirable behaviors” like physical aggression, talking back to authority figures, and bullying we still see in classrooms today – embraced the role of teachers as moral leaders and character development role models within his framework of universal education for all (Filler, 1965). Representing the second important shift in character development, Mann made the case that there were positive ramifications of increasing (White) female representation within the classroom (i.e., students and teachers). In other words, incorporating the values of (White) mothers and women within the context of character education would improve the character of all children. But imbuing the moral qualities of women within character development was not enough; educational leaders such as William Holmes McGuffey continued the tradition of expecting educators to set the tone for good character, while also utilizing historical documents and artifacts to teach lessons of character via generative examples (Watz, 2011). Still, the very foundations of character development relied upon societal pressures (i.e., politics, religion, corporate influences) that valued institutionalized conceptions of good character. In the 20th century, character development programs operated both within and beyond the school building. Programs such as the YMCA, Boy Scouts of America, CharacterCounts! and many more sold the need for character development programs; however, a clear and universal definition of character did not exist (Macleod, 1983). Similar to previous waves of character development, these programs served as placeholders for morality education, promising America’s growing middle class a restoration of religious values and work ethic (i.e., Protestant ones) amidst growing capitalism, imperialism, and industrial booms (Macleod, 1983). Additionally, most programs focused on young – and White – men and proliferated the ideal that schools were no longer competent to teach character education. In the 1960s, character and value-based education regained prominence, focusing on six areas of human interaction: communicating, empathizing, problem-solving, assenting and dissenting, decision-making, and personal consistency (Casteel & Stahl, 1975). During this time, however, increasing violence, drugs, dysfunction, and disrespect produced a reaction from White parents and communities worried about character development. Christian schools also regained support, presenting a solution to the “morality void” and a valueless public education sector (Lickona, 1993). Notably, many Christian schools opened in reaction to the Civil Rights movement in order to maintain the separation of White students and communities (Reese, 2007). These Christian schools 4

Culturally Sensitive and Contextually Adapted Exemplars

not only provided a seeming safe space for White families but also created a partnership model wherein parents felt involved in school decision-making (e.g., textbook selection, abstinenceonly sex education), which included defining character education curriculum. This empowerment of (White) parents’ marks yet another significant milestone for character development; public schools were then viewed as a place for the characterless, ripe with school shootings, violence, and consumerist-driven social culture (Webber, 2003). In many ways, this final shift led to increases in school discipline and zero tolerance policies applied to behavior perceived as deviant. In the landmark book “Character Matters,” Lickona (2004) notably identified over a hundred character education strategies for cultivating good character; however, many of these strategies are based on foundational understandings of morality and contexts that are not applicable to all children and families across varied contexts. Furthermore, Ryan (2013) offered a critical review of Lickona’s work, specifying a lack of concept clarity or definition of character in the research design and data collection. In particular, Ryan cited the following criticisms: “a flawed understanding of the core concept of character; the failure to link character formation to deeper human issues; and the lingering legitimacy question of placing the control of education of the young in the hands of the state” (p. 145). Ryan’s review suggests the need to interrogate the foundational basis for not only the definition of character but also character education. Given this critique, we sought to unhinge the forceful act of imposing existing frameworks for explaining “good character” onto marginalized youth by positing the need for greater inclusion of culturally and contextually relevant frameworks that explain how minoritized youth learn and enact character. In the following section, we make the case for culturally sensitive and contextually adapted practice of character development and character education, suggesting the need to reframe traditional models of character development, as they are based on Westernized definitions or attributes of “good character” that are embedded in societally prescribed and ascribed perceptions of what it means to be “good” and “moral” and often reflective of religious undertones (i.e., Christianity) (Love, 2019; Stock-Morton, 1988). We, therefore, question the applicability of existing theories of character development and the notion of what it means to have “good character,” for several reasons. First, existing theories and definitions do not acknowledge the significance of systemic racism and structural oppression for children’s development. Specifically, the social, economic, and political fabric of the United States places many children in a position where they and their families are marginalized and rejected by the dominant culture. In this imposed social position, while requiring them to be, look, and act a certain way to “fit” into this society, they are met with having to constantly navigate challenges associated with being exposed to experiences of discrimination, marginalization, and othering. The spillover effects systemic racism and structural oppressive systems that may evoke coping behavioral responses that may appear “inappropriate” and “deviant from societal norms but are functional in order to survive and thrive” (Del Giudice, Ellis, & Shirtcliff, 2011; Gaylord-Harden, Barbarin, Tolan, & Murry, 2018; Murry et al., 2018). Moreover, social, structural, and systemic conditions may elicit responses from some youth and their families that do not align with societal conceptions of “good character.” Noteworthy, we contend that the infusion of macrolevel stressors on microlevel everyday life experiences affects and influences development and adjustment, including character development. This analysis suggests the need to overlay cultural and social justice contextual lenses to reimagine what good character might look like if greater consideration was given to embracing attributes that are ecologically and culturally relevant for youth navigating adversities in every aspect of their daily lives, growing up as marginalized youth in the United States. 5

Velma McBride Murry et al.

We now turn to extending our critical review focusing on specific ways to advance theories of character development and character education by exploring potential pathways of positive character development that are present in studies of Black and other marginalized youth but that have not been included in the canonical literature.

The Case for Context and Culturally Inclusive Character Development Mapping out this mission in a 2019 chapter on undoing character education and the “good” White liberal agenda, Bettina L. Love contends: The single-minded narrative of character education, built on catchy buzzwords like grit, persistence, and zest, is not only racist, but undermines people of color’s frustration, disappointment, anger, and determination to fight systemic oppression. (p. 211) Tying the undoing of character education to the resistance of white supremacy, Love (2019) lifts up the importance of self-determination, pride (personal and cultural) leadership skills, and “harnessing the grit passed down by their ancestors” as essential for educating youth of color. (p. 213) Theoretically, character development of youth of color is inherently interwoven with identity development and moral development, and specifically, moral judgment, moral identity, and moral relevance. For Black youth, in particular, moral judgment occurs through the transmission of racerelated mores and values based on Black culture (Ward, 2010), as well as an understanding of social judgment, social emotional competencies (Humphries, Parker, & Jagers, 2000; Jaegers, 2001), and an emotional attachment to one’s racial identity (Moreland & Leach, 2000). Moral identity, however, occurs through family socialization and role modeling, as well as through opportunities to explore prosocial actions and activities that benefit others (Hart et al., 2010). Finally, moral relevance is facilitated by an awareness of options that one has a sense of agency to engage in actions and facilitate social change (Curtis-Tweed, 2003). For example, morally oriented youth are significantly more likely to be justice focused, as a focus on caring for others and having a justice focus are interdependent (Knox, Fagley, & Miller, 2004). As such, context matters for youth of color growing up in a society where justice is said to matter, but instead, advantages some over others. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, empirical studies of character development of youth of color are rare, and many perspectives fail to account for the processes of racial socialization that occur within the family, including preparation for racial bias (Coard, Wallace, Stevenson, & Brotman, 2004; Hughes et al., 2006; McHale et al., 2006; Murry, Berkel, Brody, Miller, & Chen, 2009), strategies for coping behaviors to counter and reject the negative and harmful effects of devaluing messages about African American families (Davis & Stevenson, 2006), and instilling a sense of racial pride and positive sense of self (Murry et al., 2009), similar to that referenced by Love (2019). To put this thinking into practice, consider the following excerpt from a popular Brer Rabbit folktale “How the Cow Went Under the Ground” (Faulkner, 1993, p. 157). Brer Bear braced his hind legs and put all of his strength into pulling. Up came the cow tail, kwump! It hit him so hard that he rolled over backwards! “Aw, look what you’ve done, Brer Bear,” said Brer Rabbit. “You’ve pulled so hard that you’ve broken off the cow’s tail, and she’s gone down in the ground forever…” Now Brer Bear never did figure out how little old 6

Culturally Sensitive and Contextually Adapted Exemplars

Brer Rabbit got even with him for stealing his cow. Brer Bear just always thought that his whole cow had gone under the ground – and nobody ever told him it was only his cow’s hide that had been buried by Brer Rabbit the night before. Considering the excerpt above through cultural, contextual, and social justice lens: Were Brer Rabbit’s actions just or conniving, moral or amoral? At a surface level and without context, one could argue that deception is amoral, and indeed, over the years, Brer Rabbit’s behavior has been characterized by White Americans as exploitational and wrong (Leslie, 1998a). Brer Rabbit stories, like the one above, have brought into question the moral ideals of African Americans as these folktales are often used to teach morals to younger generations (Faulkner, 1993; Leslie, 1998a). However, context matters when determining the morality of Brer Rabbit’s actions, in the same vein that cultural and sociohistorical context matters to understand strategies and approaches for character education and attributes that are valued with regard to character development. In this folktale, wealthy Brer Bear had stolen Brer Rabbit’s only cow, and Brer Rabbit’s trickery allowed him to get meat and leather from Brer Bear, who had more than enough meat and milk but was too greedy to share. Faulkner (1993) mentions that such folktales echoed the plight of slaves and highlighted the wit needed by slaves to survive. Therefore, considering the sociohistorical context (i.e., slavery) Brer Rabbit’s actions are considered ingenious and resourceful. Expanding on strategies utilized to survive adversity, Faulkner (1993) notes that: …unless a slave knew how to out think his master or overseer, he might not get enough to eat in the wintertime, or he might get a whiplashing on his naked back…Now, I was too smart to ever go hungry or to get a whipping. I was too much like Brer Rabbit. I used my head the same way he did. I outsmarted big old Brer Bear time and again. (p. 153) Fundamentally, context – which includes peoples’ cultural orientation, history, and lived experiences – matters, suggesting the need to consider character development and its connections to community values and individuals’ circumstances. Context also influences and is influenced by culture, as cultural beliefs, customs, traditions, and values also inform how individuals and groups make decisions that in turn influence behavior, including those that are viewed as moral, amoral, and otherwise. An interrogation of studies of character development affirms that this field of research has excluded context and culture in definitions and in conceptual frameworks and models in the field of character development. Just as context is crucial in understanding Brer Rabbit’s actions, it also plays a central role in the manner in which character is taught and learned in various racial and ethnic populations. Context serves a critical role in the formation of racial and ethnic youth identities, including a sense of belonging to their own racial/ethnic heritage as well as their moral identity, moral reasoning, and ultimately character development. Drawing on this summary, in the following section, we illustrate ways to reframe and develop new theoretical models that include both culture and contextual processes to explain character development.

Exemplar Case Studies of Character Development in Cultural and Contextual Spaces The four exemplar case studies that make up the remainder of this chapter include three theoretical case studies and one empirical case study. The first case study highlights the relevance of sociohistorical context for character development among Black and African American youth 7

Velma McBride Murry et al.

in the United States and demonstrates how historical notions of obedience and racist practices of adultification of minoritized youth presuppose potentials to achieve “good character” through a White, Westernized lens. Taking a more international approach, the second case study examines ways in cultural orientation impact and influence character development. This exemplar vividly illustrates dissonance between dominant narratives of character development via examinations of cultural practices (e.g., collectivist traditions) and oversized importance of parent-child relationships within the character development dynamic in some cultures. A third exemplar case study presents a summary of research studies illustrating, from a multilevel conceptual model, ways in which the interactions between biological and socio-cultural levels shape the development of character and morality among diverse youth. A final, empirical exemplar case study presents findings from a family-based preventive intervention trial that is the first to test the programmatic effects of an intervention on character-promotive parenting, and the extent to which induced changes in character-promotive parenting evince positive changes in their children’s moral identity and moral reasoning that, in turn, fostered positive developmental outcomes. We intentionally end with this empirical case study to encourage researchers and practitioners to reimagine ways to adapt and test character development in preventive interventions. We specifically emphasize in this case study the significance culturally relevant programs and frameworks that are responsive and sensitive to one’s context and lived experiences.

Exemplar Case Study 1: Sociohistorical Context of Character Development for Black Youth To understand the relevance of sociohistorical context to character development for Black youth, it is important to articulate how the socio-eco-political and environmental contexts of Black youth have changed throughout US history. During the enslavement of African people within the United States, what constituted a “good” Black person was largely defined by the people who enslaved them. Still, enslaved Africans maintained Africentric values through oral traditions wherein, through stories, they imparted important character traits to children (Gallien & Jackson, 2006). In the years following the end of chattel slavery in the United States, laws governing the behavior of newly freed persons placed them at risk for imprisonment or execution should they behave in any way that did not reflect total obedience and deference to White citizens (Anderson, 2016). Since then, there have been two competing authorities determining what it means to have “good” character as a Black person. It is also important to recognize ways in which the dominant larger society ascribe and prescribe social positions on Black people that in turn affect their lived experiences and ultimately create challenges that hinder opportunities to develop and live well-functioning lives. Following the end of slavery and prior to the desegregation of public schools, the character ideals of Black youth were informed and reinforced by the predominantly Black institutions of Black families, namely, Black schools and the Black church. Having not yet been forced to assimilate to White middle-class values, Black communities partially reflected African value systems that highlighted the importance of communalism and Sankofa or understanding of one’s history in order to move forward (Gallien & Jackson, 2006). Following desegregation, the degree to which Black people have accepted and endorsed mainstream ideals of morality and values has depended upon the degree to which Black Americans have been included within mainstream American society and their degree of endorsement to an assimilationist ideology (Gallien & Jackson, 2006; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998). 8

Culturally Sensitive and Contextually Adapted Exemplars

Despite the ending of legal segregation in the 1960s, many communities maintained segregation in housing and schooling, due to discriminatory housing loan practices and legal backlash to effective desegregation strategies, such as busing (Rothstein, 2019). Furthermore, Black communities often remain the victims of systemic racism and structural oppression and violence, as evidenced by concentrated poverty, over-policing, mass incarceration, and reduced access to nutritious food, resources, and services (Wendel et al., 2021). These contextual forces warrant greater consideration in overall development and, in particular, as families and youth engage in decisions and actions to survive and thrive. Adversities shape children’s development, yet both historic and contemporary challenges confronting minoritized families and their children are rarely accounted for in conceptualizations and explanations of character development. Thus, the notion of character development of Black youth ought not be considered without first accounting for the ways in which they must adapt to survive within chronically disadvantaged or hostile environments. For example, the concept of adaptive calibration has been used to refer to the process through which individuals change their stress responses in efforts to adapt to their environment. When encountering adversity or threat, individuals shape or recalibrate the stress response system in a way that permits optimal stress responsivity to that context (Del Giudice, Hinnant, Ellis, & El-Sheikh, 2012). According to the adaptive calibration model, individuals can show one of four stress responsivity patterns: sensitive, buffered, vigilant, and unemotional (Del Giudice et al., 2012). Sensitive patterns develop in response to safe, predictable conditions and youth may show high inhibitory control, cooperation, executive function, and self-awareness (Del Giudice et al., 2012). Buffered patterns develop in response to moderate repeated activation of the stress response. These adaptive responses are often viewed by the dominant society as youth engaging in noncompliant, inattentive, and reactive aggression – evidence of “bad character.” Examining these behaviors into context, similar to the Brer Rabbit folklore described earlier, they are responses of conditional adaptation developed to survive and thrive in threatening, less welcoming environments (GaylordHarden et al., 2018). In addition to acknowledging that context matters in moral reasoning and moral actions, it is also important to consider ways in which society’s perception and expectations of Black youth, in particular, contribute to the development. Recent studies have noted that Black youth are not afforded the benefits of being perceived as children. Adultification refers to, “how preconceptions of children (specifically Black children) may lead to them being treated and perceived as more adultlike” (Davis & Marsh, 2020, p. 255). Research has demonstrated that, when compared to White youth, Black youth are more often viewed as being older than their actual age, and older Black youth are more likely to be perceived as hostile and angry (Cooke & Halberstadt, 2021), less innocent, more independent, and more knowledgeable about adult topics (Epstein, Blake, & Gonzzlez, 2017). Rather than Black youth behaviors being seen as indicative of childlike decision-making, their behaviors are viewed as intentional (Epstein et al., 2017). These patterns have implications for perceptions for the characterization of Black youth and their morality. Again, although these are key issues that influence character development, namely the adultification of Black youth, they are ignored in studies of character development.

Obedience: The Historical Constancy of Charter of Black People Although there have been many social changes throughout history, the character of Black people has continued to be assessed through one’s degree of obedience (Hartman, 1997). For example, 9

Velma McBride Murry et al.

teaching techniques for low-income urban and predominantly Black students in “no excuses” charter schools rely upon closely controlling students’ behavior and consider this behavioral control an indicator of success (Stahl, 2019). Character and moral exemplars for Black youth are also sanitized in such a way to diminish their degree of disobedience. For example, whereas many people herald Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of good citizenship, his acts of civil disobedience are often downplayed in service of highlighting his other attributes (Visser-Maessen, 2019). When sanitization is not possible, Black character exemplars who do not display obedience are vilified. Former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick is one example. When he began kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 in protest of police violence against Black citizens, he was met with harsh criticism from football fans, pundits, and even politicians (Flaherty, 2017). Although Kaepernick demonstrated character values like respect, citizenship, and care for his community; his civil disobedience was simultaneously viewed as deviant by some and morally upstanding by others. These examples demonstrate that even when Black people demonstrate traits traditionally associated with good character, the degree to which they are perceived as having good character is complicated by whether or not their behavior is first viewed as obedient. While conceptualizations of character have changed over time, the notion of character development has primarily ignored ways in which history, sociopolitical context, and culture each contribute to what constitutes character for racially or ethnically minoritized communities. We contend there is an urgent need to not only acknowledge but to reimagine frameworks of character development to include the social and historical contexts that contribute to perceptions of character. Doing so is an essential first step to creating new theories and conceptual models to guide future studies of character development.

Exemplar Case Study 2: Impact of Cultural Orientation on Character Development Besides the stressors experienced in their daily lives, minoritized individuals’ cultural orientation influences their understanding and facilitation of character development. Therefore, models of character development that have predominantly focused on White middle-class families’ experiences and values fail to capture cultural nuances in character development processes. Particularly, models such as the Six Pillars of Character – trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship – from the Aspen Declaration in 1992 fail to characterize subtle cultural interpretation differences as well as minoritized socializers’ perceptions of what constitutes a “good person” (Josephson Institute, 1997). Before delving deeper into African American perspectives of character development, this section briefly illustrates how collectivistic cultures may interpret character development components differently and how minoritized parents perceive racial identity as a dimension of good character. Last, we explore the tension and dilemmas faced by multicultural families when dominant cultural values are strongly endorsed by society while they struggle to maintain cultural integrity. Despite considering the six pillars of character (Josephson, 2014) as universal (i.e., their value overrides religious, ethnic, and socioeconomic divides), cultural context still shapes people’s interpretation and ranking of these values. Reviewing CharacterCounts! (1997) a widely used character education program based on these pillars, Christopher, Nelson, and Nelson (2003) illustrate subtle yet impactful cultural differences in the interpretation and teaching of caring and responsibility. For example, when teaching students to be “caring,” CharacterCounts! assumes a Eurocentric perspective that focuses on caring for the “other” above self. Caring for others is valued 10

Culturally Sensitive and Contextually Adapted Exemplars

across numerous cultures (Christopher et al., 2003; Ward, 2010). However, teaching youth to deny “self” in order to care for the “other” is not culturally sensitive for students from collective cultures (who see overlaps in “self” and “other”) and those from Native American background where caring for the environment overlaps with caring for oneself and others and is central to their culture (Christopher et al., 2003). Similarly, responsibility to “self” is prioritized when teaching about responsibility, overlooking the fact that collective communities may value and prioritize responsibility to the cultural group or family above self. Christopher et al. (2003) argue that prioritizing and promoting inherently individualistic interpretations may result in alienation of collectivistic individuals from their cultural groups and a loss of social capital may eventually lead to negative mental health outcomes. In essence, character education and development need to account for collectivistic orientations to promote positive youth development while maintaining cultural congruity for minoritized individuals. Besides capturing a collectivistic interpretation in the six pillars, the model should be expanded to include minoritized parents’ perspectives of what constitutes “good” character, which often extend beyond these traits. For instance, Southeast Asian American parents value traits such as family obligation, devotion to parents, group mutuality, obedience, good manners, and abstinence from drugs and sexual behavior (Zha Blong, Eliason, Detzner, & Cleveland, 2005), which are only partially captured in the six pillars. Furthermore, when describing “good character” parents from immigrant ethnic groups also mention expecting their children to embrace cultural activities and learn their native language (Green, Chesla, Beyene, & Kools, 2018; Zha Blong et al., 2005). Similarly, and as aforementioned in our first exemplar case study, African American parents express the necessity for character development to include a dimension of racial cultural knowledge and pride (Gallien & Jackson, 2006). Essentially, a “good” person not only develops traits that will benefit their larger group and environment as stated above but is also aware and proud of their racial/ethnic identity.

Navigating Conflicting Values and Clashes with Dominant Culture African American perspectives of character development are grounded in their African indigenous roots as well as shaped by their experiences of slavery and oppression in the US context (Gallien & Jackson, 2006). African American culture is rooted in values such as “spirituality, harmony, movement, verve, affect, communalism, expressive individualism, oral tradition, and social time perspective” cooperation, valuing the family over the individual, collective responsibility, and purpose (Gallien & Jackson, 2006). Furthermore, research has shown that values such as spirituality, collectivism, and emotionality are associated with moral reasoning in youth (Woods & Jagers, 2003). Character education and interventions that promote these values are more effective and culturally relevant for African American youth. Valued character traits in the African American culture are taught through the use of proverbs and stories which are passed over generations. Proverbs such as “what goes around comes around” teaches youth the value of responsibility (Page & Washington, 1987). Particularly relevant for character development are Brer Rabbit stories, like the one highlighted earlier in this chapter, which are oftentimes told in African American families. Brer Rabbit is a witty rabbit that is characterized in these stories as a successful musician, dancer, smooth lady’s man, and lateral thinker that contends with and wins against numerous adversaries (e.g., Brer Fox, Brer Wolf) by using tricks (Leslie, 1997). Interviewing African American mothers about the moral lessons found in these stories, Leslie (1998b) reports that majority of the women perceived Brer Rabbit as a moral exemplar since his tricks defended the weaker members of society from powerful influential members. 11

Velma McBride Murry et al.

Moreover, mothers supported his trickery only when it was beneficial to the group and not carried out for selfish reasons, as seen in the following quote: I teach my children that it’s not always only what you do, but why and how you do it. I let them know what’s right from wrong, and they know that the good about these tricks is that Brer Rabbit looked after the welfare of the whole group of animals. (Leslie, 1998a, p. 341) The parent’s collectivistic orientation is clearly depicted in this reflection as well as the perception that tricks are not inherently evil, a perspective that is grounded in indigenous African culture (Leslie, 1998a). This latter perception has received criticism from individuals in other cultures that do not classify tricks as part of “good character.” For instance, White American critics from a Christian absolutist perspective describe Brer Rabbit’s tricks as “amoral manipulation” and typify the questionable ideals of African Americans (Leslie, 1998a, p. 329). These critics, while acknowledging that African American slaves, like Brer Rabbit, often needed to use wit and intelligence in their fight for freedom, indicate that these stories promote amoral values and should not be told to youth. Essentially, divergent cultural orientations result in clashes or dilemmas that may need to be addressed when developing character education programs. This clash of cultural orientations when promoting character development is particularly salient for African American families who are navigating “Anglocultural,” “Afrocultural,” and “Minority” experiences (Woods & Jagers, 2003). Within the African American community are African immigrants who are also navigating three cultural dimensions – European American, African American, and their ethnic culture – as they acculturate into US society (Ferguson & Bornstein, 2014). In some cases the dominant mainstream culture, which values individualistic traits, influences character development (Woods & Jagers, 2003) and undermines African Americans’ selfdetermination (Gallien & Jackson, 2006). Navigating clashing cultural orientations while building “good character” in youth is sometimes associated with tension between parents and youth. In some families, parents dictate and regulate youth character development in order to align with their African roots (Green et al., 2018). In the Green et al. study, immigrant Ugandan adolescents voiced frustration in their differing values about character as seen in the following quote: Being in Uganda it’s like, you have to be respectful, you have to be this, that. And when we came here, it’s like the kids act different. So, you know, you’re picking up behaviors and they’re [parents and elders] like, “No, you’re not supposed to do that.” You know, like, “Well, why can’t I?” Like, “Can I go over here?” “No.” It’s hard. (Green et al., 2018, p. 41) Similar attitudes are seen in studies with non-African immigrant populations where parents and youth, due to varied levels and styles of acculturation, may share values to some extent but still experience conflict. For example, Zha Blong et al. (2005) reported diverging views between Southeast Asian American adolescents and parents based on what a “good” adolescent looks like. Parents insisted that “good” adolescents ought to speak their native language and know their culture although adolescents did not deeply value this characteristic. In the purest sense, how one may be navigating value conflicts and clashes in culture matters for character development because the same action could have a very different character judgment based on the context and community within which it is evaluated. Understanding these three 12

Culturally Sensitive and Contextually Adapted Exemplars

conceptual case studies, it become clear how sociohistorical, neuromoral, and cultural contexts become necessary constructs within a culturally sensitive and contextually adapted model for character development.

Exemplar Case Study 3: Multilevel System Level Influences on Character Development Previous studies conducted in various fields addressing youth development, including but not limited to, psychology, neuroscience, and education (Feiler & Stabio, 2018), have unequivocally proposed that researchers need to consider contextual factors while examining the mechanisms and factors associated with positive youth development as well as character development (Meidenbauer, Cowell, Killen, & Decety, 2018). At the conceptual level, Han, Soylu, and Anchan (2019) proposed a multilevel model to approach issues related to human development and psychology with an example in moral and character education. In the proposed model, diverse contextual layers, from the biological level to the socio-cultural level, are interacting with each other while students are shaping their character and morals. Thus, for the better understanding of the developmental process, we need to seek insights from diverse fields addressing diverse layers associated with human development and education that include those mentioned above. Given that contextual factors from multiple different levels contribute to character development significantly (Han et al., 2019), we need to have an overview relevant findings from different fields to achieve our aim, the better understanding of character development. Let us start with how the higher-level factors, socio-cultural factors, interact with infrastructures of psychological processes associated with character and morality, the neural-level aspects of character and morality. Previous meta-analyses and large-scale analyses of neuroimaging studies related to moral and character psychology have reported that brain regions in the default mode network (DMN), such as the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), are significantly associated with moral and character task conditions. Activity in the DMN has been reported to be significantly related to psychological processes that are fundamental in the domains of morality and character, including but not limited to, self-reference, deliberation, theory of mind, and autobiographical memory processing (Reniers et al., 2012; Spreng, Mar, & Kim, 2009). For instance, several meta-analyses that examined the common neural correlates of moral judgment and sensitivity consistently demonstrated significant activity in the aforementioned brain regions (e.g., Boccia et al., 2017; Han, 2017; Sevinc & Spreng, 2014). Furthermore, large-scale neuroimaging data analysis employing recently developed tools, such as NeuroSynth (Yarkoni, Poldrack, Nichols, Van Essen, & Wager, 2011) and NeuroQuery (Dockès et al., 2020), also reported the similar brain activity patterns when morality became the topic of interest to be examined (see Han (2020) for the analysis result). In addition to the correlational evidence, several neuroscientific experiments have also demonstrated experimental results that can support the association between the DMN-related brain regions and moral functioning with causal evidence. For instance, when activity in the regions, e.g., the MPFC and PCC, were disrupted by non-invasive neurostimulation methods, such as the transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation, participants’ sociocognitive functioning related to morality and character, e.g., self-evaluation, evaluation of intent regarding moral violation, moral decision-making, and compliance were also significantly altered (Lou, Luber, Stanford, & Lisanby, 2010; Riva, Manfrinati, Sacchi, Pisoni, & Romero Lauro, 2019; Ruff, Ugazio, & Fehr, 2013; Young, Camprodon, Hauser, Pascual-Leone, & Saxe, 2010). Given both the correlational and causal examinations, we can assume that the DMN-related regions, and 13

Velma McBride Murry et al.

the MPFC and PCC in particular, are fundamentally associated with an individual’s moral functioning and character at the neural level. Studies in the field of developmental neuroscience, particularly those focused on the neural correlates of moral and character psychology, have proposed the developmental aspects of the aforementioned brain regions, including the DMN, within the context of moral and character development. Researchers have reported age-related development in activity and connectivity in the DMN (Fan et al., 2021; Sato et al., 2014). Moreover, the development within the domain of socioemotional cognition, moral functioning, and character is also found to be closely associated with the development of the DMN, in terms of its functional connectivity in particular (ImmordinoYang, Christodoulou, & Singh, 2012; Jung et al., 2016). Such a trend, the significant association between socio-moral and DMN development, has been reported in structural neuroimaging studies as well. For instance, sophisticated moral reasoning and empathy are reportedly significantly associated with the gray matter thickness in the MPFC area (Eres, Decety, Louis, & Molenberghs, 2015; Prehn et al., 2015). The findings from developmental neuroscientific studies, including functional and structural neuroimaging studies focusing on age and functional differences, support the point that the DMN development is inseparable from moral and character development at the neural level. Research on psychopathy, which illuminates the negative aspects of human morality and character, can also provide useful insights about moral and character development at the neural level. As researchers can expect from the findings from developmental neuroimaging studies focusing on ordinary people, psychopathic traits are reported to be significantly associated with dysfunctional and structural deficits within the DMN-related regions. In terms of DMN connectivity, compared with ordinary populations, populations with psychopathy demonstrated significantly weaker connectivity (Li, Mai, & Liu, 2014; Pujol et al., 2012) as well as dysregulation in the network (Deming & Koenigs, 2020). Similarly, within the context of moral functioning, participants with psychopathy were found to demonstrate significantly lower activity in the DMN-related regions compared with ordinary participants in an experimental study (Reniers et al., 2012) and a metaanalysis (Lenzen, Donges, Eickhoff, & Poeppl, 2021). These studies that examined populations with psychopathic traits suggest that the brain regions affiliated with the DMN constitute the brain network of morality and character, which plays fundamental roles in socio-moral functioning in general (Han, 2020; Raine, 2019). Previous studies in neuroscience that have examined the neural-level mechanisms of morality and character include a wide-range of investigations, reflecting both correlational and experimental studies, as well as functional and structural neuroscientific studies. Results from these investigations have consistently reported that the DMN plays fundamental roles in human morality and character. In fact, the development of the DMN is significantly associated with socio-moral functioning. Functional and structural deficits in the network result in dysregulation of the DMN functionality, and ultimately influence moral functioning and character at the behavioral level. These findings demonstrate the need to place importance on the DMN in moral and character development, and on ways in which socio-cultural and contextual factors influence this development. An example of this process is summarized in the following section. Studies that examining the association between socio-cultural contexts and hostile acts against children and adolescents from marginalized backgrounds have shown that adverse experiences negatively influence moral and character development. These findings highlight the role that socio-cultural contexts play on moral and character development. It is noteworthy that socio-cultural contextual factors also significantly affect the neural-level development of morality and character. Particularly, being exposed to hostile socio-cultural environments, specifically 14

Culturally Sensitive and Contextually Adapted Exemplars

racial discrimination, compromise moral and character development that can be observed at the neural level. For example, as just emphasized, the DMN is fundamentally associated with moral and character development. Research on social neuroscience has consistently suggested that experiencing and being exposed to hostile social environments, which are closely tied to discrimination, can be directly linked to the DMN development and functioning. In particular, perceived racial discrimination and discrimination create race-related stress that in turn is associated with decreased activity in the empathy network, specifically, the brain network in the DMN which contributes to empathy, as well as the MPFC (Wright et al., 2020). Accumulated stress over the life course, e.g., perpetual incidences of and exposure to marginalization, oppression, and racial discrimination, have been linked to dysfunctional interoceptive processes associated with the DMN (Fani & Khalsa, 2022). These processes have been closely tied to the affective and motivational regulation within the context of morality and character (Han, Chen, Jeong, & Glover, 2016). Furthermore, exposure to hostile social contextual environments, in particular, long-term experience of discrimination, significantly deter normative development of the brain network associated with morality and character. Given this, negative neural developmental outcomes are likely to cause dysregulation in moral and character functioning, effects may be manifested at the motivational and behavioral levels as well. Conceptually, moral philosophers who are interested in the neural correlates of morality and moral character argue that deficits in affective and motivational processes (e.g., Fani & Khalsa, 2022; Wright et al., 2020), are expected to cause impaired moral judgment, with spillover effects on moral motivation and moral behavior (May, Workman, Haas, & Han, 2022). This theoretical explanation has been supported in empirical studies. For instance, at the motivational level, adverse events create damages in the DMN regions and cause deficits in social and moral functioning in general, including but not limited to empathy and moral motivation (Ciaramelli, Muccioli, Làdavas, & Di Pellegrino, 2007; Decety & Meyer, 2008). Furthermore, such development of neuroscientific issues are found to also induce conduct problems, often associated with deviant behavior and with evidence of antisocial behavior and “low morality” (Anderson, Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1999; Broulidakis et al., 2016). Moreover, research in the field of neuroscience has consistently shown connections between stress-inducing macroscopic factors and not only behavioral outcomes, but also, infrastructures that influence behavior. Given the connections between biological and neural infrastructures, considering their role in socio-moral functioning is warranted (Han et al., 2019), as negative sociocultural influences may serve a critical role in explaining how individuals cope. Coping patterns may in turn promote positive moral and character development. Particularly, it would be necessary to articulate solutions to address systemic issues, which asymmetrically more significantly influence youth among marginalized and minoritized groups. From the perspective of research on moral and character education, recent studies suggest that employing educational sources that are relevant to students’ socio-cultural contexts is fundamentally required to effectively promote students’ moral and character development. As discussed thus far, socio-cultural contexts significantly influence the developmental trajectories associated with one’s morality and character at multiple levels, including both behavioral and neural levels. In the same vein, it would also be necessary to arrange educational materials carefully so that the materials can be contextually sensitive particularly among students from marginalized and disadvantaged backgrounds. Expanding on the associations between socio-culturally sensitive moral and character education, we may refer to one of the most widely employed educational method, of using moral 15

Velma McBride Murry et al.

exemplars in the promotion of moral motivation. Moral and character educators have utilized this method because presenting moral exemplars to students may promote their motivation to emulate the presented exemplary actions to be able to become morally better people (Han, Kim, Jeong, & Cohen, 2017; Sanderse, 2013). For instance, textbooks used for moral and character education have employed stories of moral exemplars as major sources for educational activities (Han et al., 2018). In general, within the context of moral and character education, moral philosophers, psychologists, and educators have suggested that educators should employ stories of moral exemplars who are sharing the relatable socio-cultural backgrounds with students (Han et al., 2022). Han et al. (2022) proposed that use of relatable moral exemplars, such as friends and close others, in education is a way to promote students’ virtue development in an effective manner compared with the use of traditional moral exemplars, such as historic figures and moral saints. Noteworthy is that many of the moral exemplars employed in moral and character education are embedded in values and mores of the dominant society. For instance, even in the case of moral and character education in Korea, most moral exemplars included in textbooks are based on Western moral philosophers, who do not share socio-cultural backgrounds with students significantly (Han et al., 2018). Even if philosophical and psychological studies have demonstrated that socio-culturally relatable exemplars should be introduced to maximize educational effects (Han et al., 2017), in reality, such a point has not been well implemented in character or moral education, as practiced in many places. The problem is that when the presented exemplars are not culturally or contextually relevant, there is a disconnection in their relatability from students’ perspectives. Concomitantly, such exemplars cannot produce intended moral or character developmental outcomes (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997); in the worse cases, they are likely to provoke negative outcomes, such as moral disengagement or negative emotional responses (Monin, 2007). Hence, to improve the status quo, character educators need to consider employing culturally relatable exemplars, particularly those from historically marginalized backgrounds, to be able to promote positive developmental outcomes, in this instance, culturally relevant indices of character development. Several related studies have suggested that such an educational approach can also contribute to addressing social injustice and inter-group conflicts, which constitute the basis for disproportionally hostile socio-cultural contexts against students from marginalized backgrounds (Čehajić-Clancy & Bilewicz, 2021). The stories of moral exemplars that reflect the lived experiences of racial ethnic groups can promote moral motivation and moral character. It is also likely that such exposure may foster strong moral inspiration among minoritized youth to engage in civic activities in the pursuit of social justice and equity (Tirrell et al., 2022). In fact, Čehajić-Clancy and Bilewicz (2021) proposed that exemplars that demonstrate the virtues of justice and forgiveness, and that are relevant to socio-cultural contexts during warfare, significantly inspired civic engagement. People who were inspired by contextually relevant exemplars, particularly those from the same socio-cultural group, demonstrated strong motivation to address conflicts and pursue peace (Witkowska, Beneda, Čehajić-Clancy, & Bilewicz, 2019). These real-world moral exemplar cases support the premise of this chapter, that is, that character and moral educators need to consider employing exemplars that reflect the same socio-cultural backgrounds of students, in particular for those from marginalized and minoritized groups. Employment of moral exemplars, who represent the moral paragons from the same marginalized socio-cultural backgrounds, are likely to promote the development of moral motivation and character to address existing systematic issues in the society. The next section highlights an empirical case study of a family-based preventive intervention that explicitly puts this new thinking into practice. 16

Culturally Sensitive and Contextually Adapted Exemplars

Exemplar Case Study 4: Promoting Culturally and Contextually Relevant Character Development through Family-Based Preventive Interventions Although studies of character development of youth of color are quite sparse, available studies have shown interconnections among overall identity development to moral judgment and moral identity (Clark Power & Khmelkov, 1998). Given that family socialization involves transmitting messages mores and values (Berkowitz & Grych, 2000), to guide and promote both identity and judgment, there is a need for greater understanding of how these processes foster self-understanding of social and moral judgment that led to character development, as empathy, cultural orientation, social emotional competences, and emotional attachment are key aspects of self-perception, including racial/ethnic racial identity (Humphries et al., 2000; Jaegers, 2001; Moreland & Leach, 2000). That is, character development, including moral judgment, occurs through family socialization, as well as through opportunities to observe and engage in prosocial actions and activities that benefit others (Hart, Atkins, & Ford, 2010). These experiences are viewed as key processes to foster confidence, agency, and empathy, that are essential components of “good character” (Hart et al., 2010). An unexplored question in the studies of character development is: How do African American families socialize their children to develop “good character” recognizing that they and their children reside in a society that requires them to navigate oppressive and discriminatory situations and conditions caused by structurally oppressive policies, and explicit and implicit racial bias (Murry, 2019)? It has been well established that protective processes in African American families can be traced back to patterns of family life established in African societies and modified in response to enslavement in America (Murry et al., 2018; Sudarkasa, 1988). That most African American youth fare well and grow up to be contributing citizens despite these oppressive circumstances, suggests the need to explore how these protective processes are relied on to foster “good character” development. This need served as the impetus for the current case study, one needed to test the efficacy of a family-based youth risk prevention program in the promotion of character development among African American youth. Thus, the case study tested a set of hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of a strength-based family-centered program designed to enhance parenting processes and youth intrapersonal protective processes in promoting essential key components of character development, and the extent to which “good character” would be associated with positive developmental outcomes for African American youth. Previous research has highlighted ways in which African American caregiving practices buffer children from the potential negative effects of social injustice, discrimination, and other life challenges, as such, there is a need to harness African American protective capacities that originate in the family environment and test their efficacy in preventive intervention trials (Anderson, McKenny, & Stevenson, 2019; Coard et al., 2004).

The Pathways for African American Success (PAAS) Program The Pathways for African American Success (PAAS) is an eHealth adaptation of the Strong African American Families (SAAF) program designed to dissuade youth from engaging in risky behavior. SAAF was developed 20 years ago by Murry and Brody in partnership with African American communities in rural Georgia (Brody et al., 2004; Murry & Brody, 2004). At the time, there were no evidence-based programs developed for rural African American families. Community stakeholders identified their concerns for their children, including mental health, substance abuse, and sexual risk behavior, these concerns became the distal outcomes of the program. Input from stakeholders was combined a decade of longitudinal research from those same communities 17

Velma McBride Murry et al.

(e.g., Murry & Brody, 1999, 2004), as well as general and culturally informed theories of adolescent development (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Gibbons & Gerrard, 1997; McAdoo, 1997) to develop a theoretical model of risk and protective mechanisms that guided the program content and delivery. In addition to common prevention targets included in other preventive interventions (e.g., warm and supportive parenting, communication, positive discipline, and youth attitudes toward risk), stakeholders emphasized the need to include attention to discrimination, the Black Church, and racial socialization. Prior to SAAF, these program targets had not previously been included in evidence-based preventive interventions for African American families (Jones & Neblett, 2016). Results of SAAF, a randomized trial, demonstrated that a cluster of intervention-targeted parenting strategies, which included racial socialization plus universal parenting skills related to parent-child relationships and positive discipline, were associated with improvements in adolescent racial pride and multiple behavioral health outcomes (Brody, Murry et al., 2005; Murry, Berkel et al., 2007, 2011; Murry et al., 2009; Murry, Brody et al., 2005).

Brief Description of PAAS RCT and Implementation The PAAS program uses similar content and structure as the SAAF program but was translated for eHealth delivery to overcome challenges in implementation (for additional details see Murry, Berkel, Inniss-Thompson, & Debreaux, 2019; 2018). Similar to SAAF, PAAS included concurrent parent and youth sessions, followed by a conjoint family session. Importantly, a focus on discrimination, racial socialization, and racial pride was interwoven throughout the program. Parent sessions were designed to promote both racial socialization and universally adaptive parenting practices (e.g., monitoring, parent-child sexual communication, and the establishment of clear expectations about alcohol/substance use and sexual risk) (Murry et al., 2007, 2011). Youth sessions also included both universal (e.g., risk resistance skills) and culturally specific content (e.g., dealing with racism), as well as youth intrapersonal protective processes (e.g., future orientation, self-regulation, emotional regulation, racial pride, and resistance efficacy). After concurrent parent and youth sessions, family members came together to reinforce what each learned in their respective sessions. A “highway to success” framework organized the session topics with off ramps and side streets to illustrate associations between choices and consequences. To incorporate some of the benefits of the original small group format of SAAF, the program included characters that looked and sounded like members of the local community and participants could customize avatars to represent themselves. Family avatars could interact with the characters in the program via a menu of pre-programed responses.

eHealth Condition The ultimate goal was for PAAS to be available for families to use at any time on their own devices. Because an important aim of the trial was to establish effectiveness, the technology condition was conducted in a community setting with two rural African American community members serving as onsite technology intervention assistants (TIAs). TIAs received six hours of training on program content, procedures for setting up and managing weekly computer interactive sessions and troubleshooting on-site computer-related issues. In preparation for the sessions, laptops from the research center were set up by TIA at designated community centers, such as churches, youth centers, and libraries. A three-hour time block was allocated for each session. A member of the research staff sent a schedule to families informing them of the dates and times over the course of six weeks when the PAAS program would be available in their community. Each family selected 18

Culturally Sensitive and Contextually Adapted Exemplars

a time that fits their schedule and received a follow-up call from the research team to confirm attendance. When families arrived on site, the TIAs set up each parent and adolescent on available laptops and remained present to provide any needed technical assistance. To ensure privacy and reduce distractions, each laptop was placed inside a tri-fold partition. After each family member completed their respective individual sessions, a TIA escorted the adolescent to the parent’s laptop to complete the conjoint family session. Individual and family sessions lasted an average of 45 minutes, for a combined 1.5 hours per week, and 9 hours of the total dosage.

Small Group Condition For the traditional small group-based condition, teams of three rural African American community members served as facilitators (one for parents and two for youth sessions). Prior to implementing the program, facilitators received a total of 36 hours of training over the course of six days. A total of 12 groups of roughly 12 families met weekly. Facilitators presented the PAAS curriculum, organized role-playing activities, guided discussions among group members, and addressed participants’ questions. Each parent/youth concurrent session and family session lasted one hour on average, resulting in two hours per session, and twelve hours of the total dosage. In programs delivered via traditional, in-person program formats, implementation can vary widely and depends both on facilitator delivery and participant responsiveness (Berkel, Mauricio, Schoenfelder, & Sandler, 2011). In the group condition, sessions were videotaped to assess fidelity using a checklist with one item for each instruction in the manual. For each group, two parent, youth, and family sessions were randomly selected for fidelity coding. Reliability checks were conducted on 23% of the fidelity assessments and interrater reliability exceeded 80% for the parent, youth, and family sessions. Fidelity to the curriculum exceeded 80%.

The PAAS Effectiveness Trial To test the effectiveness of the PAAS program, a 3-arm (technology format, traditional small group format, and literature control) randomized trial was conducted with 418 sixth graders and their primary caregivers. Families were randomized to one of the three conditions: technology (N = 141), group (N = 141), and literature control (N = 136). Families assigned to the technology condition participated in the eHealth version of PAAS. The group condition was delivered via traditional small group format and was similar to SAAF but updated to be more similar to the eHealth version (e.g., using the “highway to success” framework) for the sake of comparison. Families in the literature control received mailings on topically related brochures and pamphlets similar to those covered in the two active arms. The overall goal of the trial was to determine whether the eHealth version of PAAS would be more effective than the control and comparable to the traditional small group version. We also sought to address concerns that African American families in low-income, rural communities would be willing to engage in a computer-based preventive intervention. Results show that irrespective of parent age, education, or socioeconomic status, families in the technology condition had significantly higher rates of program initiation, lower rates of attrition, and attended more sessions overall than the traditional small group condition (Murry, Berkel, & Liu, 2018). This finding demonstrates that translating the program to an eHealth format achieved the intended goal of increasing access to families. In terms of effectiveness, previous analyses demonstrated evidence for two clusters of parenting practices, which differed somewhat from the SAAF trial and demonstrated distinct patterns of 19

Velma McBride Murry et al.

improvement by condition (Murry et al., 2019). The group condition reported increases in general warm and supportive parenting, compared to the eHealth and control conditions. The eHealth condition reported improvements relative to the other conditions in parenting related to challenging topics faced by African American parents, including racial socialization, communicating expectations for sexual behavior and substance use, engaging in involved, vigilant, supportive parenting. The fact that this set of parenting practices clustered together was particularly enlightening and may be explained by parents’ understanding of the fact that, due to race-related bias, their offspring may face disproportionate consequences of engagement in risk behaviors compared to White peers (Pflieger, Cook, Niccolai, & Connell, 2013; Zapolski, Pedersen, McCarthy, & Smith, 2014). Consequently, we conceptualize this parenting construct as “character-promotive parenting.” The combination of universal parenting, as well as culturally specific, and topics about a set of issues that parents may find particularly challenging to discuss in a group format, such as discussions about sex and drugs, making them particularly well-suited for programs delivered via technology (Murry et al., 2019). In terms of adolescent outcomes, the eHealth condition reported reductions in intent to engage in risk behaviors at posttest, and long-term reductions in sexual risk behavior and substance use compared to both of the other conditions. Our study was informed by the Murry et al. (2018) Integrative Model for the Study of Stress in Black American Families and Lerner and colleagues’ (2021) relational developmental systems model of Positive Youth Development, and illustrates that the significant of strengths-based, cultural assets that African Americans use to navigate socio-environmental contextual stressors and foster positive developmental outcomes among their children by employing protective parenting practices and drawing on close relationships in families. Our study was the first to test an implicit, but heretofore untested, mechanism of the program, that is, does the PAAS program enhance character-promotive parenting, that in turn, foster indices of character development in their children, manifested as moral agency, moral reasoning/judgment, and moral and ethnic identity. We predicted that these youth protective processes would, in turn, dissuade youth from engaging in antisocial behaviors that are perceived to be in conflict with values and norms for young people, namely early onset of sexual encounters and initiation and escalation of the use of substances. The case study compared the two active conditions, including a total of 274 rural African American families, reflecting 137 eHealth and 137 in the small group to determine one condition evinced greater change in intervention-targeted behaviors to promote character development.

Participants Primary caregivers were predominantly female (84%) and on average 40 years old. The majority (87%) had completed high school. Half were single parents, 37% were married, and the remaining were grandparent-headed households. Most primary caregivers (63%) were employed and worked approximately 40 hours per week; 50% owned their own home; 56% reported that their income was adequate to meet their needs, and 14% received public assistance. On average, there were 2.7 children in the home. Just over half of the target adolescents were female (54%) and were on average 11 years old at pretest and 14 years old at the long-term follow-up.

Results: PAAS Intervention Effects on Character-Promotive Parenting and Youth Character Development Results from a structural equation model (SEM) are presented in Figure 1.1 demonstrated a good fit to the data, using established indices of whether a model fits theoretical expectations 20

Culturally Sensitive and Contextually Adapted Exemplars

Figure 1.1  PAAS intervention effects on parenting, character development, and risk behavior prevention.

(e.g., X 2=245.20, df=112, RMSEA= .071, CFI=.88, TLI=.84). Standardized βs indicated that parents assigned to the eHealth version of PAAS demonstrated greater changes in character-promotive parenting (β=.11, p Aspire, several notable changes were made to the theory of change for Inspiring Purpose, including adding additional short-term outcomes such as self-reflection and local (more immediate) contribution. Analyses of findings from the pilot study, including teacher feedback, provided the foundation for developing an extensive teacher manual. Changes were also made to the Inspiring Purpose poster template to better align the poster with the current theory of character development and to provide additional scaffolding for pupils (Urban et al., 2018b). Findings from the Inspiring Purpose study found only minimal program effects using variable-centered analyses. Participating in Inspiring Purpose was associated with an increase in 350

The Institute for Research on Youth Thriving & Evaluation

self-regulation (a form of goal development) and confidence. Fall and spring program implementation groups were not comparable at baseline on two of the qualitatively measured variables. Spring implementers started the study with higher levels of purpose and sense of belonging. This result could have possibly masked program effects. In addition, both fall and spring implementers started the study with high levels of goal articulation and local contribution which is indicative of ceiling effects (there is not room for much growth). Findings are mixed regarding whether program effects are sustained across time. Overall, participating in Inspiring Purpose was associated with increased confidence, goal articulation, goal optimization, goal-directed behavior, contribution, and self-reflection. Pupil surveys did not reveal any significant changes in confidence related to participation in Inspiring Purpose. However, the qualitative data from pupil interviews revealed a different pattern. Pupils reported increased confidence after participating in the program. Results indicated that although confidence increased soon after participating in Inspiring Purpose, this effect was not sustained over time. Findings from the student posters indicated reflecting on a more distal inspirational figure may help youth feel a greater sense of personal connection to more proximal inspirational figures. When youth make a personal connection with their inspirational figure, they are more likely to be more confident, have a better self-concept, be better at articulating goals, and be more involved in their community (Quinn et al., 2022). What the teacher does––or at least who the teacher is––matters for pupil poster quality. Teachers whose implementation style was characterized by creation (creating their own resources/materials for Inspiring Purpose) and integration (integrating Inspiring Purpose with the broader curriculum) had students with higher quality and better-aligned posters when compared with teachers whose implementation style was characterized by high levels of guidance. It is possible that teachers who were more likely to create materials were those who had more experience teaching in general or teaching Inspiring Purpose specifically (Urban et al., 2018b). We have also used data from Inspiring Purpose to examine positive youth development outcomes. Using data from the Inspire>Aspire pilot study, we found self-regulation predicted future aspirations (MacDonnell et al., 2015b) as well as youth character and connection (Chauveron et al., 2015). With data from Inspiring Purpose, we found associations between youth self-regulation and purpose using a mixed methods approach (Linver et al., 2018), and found that self-regulation and youth purpose uniquely predict youth confidence and connection (Linver et al., 2022). Recommendations/impact. Based on our findings, we had three specific recommendations related to the Inspiring Purpose program: Provide students with a structured opportunity to reflect on proximal inspirational figures including family members and close friends. Encourage teachers to integrate Inspiring Purpose with the broader curriculum. Remind teachers not to provide too much guidance on completing the Inspiring Purpose poster.

4. Evaluating STEM Scouts: The Design of a Comprehensive Evaluation Plan and Feasibility Study Funder: National Science Foundation Collaborators: BSA, AIR Dates: November 2018–April 2021 351

Jennifer Brown Urban and Miriam R. Linver

Background. The project focused on the BSA’s STEM Scouts, an affiliate and pilot program of the BSA. The program offers a value-based character development program to youth in elementary, middle, and high school that expands STEM knowledge as it builds character, citizenship, personal fitness, and leadership. The specific goals of the program are to: provide hands-on experimentation, develop skills and a curiosity for STEM topics, discover new career paths, and engage in service to others. Goals. The goals of the project were as follows: (1) to lay the groundwork for a future research project by developing a detailed theory of change for STEM Scouts that highlights the hypothesized interactions between STEM outcomes and PYD/SEL outcomes; (2) pilot three new enhancements to the Systems Evaluation Protocol (Systems Modeling, STEM Learning Ecosystem Modeling, and Model Verification); and (3) determine the feasibility of conducting a national scale study of STEM Scouts by completing a detailed analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) as well as a data inventory. Data collected. We generated a pathway model that visually illustrated the programmatic theory of change including the key STEM activities expected to lead to anticipated positive youth development/social-emotional and STEM outcomes. Twenty-two adult leaders in STEM Scouts and 18 youth participants engaged in focus groups to verify that the pathway model reflected their lived experience of the program. Findings. The pathway model laid the foundation for future research, helping to pinpoint representative short- medium- and long-term outcomes of program participation. Focus groups allowed for gathering of knowledge about the local STEM ecosystem and the extent of available STEM experiences in their community (Kornak-Bozza et al., 2019). As well, focus groups were used to pilot three new SEP enhancements which extended the SEP approach by integrating evidence-based systems thinking into program models and evaluation plans; capturing contextual information about the program experience in situ; and, including different stakeholders to verify that the links between program activities and outcomes shared by the program leadership is resonant at the grassroots level (Urban et al., 2023). Recommendations/impact. The STEM Scouts study influenced knowledge, encouraged strength-based programming, and developed evaluative techniques that may benefit programs, practitioners, and evaluators across the country. Accordingly, this project addressed a gap in the literature by elucidating information about the interactions between STEM, PYD, and SEL. By creating a research-practice partnership focused on STEM activities delivered by a well-known national youth program that reaches thousands of youth each year, the project produced results that may benefit BSA and other youth-serving organizations offering STEM programming. The project-generated pathway model highlighted connections between an array of program activities and the outcomes that ultimately benefit youth participants, their families, and their communities. Furthermore, based on findings from field-based focus groups that elicited input from youth and adult leaders, the research team noted a dearth of local STEM out-of-school time opportunities. Such programs offer youth, particularly those in elementary and middle school, skills and opportunities to engage in STEM. The research team also learned that for STEM in particular, parents appear to play an important role as active participants in programming. In focus groups, parents said that the science that was offered in their child’s school did not provide a fully enriching and educational experience, needs that are being met by participating in STEM Scouts.

Summary/Big Picture Implications The RYTE Institute is blazing a trail in high-quality evaluation and capacity building, with a focus on promoting character and youth development. Our applied research focus makes a difference in the academy and in the “real world” too. In addition, we are committed to training the next 352

The Institute for Research on Youth Thriving & Evaluation

generation of like-minded researchers. We have been fortunate in receiving funding streams to provide the foundations for a structure that allows us to advance high-quality evaluation, build evaluation capacity, conduct basic and applied research, and train students and postdoctoral fellows, while simultaneously having an outsized impact on programs across the United States and around the world.

References Chauveron, L., Linver, M. R., & Urban, J. B. (2015). Intentional self-regulation and positive youth development: Implications for youth development programs. Journal of Youth Development, 10(3), 89–101. Chauveron, L., Samtani, S., Groner, M., Urban, J. B., & Linver, M. (2018). Including underrepresented stakeholder voices in evaluation: Yes, we mean ALL of them! Eastern Evaluation Research Society. Chauveron, L., Samtani, S., Groner, M. G., Urban, J. B., & Linver, M. R. (2021a). Including diverse stakeholder voices in youth character program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 42(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/1098214020917218 Chauveron, L., Urban, J. B., Samtani, S., Cox, M., Moorman, L., Hargraves, M., Buckley, J., & Linver, M. R. (2021b). Promoting evaluation in youth character development through enhanced Evaluation Capacity Building: Empirical findings from the PACE project. New Directions for Evaluation, 2021(169), 79–95. Cox, M., Bennett, T., Alvis, L., Zhang, A., Urban, J. B., & Linver, M. R. (2021, April). “I wish I could change the whole thing so it never happened”: Youth purpose, depression, anxiety, and prosocial behavior during Covid-19. Society for Research in Child Development, Online. Cox, M., Urban, J. B., & Linver, M. R. (2019). Extending our reach: Using the modern-day call center for program evaluation and academic research. Eastern Evaluation Research Society. Davis, W. J., Esposito, M., Urban, J. B., & Linver, M. R. (2022). “Oh, I thought we’d be different”: A multifocal, interdisciplinary examination of the fidelity/adaptation challenge. Journal of Adult & Continuing Education, 170–194. doi: 10.1177/14779714221075829. Online First. Gama, L., MacDonnell, M., Illnick, V., Jensen, R., Barrios, V., Chauveron, L., Linver, M. R., & Urban, J. B. (2015). Mind the gap: Technology solutions for evaluation research in another country. Eastern Evaluation Research Association. Kornak-Bozza, Y., Doubledee, R. R., Linver, M. R., & Urban, J. B. (2019). Parental support of youth character development programs. Society for the Study of Human Development. LaPietra, E., Urban, J. B., & Linver, M. R. (2020). Using cognitive interviewing to test youth survey and interview items in evaluation: A case example. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 16(37), 74–96. Lerner, R. M., & Callina, K. (2014). The study of character development: Towards tests of a relational developmental systems model. Research in Human Development, 57, 322–346. Linver, M. R., & Urban, J. B. (2022). The greatest experience ever:” Benefits of participation in high adventure activities for youth. Society for Research on Adolescence. Linver, M. R., Urban, J. B., Chen, W., Gama, L., & Swomley, V. (2022). Predicting positive youth development from self-regulation and purpose in early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 32(4), 1312–1327. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12621 Linver, M. R., Urban, J. B., MacDonnell, M., Roberts, E. D., Quinn, J., Samtani, S., Doubledee, R., Gama, L., & Morgan, D. (2018). Mixed methods in youth purpose: An examination of adolescent self-regulation and purpose. Journal of Research in Human Development, 15(2), 118–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1542 7609.2018.1445925 Liu, Y., Doubledee, R., Zhang, A., Linver, M. R., Urban, J. B., & Geldhof, G. J. (2022a). Do adult leaders’ training and experience matter for youth program participants’ wellbeing? New Society for Research on Adolescence. Liu, Y., Urban, J. B., Linver, M. R., Witzel, D. D., & Geldhof, G. J. (2022b). Profiles of leader trainings and experience and their association with youth wellbeing. Society for the Study of Human Development. MacDonnell, M., Chauveron, L., Barrios, V., Linver, M., & Urban, J. B. (2015a). Going overseas: Challenges, benefits and lessons learned from international evaluation. American Evaluation Association. MacDonnell, M., Gama, L., Urban, J. B., & Linver, M. R. (2017). A process approach to evaluation: Using the Systems Evaluation Protocol (SEP) and a pilot study to select and organize measures for the inspiring purpose outcome evaluation. American Evaluation Association.

353

Jennifer Brown Urban and Miriam R. Linver MacDonnell, M., Urban, J. B., & Linver, M. (2015b). A mixed methods exploration of intentional self regulation and youth beliefs about the chances of achieving future aspirations. Journal of Youth Development, 10(3), 102–114. Quinn, J., Roberts, E. D., Chen, W., Doubledee, R., Urban, J. B., & Linver, M. R. (2022). Motivating positive youth outcomes through proximal, relevant, and attainable inspirational figures. Journal of Adolescent Research, Online First. doi: 10.1177/07435584221100813 Rush, A., Urban, J. B., Davis, W. J., & Linver, M. R. (2022). Exploring pathways to purpose in scouts. Journal of Adolescent Research, Online First. Trochim, W. M., & Urban, J. B. (2021). Theoretical foundations and philosophical orientation of Relational Systems Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2021(169), 19–30. Urban, J. B., Archibald, T. A., Hargraves, M., Buckley, J., Hebbard, C., Linver, M. R., & Trochim, W. M. (Eds.). (2021a). Relational Systems Evaluation. Special issue of New Directions for Evaluation, 2021(169). doi: 10.1002/ev.20446. Urban, J. B., Archibald, T., Hargraves, M., Buckley, J., Hebbard, C., Linver, M. R., & Trochim, W. M. (2021b). Introduction to Relational Systems Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2021(169), 11–18. Urban, J. B., Hargraves, M., Buckley, J., Samtani, S., Chauveron, L. M., Hebbard, C., Archibald, T., & Linver, M. R. (2018a). Setting the “PACE” in youth character development: A project overview. Eastern Evaluation Research Society. Urban, J. B., Hargraves, M., Buckley, J., Archibald, T., Hebbard, C., & Trochim, W. M. (2021c). The systems evaluation protocol for evaluation planning. New Directions for Evaluation, 2021(169), 31–45. Urban, J. B., Linver, M. R., Chauveron, L. M., Archibald, T., Hargraves, M., & Buckley, J. (2021d). Applying the Systems Evaluation Protocol in the real world: Six case studies. New Directions for Evaluation, 2021(169), 65–77. Urban, J. B., Linver, M. R., Johnson, S. K., MacDonnell, M., Chauveron, L., Glina, M., & Gama, L. (2018b). Developing the next generation of engaged youth: Inspire-Aspire Global Citizens in the Making. Journal of Moral Education, 47(1), 104–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017.1396967 Urban, J. B., Linver, M. R., Kornak-Bozza, Y., MacDonnell, M., & Buckley, J. (2023). Combining STEM and character development in an out-of-school-time program: Participatory practices for developing and validating a theory of change. Journal of STEM Education, 23(4), 22–23. Urban, J. B., Linver, M. R., Samtani, S., & Chauveron, L. (2018c). The future of character education programs in the US: Findings from the PACE Project Society for Research in Child Development Special Topic Meeting: Promoting Character Development among Diverse Children and Adolescents: The Roles of Families, Schools, and Out-Of-School-Time Youth Development Programs, Philadelphia, PA.

354

20 THE STANFORD CENTER ON ADOLESCENCE* Heather Malin

For 25 years, the Stanford Center on Adolescence (CoA) has been influential in establishing the science and scholarship of positive youth development (PYD) with an emphasis on character and purpose development in adolescence. However, the roots of the Center extend back to the 1970s, when Stanford was home to the Boys’ Town Center for the Study of Youth Development, later the Center for the Study of Families, Children, and Youth. These earlier iterations of the Center applied interdisciplinary research to identify and fix the problems faced by children, adolescents, and families. Seeking new sources of financial support in the mid-1990s, the center partnered with the Carnegie Corporation of New York. At the time, the Carnegie Corporation was directed by David Hamburg, a psychiatrist who was especially interested in adolescent health and development. He offered to support a new iteration of the children and families research center at Stanford but requested that the center focus on adolescent development. William Damon, at the time a professor and founding director of the Center for Human Development at Brown University, was selected to lead the new Stanford Center on Adolescence in the School of Education. From its inception, the CoA has been both multidisciplinary and international, bringing diverse perspectives to bear on questions about adolescent development. Scholars visited from South America, Asia, Europe, Australia, and around the United States to share their research in CoA-sponsored colloquia. In addition to being transdisciplinary and international, the Center invites collaboration with practitioners, policy makers, philanthropists, and the media, and has developed long-term partnerships with institutions and organizations that translated CoA research into education practice. One of the earliest events held at CoA exemplifies its interdisciplinary, international, and translational nature. In coordination with the Brown University Center for the Study of Human Development, the CoA convened international leaders in psychology, education, political science, sociology, and medicine to discuss the skills, attitudes, and beliefs young people need to become productively engaged in contemporary democratic society, and the social conditions that support young people to develop into socially responsible citizens (Stanford Center on Adolescence, 1999). Around the same time, Damon was working on the GoodWork Project (GWP) in collaboration with Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi and Howard Gardner, aimed at investigating the intersection * The information in this chapter was collected in some part through interviews with Kendall Cotton Bronk, Jennifer Menon Mariano, and William Damon.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-23

355

Heather Malin

of excellence and ethics in different professions. These divergent programs grew out of Damon’s field-building work in moral development and research on moral commitments conducted in collaboration with Anne Colby, and foreshadowed the purpose development research that would become the central project of the CoA for over 20 years.

Vision and Mission of the Stanford Center on Adolescence At the time the Center was started, adolescents were widely believed to be a problem population by the field of developmental psychology and society in general. The statistics appeared to confirm this belief, as social scientists reported alarming rates of teenage homicide, suicide, drug use, pregnancy, and crime. Newspaper articles in the 1990s lamented truant teenagers running wild, a spike in juvenile delinquency, and “children having children” (Butterfield, 1995; Shuster, 1995; Wallis, 1985). Developmental psychologists were called on to investigate this youth crisis, explain the rising rates of teenage misbehavior, and recommend solutions. Although pathology and problem behavior were prominent in the study of adolescent psychology, they were not the only ideas influencing developmental science at the time. Damon, a prominent expert in moral development, had an outlook on adolescence informed by his prior work, including research on positive justice among children and exemplars of moral commitment. At the time he was starting the CoA, he was in dialogue with scholars such as Martin Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi as they were defining the emerging field of positive psychology. Damon also partnered with Peter Benson and Richard Lerner, who were shaping the framework for a science of PYD. Guided by the belief that “the best defense is a good offense,” the PYD approach sought to recognize adolescents’ inherent strengths and provide opportunities for young people to build on their strengths. This approach offered an answer to those looking for solutions to problem behavior; however, more significantly, the collaborative effort of Benson, Lerner, Damon, and others to promote a strength-based approach led to a substantial shift in the national agenda on the science of adolescent development toward PYD. Damon recognized an opportunity in his new role at Stanford to prioritize PYD and amplify the moral dimension of PYD. The preceding center was, at that time, focused on the problems of adolescence and fixing errant youth. Damon believed, like Benson and Lerner, that young people are assets to society and that the goal of an adolescent development research center should be to find ways to encourage and support youth in developing their strengths. He found further inspiration in the work of Sir John Templeton, who had invited youth to write essays on what he considered the “Laws of Life,” or the principles by which one could live in pursuit of a life of purpose and fulfillment. Thus, the vision for the new Stanford Center on Adolescence was influenced by Damon’s involvement in the burgeoning PYD movement, the emergent research in positive psychology, the moral dimension of positive development that was at the foundation of Damon’s previous research program, and in the inspirational ideas about purpose and virtues being promoted by the John Templeton Foundation. The mission of the center would be to investigate and promote PYD, particularly through the lenses of character, moral development, social and civic engagement, and purpose.

Research Programs at the Stanford Center on Adolescence The CoA takes a distinctive mixed-methods research approach to pursue this mission. Influenced by the exemplar interview methodology developed by Anne Colby and Damon, CoA research projects always use data collected through semi-structured interviews, usually along with surveys. 356

The Stanford Center on Adolescence

At the start of each CoA interview, the study participant is asked to describe themselves, the kind of person they are, and what they care about most. They share stories about their experiences, their values, their concerns and challenges, and their hopes for the future. This unique approach to collecting data provides individual profiles of purpose, revealing how they pursue or create purpose in different domains of life, the circumstances and situations that impact their pursuit of purpose, and the people and opportunities that support their purpose development. Over hundreds of interviews, the CoA team has been able to observe patterns in how purpose develops and is manifested in different areas of life. Along with the interviews, CoA research projects typically include survey data collection at multiple time points over two or more years. Through surveys, the CoA has collected data from thousands of respondents, allowing for more generalizable analyses and opportunities to measure change in purpose and other indicators of psychological well-being over time. The study of purpose, in particular the Youth Purpose Project (YPP), is the heart and foundation of the CoA research program. Subsequent studies have branched from this foundation, extending the purpose research into different domains of life, contexts of development, and life stages. The YPP is rooted in the GWP, which was taking off just as CoA was founded. The GWP brought Damon’s work on moral exemplars, including the interview method, to the CoA. Here, we describe the key research projects that have formed the core program of the CoA over 25 years, starting with the GWP, the formation of the YPP, and the branches that have since extended the purpose work in new directions.

GoodWork Project The GWP originated in a meeting between Damon, Howard Gardner (Harvard Graduate School of Education), and Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (Claremont Graduate School) at the Center for Advanced Behavioral Studies in the mid-1990s. They each were interested in questions about the relationship between high-quality performance and social responsibility among leading professionals in diverse fields (Gardner et al., 2001). The GWP was conceived to investigate these questions through interviews conducted with over 700 leaders in a wide range of professions who were considered exemplars of excellence and ethics. The CoA team interviewed leading professionals in journalism, higher education, and philanthropy. The CoA team included project manager Susan Verducci, a philosopher who was conducting research in moral education, and doctoral students Kendall Cotton Bronk and Jennifer Menon Mariano, both of whom had recently arrived at the CoA to do research on moral development and moral commitments with Damon. The GWP spanned a decade, resulting in a profound body of scholarship and practical materials. Several books, including GoodWork: When Excellence and Ethics Meet (Gardner et al., 2001) and The Moral Advantage (Damon, 2004), were among the numerous publications produced by the GoodWork team. Findings from the project included a model of good work demonstrating the forces—external stakeholders, social forces, and existing domain structures—that exert pressure on leader decision-making and shape the mission of the field (Berg et al., 2003). The journalism component resulted in a curriculum for journalists to support their critical thinking about news events and ability to detect bias that has been presented to thousands of journalists (Stanford Center on Adolescence, n.d.). To Damon, the most compelling finding of the GWP was that, across professions, exemplars of good work could articulate the public mission of their field and were attuned to that mission, whereas other practitioners were not. For example, journalists who were exemplars of excellence and ethics in their work understood the connection between journalism and democracy, and 357

Heather Malin

exemplar physicians focused on the health implications of their work for individuals and society. The mission of the field, and a leader’s capacity to internalize the mission, was at the heart of good work. This finding led Damon to reflect further on the significance of having a mission, and how the importance of having a mission is paralleled in individuals having purpose.

Youth Purpose Development By founding the CoA, Damon was uniquely poised to raise questions about purpose and its development in adolescence. Noticing that few scholars were studying purpose in a serious way in the early 2000s, and the absence of a clear definition of purpose that distinguished it from other, similar constructs such as meaning in life and goal commitment, he engaged the Center in laying the groundwork for a comprehensive investigation of youth purpose development.1 Most of what was understood about adolescent purpose at the time was inferred from scholarship across disciplines on topics such as generativity, religion and psychology, social movements, and resilience (Bronk et al., 2004). The research suggested that purpose is beneficial to adolescents, but very little was known about how young people develop purpose or what role purpose plays in an individual’s development. In 2001, doctoral students Kendall Cotton Bronk, studying moral and character development, and Jennifer Menon Mariano, interested in how young people develop noble aspirations and pursue them, worked together to conduct a comprehensive review of the existing research and theory on purpose. Together with Damon, they wrote a report that laid out virtually all the scholarship about purpose available at that time and proposed a new definition of purpose: “A stable and generalizable intention to accomplish something that is at once meaningful to the self and of consequence to the world beyond the self” (Damon et al., 2003). The literature review revealed clear gaps in the theory and research on youth purpose. To address these gaps and lay the groundwork for a new program of research on youth purpose development, the Center convened leading scholars in developmental psychology, education, social policy, and cultural anthropology to discuss purpose from diverse disciplinary perspectives. The following questions were posed to guide their discussions: (1) What kinds of purpose inspire young people? (2) What role does purpose play in human development? (3) How do young people discover purposes? and (4) Are noble purposes acquired in the same manner as ignoble ones? (Bronk et al., 2004). Attendees came to consensus on several important ideas about youth purpose development. In response to the first question, they agreed that the types of purpose that inspire young people are largely influenced by the social and cultural milieu in which they are raised. Attendees agreed in response to the second question that purpose in adolescence is an indicator of PYD and psychological well-being, just as generativity is an indicator of thriving in later life. They concurred in response to the third question that young people discover purpose when they are exposed to purposeful role models, inspiring ideologies or moral beliefs, and opportunities to act on moral beliefs such as through service opportunities. Finally, attendees agreed that it is possible to distinguish between noble and ignoble purposes; however, the appropriate way to make this distinction was a matter of debate.

Youth Purpose Project: Phase 1 The empirical aspect of the YPP started with pilot testing of interview protocols and survey measures conducted by Bronk and Mariano for their first-year doctoral program projects. This preliminary work resulted in the first version of the Youth Purpose Interview, which would eventually be 358

The Stanford Center on Adolescence

adapted for almost all the Center’s subsequent research projects. It also yielded early thoughts on categories of purpose that could be inferred from the interview data, later delineated as the forms of purpose that describe the state of an individual’s purpose development (i.e., full purpose, dabbler, dreamer, drifter, self-goal pursuer). Phase 1 of the YPP used interviews with young purpose exemplars to explore what purpose looks like among children and adolescents, and to understand the personal qualities, social resources, and other contextual factors that might contribute to their extraordinary purpose. The CoA team identified 60 youth purpose exemplars through a nomination process, including a teenage cancer researcher, a young boy who raised money to build wells in Africa, a successful jazz musician, and a teenager who started a motor oil recycling program in her town to stop people from polluting the land with used oil. The exemplar study resulted in publications describing how some young people are driven by a strong sense of purpose, highly motivated and committed to pursuing interests that they find meaningful and through which they contribute to the world beyond themselves, and the important role that family encouragement, role models, and mentors in the community play in supporting these youth in developing their purpose (Bronk, 2012; Damon, 2008). Phase 1 of the YPP made clear that adolescents, even children, were capable of developing purpose given the opportunity to act on their interests and concerns, especially when they have support from caring adults and like-minded peers.

Youth Purpose Project: Phase 2 The second phase of the YPP, managed by Bronk and later by Seana Moran, sought to investigate the state of purpose among adolescents across the United States. The CoA team traveled to rural Tennessee, urban New Jersey, and suburban and rural California to conduct surveys and interviews with students in 6th, 8th, and 12th grades, and in community college. Participants completed surveys and interviews again two years later. In the interviews and surveys, they described or indicated the things that are most important to them, why those things were important, their activities, and their goals for and ideas about the future. Analyses of the YPP Phase 2 data and their dissemination resulted in an influential body of scholarship on adolescent purpose development and set the course for much of the subsequent research on youth purpose in the United States and internationally. The CoA team probed the immense data set with questions about the domains of life where young people find purpose, the path that purpose development takes over the course of adolescence, the values and aspects of identity that young people bring to their purposeful pursuits, the role of social supports in youth purpose development, and the effect of having purpose on other aspects of adolescents’ lives. They observed early purpose in creative pursuits, helping activities, religious practices, social activism, athletics, community service, and most often, in the desire of many young people to provide emotional or material support for their families (e.g., Damon, 2008; Malin, 2015; Moran, 2010; Tirri & Quinn, 2010). The CoA team found that purpose did not develop in a straight path through adolescence, but was influenced by personal and contextual factors, especially through significant life transitions (Malin et al., 2014). They found that social supports for purpose were important, but so were the initiative and agency of the individual to seek out purpose opportunities (Moran et al., 2013). They learned that students with purposeful career aspirations were more engaged at school and more likely to find their schoolwork meaningful (Yeager & Bundick, 2009). The YPP set the foundation for 20 years and counting of continuous investigation into purpose as a character strength, how it develops and evolves at different stages of life, specific domains 359

Heather Malin

of activity that provide opportunities for purpose, and the settings and circumstances that support people in developing purpose.

Entrepreneurial Purpose in Young Adults The YPP raised questions about young people’s endeavors in domains where individuals with noble purpose could have an immense impact on society. These questions inspired several new projects, including a series of activities at the CoA that investigated exemplary young entrepreneurs. In 2008, the Center hosted a public symposium that convened successful young entrepreneurs along with scholars and practitioners with expertise in entrepreneurial development and education. Following the symposium, panelist Richard Lerner at Tufts University and Damon initiated the Young Entrepreneurs Study (YES)—a large-scale, longitudinal investigation of entrepreneurial activity and purpose among young adults. YES was funded by The John Templeton Foundation. The study was initiated to learn how young adults develop and apply entrepreneurial qualities and skills in pursuit of entrepreneurship in new and existing organizations. Almost 3,500 college students from the Midwest, West Coast, and New England regions of the United States participated in longitudinal surveys, and some survey respondents also participated in interviews. Results of the mixed-methods study suggest that personal qualities of self-regulation, financial risk tolerance, and an innovation mindset can lead to entrepreneurial intention in young people, and the presence of entrepreneurial adult mentors and role models can support young people to develop their entrepreneurial intentions. The YES project resulted in numerous productive collaborations with organizations seeking to foster entrepreneurship in young adults. For example, the Stanford Epicenter, aiming to nurture entrepreneurial pursuits among engineering undergraduates, partnered with the YES team to investigate entrepreneurial interests and activities among engineering students. The Epicenter used results from the study to enhance entrepreneurial education in the undergraduate engineering program.

Purpose and Character Development in Early Adolescence Following on early findings from the YPP about how purpose develops in adolescence, the Character Development in Adolescence Project (CDAP) was designed to conduct a more thorough investigation of the early stages of character development among young adolescents. In addition to purpose, the study focused on the character strengths of grit, self-control, gratitude, and actively open-minded thinking. CDAP was a longitudinal study conducted in partnership with Angela Duckworth and her team at the University of Pennsylvania. The study investigated these character strengths and potentially related factors, such as stress, mindfulness, growth mindset, adverse life experiences, and sense of belonging at school, through surveys and interviews conducted with middle school students over two years. The CDAP study provided opportunities to explore purpose development in relation to other character strengths, the role of the school setting in early purpose development, and the relationship between purpose and resilience. The project team found associations among the character strengths, although relationships were stronger between the other-directed character strengths (compassion, gratitude, purpose), and less clear between purpose and grit (Malin et al., 2017). Another analysis found connections between purpose and effective coping strategies in the face of adversity, as adolescents with full purpose were more capable than others of finding the benefits in their life challenges (Malin et al., 2019). 360

The Stanford Center on Adolescence

In addition to conducting research, the CDAP team partnered with Character Lab (characterlab. org) and KIPP Schools to develop character development materials for schools. For example, the CDAP partners developed some of the earliest character Playbooks—materials available on the Character Lab website that provide educators with research-based snapshots of different character strengths, including a definition of each character strength and ideas for modeling, celebrating, and enabling the strength in others.

Purpose in the Encore Years With the Encore Project, the CoA investigated purpose at the other end of the life span by conducting surveys and interviews with people aged 50 and older. Analyses investigated the state of purpose among older adults, the ways that older adults find purpose, and relationships between purpose and health in later life. Among this age group, about one-third met the criteria for full purpose and purpose was not associated with self-reported health status, suggesting that purpose is accessible to older adults regardless of their physical health (Bundick et al., 2021). Older adults in the Encore study found purpose in many ways, including through community and service work, religious affiliation, mentoring younger people, animal rights activism, health care, and by supporting non-profits that worked on a wide range of humanitarian issues. Those who were highly purposeful were more likely than others to describe the value to their lives of positive relationships, engagement in many different types of activities, spirituality, and the freedom of retirement to immerse themselves in activities related to their beyond-the-self concerns (Morton et al., 2019).

Purpose Development and College Experiences At this writing, the most recent CoA research program investigates purpose among college students and associations among students’ purpose and the experiences they are having in college. For this study, supported by the Mellon Foundation, the Center surveyed over 2,200 students at community colleges, small liberal arts colleges, and public and private universities in different regions of the United States, asking them about their important life goals, purpose, and other indicators of social and psychological well-being. Over 1,100 participants completed the survey again two years later, 54 of them participated in an interview, and about 50 of them participated in an experience sampling procedure by completing a very brief version of the survey 15 times over five weeks. Analyses of the data are ongoing, however findings to date indicate that about 20% of respondents were highly purposeful, and another 24% were moderately purposeful (Malin, 2022). Purpose among this sample was significantly correlated with certain college experiences, including service-learning and community service extracurricular activities; talking with an advisor about opportunities for the future and ways to make connections between the student’s personal interests and needs in the world; and finding opportunities in courses to look at issues from different perspectives or connect learning to making contributions to the world. This study also revealed the types of life goals that college students today are pursuing, showing that about 40% are pursuing beyond-the-self goals, 35% seek meaning or self-actualization, 20% described a specific career goal, and 10% aspire to be wealthy (respondents can have more than one goal category, Colby et al., 2022). Longitudinal analyses, in progress at this writing, will allow us to create a clearer picture of the relationships between purpose and college experiences, with better understanding of the effect of college experiences on purpose development. 361

Heather Malin

Civic Development, Civic Purpose, and American Identity in Adolescence Civic disengagement among young people in the United States was an ongoing concern at the time the CoA was getting started. In the early 2000s, voting rates among young Americans reached a 25-year low, as did other conventional indicators of youth civic engagement (Syvertsen et al., 2011). Damon, already investigating moral commitments and character development from a PYD perspective, recognized that talking about civic disengagement is not effective. Rather, he argued, adults need to talk with young people about civic participation—what does civic engagement mean to youth today? What types of civic activity are they engaged in? What issues do they care about? What do they think of the American dream and the values essential to American Democracy? Based on the pressing importance of youth disengagement from civic life and the relevance of these concerns to Damon’s work in moral commitments, the CoA pursued a civic development agenda alongside and integrated with the Youth Purpose program. The multidisciplinary conference on youth civic development described at the opening of this chapter was the first of many events the Center has convened to discuss youth civic development. Two of the more substantial of these events were the American Identity Renewed conference held in New York City in 2010, and the Youth Civic Development and Education conference held at Stanford in 2013. These events took place alongside the Civic Purpose Project—a two-year investigation of civic engagement and aspirations among older adolescents.

American Identity Renewed Conference Six pre-eminent scholars in youth civic development and American identity—Andrew DelBanco, Margaret Beale Spencer, Os Guinness, William Sullivan, James Youniss, and Jacques Benninga— came together in New York City to discuss the role that education has in developing students’ civic identity and instilling a strong and positive civic purpose. The speakers addressed questions such as: What does it mean to be American from the perspective of young people today? What values do young people associate with being American? Is there still a notion of devotion to the common good or E Pluribus Unum? Is the divisiveness in American society and politics inevitable? What role do schools have in educating young American citizens? (Malin et al., 2011). The conference resulted in a special issue published in Applied Developmental Science that further developed the speakers’ ideas about American identity and civic education (Malin et al., 2011). The articles culminated in a shared belief that national identity is essential to meaningful participation in democratic society, but the idea of national identity is complicated by the diverse experiences young people are having in American society. Several ideas were proposed for shaping a new approach to civic education that is responsive to the diverse experiences of youth in America today.

Youth Civic Development and Education Consensus Panel and Report Seven speakers were invited to discuss contemporary issues in youth civic development and make recommendations for civic education in the United States. Frederick Hess, Eric Liu, Diana Hess, Carole Hahn, James Banks, Rachel Moran, and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco came together for two days to discuss changes that are needed in civic education if schools are to uphold their responsibility to democratic society by developing citizens who are socially responsible and productively engaged in civic life. The panel concluded that schools can fulfill this role by engaging students in discussion of controversial topics, making students aware of not only the rights but also the 362

The Stanford Center on Adolescence

responsibilities inherent to democratic citizenship, and centering civics curricula on key concepts in American democracy and civic life, including the values fundamental to American democracy (e.g., liberty, justice, equality, independence, E Pluribus Unum), global citizenship, awareness of power in society, and patriotism that is “a felt attachment to something larger than the self…that supports an individual’s capacity for civic commitment, sustained participation, and willingness to sacrifice for the common good” (Malin et al., 2015, p. 19).

Civic Purpose Project The YPP showed that young people find purpose in all different domains of life—family, religion, the arts, helping others, among many others. Although some YPP participants were finding purpose in volunteering, political activity, student leadership, or contributing to their community, their numbers were, unsurprisingly, small. Given the importance of understanding how young people become engaged in civic life and develop social responsibility, the CoA team created the Civic Purpose Project (CPP) to learn from adolescent exemplars of civic purpose and to investigate civic concerns, activities, and intentions among young people with diverse perspectives on American society. Specifically, we oversampled for young people who were immigrants, or who lived in rural, urban, and high-poverty communities. The civic exemplars were identified through a nomination process and included political activist-artists, a congressional intern, the founder of a conservative youth organization, and a college student who founded a youth empowerment organization for local teens, among others. Along with the exemplar study, over 1,500 high school seniors from different regions of California participated in a longitudinal survey and a subsample participated in interviews. Participants were asked about their civic attitudes, activities, motivations for political and volunteer activities, and their civic intentions for the future. Results from the exemplar and high school senior samples indicated the importance of identity (especially ethnic, racial, or immigrant identity) and personal values among those who showed strong civic purpose, and that these values developed in meaningful social contexts such as community and family.

Additional Research Projects In addition to its large research programs, the CoA has conducted a number of studies that expand on the moral, character, and purpose development agenda.

Moral Exemplars The Power of Ideals, a book published by Damon and Colby in 2015, presented the results of the most recent study of moral exemplars conducted by Colby and Damon, continuing their collaborative work on moral exemplars that has spanned over 30 years. The Power of Ideals examined moral choice and moral commitments in the lives of 20th-century leaders who were exemplary in their moral commitment and courage. In The Power of Ideals, Colby and Damon describe the character virtues that these leaders developed that made it possible for them to demonstrate such moral commitment.

Purpose Development in Practice In connection with the YPP and the CDAP, the CoA has, over the years, connected with many practitioners aiming to support young people in their schools and programs to develop purpose. 363

Heather Malin

CoA has supported these efforts in a number of ways, for example, by collaborating with organizations such as the Quaglia Institute for School Voice and Aspirations to support and record their process of integrating purpose development into their school programs, by supporting Stanford’s very popular Design Your Life course development and assessment, by developing a teacher workshop for educators to learn about supporting students’ purpose development, and by creating case studies of several organizations that provide purpose learning programs for schools (Malin, 2018). The Center followed up on these case studies by conducting a formal qualitative impact study of one of the programs—the QUESTion Project, funded by the Fetzer Institute. The study explored the impact of the program on students’ lives in and beyond high school through interviews with alumni and teachers of the QUESTion Class.

Family Purpose At this writing, the CoA has recently pursued a novel way to examine purpose in a study of family purpose. The Family Purpose Study is a collaboration with Kendall Bronk at Claremont Graduate School and is funded by the John Templeton Foundation. The study investigates the purpose of ultra-high wealth families that have family firms that operate with a sense of social responsibility. The goal is to learn how these families develop and sustain collective purpose, how family purpose can be fostered, and to understand the intersections and tensions of individual family members’ drive for purpose and the need for a unifying purpose within a family firm.

Reaching Beyond the Stanford Center on Adolescence The research programs described above have formed the heart of the CoA for 25 years; however, alongside these research activities the Center has engaged in field-building activities that have extended the reach of the purpose and character development work around the world and into future generations. Some of the more substantial activities that have extended the influence of the CoA are the Youth Purpose Research Awards, the international visiting scholar program and other international collaboration efforts, and doctoral student and postdoctoral training.

Youth Purpose Research Awards A substantial part of the YPP grant was designated to provide seed funding to early career researchers from different disciplines to investigate youth purpose. From 2007 to 2009, ten researchers were funded to conduct small research projects investigating youth purpose from diverse perspectives. Awardees conducted studies to evaluate the effectiveness of school-based and after school purpose development programs (Michael Steger, Jane Pizzolato) and mental health interventions for college students (Laura Welfare), to investigate social contexts of purpose development (Devorah Shamah, Jeanine Staples), and to examine service learning, volunteerism, and civic engagement as contexts for purpose development (Theresa Sullivan, Carolyn Barber, Lisa Dorner, Ruth Kim). In addition to these initiatives, the awards also stimulated some enduring research programs that have been influential in the field of youth purpose development. One of these is the career path that Devora Shamah has followed since conducting her important work on purpose development among rural youth. Since using her Youth Purpose Research funding to study an oftenoverlooked youth population, she has continued to conduct research to support underserved 364

The Stanford Center on Adolescence

students in pursuing their purpose. For example, as a research director she worked with organizations that aim to improve college access and retention for non-traditional students and transform community colleges with the goal of ensuring all students have access to meaningful and successful careers. Another influential research program that first found its footing with a Youth Purpose Award is the youth purpose work of Cornell University researcher Anthony Burrow. Since conducting an experimental longitudinal study of youth purpose with the award funding, Burrow has been prolific and innovative in designing new approaches to learn about purpose and how it relates to other aspects of young people’s psychological well-being and resilience. Burrow has collaborated extensively with other researchers and has trained a new generation of purpose development researchers. He is currently director of the Purpose and Identity Processes lab and the Program for Research on Youth Development and Engagement (PRYDE) at Cornell.

International Reach through Visiting Scholars and Collaboration The CoA has a robust visiting scholars program that dates to its inception. Valeria Arantes and Ulises Araújo were early partners of the Center, visiting from the University of Sao Paolo. They visited the Center several times across almost two decades to understand purpose in the Brazilian context, learn how to measure purpose among Brazilian adolescents, to create purpose development training programs for Brazilian teachers, and to share their work on purpose from the Brazilian perspective with the CoA and other research teams at Stanford. Kirsi Tirri, from the University of Helsinki, is another long-term partner of the CoA who has visited often to learn about purpose development to inform her work on teacher development in Finland and share the Finnish perspective on purpose based on her research in Finnish schools. The CoA has also enjoyed an ongoing connection with Chinese scholars interested in youth purpose development in the social context specific to China. Several scholars have visited from China to learn about purpose development and how to measure purpose among students and teachers. Fei Jiang, who visited the Center in 2011, has been especially influential in connecting the purpose research in the United States with scholarship on purpose development in China by translating—both linguistically and culturally— instruments for studying purpose among youth and teachers in Chinese schools. Another important avenue by which the CoA has had international reach is through the ongoing efforts of Jennifer Menon Mariano to collaborate with and learn from purpose researchers around the world. After graduating from Stanford, Mariano sought to learn about purpose in different places and cultures, an effort that led her to develop a multinational research program in collaboration with Seana Moran and colleagues in five other countries. Mariano has sustained and expanded on her connections with purpose scholars in different countries. She continues to provide them with mentorship on purpose development research and learn from them about purpose in different cultural contexts.

The Legacy of CoA Graduates Mariano and Bronk worked with the CoA in its earliest years and continue to influence the field of purpose development through their research activities and by mentoring students and emerging scholars. Bronk noted that purpose maintains a high level of interest because it is so relevant to people’s lives, and because there are so many applications for purpose research, such as in education, business and in the workplace. She and Mariano both said they receive frequent requests for mentorship, research instruments, training in qualitative interview analysis, and other guidance to conduct purpose research and apply the research in diverse settings. 365

Heather Malin

Over 40 students and postdoctoral scholars have graduated from the CoA and gone on to research careers informed by the character and purpose development work they did at the Center. It is not possible to discuss them all and describe the extent of their influence, but a few examples can give an idea of their reach. Former CoA postdoctoral scholar and project manager Seana Moran continued her research on purpose in positions at Clark University and Harvard, notably collaborating on the multinational purpose and service-learning project with Mariano. Former student David Yeager continues to study character strengths at University of Texas, where he focuses on interventions that schools can use to support students in developing positive mindsets. Former student Hyemin Han explores innovative and advanced research methods to continue his investigation of moral judgment. Former student Matthew Joseph (Bundick) has continued to investigate and write about purpose in his research on school counseling experiences and through collaboration with the CoA. Susan Verducci, the first postdoctoral scholar and project manager at the CoA now coordinates the Liberal Studies Teacher Education Program at San Jose State University, where she has written about ethics and the arts in education.

Looking Forward The scope and focus of the Center have always been kept small by design. Perhaps attributable to its manageable size, the CoA has had a long run relative to other research centers. Over 25 years, the mission of CoA has evolved as the field of developmental psychology has changed. PYD no longer serves as an aspirational vision driving CoA’s work but as a solid foundation on which the purpose and character development research program has flourished. As the world has changed, and young people face new challenges—growing isolation following the Covid-19 pandemic, widespread economic hardship, a democracy threatened by populism—the field of youth development must consider what role it can play in mitigating these challenges. After decades of learning about adolescent development, Damon has turned his attention to lifespan development, connections among different phases of life, intergenerational connections, later life memories of early experiences, and longevity. Narrative identity, a longstanding interest for Damon, is emerging anew as a research topic that integrates his ideas about lifespan connections and concerns. Started by personality psychologist Dan McAdam, and further developed by Colby and Damon through their exemplar research, narrative identity elicits life stories in a way that explores the meaning of the story to the person. It is an approach that has shaped all CoA projects by inspiring an interview method that seeks first to understand the person of the interviewee—who they are and what matters to them and why—and then strives to understand the meaning to the interviewee of the stories they tell. Looking forward, Damon sees narrative identity as an approach that might play a role in helping people develop their purpose by telling their story and in so doing, mitigate feelings of insecurity and depression, and sense of being lost, adrift, or disconnected. The future of the CoA is unknown, but opportunities are abundant. The team continues to explore potential new directions to grow from previous work and expand the influence of ongoing projects.

Note 1 A notable exception was Carol Ryff and her colleagues, who were investigating purpose in life as an aspect of psychological well-being in midlife (Ryff & Keyes, 1995).

366

The Stanford Center on Adolescence

References Berg, G. A., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2003). Mission possible: Enabling good work in higher education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(5), 40–47. Bronk, K. C. (2012). A grounded theory of the development of noble youth purpose. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27(1), 78–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558411412958 Bronk, K. C., Menon, J., & Damon, W. (2004). Youth purpose: Conclusions from a working conference of leading scholars. Stanford Center on Adolescence. Bundick, M. J., Remington, K., Morton, E., & Colby, A. (2021). The contours of purpose beyond the self in midlife and later life. Applied Developmental Science, 25(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2 018.1531718 Butterfield, F. (1995, September 8). Grim forecast is offered on rising juvenile crime. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/08/us/grim-forecast-is-offered-on-rising-juvenile-crime.html Colby, A., Malin, H., & Morton, E. (2022). What college students are after and why. Journal of College and Character, 23(3), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2022.2087680 Damon, W. (2004). The moral advantage: How to succeed in business by doing the right thing. BerrettKoehler Publishers. Damon, W. (2008). The path to purpose: Helping our children find their calling in life. Simon and Schuster. Damon, W., & Colby, A. (2015). The power of ideals: The real story of moral choice. USA: Oxford University Press. Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119128. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_2 Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Damon, W. (2001). Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. Basic Books (AZ). Malin, H. (2015). Arts participation as a context for youth purpose. Studies in Art Education, 56(3), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2015.11518968 Malin, H. (2018). Teaching for purpose: Preparing students for lives of meaning. Harvard Education Press. Malin, H. (2022). Engaging purpose in college: A person-centered approach to studying purpose in relation to college experiences. Applied Developmental Science, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2022.2033120 Malin, H., Ballard, P. J., Attai, M. L., Colby, A., & Damon, W. (2014). Youth civic development & education: A conference consensus report. Stanford Center on Adolescence and University of Washington Center for Multicultural Education. Malin, H., Ballard, P. J., & Damon, W. (2015). Civic purpose: An integrated construct for understanding civic development in adolescence. Human Development, 58(2), 103–130. Malin, H., Liauw, I., & Damon, W. (2017). Purpose and character development in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(6), 1200–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0642-3 Malin, H., Morton, E., Nadal, A., & Smith, K. A. (2019). Purpose and coping with adversity: A repeated measures, mixed-methods study with young adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 76, 1–11. Malin, H., Quinn, B., & Damon, W. (Eds.). (2011). American identity: Philosophical foundations, developmental perspectives, and implications for citizenship education [Special issue]. Applied Developmental Science, 15(2). Malin, H., Reilly, T. S., Quinn, B., & Moran, S. (2014). Adolescent purpose development: Exploring empathy, discovering roles, shifting priorities, and creating pathways. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(1), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12051 Moran, S. (2010). Changing the world: Tolerance and creativity aspirations among American youth. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2010.525342 Moran, S., Bundick, M. J., Malin, H., & Reilly, T. S. (2013). How supportive of their specific purposes do youth believe their family and friends are? Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(3), 348–377. Morton, E., Colby, A., Bundick, M., & Remington, K. (2019). Hiding in plain sight: Older U.S. purpose exemplars. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(5), 614–624. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719. Shuster, B. (1995, June 28). School truancy exacts a growing social price: Education: Lack of resources curbs efforts to prevent it citywide. Crime, financial losses are among results. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-06-28-mn-18096-story.html Stanford Center on Adolescence. (n.d.). GoodWork in journalism. https://coa.stanford.edu/content/ goodwork-journalism

367

Heather Malin Stanford Center on Adolescence. (1999, June 19). Creating citizenship: Youth development for free and democratic society [Conference description]. International Conference on Youth Citizenship. https://coa.stanford.edu/conferences/conference-description-international-conference-youth-citizenship-june-1999 Syvertsen, A. K., Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C. A., Wayne Osgood, D., & Briddell, L. (2011). Thirty-year trends in US adolescents’ civic engagement: A story of changing participation and educational differences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(3), 586–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00706.x Tirri, K., & Quinn, B. (2010). Exploring the role of religion and spirituality in the development of purpose: Case studies of purposeful youth. British Journal of Religious Education, 32(3), 201–214. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01416200.2010.498607 Wallis, C. (1985, December). Children having children: Teen pregnancies are corroding America’s social fabric. Time, 126(23). https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1074861,00.html Yeager, D. S., & Bundick, M. (2009). The role of purposeful life goals in promoting meaning in life and schoolwork during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(4), 423–452.

368

21 WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY’S PROGRAM FOR LEADERSHIP AND CHARACTER A Case Study Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend In recent years, debates over the future of higher education have become more contested, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic forced new modes of learning and ongoing political polarization has continued to drive wedges in the fabric of social life.1 As the economic costs of higher education increase, new modes of online engagement proliferate, and many students (and parents) think of themselves as “consumers” focused more instrumentally on securing future employment than on gaining a holistic education, the purposes of higher education have been called into question. Debates all too often pit two sides against each other. One side bemoans higher education’s disconnect from the “real world,” while the other complains about instrumentalizing higher education to prepare students for jobs and careers. This polarization reflects a culture that has too often bracketed questions of leadership, character, and purpose from education (see this Handbook, Volume II, Chapter 25). Meanwhile, a national crisis of character has affected leadership across various sectors, from politics, medicine, and the media to business, technology, and religious life. In an age of social media, political fragmentation, and significant cultural, economic, and ecological changes, leaders are often now selected or promoted based on their celebrity status, their capacity to draw attention to themselves, or their ability to mobilize people to their side rather than unite them across differences. Virtues of character such as humility, empathy, generosity, gratitude, and wisdom are sometimes seen as liabilities rather than assets. As a result, society offers very few examples of what character-based leadership might look like, and it is hard to expect leaders to change if the people who keep selecting them do not change also. Addressing this crisis of leadership and character is one way in which colleges and universities might reclaim one of their central purposes and move beyond the polarized debates about higher education’s future. Integrating character into undergraduate and professional education helps to break down the false choice between education’s intrinsic and instrumental value by educating the whole person and enabling students to explore their personal and professional purposes as they develop virtuous habits that yield both personal and practical benefits in life and work. Although many colleges and universities offer programs and offices dedicated to leadership, most tend to focus on developing leadership skills and competencies and do not attend to the virtues of character necessary for ethical leadership. And although DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-24

369

Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend

educating character has historically been a central aim of many colleges and universities, an explicit focus on moral education has been on the decline over the last few decades due to numerous factors, from the increasing pluralism of society to the rise of academic specialization within the modern research university (see, e.g., Kiss & Euben, 2010; Kronman, 2008; Reuben, 1996). The neglect of intentional character education not only marks a departure from the historical mission of a liberal arts education but also reflects a missed opportunity to transform students at a critical time of intellectual and moral development (Lamb et al., 2021, 2022). Because the institutions that once served as intentional training grounds for moral formation—schools, religious communities, and civic organizations—are now playing less influential roles in the lives of young people, colleges and universities have an opportunity and obligation to shape the character of students before they enter adulthood, especially because “emerging adulthood” has been purported to be a critical time of identity formation and moral development (Arnett, 2014; Lamb et al., 2021, 2022; Noftle, 2015; Williams, 2022). Without the intentional guidance of colleges and universities, many young adults are left without the moral resources to navigate the transition to adulthood, make wise choices about their purpose and vocation, and develop the character they need to sustain commitments to family, community, and career. Many students want and need colleges and universities to offer guidance on how to live. Given this need, the leaders of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, NC, have committed to developing character as an essential component of its mission to educate the “whole person.” Inspired by its motto Pro Humanitate (“for humanity”), the university has established an innovative Program for Leadership and Character to help students develop the virtues needed to live and lead well. This case study explores the Program’s history, mission, and approach; its programming in Wake Forest’s undergraduate college and professional schools; its efforts to foster external engagement; and its rigorous research to evaluate its programs, ensure accountability, and advance the field of character education. Because Wake Forest is a midsize “collegiate university” that comprises both an undergraduate liberal arts college and graduate and professional schools, its example might be relevant to faculty and staff at both undergraduate colleges and research universities with professional schools. The hope is that a detailed case study might offer insight into how one higher education institution is intentionally attempting to educate leadership and character and spark new ideas about how others may educate leadership and character in their own institutional contexts.

Wake Forest’s Culture, Capacity, and Commitment A commitment to educating leaders of character is part of Wake Forest’s institutional history and culture.2 When Wake Forest was founded in 1834, it was designed for about 50 students “of good character” (Paschal, 1935, pp. 70, 77; Wilson, 1992). Since then, other university leaders have maintained this commitment to character. In 1922, for example, Wake Forest President William Louis Poteat emphasized the moral purposes of education: “Our deepest need is to be good; after that, to be intelligent…. What the world needs now as always is the [marriage] of goodness and intelligence” (Poteat, 1922, p. 9). Almost a hundred years later, President Nathan O. Hatch strengthened this union when founding the Program for Leadership and Character. He recruited Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend to Wake Forest to lead the Program and dedicated significant energy to establishing it, describing a commitment to both “intellect” and “character” as expressive of Wake Forest’s “soul” (Hatch, 2019). Following the retirement of President Hatch, President Susan R. Wente has embraced and expanded this tradition, identifying it as one of the reasons she was 370

Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character

drawn to Wake Forest and offering her deep support to the Program. “Cultivating leadership and character,” she has said, “is a reflection of Wake Forest’s deepest values and aspirations and exemplifies our commitment to our motto, Pro Humanitate” (Walker, 2023). The commitment to foster leaders of character is shared by faculty, staff, students, parents, and trustees, many of whom see a focus on leadership and character as a reflection of the university’s past, present, and future. The commitment aligns with the mission statements of Wake Forest’s various schools. For example, the university as a whole, including the college, aims to foster “critical appreciation of moral, aesthetic, and religious values” (Wake Forest University, 2023). The School of Business aspires to develop “passionate ethical business leaders who produce results with integrity” (Wake Forest University, 2022). The School of Divinity empowers “agents of justice, reconciliation, and compassion” (Wake Forest University, 2021). The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences helps students to foster “the ethical behavior inherent in their professional role” (Wake Forest University Graduate School, 2022). The School of Law educates “students to meet the legal needs of the world with confidence, character, and creativity” (Wake Forest Law, 2023). And the School of Medicine trains “leaders in healthcare and biomedical science” and infuses character across their culture and curriculum (Wake Forest School of Medicine, 2014). This commitment is also evident in the strong partnerships that the Program for Leadership and Character has built across the university. Since its founding, the Program has developed collaborations and partnerships with over 50 schools, departments, and offices on campus and offered grants and programming to support faculty, staff, and students across them. From 2020 to 2022 alone, the Program supported more than 25,000 engagements with faculty, staff, students, and community members. In addition to this culture and commitment, Wake Forest has the capacity to do this work in distinctive and impactful ways. Thanks to major grants over the last decade, Wake Forest’s faculty includes some of the world’s leading experts on character. The Program for Leadership and Character draws on this cutting-edge research to develop and assess its courses and programs and to show, contrary to what many assume, that character can be taught and measured. As a result, Wake Forest has been elevated as a national leader in this area and asked to advise universities across the globe, from the United States and United Kingdom to Australia and Hong Kong. In The Fabric of Character: A Wise Giver’s Guide to Supporting Social and Moral Renewal (2019), Anne Snyder profiled Wake Forest as one of six institutions that are most effective at educating character, and LearningWell magazine featured the Program for Leadership and Character in its inaugural issue (Malpiede, 2023). In 2022, Lilly Endowment Inc. awarded Wake Forest a five-year, $30 million grant to expand the Program and help build the capacity of other US colleges and universities to educate character in their institutional contexts (Walker, 2023). Wake Forest’s distinctive combination of culture, character, and capacity makes the university especially fertile soil for developing a program to educate leaders of character.

Vision and Approach Since its founding in 2017, the Program for Leadership and Character has engaged in an iterative and collaborative process to develop its mission: The Program for Leadership and Character inspires, educates, and empowers leaders of character to serve humanity. Through innovative teaching, creative programming, and cutting-edge research, we aim to transform the lives of students, foster an inclusive culture of 371

Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend

leadership and character at Wake Forest, and catalyze a broader public conversation that places character at the center of leadership. (Program for Leadership and Character, 2023) This mission captures the core aspects of the Program (teaching, programming, and research) as well as its aspirations to influence leadership, character, and culture both at Wake Forest and beyond. The Program understands both leadership and character in expansive ways. Theories of leadership have proliferated in recent years, generating a variety of models and approaches—from servant leadership and ethical leadership to relational leadership and transformational leadership (see also Bier et al., this Handbook; Sweeney, this Handbook). Since the Program works with faculty, staff, and students from different disciplinary, professional, and cultural contexts, it does not adopt a single theory or model of leadership but instead affirms a broad definition of leadership as a practice or “process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2010, p. 3). The Program does, however, emphasize that good leadership should be:

• Purposive in being ordered toward morally good ends and the common good of the group. • Values-based in drawing on shared values that inform purposes, set priorities, and impose constraints. • Integrative in being concerned with integrating the leader’s personal values and commitments with their professional and role-based commitments.

• Contextual in acknowledging how relationships, contexts, and communities shape our identities and leadership.

• Equitable and inclusive in focusing on treating others equally and including those with different identifies, backgrounds, or ideas.

• Character-driven in embodying and promoting particular virtues of character that enable wise and ethical leadership (Lamb & Townsend, 2023).

Fundamentally, this approach centers good character as the foundation of ethical leadership. The Program’s approach to character is capacious in similar ways (Lamb & Townsend, 2023). Drawing on research from philosophy, psychology, education, and other fields, it adopts a broadly virtue-based approach that defines character as “the collection of stable, deep, and enduring dispositions that define who we are and shape how we characteristically think, feel, and act” (Lamb et al., 2021, 2022). In particular, the Program focuses on helping students foster good dispositions of character that promote human flourishing (“virtues”) and resist bad dispositions of character that diminish human flourishing (“vices”). Unlike purely strength-based approaches that focus only on virtues or positive character strengths, the Program recognizes that being able to identify and resist vices (and the temptations and biases that accompany them) is an important aspect of developing and sustaining good character over time. The Program’s work in the professional schools is especially attuned to the occupational hazards and professional pressures that can constrain professionals’ ability to cultivate virtues and pursue their profession’s distinctive purposes. More specifically, the Program adapts an approach to character that is:

• Community-focused in recognizing that individual character is never developed in isolation but

is informed by and directed toward particular civic, cultural, educational, religious, and social communities. • Developmental in recognizing that character is always in the process of being developed and can be intentionally cultivated. 372

Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character

• Contextually and culturally sensitive in emphasizing that how character is developed and exer-

cised depends on one’s context, background, and situation and that people with different identities, positionalities, and circumstances may enact virtues in different ways. • Inclusive and pluralistic in welcoming diverse voices, traditions, and perspectives and helping students clarify and strengthen their own values and commitments in the context of such engagement. • Interdisciplinary in engaging diverse disciplinary and professional fields (Lamb & Townsend, 2023). The Program has operationalized scholarly research on character to develop a holistic framework for character education (see also Berkowitz & Bier, this Handbook, Volume II, Chapter 18). Drawing on insights from various fields and approaches, the Program utilizes seven evidencebased strategies for character development that Michael Lamb developed with Jonathan Brant and Edward Brooks at the Oxford Character Project (2021, 2022; see also Brooks, this Handbook): 1. Habituation through practice 2. Reflection on personal experience 3. Engagement with virtuous exemplars 4. Dialogue that increases virtue literacy 5. Awareness of situational variables and biases 6. Moral reminders 7. Friendships of mutual accountability The Program integrates these seven strategies throughout its curricular and co-curricular offerings to strengthen virtues of character in students. The Program focuses on a range of virtues, including, but not limited to, purpose, compassion, courage, empathy, gratitude, honesty, hope, humility, integrity, justice, kindness, resilience, temperance, and practical wisdom. Recognizing that different virtues may be relevant to different academic courses, professional contexts, and co-curricular programs in different ways, the Program encourages faculty and staff to emphasize virtues that are most relevant to their particular aims and objectives.

Courses and Programing in the Undergraduate College To educate leadership and character, the Program offers a wide range of courses and programs in both Wake Forest’s undergraduate college and its graduate and professional schools. Describing all of the courses and programs led by Program faculty and staff is not possible here, but a few examples can help to illustrate how the Program operationalizes its approach to develop leaders of character.

Academic Courses Program faculty and staff teach several courses within and across disciplines to educate leadership and character in undergraduates. One advantage of integrating leadership and character into a course is that it allows a rigorous intellectual inquiry into leadership and character, provides enough time for students to develop new habits of thought and being over a semester, and ensures that a faculty member can offer guidance and structure to this exploration. A signature course for the Program is “Commencing Character,” which pairs a close study of ancient and contemporary accounts of virtue with over 40 contemporary commencement speeches 373

Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend

that emphasize particular virtues of character. Designed by Michael Lamb, the interdisciplinary course integrates all seven strategies of character development through readings, weekly reflection prompts, and various activities and assignments that help students to strengthen their character, from a profile of a personal moral exemplar and a two-week plan to strengthen one virtue to a final reflection essay and a commencement speech that allows each student to share their vision of a morally good life. Not only has the award-winning course been popular with students, but mixedmethod empirical assessments have shown that students in the course have demonstrated growth in seven targeted virtues and several non-targeted virtues when compared with a control group (Lamb, Dykhuis, et al., 2022). The course has also helped students to develop their sense of purpose, including their “beyond-the-self” orientation (Maranges et al., 2024; Mendonça, Dykhuis, et al., 2023; see also Bronk, this Handbook). Program faculty and staff also develop innovative courses to help students make meaning of their experiences and connect leadership and character with their personal lives. For example, in 2021, Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend taught different sections of a course called “Character and the Professions,” which was organized around a major international conference co-organized by Wake Forest and the Oxford Character Project that explored character within business, engineering, law, medicine, public life, and religious leadership. The following year, Michael Lamb and Ann Phelps partnered with art historian Gwendolyn DuBois Shaw from the University of Pennsylvania to design and teach a 1.5-credit course in Washington, DC, called “Memorials, Models, and Portraits of Leadership: Exploring Character through the Arts.” Over spring break, students spent five days exploring historical sites and monuments, touring city murals, and visiting museums as they asked questions about how to determine who their role models are and how artists shape society’s understanding of leadership and character. Through conversations with David Brooks, Anne Snyder, and other leaders grappling with these questions, students examined many of the dilemmas facing leaders as they discern how to shape public memory and engage particular legacies with honesty, humility, and justice. In addition to courses taught by regular Program faculty and staff, the Program has also hired postdoctoral fellows to design and teach new courses on leadership and character across a range of fields, from communication, computer science, political science, and theology to education, entrepreneurship, environmental studies, and interdisciplinary humanities. The postdoctoral fellows program has helped to train emerging scholars on how to design new leadership and characterbased courses within their particular disciplines and equipped each fellow with the knowledge, capacity, and experience to teach similar courses at other universities. It has also enabled the Program to build meaningful partnerships with host departments and reach a greater number of students across different disciplines in courses such as “Character and Cross-Cultural Communication,” “The Ethics of Emerging Technologies,” and “Educating Character through the Arts.” Because of the success of such courses, the Program has been able to secure grants to hire additional postdoctoral fellows as well as assistant teaching professors to design and teach courses in African American studies, computer science, and entrepreneurship. Along with these courses, the Program has offered course development grants and workshops to over 100 faculty from across the university who have designed new courses and modules on leadership and character in a variety of academic and professional fields, from business, law, and medicine to literature, history, religious studies, psychology, and philosophy, among others. Newly designed courses include, for example, “Women, Law, Leadership, and Character,” “Leading the Race: Lessons in Leadership from Black Men’s Novels of Escape,” “Sacred Arts of African Muslims,” “Religion and Environmental Justice in Latin America,” and “What Are Friends For?” The enthusiasm, creativity, and disciplinary diversity of faculty who have participated in 374

Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character

these workshops have exceeded expectations and enabled the Program to reach more than 3,800 students across the university in the last three years alone, and these numbers will only increase as more faculty participate in future workshops and teach their new courses over multiple years. Moreover, an empirical assessment of the course development workshop has demonstrated the effectiveness of a community of practice model for deepening faculty’s understanding of character, character education, and character assessment (Allman et al., 2023). Beyond its work with individual faculty, the Program has also worked closely with the Department of Engineering to integrate character throughout the four-year undergraduate engineering curriculum. Supported by grants from the Kern Family Foundation and led by Founding Chair of Engineering Olga Pierrakos, this work has involved collaborating with faculty to design 15 virtue modules in 13 different engineering courses, developing a faculty handbook on how to educate and assess different virtues of character in engineering, offering individual consultations to help faculty develop these modules, leading workshops for engineering faculty at Wake Forest and beyond, and publishing six papers on the value of character-based pedagogy in engineering, with more such papers underway (Gross et al., 2021; Henslee et al., 2021; Kenny et al., 2021; Koehler et al., 2020; Pierrakos et al., 2019; Yeaman et al., 2022). The success of this work in the Department of Engineering has provided a model for working with other departments to integrate character in a holistic way across a curriculum.

Co-Curricular Programming A major component of the Program for Leadership and Character involves co-curricular and extracurricular programming that engages students in leadership and character development outside of formal courses. Led by various staff, this creative programming forms a vital part of the Program’s efforts to “transform the lives of students” and “foster an inclusive culture of leadership and character at Wake Forest” (Program for Leadership and Character, 2023). A signature initiative is the Leadership and Character Scholars Program led by Ann Phelps and Jasmine Logan. The Leadership and Character Scholars Program offers 10–12 full-cost-of-attendance scholarships per year to talented students who have demonstrated exceptional moral leadership, commitment, and purpose—students who have overcome great odds, worked hard to accomplish important goals, and demonstrated virtues such as courage, compassion, justice, resilience, honesty, and humility. In addition to their scholarships, Leadership and Character Scholars receive stipends of $5,000 for three summers to pursue internships, service, or research related to leadership and character. Most significantly, they participate in specially designed programming to help them develop their leadership skills and character virtues, including taking the “Commencing Character” course in their first semester, performing and logging two to five community engagement hours per week with a community partner related to their interests, meeting monthly with peer mentors or mentees, submitting regular reflections, participating in bi-weekly cohort gatherings with Program staff or distinguished speakers, traveling abroad to study leadership and character in a global context, and receiving intensive personal mentoring and support from Program faculty and staff. The Leadership and Character Ambassadors Program offers a cohort model for students who are not on the scholarship but have demonstrated substantial engagement in the Program and a commitment to deepening their leadership and character. Ambassadors participate in additional gatherings and events, offer input and ideas to the Program, and recruit others to participate in the Program. The Program selects 12–16 students as Ambassadors each year. Among the most successful programs are Leadership and Character Discussion Groups. Usually consisting of 8–12 students, these groups engage students in meaningful dialogue outside of 375

Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend

class, using short readings and reflection exercises to prompt thoughtful engagement and conversation. The most popular discussion group is “What Is College For?,” which meets four times each semester to help students explore the purposes of college and discuss how to develop meaningful friendships, discover their purpose, learn from failure, prioritize rest and restoration, and cultivate virtues such as justice, gratitude, and resilience. The Program also organizes discussion groups based on specific interests of students and staff. Examples of single-semester interest groups include “Technology and the Good Life,” “Virtues in a Polarized Society,” “Ecological Citizenship,” “Character on Trial,” “The Character of Friendship in a Digital Age,” and “Spirituality, Religion, and the Quest for Character.” From 2020 to 2022, over 400 students participated in these discussion groups. Along with regular discussion groups, the Program organizes retreats and workshops on a variety of related topics. Workshops are sometimes offered as stand-alone programs or guest lectures in a course, while retreats provide a more focused space to engage students in deep reflection, meaningmaking, and community-building. In addition to annual retreats for the Leadership and Character Scholars, the Program has worked with campus partners to organize a Black Women’s Leadership Retreat to support and empower Black women on campus; a Flourishing Retreat to foster a deeper connection between humanity and nature; and a Leadership, Power, and Confidence conference to create an engaging and community-centered space for emerging women leaders at Wake Forest. The Program also hosts visits from distinguished speakers to elevate the importance of leadership and character across a variety of fields and to provide special opportunities for students to engage with potential exemplars. Past speakers have included, among others, Renée Elise Goldsberry, the Tony and Grammy Award-winning star of Hamilton; Michael Schur, creator of The Good Place and author of How to Be Perfect; and Cornel West, renowned scholar, activist, and public intellectual. The Program also works closely with other departments and offices to co-sponsor distinguished speakers and has established a special partnership with Wake Forest’s Face to Face Speaker Forum, which hosts a special student event (alongside a major public conversation) where Leadership and Character Scholars have an opportunity to moderate a conversation with the speaker. Past Face to Face speakers interviewed by students include, for example, Madeleine Albright, Kristin Chenoweth, Thomas Friedman, Malcolm Gladwell, Sanjay Gupta, and Bryan Stevenson. Proceeds from the series help to support Leadership and Character Scholars. In developing its offerings, the Program aims to be responsive to emerging social and political issues and needs. For example, in the midst of the national movement to support racial justice and civil rights in 2020, the Program worked with over 20 campus partners to organize a series of events entitled “Legacies of Leadership: The Winston-Salem Sit-Ins, 60 Years Later,” which honored the 60th anniversary of a successful sit-in organized by students from Winston-Salem State Teachers College and Wake Forest University to challenge racial segregation in the city. The week of events included a joint trip to the International Civil Rights Center and Museum in Greensboro, NC, with students from Winston-Salem State University and Wake Forest University; a screening and panel discussion of a documentary about the sit-in, I Am Not My Brother’s Keeper (Dalton & Faust, 2001); a community vigil featuring speeches by the presidents of Winston-Salem State and Wake Forest; and a symbolic march and reenactment of the sit-in at the historical site, which included one of the students who participated in the sit-in 60 years earlier. The strong response from the event, as well as research assessing the week-long series (Mendonça, Allman, et al., 2023), revealed that it had a meaningful impact on students who participated. Because much of American life has been riven by social division and political polarization, the Program has also worked to build community and foster meaningful dialogue across 376

Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character

differences through two special initiatives. First, Call to Conversation creates an opportunity for small groups of diverse students, faculty, and staff to gather, often over a meal, to discuss a particular topic related to a current issue or an organization’s particular focus. Recent topics of Call for Conversation discussions have included, for example, “Living a Meaningful Life,” “Community, Care, and Belonging,” “Resilience,” “Wellbeing,” and “Making the Most of Your College Experience.” More than 600 faculty, staff, students, and community members participated in a Call to Conversation from 2020 to 2022. Second, the Program sponsors the Principled Pluralism Fellowship, an eight-week summer research fellowship for six to eight students who pursue research on principled pluralism, write a joint paper on its importance, and practice engaging in meaningful dialogue across differences. Led by Bradley Burroughs, Director of Leadership and Character in Academic, Civic, and Religious Life, the Principled Pluralism Fellowship equips students with the knowledge, skills, and civic capacities needed to engage difference with empathy, humility, integrity, and purpose. Internal assessments of the Program show that the fellowship has been successful in fostering increased intellectual humility and perspective-taking, equipping students to negotiate conflict and discuss controversial topics, increasing openness to controversial issues and diverse beliefs, and deepening the understanding of conflict in the context of democracy. Given how busy and, at times, over-programmed students are, the Program often works closely with other campus offices, programs, and organizations to reach students where they are and embed leadership and character into existing programming rather than asking students to take on yet another extracurricular commitment. These collaborations and partnerships with over 50 campus offices, schools, and departments have been vital to the Program’s efforts to educate leadership and character across the university. Much of its extracurricular work in the undergraduate college has focused on the arts, athletics, religious life, and residence life. In the arts, the Program has partnered with students, community members, academic departments, and campus initiatives to explore questions such as: How does creativity, performance, and expression influence our character? How do music, theatre, literature, dance, and visual art help shape our culture and experience? How do artists lead, and how might exemplars in the arts shape our leadership and character? Ann Phelps, the Director of Programming in the College who is also an award-winning artist and musician, leads students in exploring these questions through the Leadership and Character in the Arts initiative. The Program organizes talk-backs with student actors and directors to discuss how rehearsing a role can shape their character and deepen their sense of empathy (Phelps & Brown, 2023). It uses leadership- and character-based prompts to inspire student painters and photographers to create visual art pieces that now line the walls of the Program’s home on campus in Starling Hall. It organizes book clubs and film screenings to discuss leadership- and character-related themes and hosts Artists-in-Residence to offer workshops, visit classes, and discuss how the arts can inform, express, and unsettle common ideas of leadership and character. And when COVID-19 prevented student dancers and actors from performing in-person on stage, the Program led a writing circle where student artists wrote performance memoirs on how their experience in the arts had shaped them on and off the stage, leading to the publication of Performing Character: From Stage to Page (Phelps & Costanza, 2022). In athletics, the Program partners with coaches and staff to support the leadership and character development of student-athletes. Raven Scott, Fellow and former Director of Leadership and Character in Athletics has led these efforts, which involve offering workshops on leadership and character tailored to student-athletes in each of their four years, providing one-on-one coaching to captains and teams, and organizing special events that elevate leadership and character in sports. Recent events have included a workshop on resilience to celebrate 50 years of women’s sports in 377

Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend

the United States and a community event to celebrate National Girls and Women in Sports Day. This collaborative work with Athletics has proven vital for building stronger collaboration within teams and supporting individual student-athletes, who, because of their busy practice, training, and competition schedules, often are not able to participate in as many other campus activities that might help them to develop their leadership and character. Raven Scott has also worked closely with Residence Life and Housing to find creative ways to support students and staff in their living spaces. She has led workshops on “Leadership Lessons” as part of the training for resident assistants, along with a workshop on radical candor and communication for staff. The Program hopes to develop a Living and Learning Community in future years that will provide more intensive programming and mentoring for students within a residential hall community. In addition, staff from the Program work with the Office of Student Engagement and students in fraternities and sororities to facilitate discussions and offer workshops on leadership and character. This engagement with Greek life enables the Program to reach even more students on campus. In religious life, the Program collaborates with the Office of the Chaplain, the School of Divinity, and campus chaplains from various traditions to design and deliver interfaith and faith-specific programming to students from diverse traditions. Led by Bradley Burroughs, who holds a Ph.D. in religion, this programming supports students in their moral and spiritual formation by drawing on the wisdom of their traditions, equipping them to engage thoughtfully across religious and spiritual differences, and helping them recognize how their religious communities and spiritual traditions might support moral and personal development. Specific programming includes discussion groups on leadership and character within and across religious traditions; interactive workshops, discussions, and retreats on relevant topics; support for campus chaplains and religious leaders seeking to integrate leadership and character into their programming and mentoring; and co-sponsored speakers who serve as exemplars from diverse traditions. Finally, the Program offers small departmental grants to support and empower other campus programs, departments, and offices to integrate leadership and character development more widely throughout their curriculum or programming. Departmental grants can fund honoraria and travel for visiting speakers; student programming focused on leadership and character within a particular discipline; workshops or colloquia for faculty, staff, and students; professional development for faculty or staff; or student research assistants to help with projects focused broadly on leadership and character development. These grants have been valuable in developing collaborative partnerships that support faculty, staff, and students across the university and expand the community’s engagement with leadership and character. Past departmental grants have funded, for example, lectures and discussions hosted by the Center for Bioethics, Health, and Society, the Departments of History and Politics and International Affairs, and the School of Law; a “Race and the Roundtable” sponsored by the Journalism Program; continued integration of leadership and character into the computer science curriculum; student engagement in a Knowledge Repatriation Project in St. Vincent and the Grenadines; an academic resources carnival to help students develop the virtue of resilience; a “Democracy Day” to promote political engagement in non-election years; and a Winston-Salem Monuments Project to design digital 3D monuments of local Black, Brown, and Indigenous leaders of historical significance in Winston-Salem and surrounding communities. Over the last three years, these grant initiatives have reached more than 3,000 community members, faculty, staff, and students.

378

Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character

Courses and Programing in the Graduate and Professional Schools Although educating character in professional school contexts can be challenging given the existing demands of professional education, the Program has found Wake Forest’s professional schools remarkably receptive to collaboration that enables us to prepare students to live and lead wisely within their future professional contexts. The Wake Forest School of Business has long benefited from the Allegacy Center for Leadership and Character, which has helped to make leadership and character a central part of the School of Business’s curriculum and culture (see also Sweeney, this Handbook). But prior to 2019, there was no sustained or explicit institution-wide effort to foster leadership and character in other graduate and professional schools. The Program expanded into Wake Forest’s professional schools with the hiring of Kenneth Townsend in 2019 and increased efforts significantly in 2020 and 2022 through major grants from Lilly Endowment Inc. and the Kern Family Foundation.

School of Law One of the Program’s most consistent and effective collaborators has been the School of Law, which is increasingly claiming character as the centerpiece of the Wake Forest Law School experience. Examples include the School of Law’s decision to update its application for admission in 2019 to feature a question related to ethical leadership; the launch of the inaugural Leadership and Character in the Law Scholars cohort in the 2020–2021 academic year; and the adoption of new mission, vision, and values statements in 2021 that prioritize leadership and character. The Program’s work in the School of Law began in the 2019–2020 academic year when Kenneth Townsend started designing and teaching new courses such as “Leadership and Character in the Law,” an upper-level elective that guides students in identifying the purposes, virtues, practices, and challenges of leadership in the law, and “Leadership and Adversity,” a pandemic-inspired course featuring exemplary lawyer-leaders from around the nation, including US Senator Cory Booker. In addition to these new courses, Townsend redesigned a section of the required “Professional Responsibility” course, the largest required upper-level course at Wake Forest School of Law, to highlight questions of integrity, identity, and purpose even as students learn the rules of professional conduct that regulate the practice of law. Since 2019, the Program has offered leadership development trainings to aid students in identifying and developing character strengths and challenges; hosted public events, conferences, and symposia related to leadership and character in the law that have reached thousands; surveyed hundreds of students and faculty to better understand existing values and commitments of the School of Law community; and facilitated the design and redesign of more than 20 courses to integrate leadership and character into legal education. In addition, the Program has provided departmental grants to the School of Law that have enabled workshops and speaker events focused on topics such as public health law in pandemic times, the virtues of humility and empathy in clinical legal education, and the ethical considerations of legal software development. The Program anticipates ongoing and expanding opportunities to partner with the School of Law in part because of the new regulatory landscape in legal education. In 2022, the American Bar Association (ABA) passed new standards for legal education that require law schools to “provide substantial opportunities to students for … the development of a professional identity” (Hamilton & Bilionis, 2023), which the ABA defines as the “values, guiding principles, and well-being practices considered foundational to successful legal practice” (Hamilton & Bilionis, 2023). Among other things, these new standards provide a prompt and incentive for law schools, including Wake

379

Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend

Forest’s, to develop and promote a more holistic and expansive understanding of lawyer identity, which in turn opens up new opportunities for elevating the habits and virtues needed for leadership in law, as argued in several recent articles by Kenneth Townsend (2023a, 2023b, 2023c).

School of Medicine The Program has also worked closely with the School of Medicine to design curricular and extracurricular efforts that integrate leadership and character into the student experience. The anchor of the Program’s extracurricular engagement in the School of Medicine is the Center for Personal and Professional Development, which was launched in partnership with the Program in 2022 and is directed by Cheraton Love. Prior to students matriculating, the Center assigns all incoming MD students a coach who provides personalized support to help them develop plans to become more compassionate people, resilient professionals, and engaged community members. These individualized, characteroriented learning plans, which are updated and expanded each year, not only facilitate self-understanding and development but also encourage students to consider the relationship between their work, their character, and needs and opportunities within their communities. In pre-clinical years, coaches aid students in clarifying their personal aspirations and cultivating leadership and character capacities through curricular, co-curricular, and community-engaged programs. As students move into their clinical years, coaches work with students to reassess and revise their personal development plans to prepare them to apply virtues and capacities they have cultivated to the particular needs of a practicing physician, including building and maintaining trust, recognizing different approaches to communication, managing and resolving conflict, and building a team in inter-professional settings. The Program’s primary curricular engagement in the School of Medicine has been through the Medicine and Patients in Society (MAPS) course that is taken by all first- and second-year MD students. The course has historically focused on professionalism and ethics but was redesigned in 2022 to elevate and integrate leadership and character. The MAPS course co-director Roy Strowd, who serves as Vice Dean of the School of Medicine and a Research Affiliate in the Program, has, for example, collaborated closely with Program staff to design and implement the “MAPS Practical Wisdom in Medicine Video Series.” The series introduces MD students to Wake Forest University School of Medicine physicians who share stories of challenging cases and outline strategies for making good decisions in complex circumstances. The physicians in the video series act as moral exemplars by highlighting the character strengths needed to support patient care and to lead effectively in medicine, including empathy, courage, intellectual humility, and practical wisdom. As a result of the success of the MAPS experience, additional curricular collaborations in the School of Medicine are in development, including integrating leadership and character content in the curriculum of the Charlotte-based School of Medicine campus, which is scheduled to open in 2024.

School of Divinity The Program also works closely with Wake Forest’s School of Divinity, a longstanding site for character-based leadership formation, to strengthen its existing leadership and character development efforts. Since 2020, Program staff and postdoctoral fellows have taught several courses in the School of Divinity, including “Character and the Good Life: Negotiating Questions of Race, Class, and Gender;” “Welcoming the Stranger: Migration, Citizenship, and the Virtue of Hospitality;” and “Christianity, Character, and Public Life.” The Program also offers mentorship and vocational discernment to individual students through the Divinity School’s Art of Ministry curriculum, an initiative that helps students understand the instincts, habits, virtues, and skills necessary for life 380

Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character

and the work of religious leadership. The Program has also designed and delivered specialized leadership workshops on character-based conflict resolution and provided Divinity students with opportunities to engage with emerging leaders in other professional schools through robust, interdisciplinary programs, including reading groups, retreats, and leadership development workshops.

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences The Program has also developed meaningful relationships with Wake Forest’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. In particular, Elizabeth Whiting, Director of Leadership and Character Formation in the School of Medicine and formerly the Program’s Director of Interdisciplinary and Engaged Learning in the Professional Schools, has led robust and varied programming in the graduate school, much of which has focused on environmental and sustainability concerns and has been coordinated in partnership with the Masters of Arts in Sustainability program. Recent programming includes co-hosting author events and an associated reading group for Johnson and Wilkinson’s (2021) All We Can Save: Truth, Courage, and Solutions for the Climate Crisis; launching the Environmental Justice cohort for graduate students; designing a flourishing retreat for students seeking to find renewal in nature; co-sponsoring a discussion with two former leaders of the US Environmental Protection Agency; and co-organizing a series of events focused on Indigenous leadership and environmental justice.

Cross-Disciplinary Engagement In addition to discipline-specific efforts, the Program has also responded to growing interest from professional school students, faculty, and staff for opportunities for cross-disciplinary engagement and collaboration. From promoting trust in public health and ensuring racial justice to navigating the ethical challenges of new technologies, many of the biggest challenges facing the world cannot be addressed neatly from within a single disciplinary paradigm. These challenges require competence and character; knowledge and wisdom; and the sort of creativity, curiosity, collaboration, and empathy that come from exposure to different disciplines and the integration of knowledge, skills, and character across domains. With such challenges in view, the Program has designed and implemented a wide range of offerings that enable participants to analyze and interpret a common concern from multiple disciplinary perspectives. Examples include hosting the “Radical Collaboration in the Professions” event featuring public interest lawyer Bryan Stevenson, along with a reading group of Stevenson’s (2014) memoir, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption; organizing a Narrative Medicine cohort wherein clinicians, researchers, students, and patients reflect on human experiences of sickness, healing, and compassion; designing and teaching a unit in a Master of Sustainability Leadership course in which sustainability leaders explore justice together with religious communities, and partnering with the School of Divinity and School of Professional Studies to design and deliver courses for a new Ethical and Inclusive Leadership Certificate Program..

Catalyzing a Broader Conversation about Leadership and Character To support these and other efforts, the Program has established two internal Faculty/Staff Partners Councils—one in the college and one in the professional schools—to solicit advice, input, and feedback on strategy and programming, understand campus needs and opportunities, and explore ways to integrate leadership and character development into the broader campus community. These councils have been valuable in helping to brainstorm ways to reach different student populations, 381

Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend

develop creative programming responsive to critical needs, and build meaningful collaborations and partnerships with departments, schools, and offices on campus. Collectively, almost 50 faculty and staff serve as members of these two Councils, which demonstrates a significant level of support across the university. The Program has also established an external Leadership and Character Council that engages influential leaders from a variety of disciplines, fields, and sectors, both inside and outside the larger Wake Forest community. Members include dedicated Wake Forest trustees, alumni, and parents as well as distinguished leaders such as David Brooks, E. J. Dionne, Angela Duckworth, Renée Elise Goldsberry, Bill Haslam, Valarie Kaur, Eboo Patel, Condoleezza Rice, Anne Snyder, and Krista Tippett, among others. Through biannual meetings and individual consultations, members of the Leadership and Character Council advise the Program on its vision, strategy, and programming, support the Program’s work at Wake Forest, and advance its broader mission to “catalyze a broader public conversation that places character at the center of leadership” (Program for Leadership and Character, 2023). Another way the Program seeks to extend this conversation is through international conferences on themes of leadership and character. Since the Program’s inception, it has co-organized four major conferences in partnership with the Oxford Character Project at the University of Oxford. “Cultivating Virtue in the University,” hosted at Oxford in 2017, brought together leading experts in history, literature, philosophy, theology, and the social sciences to explore the role of character development in higher education. “The Arts of Leading: Perspectives from the Humanities and Liberal Arts,” hosted at Wake Forest in 2019, explored how insights from classics, history, literature, philosophy, religious studies, and the visual and performing arts might deepen and expand the understanding and practice of leadership. In 2021, “Character and the Professions,” hosted virtually at Wake Forest, attracted over 2,300 registrants to hear a keynote conversation with former US Secretaries of State, Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell, and to engage keynote lectures and panels with scholars and practitioners from business, engineering and technology, law, medicine, public life, and religious leadership. And “Educating Character Across the University,” hosted at Wake Forest in 2022, highlighted promising work on character education in the university context and helped to strengthen a community of scholars focused on character education across institutions and academic disciplines. Coordinated by Kathleen Stimely, Director of Program Administration, the conference featured a keynote conversation with Cornel West and presentations, panels, and workshops focused on integrating character into courses, designing character-related co-curricular programming, assessing character-related curricula and programs, and building a culture of character within colleges and universities. In addition to hosting conferences, members of the Program have also facilitated workshops and individual consultations for other colleges and universities, given presentations at conferences, led discussions for local community groups, and offered continuing education programming to lawyers, firms, and law schools. One of the most wide-reaching programs was a panel and interactive workshop at the Academy for Legal Studies in Business that aimed to equip business school faculty to integrate the Program’s frameworks into their courses, reaching potentially 100,000 students taught each year by conference attendees. The Program is expanding this external engagement through a recent grant from Lilly Endowment Inc. The five-year, $30 million grant extends the Program’s work at Wake Forest and equips the Program to become the hub of a national network aimed at building the capacity to educate character at other US colleges and universities. More than $23 million in the grant supports the Educating Character Initiative, directed by Beth Purvis, which will support other institutions and individuals interested by character education by organizing major conferences, producing research 382

Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character

and resources for faculty and staff, offering grants for institutions to educate character in their contexts, and building the staff needed to advance this work. Through cross-institutional collaboration, this grant supports a national effort to educate character more intentionally and effectively in institutions of higher learning.

Research and Assessment A critical part of the Program’s success reflects a commitment to conducting rigorous research on leadership and character development. This research enables the Program to understand and apply the best strategies and frameworks to its courses and programs; to analyze the impact of its programs and courses on students, staff, faculty, and the broader community; to iteratively improve its programming and courses in light of what works; and to publish and share results with relevant stakeholders. Supported by a dedicated team of research scholars and coordinators, postdoctoral fellows, and student research assistants in the Leadership and Character Lab, the research and assessment team has conducted significant research on the value and impact of leadership and character development. To assess a variety of outcomes, the Program uses an iterative evaluation framework that consists of four phases (see Figure 21.1) and ten steps, as developed and described by Research Fellow and former Director of Research and Assessment Kate Allman (2023) in the following:

Phase 1: Planning Step 1: Determine Goals: Program leaders and faculty identify specific goals that align with our grant objectives. Faculty and postdoctoral fellows communicate their learning goals in their syllabi, and programming staff share their goals in a crosswalk tool created by the Assessment Team. These goals are shared with the Assessment Team at least once per semester, and they are iteratively refined based on ongoing interpretation of evidence. Step 2: Develop Success Criteria: Once goals are clarified, Program faculty and staff work with the Assessment Team to identify what success looks like and what mixed-methods tools can best measure success. When available, validated and reliable quantitative measures are used to effectively measure the identified goals. If an effective tool does not already exist, the Assessment Team also works with Program faculty and staff to develop new questions or measures that can

Figure 21.1  The four phases of the Program’s iterative evaluation framework (Allman, 2023).

383

Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend

effectively evaluate programming or event success. Qualitative measures, including qualitative survey questions, focus group and individual interviews, and course assignments, are also used to triangulate quantitative data or understand a phenomenon in more depth.

Phase 2: Assessment Step 3: Collect Assessment Evidence: Evidence is collected with fidelity by the Assessment Team using measures identified or developed in Step 2. Step 4: Organize Assessment Evidence: Once collected, the Assessment Team organizes the evidence in an easily comprehensible way that can be shared with the relevant stakeholders.

Phase 3: Interpreting Evidence Step 5: Interpret Evidence: Post-event or post-programming reporting and feedback meetings are scheduled with the appropriate Program faculty and staff to discuss and interpret assessment evidence in relation to their specific goals. Step 6: Identify Strengths and Areas for Growth: Program leaders, instructors, and Assessment Team members identify strengths and areas for growth based on the evidence gathered.

Phase 4: Responsive Action Step 7: Identify Responsive Action: Program leaders and instructors use assessment data to develop responsive plans for action given their goals and area of focus. Programmatic or curriculum changes made based on assessment findings are shared with the Assessment Team in meetings that take place at least twice a year. Step 8: Implement Responsive Action: Leaders and instructors implement their responsive plans for action and take informal notes on the effectiveness of these changes. Step 9: Evaluate Responsive Action: In meetings with the Assessment Team, Program leaders and instructors share informal observations collected during the implementation of their responsive plans. These observations are shared and later compared to other ongoing data collection. Step 10: Share Research Findings through Publication: The Assessment Team and Program leaders share important assessment and research findings through written publications and conference presentations. This responsive action allows the team to share best practices regarding the integration of character education in higher education, contribute to the scientific study of character, and promote ongoing reflection that can shape iterative Phase 1 planning (Allman, 2023). Using this iterative approach, the research and assessment team seeks to evaluate the Program’s impact on students in this grant by assessing the following variables through mixed methods:

• Increases in virtues of character, determined through qualitative questionnaires and validated scales such as the VIA Survey (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; see also Fowers et al., this Handbook; McGrath, this Handbook). • Increases in a sense of vocation and purpose, determined through qualitative questionnaires and validated psychometric scales such as the Claremont Purpose Scale (Bronk et al., 2018). • Increases in a general sense of well-being, determined through qualitative questionnaires and validated psychometric scales such as the Brief Inventory of Thriving (Su et al., 2014). 384

Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character

• Increases in conceptual understanding of particular virtues of character, determined through qualitative questionnaires to measure virtue literacy.

• Increases in the awareness and application of various strategies and practices of character de-

velopment among faculty, staff, and students, determined through qualitative questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. • Fidelity of program interventions to the proposed theory of change, determined through program evaluation. These assessments enable the Program to determine the impact of its courses, programs, and interventions and refine them based on the results. The Program also seeks to share these results through its scholarly and popular publications and presentations. Over the last three years, Program faculty and staff have produced more than 100 papers and publications and given almost 150 presentations on related topics. Some publications identify strategies or contexts for developing leadership and/or character (e.g., Creary & Allman, 2023; Lamb et al., 2021, 2022; Mendonça et al., this Handbook; Townsend, 2021, 2022, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c), offer insight into how to conceptualize or cultivate particular virtues or habits such as honesty, hope, temperance, and social action (Brown & Lamb, 2022; Jayawickreme & Fleeson, 2022a, 2022b; Lamb, 2016a, 2016b, 2018; 2022a; Lamb et al., 2019; Reynolds et al., 2023), or identify creative ways in which the theory of character development might inform curricular or co-curricular programming (Ducharme & Allman, 2024; Lamb et al., 2022; Phelps & Brown, 2023). Other publications seek to evaluate and assess the impact of the Program’s courses or programming on students (Allman et al., 2023; Cochran & Allman, 2023; Juskus et al., 2023; Lamb, Dykhuis, et al., 2022; Maranges et al., 2024; Mendonça, Allman, et al., 2023; Mendonça, Dykhuis, et al., 2023) or share the work of the Program more broadly, including the written work of students and staff in Performing Character (Phelps & Costanza, 2022) and edited volumes from conferences focused on Cultivating Virtue in the University (Brant et al., 2022) and The Arts of Leading: Perspectives from the Humanities and Liberal Arts (Brooks & Lamb, 2024). Through these and related efforts, the Program attempts to contribute to the scholarly study of leadership and character and provide insights that others can use to educate leadership and character at their institutions.

Conclusion This case study has elevated illustrative examples of how Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character aims to develop leaders of character and how an inclusive, interdisciplinary, and research-based approach to leadership and character education can be developed, operationalized, and integrated in one specific institutional context. While we hope this case study might prompt new ideas about how to educate character within higher education, we recognize that each institutional context is different, with distinct cultures, commitments, and capacities and a unique confluence of people with different backgrounds, interests, and values. Moreover, these contexts and confluences are never static. They are always evolving in light of larger social, cultural, political, and economic trends and the distinctive influences of particular faculty, staff, and students at an institution. To remain contextually sensitive and culturally relevant, leadership and character development must also evolve in ways that remain attuned to these differences and dynamics. As the debates over the value and future of higher education continue, we are excited to see more colleges and universities embrace leadership and character development as a central educational aim. 385

Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend

Notes 1 We are grateful to Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews for their kind invitation to contribute to this handbook and for their thoughtful feedback on this chapter. We would like to especially thank all of the people who have made the work of Wake Forest’s Program for Leadership and Character possible, including Wake Forest colleagues among the faculty, staff, and administration who have been core partners in our work; the Program staff and students who have made this work so meaningful; and the donors and supporters who have invested so much into developing and expanding our Program. For research and programmatic support, we are especially grateful to the F. M. Kirby Foundation, John Templeton Foundation, Kern Family Foundation, and Lilly Endowment Inc. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of the F. M. Kirby Foundation, John Templeton Foundation, Kern Family Foundation, Lilly Endowment Inc., or Wake Forest University. 2 Parts of this section are adapted from Lamb (2022b). Other portions of this Handbook chapter have been adapted from the website, marketing materials, and other internal resources, reports, and documents of the Program for Leadership and Character. We are grateful to the editors for their permission to adapt this material and continue using it.

References Allman, K. R. (2023). Iterative evaluation framework for university-level character education (Working paper no. 1). Program for Leadership and Character, Wake Forest University. Allman, K. R., Maranges, H. M., & Lamb, M. (2023). Exploring character in community: Findings from a university-level community of practice model [Manuscript submitted for publication. Program for Leadership and Character, Wake Forest University. Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Brant, J., Brooks, E., & Lamb, M. (Eds.). (2022). Cultivating virtue in the university. Oxford University Press. Bronk, K. C., Riches, B. R., & Mangan, S. A. (2018). Claremont Purpose scale measure that assesses the three dimensions of purpose among adolescents. Research in Human Development, 15(2), 101–117. http://doi. org/10.1080/15427609.2018.1441577. Brooks, E., & Lamb, M. (Eds.). (2024). The arts of leading: Perspectives from the humanities and liberal arts. Georgetown University Press. Brown, D., & Lamb, M. (2022). Digital temperance: Adapting an ancient virtue for a technological age. Ethics and Information Technology, 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09674-7 Cochran, W., & Allman, K. R. (2023). Cultivating moral agency in a technology ethics course. Teaching Ethics, 23(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.5840/tej2023731133 Creary, S., & Allman, K. R. (2023). By virtue of DEI: Supporting personal and organizational thriving through diversity, equity, and inclusion. In K. Townsend & M. Lamb (Eds.), Character and the professions [Manuscript in preparation]. Program for Leadership and Character, Wake Forest University. Dalton, M. M., & Faust, S. L. (2001). I am not my brother’s keeper: Leadership and civil rights in WinstonSalem [Film]. Wake Forest University. Ducharme, J., & Allman, K. R. (2024). Fostering intellectual humility among undergraduate students: Integrating the seven strategies of character development. In J. L. DeVitis & P. A. Sasso (Eds.), Human flourishing and higher education: Critical social and cultural perspectives. Information Age Publishing. Gross, M. D., Wiinikka-Lydon, J., Lamb, M., Pierrakos, O., & Yeaman, A. (2021). The virtues of teamwork: A course module to cultivate the virtuous team worker. 2021 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. Hamilton, N. W., & Bilionis, L. D. (2023, March 7). National Association for Law Placement | Revised ABA Standards 303(b) and (c) and the Formation of a Lawyer’s Professional Identity, Part 1: Understanding the New Requirements. NALP. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://www.nalp.org/ revised-aba-standards-part-1 Hatch, N. O. (2019, September 30). Setting a north star of intellect & character. Wake Forest Magazine. https://magazine.wfu.edu/2019/09/30/setting-a-north-star-of-intellect-character/ Henslee, E., Yeaman, A., Wiinikka-Lydon, J., Vasquez, M. A., & Pike, E. (2021). ETHICS-2021 Special Session 7: Integrating virtue ethics into STEM courses: ETHICS-2021 Session, Sunday October 31, 2021, 3:00 AM-4:30 PM ET. Proceedings - 2021 IEEE international symposium on ethics in engineering, science

386

Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character and technology: Engineering and corporate social responsibility, ETHICS 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ETHICS53270.2021.9632711 Jayawickreme, E., & Fleeson, W. (2022a). Understanding intellectual humility and intellectual character within a dynamic personality framework. Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(2), 237–239. https://doi.org /10.1080/17439760.2022.2154701 Jayawickreme, E., & Fleeson, W. (2022b). How do intellectual virtues work to promote good thinking and knowing? Theory and Research in Education, 20(2), 200–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785221113985 Johnson, A. E., & Wilkinson, K. K. (2021). All we can save: Truth, courage, and solutions for the climate crisis. One World. Juskus, R., Maranges, H. M., & Allman, K. R. (2023). Educating for environmental character: Findings from a university environmental studies course [Manuscript submitted for publication]. High Meadows Environmental Institute, Princeton University; Program for Leadership and Character, Wake Forest University. Kenny, M. C., Pierrakos, O., & O’Connell, M. (2021). Infusing the liberal arts in first-year engineering: A module on history, professional identity, and courage. 2021 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. Kiss, E., & Euben, J. P. (Eds.) (2010). Debating moral education: Rethinking the role of the modern university. Duke University Press. Koehler, J., Pierrakos, O., Lamb, M., Demaske, A., Santos, C., Gross, M. D., & Brown, D. F. (2020). What can we learn from character education? A literature review of four prominent virtues in engineering education. 2020 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. https://doi. org/10.18260/1-2--35497 Kronman, A. (2008). Education’s end: Why our colleges and universities have given up on the meaning of life. Yale University Press. Lamb, M. (2016a). A passion and its virtue: Aquinas on hope and magnanimity. In I. U. Dalferth & M. A. Block (Eds.), Hope (pp. 67–88). Mohr Siebeck. Lamb, M. (2016b). Aquinas and the virtues of hope: Theological and democratic. Journal of Religious Ethics, 44(2), 300–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jore.12143 Lamb, M. (2018). Between presumption and despair. Augustine’s hope for the commonwealth. American Political Science Review, 112(4), 1036–1049. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000345. Lamb, M. (2022a). A commonwealth of hope: Augustine’s political thought. Princeton University Press. Lamb, M. (2022b, March 25). What is Wake Forest for? Inauguration Luncheon Keynote Address. Wake Forest University. Lamb, M., Brant, J., & Brooks, E. (2021). How is virtue cultivated?: Seven strategies for postgraduate character development. Journal of Character Education, 17(1), 81–108. Lamb, M., Brant, J., & Brooks, E. (2022). Seven strategies for cultivating virtue in the university. In J. Brant, E. Brooks, & M. Lamb (Eds.), Cultivating virtue in the university (pp. 115–156). Oxford University Press. Lamb, M., Dykhuis, E. M., Mendonça, S. E., & Jayawickreme, E. (2022). Commencing character: A case study of character development in college. Journal of Moral Education, 51(2), 238–260. Lamb, M., Taylor-Collins, E., & Silverglate, C. (2019). Character education for social action: A conceptual analysis of the #iwill campaign. Journal of Social Science Education, 18(1), 125–152. https://www.jsse. org/index.php/jsse/article/view/918/1450 Lamb, M., & Townsend, K. (2023). Character-based leadership: Defining leadership and character (Working paper No. 2). Program for Leadership and Character, Wake Forest University. Malpiede, M. (2023, July 17). Can character be taught? LearningWell magazine. https://learningwellmag.org/ article/can-character-be-taught Maranges, H. M., Allman, K. R., Mendonça, S. E., & Lamb, M. (2024). Exemplars of purpose: Reliance on moral exemplars supports college students’ purpose in life. International Journal of Educational Research, 123, 102269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102269. Mendonça, S. E., Allman, K. R., Livingston, D., & Lamb, M. (2023). Exemplars of justice: Supporting college students’ critical consciousness development through cross-institutional engagement [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Program for Leadership and Character, Wake Forest University. Mendonça, S. E., Dykhuis, E. M., & Lamb, M. (2023). Purposeful change: The positive effects of a coursebased intervention on character. Journal of Positive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023 .2178954

387

Michael Lamb and Kenneth Townsend Noftle, E. E. (2015). Character across early emerging adulthood. In C. B. Miller, R. M. Furr, A. Knobel, & W. Fleeson (Eds.), Character: New directions from philosophy, psychology, and theology (pp. 490–517). Oxford University Press. Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage. Paschal, G. W. (1935). History of Wake Forest College, Volume 1: 1834–1865. Wake Forest College. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. American Psychological Association. Phelps, A., & Brown, D. (2023). Embodied exemplars: Can acting form moral character? Educational Theory, 73(5), 728–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12603 Phelps, A., & Costanza, M. (2022). Performing character: From stage to page. Library Partners Press. Pierrakos, O., Prentice, M., Silverglate, C., Lamb, M., Demaske, A., & Smout, R. (2019). Reimagining engineering ethics: From ethics education to character education. 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028690 Poteat, W. L. (1922, December 13). Christianity and Enlightenment. Address to the North Carolina Baptist State Convention. Winston-Salem, NC. Program for Leadership and Character. (2023, March 7). The Program for Leadership and Character at Wake Forest University. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://leadershipandcharacter.wfu.edu Reuben, J. A. (1996). The making of the modern university: Intellectual transformation and the marginalization of morality. University of Chicago Press. Reynolds, C. J., Stokes, E., Jayawickreme, E., & Furr, R. M. (2023). Truthfulness predominates in Americans’ conceptualization of honesty: A prototype analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https:// doi.org/10.1177/01461672231195355 Snyder, A. (2019). The fabric of character: A wise giver’s guide to supporting social and moral renewal. The Philanthropy Roundtable. Stevenson, B. (2014). Just mercy: A story of justice and redemption. Spiegel & Grau. Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The development and validation of comprehensive inventory of thriving (CIT) and brief inventory of thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 6(3), 251–279. Townsend, K. (2021). Preconditions of leadership in law. Wake Forest Law Review, 56, 859–906. Townsend, K. (2022). Ethics and professional responsibility: What lawyers should know and traumainformed lawyering as a legal competency. In H. Maki, M. Florestal, M. McCallum, & J. K. Wright (Eds.), Trauma-informed law: A primer for lawyer resilience and healing (pp. 76–79). ABA Publishing. Townsend, K. (2023a). Forming good lawyers. Wake Forest Law Review, 58. Townsend, K. (2023b). The necessity of hope in legal education: Character development in pluralist contexts. Journal of Christian Legal Thought, 13. Townsend, K. (2024). Pro humanitate: Developing leaders of character in the law. St. Thomas Law Journal, 36. Wake Forest Law. (2023, March 7). About | Wake Forest Law. Wake Forest Law. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://law.wfu.edu/about Wake Forest School of Medicine. (2014, September 5). Wake Forest School of Medicine. Wake Forest University. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://prod.wp.cdn.aws.wfu.edu/sites/202/Mission___Wake_Forest_School_of_Medicine.pdf Wake Forest University. (2021, July 7). Mission and values. Wake Forest University School of Divinity. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://divinity.wfu.edu/about/mission-and-values/ Wake Forest University. (2022, November). Reynolda Campus Faculty Handbook. Retrieved March 7, 2023. https://prod.wp.cdn.aws.wfu.edu/sites/202/2021/12/FacultyHandbookDecember10-2021.pdf Wake Forest University. (2023, March 10). University Mission and Purpose. Retrieved March 10, 2023, from https://bulletin.wfu.edu/university/statement_purpose Wake Forest University Graduate School. (2022, August 25). Mission & values - Wake Forest Graduate School. Wake Forest Graduate School. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://graduate.wfu.edu/ mission-values Walker, C. (2023, January 24). Wake Forest University awarded $30M Lilly Endowment Inc. grant to build national capacity for character education. Wake Forest News. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https:// news.wfu.edu/2023/01/24/wake-forest-university-awarded-30m-lilly-endowment-inc-grant-to-buildnational-capacity-for-character-education/

388

Wake Forest University’s Program for Leadership and Character Williams, B. A. (2022). Developing virtue in emerging adults: Perspectives from neuroscience, psychology, and sociology. In J. Brant, E. Brooks, & M. Lamb (Eds.), Cultivating virtue in the university (pp. 57–80). Oxford University Press. Wilson, E. G. (1992). To honor the legacy. Founders’ Day Convocation Address. Wake Forest University. Yeaman, A., Koehler, J., Pappas, J., & Pierrakos, O. (2022). Scoping review of character development pedagogies in engineering education. 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–12). https:// ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9962514

389

22 THE APPLICATION OF CHARACTER MEASUREMENT AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN ORGANIZATIONS Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan All organizations, from corporate enterprises to small businesses to sports teams and educational institutions, seek to find and foster talent. Talent is viewed as the primary driver of performance. If an organization is composed of talented individuals, it is likely believed that the organization will succeed in accomplishing its mission. As a result, there is a virtual war for talent that exists, as organizations seek to find the individuals possessing the skills and abilities to drive organizational performance. Historically, organizations have viewed “talent” as those individuals demonstrating high cognitive ability. A person’s intelligence is often equated to being the best predictor of whether a person will succeed in their future endeavors. The field of psychology has been searching for ways to best measure and capture a person’s intelligence since the early portions of the 20th century. Early work with cognitive testing began with Alfred Binet’s intelligence test used to help with school placement in children (Kamphaus et al., 1997). This testing helped to create a heavy focus within the field of education on building students’ cognitive skills to help them succeed upon graduation. The “3 Rs” of reading, writing, and arithmetic became the bedrock of education for much of the 20th century. Moving forward, standardized achievement tests became the norm in schooling, epitomized by the creation of the SAT and ACT, which served as the gatekeepers of entry into higher education. All along the way, however, there has been acknowledgment that there is another set of skills beyond what is measured by traditional assessments of intelligence that make a significant impact on a person’s life trajectory. A pioneer in intelligence testing, David Wechsler, noted, “When our scales measure the non-intellective as well as the intellectual factors in intelligence, they will more nearly measure what in actual life corresponds to intelligent behavior. Under these circumstances they might not be so efficient in selecting individuals likely to succeed in Latin and geometry, but they should do a much better job in selecting those destined to succeed in life” (Wechsler, 1943, p. 103). Decades later, in a study exploring the value of the General Educational Development (GED) program in the United States, Heckman and Rubenstein (2001) found that, despite having relatively similar levels of cognitive ability as traditional high school graduates, GED recipients tended to struggle much more in various indicators of life success than did high school graduates. When seeking to understand why 390

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-25

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

this difference was the case when the levels of cognitive ability were relatively similar, it was argued that there must be another set of skills – something attune to “non-cognitive skills” – that are not being captured which ultimately influence a person’s life success. In sum, whereas talent and cognitive ability, which have been the focal point of many psychologists over the last 120 years, are able to explain about 25% of the variance in many positive life outcomes, there is about 75% of a person’s success that is explained by factors outside of one’s intelligence (Matthews et al., 2019).

The Rise of Non-Cognitive Skills and the Challenges in Naming These Skills In recognizing that there is more to the equation of success than just talent and intelligence, there has been a push over the last two decades to understand the factors outside of general mental ability that contribute to performance optimization and enhance many successful life outcomes. Educational institutions, sports teams, and corporations are beginning to place an emphasis on identifying and building these skills. In a report developed by the US Department of Education, for instance, it was stated that, “If students are to achieve their full potential, they must have opportunities to engage and develop a much richer set of skills. There is a growing movement to explore the potential of ‘non-cognitive’ factors—attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitudes, and intrapersonal resources, independent of intellectual ability—that high-achieving individuals draw upon to accomplish success” (US Department of Education, 2013, p. 1). When exploring these non-cognitive skills, they tend to fall into two domains: intrapersonal and interpersonal. Intrapersonal skills tend to be those that exist within the person’s own mind and include factors such as grit, resilience, adaptability, confidence to accomplish goals, and other similar factors. On the other hand, interpersonal factors tend to be skills that involve interaction with others. Factors such as empathy, forgiveness, multicultural competence, emotional intelligence, and communication skills would fall in this domain. Together, both these intrapersonal elements as well as the interpersonal factors impact a person’s life outcomes. Although there is a growing consensus on the importance of these skills, there are some challenges that exist which impede this progress. One of the greatest obstacles regarding these skills involves developing a common nomenclature to research and discuss them. There are a variety of different umbrella terms used to describe these factors. As described in Table 22.1, names such as non-cognitive skills, character or character skills, personality traits, soft skills, employability skills, mental toughness, and mindsets are all utilized by distinct groups to describe many of these skills. Because there is not a clear consensus on what to call these factors, it makes it difficult for researchers and practitioners to study and make progress on these skills when a person from one field is not searching for and reading similar work despite examining the same or similar constructs as an individual in a different field. For the purposes of this chapter, the term “non-cognitive skills” and “character” are used interchangeably to discuss the malleable personal attributes, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors experienced and expressed by an individual. Within applied settings, there can also be tremendous implications when choosing which term or terms is most appropriate to utilize. Foremost, individuals must be able to comprehend and understand what the term implies if they do not have extensive knowledge of these skills. For instance, whereas some academics tend to utilize the umbrella term “non-cognitive skills,” most individuals within organizations have little understanding what a “non-cognitive” skill is. When there is not a clear understanding of what “non-cognitive skills” entail, organizational leaders are much less likely to take steps to help their people cultivate these skills. Unless leaders can easily 391

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan Table 22.1  Various terms used to describe non-cognitive factors Umbrella term utilized

Fields or domains utilizing term

Non-cognitive skills

Economics, psychology (positive psychology and personality psychology), education Psychology (positive psychology and developmental psychology), education Psychology (personality psychology and social psychology), economics Business, organizational development, psychology (industrial and organizational psychology) Education, economics Psychology (military psychology and sports/performance psychology) Psychology (developmental psychology and sports/performance psychology), education Education (specifically K–12 education) Healthcare

Character/character skills Personality/personality traits Soft skills Employability skills Mental toughness Life skills Social-emotional skills Psycho-social factors

grasp what the term involves, it is unlikely they will take steps to build these skills. Thus, utilizing specific terms can create barriers and impede progress in helping people cultivate these skills within applied settings. Beyond simply understanding the umbrella term used to describe these factors, another challenge regarding the names used to refer to these skills within applied settings involves how people interpret, understand, and ultimately welcome feedback on these skills. When providing scores on a person’s “character” or “mental toughness,” for example, people can become offended if they score lower than anticipated. If a person scores low on these factors, does that infer they have little to no “character?” Does a lower score imply they are not “mentally tough?” Further, referring to these factors as “personality traits” can send a message that these factors are immutable. If people believe these facets of character are largely heritable traits incapable of being changed, they can be reluctant to engage in efforts to foster them. In sum, the language used to describe and discuss these factors has significant impacts for how they are received by people and ultimately utilized within organizations.

The Importance of These Skills No matter what umbrella term or terms are used to describe these factors, there is mounting evidence showing the importance of these skills across the life span. From young students in school to individuals in late adulthood, these factors are associated with a myriad of positive life outcomes.

Education Within the field of education, there is growing awareness and appreciation for developing a set of skills beyond the traditional educational curriculum to help equip students for life outside the school walls. From the earliest days of organized schooling, educational leaders like Horace Mann advocated for character training to foster honesty, frugality, punctuality, industriousness, and other facets of character within children (Massachusetts Board of Education, 1849). Similarly, Dr. Martin Luther King is reportedly to have said, “Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education” (Garcia, 2016). Today, there is increased value placed on developing these noncognitive factors of character. Within the field of education, these skills impact academic 392

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

performance, retention, and graduation outcomes, as evidenced by how individuals in the top quartile of non-cognitive skills were found to be nearly three times more likely to complete postsecondary degrees than those in the bottom quartile (Schanzenbach et al., 2016). Positive school behaviors are associated with these skills as well. In a study exploring bullying behavior among adolescents in school, Sarzosa and Urzúa (2015) found that a one standard deviation increase in non-cognitive skills was associated with a 50% reduction in a student getting bullied and a 25% reduction in the student bullying other students. As a result of this ongoing cumulative evidence showing the importance of these skills in students, educational stakeholders are placing a heavier priority on developing these skills via social-emotional learning (Weissberg et al., 2015).

Workplace Many of the same skills valued in educational systems are also valued in the workplace. Within the field of industrial-organizational psychology, numerous non-cognitive factors have been studied in relationship to positive workplace outcomes. Factors such as hope, optimism, and resilience have been shown to be related to work-related happiness and job satisfaction (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Dugan et al. (2019) found that grit, defined as a sense of passion and perseverance for long-term goals, is associated with better sales performance as well as enhanced job satisfaction among sales professionals. Similarly, factors such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, internal locus of control, and emotional stability have demonstrated to be related to both job satisfaction and job performance (Judge & Bono, 2001). Both intrinsic motivation (see Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2010) and grit (see Jeong et al., 2019) have been shown to be related to employee turnover intention, and Avey et al. (2006) found that employees low in hope take over three times as much sick time as employees with high levels of hope. Beyond job satisfaction and performance, another variable of interest impacting organizations is leadership. In an examination of the dispositional antecedents of effective leadership, Davidson (2014) found that the skills of hope and grit predicted transformational leadership behavior among organizational leaders even when controlling for factors such as years of leadership experience, family background, high school and undergraduate academic performance, and gender.

Labor Market Outcomes In addition to psychologists studying these factors, economists have also expressed an interest in studying these skills as they relate to employability, earnings, economic mobility, and other important labor market outcomes. In a summation of the literature examining the role non-cognitive skills play in predicting many important economic outcomes, Kautz et al. (2014) state how these non-cognitive skills, which are malleable to change, “promote economic and social mobility, economic productivity, and well-being” (p. 3). Schanzenbach et al. (2016) note how non-cognitive factors are becoming increasingly valued in the labor market. Compared to those with exceptionally low levels of non-cognitive skills, those with extremely high non-cognitive skills earned nearly twice as much over a lifetime. Evidence also supports that these skills assessed at earlier ages are predictive of important financial outcomes in later life. For example, self-efficacy, which involves having confidence to complete one’s goals, measured at the ages of 12 and 13 was shown to inversely predict financial delinquency in adulthood (Kuhnen & Melzer, 2018). Younger individuals with higher confidence to accomplish their goals were more likely to have health insurance and emergency savings in place decades later in their life, supporting the notion that there is a link between non-cognitive skills and income inequality. 393

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

Health and Wellness Beyond the importance of non-cognitive skills for educational, workplace, and labor market outcomes, research is also providing evidence for the importance of these factors for people’s health and wellness. As scholars investigate the relationship between non-cognitive factors and important health outcomes, trends are beginning to emerge. Although many of these skills have initially been studied in younger populations, subsequent studies have explored the relationship of these factors to positive outcomes in late adulthood. The non-cognitive skills of conscientiousness, emotional stability, determination, control, and optimism assessed in late adulthood were associated with improved wealth, income, subjective well-being, lower rates of depression, decreased social isolation and loneliness, better self-rated health, fewer chronic diseases, faster walking speed, lower cholesterol, and less central obesity, even when controlling for both socioeconomic status and preexisting health (Steptoe & Wardle, 2017). In another study examining the factors of resilience, sense of purpose, internal locus of control, optimism, and social connectedness (which were collectively referred to as “positive predictors of health” in the study), researchers found that individuals low in all five factors were at the highest risk for experiencing negative health outcomes, requiring extensive healthcare services, and incurring high healthcare expenditures (Musich et al., 2021). Specific non-cognitive factors also appear to be associated with improved longevity. In a study looking at the relationship between optimism and life expectancy, holding an optimistic mindset was associated with an 11% to 15% longer life span, even when controlling for important healthrelated factors such as health conditions, rates of depression, socioeconomic status, negative lifestyle choices (e.g., alcohol use and smoking), as well as social integration (Lewina et al., 2019). Conscientiousness has also been studied in relation to longevity. In a meta-analysis examining over 20 different studies looking at the relationship of conscientiousness and life expectancy, Kern and Friedman (2008) concluded that people higher in conscientiousness were less likely to die at any age than those with lower levels of conscientiousness. In addition to improvements in physical health, many non-cognitive skills have been shown to be inversely related to negative mental health outcomes. Although much of the research examining non-cognitive factors has focused on their relationship to various performance outcomes, additional research demonstrates the importance of these factors in relation to mental wellness. For example, Musumari et al. (2018) found that grit was related to lower levels of anxiety and depression in university students. This finding led the researchers to conclude that improving grit could be a viable solution to help prevent mental health problems among students. In a comparable manner, Maddi et al. (2006) examined the relationship between hardiness and adverse mental health outcomes and found that depression and anger were negatively related to hardiness, whereas hardiness was positively related to productive coping and social support. In a study looking at people with chronic pain, individuals with higher self-efficacy had lower rates of chronic pain-related depression and disability (Arnstein et al., 1999). Research suggests hope is also a protective factor against adverse mental health outcomes. Findings from a study examining the relationship between hope and suicidal ideation found that hope serves as protective element against suicidal ideation and that developing hope may be a proactive approach to prevent suicide (Huen et al., 2015). The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted mental health and wellness around the globe. In a study exploring the ability of self-control to moderate the effects of perceived severity and adverse mental health outcomes during the pandemic, self-control served as a protective buffer against mental health problems (Li et al., 2020). In exploring what led to positive coping behaviors and resilience during lockdowns of the pandemic, Johnston et al. (2021) found that self-efficacy 394

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

served as the best predictor of resilience. Interestingly, other elements such as household income, cognitive ability, religiosity, and neighborhood social capital were not associated with greater resilience during the pandemic.

Understanding the Etiology of Non-Cognitive Skills In recognizing the value of these various non-cognitive skills, the next question to ask is whether they can be nurtured. Are these skills largely driven by one’s genetics, or can one’s environment impact these skills? What creates these skills – nature or nurture? Like nearly all aspects of human behavior, research suggests that it is a combination of both genetics and environmental factors that play a role in possessing and developing these skills. Anger and Schnitzlein (2017) studied noncognitive skills in siblings and found that the correlations of siblings’ non-cognitive skills ranged from 0.22 to 0.46, meaning that a little over one-fifth of the variance comes from factors shared by siblings. When looking at the heritability of major life goals, Bleidorn et al. (2010) reported that genetic similarity explained about 30% of the phenotypic variance, suggesting that major life goals may be driven more so by one’s environmental factors than one’s genes. The environment plays an influential role in the development of these skills. This process starts at the earliest of ages, as a young child begins to observe and model the behaviors seen by those around them. In a study examining 18-month-old children, researchers discovered that children who had previously watched an adult persist in completing tasks made twice as many attempts in getting a toy to work before giving up than the 18-month-old children that did not observe an adult trying to persevere (Leonard et al., 2017). In summarizing the findings, the researchers noted, “the current study suggests the potential value in letting children ‘see you sweat:’ Showing children that hard work works might encourage them to work hard too” (p. 1294). The relationships cultivated during a child’s formative years also impact the development of non-cognitive skills. As children develop, they foster degrees of attachment with their primary caregivers. In examining the relationship between attachment styles on resilience in undergraduate students, Bender and Ingram (2018) noted that students having a secure attachment style was positively related to students holding resilient attitudes and behaviors. In a separate study, insecure attachment was associated with lower levels of grit in lower-income adolescents (Mandelbaum, 2018). Similarly, Howard et al. (2021) found that experiencing overparenting as a child was associated with lower grit and increased mental health issues within collegiate student-athletes. In addition to parents, educators also play a vital role in the development of children. In research examining whether teachers might impact students’ non-cognitive skills, it was found that not only can teachers impact these skills but also that 9th graders non-cognitive skills were better predictors than test scores of the likelihood of the student going to college, their wages in adulthood, as well as their likelihood of being arrested (Jackson, 2012, 2018). Teachers who successfully cultivate non-cognitive skills may be doing more to prepare students for life beyond school than educators that are only successful in cultivating cognitive skills. Interestingly, it was noted that, “Many teachers who are among the best at improving test scores may be among the worst at improving non-cognitive skills” (Jackson, 2012, pp. 32–33). Although parents and teachers often play a vital role in the earlier stages of human development, as an individual reaches the adolescent years, their peers are often a source of considerable influence. Within popular culture, there is the notion that “birds of a feather, flock together.” The peers an individual associates with can make an impact on the development of non-cognitive skills. In a study examining the influence of peers’ non-cognitive skills on academic performance, Shure (2021) found that having peers with higher levels of conscientiousness improved both math 395

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

and language performance in secondary education settings. The peer effect not only appears to impact younger students, but it may also impact adults as well. In a study examining 2,000 employees at a large technology company, researchers found that the colleague an employee sits next to can have a sizable impact on their performance (Corsello & Minor, 2017). The researchers reported that replacing an average-performing employee with another employee who is twice as productive resulted in an average of 10% greater productivity from the employees who sat next to that high performer. In other words, if an organization desires to increase the productivity of their underperforming workers, they should strive to place them near someone who is highly productive. In addition to the impact of peers, significant life events may also influence these factors. Stillman and Velamuri (2020) explored the stability of non-cognitive factors by studying specific life events that may influence a person’s non-cognitive skills. Situations such as going through marital separation, experiencing significant financial problems, losing a spouse or child, being a victim of a violent crime, getting married, and retiring all generated large impacts on a person’s non-cognitive skills. In another study examining the early-life circumstances that influenced a person’s locus of control in 46 developing countries around the world, Shoji (2020) found that individuals who had experienced drought within their first five years of life were more likely to develop an external locus of control, believing that they have little influence over the outcomes they experience in their life. These effects continued with a person well into adulthood, in which the effects began to diminish as people entered their fourth decade of life. In summary, there is a growing consensus that a person’s non-cognitive skills are malleable to change and capable of being developed. Non-cognitive skills are important for a person throughout the life span. From young ages to old, these skills drive numerous performance and positive life outcomes. Multiple bodies of literature – including research in education, psychology, and economics – all support the notion that these skills matter. With this in mind, questions begin to arise: What non-cognitive skills are most worthwhile to develop? How can these skills best be measured and developed to proactively support people throughout their lives, assist them in succeeding in their personal and professional endeavors, and ultimately lead a fulfilling life of meaning and purpose?

MindVue: The Application of Non-Cognitive Measurement and Development to Positively Impact Lives In a quest to help provide answers to these questions, MindVue was created to measure and develop non-cognitive skills to build effective leaders, proactively enhance mental wellness, and optimize performance. Driven to positively impact lives around the world, MindVue’s mission is to apply the science of these skills in the real world to build better people, teams, and organizations. By utilizing a psychometric assessment and various learning solutions, MindVue strives to build key non-cognitive factors to enrich lives.

A Synthesized Model of Non-Cognitive Factors Captivated by a curiosity about what led individuals to perform well and succeed at the highest level, MindVue developed a synthesized theoretical model of non-cognitive skills. The model utilizes a rope as a metaphor to describe the synergistic impact of these skills. Much like how yarns and strands of a rope are interwoven together to create a whole that is greater than the sum of the individual parts, the theory holds that non-cognitive factors operate in much the same way. 396

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

Similar to rope, within the MindVue model, there are three strands. The first strand of the model focuses on factors contributing to a sense of internal motivation. Referred to as “Drive,” this component is composed of the non-cognitive factors of self-awareness, growth mindset, selfefficacy, and intrinsic motivation. The second strand of the model is known as “Willpower.” This component works to capture a person’s sense of discipline and perseverance and is composed of the non-cognitive skills of grit, conscientiousness, self-control, and self-discipline. The third strand of the model is referred to as “Resilience.” It is designed to capture whether an individual feels as if they can weather the adversity they face and effectively cope with the challenges they may be experiencing. The “Resilience” strand is composed of adaptability, hope, internal locus of control, and hardiness. The final component of the MindVue model is what would be considered the “ends of the rope.” With actual rope, there is often something such as wax or tape that holds the ends of the rope together, which prevents the rope from unraveling. Within the MindVue rope model, the last component is viewed to help ensure that the positive outcomes associated with factors such as grit, resilience, and self-efficacy last. In the MindVue model, the factor contributing to this component is a person’s integrity. Much like strands woven together to create rope, the theory holds that there is also a synergistic effect with non-cognitive skills. As a person develops greater self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation, for instance, it is theorized this development will contribute to a greater degree of grit. As grit is cultivated, it is believed that this attribute will assist with building a greater sense of resilience. As a person grows more resilient, it is hypothesized that resilience will contribute to a heighten sense of motivation. Thus, the non-cognitive factors of the MindVue theoretical model are constantly working together in an interrelated and interdependent manner much like strands of a rope. Working together in unison, these skills then contribute to high performance and positive outcomes across the life span.

MindVue Profile If an aspect of human behavior is not labeled and quantified, does it truly exist? Because the concept of non-cognitive factors is relatively nebulous to many, it is important to be able to first identify and operationally define these human characteristics. The next step involves working to quantify those constructs. Lopez and Snyder (2003) note that, “If we are impressed with something that is labeled, we are even more impressed when some sort of measurement metric is attached to that named entity” (p. 23). Using the often-shared message of “what can be measured, can be managed,” before adequate steps can be taken to build a psychological factor, it is helpful to first quantify it. The MindVue Profile is a psychometric assessment developed to measure a synthesized model of non-cognitive factors associated with various performance and positive life outcomes. Composed of constructs that have been previously operationally defined in various bodies of scientific literature, the self-report assessment serves as a proactive tool to develop human capital by providing insight and awareness to understand how a person is thinking and feeling in these areas relative to others. In its current iteration, the MindVue Profile is made up of 120 items and requires an average of 15 minutes to complete. As a norm-referenced assessment, scores on each scale are reported as a percentile score. There are 13 non-cognitive factors measured on the MindVue Profile. As described in Table 22.2, the non-cognitive factors include self-awareness, growth mindset, self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, grit, conscientiousness, self-discipline, self-control, adaptability, hope, internal locus of control, hardiness, and integrity. 397

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan Table 22.2  Description of the skills measured on the MindVue Profile Mindset skill

Description

Self-awareness Growth mindset Self-efficacy Intrinsic motivation Drive Grit Conscientiousness

Possessing a strong sense of identity and confidence in the person you are Holding the belief that your potential can be cultivated through effort Believing in your ability to accomplish goals Having a sense of meaning and purpose in your work and life Composite of self-awareness, growth mindset, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation Experiencing the passion and perseverance to remain committed to your long-term goals Feeling you are not procrastinating as well as feeling organized, careful, and dependable in the completion of your work Believing you can give your best efforts when completing challenging and unenjoyable tasks Maintaining the ability to control your impulses and delay gratification for a larger reward in the future Composite of grit, conscientiousness, self-discipline, and self-control Feeling capable of coping well with the changes you are experiencing Believing you can navigate around obstacles while in pursuit of your goals Thinking that your outcomes are determined more by your hard work and effort versus luck and external factors Believing you can weather the adversity you face, have people to support you through the hardship, and can bounce back from setbacks Composite of adaptability, hope, internal locus of control, and hardiness Feeling you are acting with a strong moral compass, being honest, and acting with a sense of ethics Composite of all scales on the MindVue Profile

Self-discipline Self-control Willpower Adaptability Hope Internal Locus of Control Hardiness Resilience Integrity MindVue Score

Self-Awareness The construct of self-awareness is rooted in the psychological construct of self-concept clarity. This concept involves possessing a strong sense of identity, where the individual feels comfortable and confident in their sense of self (Campbell et al., 1996). It is theorized that a prerequisite to having strong motivation involves first having a clear sense of self, which includes the awareness and knowledge of one’s strengths.

Growth Mindset Individuals with a growth mindset believe that their talent can be cultivated through effort, as opposed to thinking that talent is innate to an individual (Dweck, 2016). Individuals believing that one’s talent, intelligence, and potential are incapable of changing are described as having a stronger fixed mindset, whereas those who believe they can fundamentally grow, change, and improve through effort hold a stronger growth mindset.

Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy encompasses a person’s confidence to accomplish their goals. Individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy set more challenging goals and maintain a commitment to accomplish those goals (Bandura, 1994). Holding the internal belief that they possess the skills 398

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

and capabilities to succeed, those with self-efficacy believe in their ability to attain their goals (Maddux & Gosselin, 2012).

Intrinsic Motivation Intrinsic motivation is rooted in self-determination theory which adheres that an individual will possess optimal levels of motivation when they possess a sense of autonomy, mastery, and sense of relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). As opposed to extrinsic motivation which focuses on the use of rewards to promote goal attainment, intrinsic motivation focuses on a person having a deeper sense of meaning and purpose to create the motivation to achieve their goals.

Grit Grit is described as having passion and perseverance for long-term goals (Duckworth et al., 2007). The construct involves possessing a consistency of interest combined with a sense of perseverance toward long-term goal commitment. Research has highlighted how the perseverance of effort component of grit tends to be a better predictor of performance outcomes than the consistency of interest component (Credé, 2018). MindVue’s construct of grit focuses on perseverance toward long-term goals while also having a strong degree of passion toward those goals.

Conscientiousness Conscientiousness is a factor from the Five-Factor Model of personality known as the “Big Five” (McCrae & John, 1992). It involves a person being attentive to detail, reliable, dependable, responsible, and organized (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Costa et al., 1991). In addition to these positive behaviors associated with conscientiousness, individuals with higher levels of conscientiousness also tend to procrastinate less (Lee et al., 2006).

Self-Discipline The tenets of the construct of self-discipline are rooted in the concept of deliberate practice (see Anders Ericsson, 2008). Individuals with higher degrees of self-discipline cultivate high performance and expertise via a willingness to work hard, be thorough, and give best efforts even for tasks that are not highly enjoyable. It involves a willingness and ability to exert efforts to demonstrate behaviors that assist with performance maximization.

Self-Control Self-control involves resisting temptations, delaying gratification, and controlling impulses. Individuals with higher levels of self-control are better able to regulate their emotional, behavioral, and attentional impulses to attain their goals (Duckworth, 2011). Lower levels of self-control have been shown to be related to a host of adverse life outcomes such as drug and alcohol abuse, overeating, smoking, unwanted pregnancy, overspending, and criminal activity (Baumeister et al., 2007).

Adaptability Adaptability is described as the ability to respond appropriately to changing situations (VandenBos, 2007). People with a greater propensity to adapt possess the ability to adjust their cognitions and 399

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

behaviors when faced with new situations (Martin et al., 2013). MindVue’s conceptualization of adaptability also pulls heavily from the concept of psychological flexibility (see Doorley et al., 2020; Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010). Having a strong ability to adapt is associated with better coping and adjustment in the face of changing circumstances.

Hope The construct of hope is operationally defined as possessing both agency thinking and pathways thinking. Whereas agency thinking involves holding the motivation to attain one’s goals, pathways thinking entails finding alternative routes to attain those goals when obstacles arise (Snyder & Lopez, 2001). Said differently, hope involves possessing both the “will” and the “way.” Agency thinking involves possessing the will, whereas pathways thinking involves possessing the ways to achieve goals. Since the agency component closely resembles the construct of self-efficacy, which is also assessed on the MindVue Profile, MindVue’s conceptualization of hope largely emphasizes the pathways component of the original hope theory in which an individual feels they can find pathways to attain their goals when roadblocks arise.

Internal Locus of Control Locus of control involves the degree to which a person feels they can influence the outcomes they experience in their life (Lefcourt, 1991; Rotter, 1966). Locus of control exists along a continuum, with external locus of control on one side and internal locus of control on the other. An individual with a greater internal locus of control believes they can positively impact what occurs in their future and that their hard work, decisions, and efforts primarily determine the outcomes they experience. On the other hand, individuals with a stronger external locus of control believe they have little to no control over what happens in their life and that the outcomes they experience are largely driven by circumstances beyond their control such as luck, fate, or other extraneous factors.

Hardiness Hardiness involves holding the belief that stressful life circumstances can be converted into opportunities for growth (Maddi, 2006). Individuals with a stronger sense of hardiness believe that life has meaning behind it, that they can influence their future outcomes, and that there is value derived from change (Bartone, 2006). In addition to the conceptualization of hardiness found in the literature, MindVue’s conceptualization also includes an aspect of social support, which has been found to be a protective buffer against stress and adversity in the face of hardship.

Integrity Integrity is a celebrated virtue throughout history. Due to the myriad of different interpretations and definitions of what integrity entails, there is lack of consensus on defining the construct of integrity (Huberts, 2018). Integrity is derived from the Latin word integer, meaning whole, complete, honest, and pure (Luban, 2003). As defined by the MindVue Profile, integrity involves a person believing they are acting with a strong moral compass, being honest and trustworthy, and acting with a sense of ethics in which they are trying to do good in people’s lives (i.e., beneficence) and avoid doing any harm (i.e., nonmaleficence). 400

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

The Development and Validation of the MindVue Profile The validation of the MindVue Profile involved a multi-year process. MindVue’s research team utilized the empirical literature as well as previous psychological assessments to examine and understand how these non-cognitive constructs have been operationally defined. Items were developed that were similar to, yet distinct from, previous assessments to stay true to the essence of previously established constructs while not infringing on the copyright protections of previous assessment developers. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were run to explore the internal validity and factor structure of each construct and scale. Individual item loadings and multiple goodness-of-fit indices were used to support the internal structure of the assessment. Analyses of internal consistency have demonstrated all scales to be above the standard criterion level of 0.70, while examinations of test-retest reliability have demonstrated levels ranging from 0.71 to 0.79. Taken together, efforts have been made to support and demonstrate the face and construct validity, content and construct validity, discriminant and convergent validity, criterion-related validity, and reliability of the tool (Davidson et al., 2018). In addition to the scales measuring the specific non-cognitive factors, the MindVue Profile also utilizes two proprietary scales to help improve the validity of the tool. Two of the greatest challenges regarding non-cognitive measurement include the issues of social desirability and reference bias (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015; Lira et al., 2022). MindVue embeds a social desirability scale to flag respondents who might be trying to present themselves in a highly favorable manner. The reference bias scale helps to evaluate a person’s frame of reference when responding to the items. Both scales are embedded within the tool and used when calculating the composite MindVue score. In conclusion, the MindVue Profile was designed to provide a snapshot of a person’s mindset – to obtain a gauge of how an individual is thinking and feeling relative to other people. This information is then intended to provide insight into individual and collective mindsets and serve as a guiding compass to best support, mentor, and coach individuals and teams to maximize performance.

Beyond the Individual – Measuring Team and Organizational Mindsets Results on the MindVue Profile are displayed at the individual level to allow a person to see their own scores. As shown in Figure 22.1, results can also be displayed at the aggregate level to allow a leader to understand the collective mindsets of those they serve. Data can be broken down based on a myriad of different options. Within an organization, a company could break down the organizational results by department, supervisor, job position, or other areas of interest. Results could display, for instance, the collective sense of grit and hope of the human resources department compared to the collective sense of grit and hope within the sales department. This information provides organizational leaders with valuable information to know how various teams within their organization are thinking and feeling. Because the data can be broken down in multiple ways, it also permits each manager to see their teams’ results so they can understand the collective mindsets of the people they lead and take steps to enhance these skills within their team. Data can be further broken down into multiple tiers within an organization. Multiple departments’ data could be rolled up across an organization to provide organizational leadership with a comprehensive understanding of how employees across the entire organization are thinking and feeling. This information can guide leaders in understanding the collective sense of motivation, perseverance, and resilience across the organization. 401

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

Figure 22.1  Dashboard showing aggregate/team results on the MindVue Profile. Image courtesy of the authors.

Lessons Learned from Measuring Mindsets The MindVue Profile has been utilized to understand the mindsets of individuals, teams, and organizations within an array of sectors ranging from business, higher education, sports, military, and healthcare. Having assessed these skills in individuals from over 24 countries across the globe, there have been many unexpected findings and lessons learned when measuring these skills in people. In returning to the discussion about what umbrella term to use to collectively refer to these factors, MindVue has found that the term “non-cognitive skills” does not resonate with people within applied settings. Instead, MindVue has discovered that using the term “mindsets” helps individuals more easily grasp what this work entails. By using the term mindset, individuals more easily understand that this work involves aspects of their mind. With basic understanding of human psychology, most people can grasp that measuring and building mindsets involves their thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and other facets of the human mind. Next, it has become clear that when measuring these non-cognitive factors via a self-report assessment, the results are not an indicator of who someone is as a person or how others might necessarily describe a person. Instead, the results serve as a snapshot of what a person is thinking, feeling, and experiencing in their own mind relative to others. If a person scores high in all the non-cognitive skills measured on the MindVue Profile, it does not necessarily infer that they are a motivated, perseverant, and resilient person. Instead, if a person scores high in these various skills, it should be interpreted that they are currently feeling motivated, feeling perseverant, and feeling resilient. Having assessed many high-performing individuals across an array of sectors and disciplines (e.g., corporate CEOs, university presidents, military leaders, and professional athletes), it has become clear that the results provide insight into the self-evaluations of the individual as opposed to serving as a statement of who they are as a person. Unlike in academic institutions, where most data are collected in an anonymous fashion, which subsequently prevents the researcher from knowing how particular individuals score, MindVue’s applied work and the follow-up training and coaching sessions with individuals have allowed many fruitful and enlightening conversations with the people assessed. Throughout this process, 402

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

MindVue has seen numerous situations in which a high-performing individual – who, in the eyes of others, epitomizes motivation, grit, and resilience – has lower scores on the MindVue Profile assessment. There have been instances where organizational leaders become aware of a person’s results and share, “This is one of my great employees, yet they did not score all that well. They are as motivated, gritty, and resilient as they come. But on this assessment, it suggests otherwise.” In then having the opportunity to talk with many of these individuals serving as outliers to what would be expected, MindVue’s researchers and practitioners noticed a fascinating trend. When talking with these high performers who were scoring low on the MindVue Profile, these respondents would share that despite their high performance, achievements, and accolades, they were quite miserable in their work or life. Stories emerged where many of these individuals – who despite experiencing what others perceive as remarkable success – were not passionate about what they were doing, not feeling a great sense of meaning or purpose in their work or were experiencing a sense of feeling stuck or a deeper sense of hopelessness. Examples were shared where these individuals were experiencing burnout in their work, going through a divorce, working within a toxic environment, being straddled with significant financial debt, struggling with future career decisions or retirement, going through a significant health scare, or facing some significant personal challenge. The application of this work and the subsequent conversations MindVue has had with individuals who were assessed reaffirms Stillman and Velamuri’s (2020) findings that sociological forces and life events can impact a person’s non-cognitive skills. When having discussions with these individuals who were often the outliers relative to what would have been expected, MindVue’s team has found there is typically a “story behind the score.” These findings have changed MindVue’s beliefs about what a self-report psychometric assessment truly captures when assessing these skills. Rather than the results serving as an indicator of whether a person has the traits of grit and resilience, for example, the results appear to provide more of a glimpse into understanding how gritty and resilient a person is currently feeling. It is now the belief that when measuring these skills via a self-report tool, the results provide a snapshot of a person’s current mindset – a reflection of what that person is thinking and feeling relative to others – as opposed to necessarily showing whether they are a gritty and resilient person who will always display high levels of grit and resilience at every stage of their life. This would align with evidence suggesting that the correlation between self-reported levels of these skills and how leaders or managers evaluate a person in these domains do not always match (see Asken et al., 2020). It has also become clear that these non-cognitive factors do not exist in isolation within a person’s mind. Instead, the limitless array of sociological factors within a person’s life can impact and influence a person’s sense of hope, grit, resilience, and other non-cognitive factors. There appears to exist an ongoing dance between what a person experiences in their world, how they interpret those events, and how they are currently thinking and feeling. These findings have significant implications for how to utilize a tool like this to best support individuals and organizations. When measuring these skills via self-report, MindVue believes that based on existing evidence, it is best to use the informative data to obtain a snapshot to understand what is happening in the mindset of an individual. Rather than utilizing the data in a summative manner to identify whether a person possesses these factors, it appears it is better to use the data as formative information to support people. Instead of asking questions such as Does this person have “it”? Are they a motivated person? Do they have grit? Are they resilient? 403

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

the better questions to ask should be What is this person thinking and feeling? What degree of motivation are they currently experiencing? How gritty are they feeling? How resilient are they feeling right now? In asking these valuable questions, leaders and their organizations can then take proactive steps to help support, mentor, and coach their people to optimize individual and organizational performance. Rather than viewing these non-cognitive skills as traits that a person either has or does not have, there is much greater benefit from viewing these factors as state-like skills that can change and develop over the course of time – typically over weeks, months, and years rather than shorter periods of time, especially in the absence of major life changes. Next, another important lesson learned is that people’s histories in taking other assessments can impact their understanding of their results when seeing their scores. Especially within the corporate sector, people often have experience taking more traditional personality assessments that are designed to label, categorize, or define who a person is, how they best communicate, or what their top strengths are. If they assume the MindVue Profile measuring these non-cognitive skills is a personality profile designed to tell them “who they are” or “whether they have these skills,” some individuals can grow frustrated when they see lower scores than they anticipate, which in some cases might contradict their self-beliefs. For example, if an individual scores lower on grit, the individual might respond saying, “But look what I have done throughout my career…I’ve got grit!” People can become especially defensive when seeing lower scores on integrity, which they can feel is an indictment against their character. These responses have led MindVue to provide thorough education up front about what this assessment is (i.e., a snapshot of how a person is thinking and feeling) versus what it is not (i.e., a statement of who someone is as a person or how others might describe them). Likewise, MindVue has also found it to be beneficial to reinforce how these skills can be impacted by external factors in a person’s life as well as how they can change and grow over time. Another trend MindVue has noticed in this applied work is that most people tend to score lower than they often expect. Very few people ever think their scores are too high, whereas most individuals feel their scores are lower than anticipated. It is hypothesized there are several reasons for this. First, very few people have ever had the opportunity to understand how they are thinking and feeling relative to others. Most people are only aware of what is within their current mind. It is not until a person can see metrics that provide insight into their thoughts (and in some cases challenge these thoughts), that they think differently. Next, there is potential some individuals experience an elevated sense of self, much like the Dunning-Kruger effect (see Dunning, 2011). This effect happens when someone with low levels of these skills believes they possess very high levels of these factors. Some individuals who demonstrate low levels of motivation, perseverance, or resilience may falsely believe that they are quite strong in these domains. An example of this occurred with the MindVue Profile when measuring these non-cognitive factors in incarcerated individuals. In conducting this study with people currently incarcerated, MindVue’s researchers witnessed an individual score very high on nearly all the factors measured on the assessment. When inquiring about who this individual was, it was discovered that this person held delusional beliefs that he was Jesus, the son of God in the Christian faith. Thus, despite multiple prison sentences that would suggest a complete lack of character, he was likely an extreme example of the Dunning-Kruger effect and felt that he had remarkably high 404

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

levels of motivation, self-control, integrity, and the other skills assessed on the MindVue Profile. Although this example may represent an extreme case, it illustrates how the assessment can capture what the person is thinking and feeling in their own mind versus serving as an indicator of who they are as a person. Another lesson learned when assessing these skills within organizations is that some people can be hesitant to complete the MindVue Profile for fear that the data could be used against them as they work to get promoted within the organization or advance in their careers. For example, if a leader were to see that an employee scored low in the areas of intrinsic motivation, grit, resilience, and integrity, should these scores impact the organization’s decisions to promote or advance a particular person? MindVue advocates that the results should never be utilized for punitive purposes. In fact, MindVue’s application of this work has found that employees may sometimes score low because of the leader themselves. When discussing results with employees, individuals will occasionally describe how the poor leadership or toxic culture that exists within a team or organization is the driving force behind their low sense of hope, grit, intrinsic motivation, or other non-cognitive skills. MindVue has also discovered the tremendous benefits that emerge when a leader displays some vulnerability regarding their own scores. Because many people often feel their assessment results are lower than what they hope or anticipate, having a leader share with their people about how they scored lower in some areas helps to appease people’s concerns. For example, when assessing a company in the financial services sector, one leader reported to his direct reports, “I had some areas that were much lower than I would like to admit. One of those areas was in adaptability. This made me really reflect, and I came to the realization how many changes I’ve been dealing with this last year. My family moved, I’ve taken on a new leadership role, and we’ve had many shifts within the company. It’s not that I’m incapable of adapting to change. Instead, these results have helped me to understand that I’m not currently feeling as adaptable as I could be. However, I now have some strategies to help navigate through the changes I’m currently going through.” When a leader displays this type of vulnerability, it decreases people’s concerns about having some lower scores and reinforces how the tool is designed to proactively support people. When assessing these skills within applied settings, it has become clear how important it is to stress these skills must be recognized as a process, not an endpoint to master. Resilience, for instance, is not something a person simply learns once and then demonstrates throughout their life. Building resilience is not akin to learning content knowledge such as a mathematical equation, the elements of the periodic table, or other common subjects of knowledge taught in schools. Similarly, a person cannot simply “teach grit” and expect that a person will then demonstrate grittiness throughout their life. Instead, these skills must be cultivated within a person. Grit is not something that can be forced upon a person. Rather, grit is a skill that is fostered and sustained within that person. Grit can grow and thrive by helping an individual understand what they are most passionate about and what they feel they can stick with for extended periods of time, while also fostering the positive conditions around them to allow that grit to flourish. Non-cognitive factors must be viewed as a continual work in progress. MindVue has found it is beneficial to use the analogy of the body’s muscles when discussing these skills. Much like muscles in the human body, factors like grit and resilience are not something a person either has or does not have. Everyone has muscles. Likewise, every person can demonstrate grit and resilience. However, these skills, much like muscles, must be regularly exercised. If these skills are not exercised, it is expected that they will atrophy. Finally, there exists a debate in the scientific literature about whether these non-cognitive factors are domain-specific or domain-general. For example, does a person’s degree of hope and 405

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

grit transcend across all areas of their life, or might a person display higher amounts of hope and grit in particular areas of their life while showing lower levels in other areas? Some research appears to point toward the direction that many of these factors demonstrate a domain-specific effect. Cormier et al. (2019) reported that there is merit to conceptualizing and measuring grit as a domain-specific construct. MindVue’s applied work suggests there is reason to believe that there is a domain-specific element to many of these factors. When assessing working parents, for instance, people will sometimes ask, “Should I answer these questions as an employee or as a parent, because you might get slightly different answers depending on what context I place myself within.” To combat this dilemma, MindVue would strive to include priming statements at the beginning of the assessment to put people in the frame of mind of being an employee. However, once the COVID-19 pandemic occurred and people were working from home on such a regular basis, MindVue discovered that it was nearly impossible for people to separate their work lives from the personal lives. Individuals were reporting having their personal and work lives so intertwined that it was quite challenging to differentiate the two. Therefore, despite believing there is a domainspecific aspect to these skills, MindVue found that, when measuring these skills in applied settings, it was quite fruitless to get people to think of themselves only in a particular context (e.g., as an employee, student, etc.). In its current iteration, MindVue no longer attempts to assess these skills in a domain-specific manner but instead simply provides more of a domain-general overview of how a person is thinking and feeling throughout all areas of their life.

Strategies for Development It is central to MindVue’s mission to not only measure these skills but to also provide cutting-edge learning solutions to help cultivate these important factors to assist individuals, teams, and organizations in enhancing mental wellness and optimizing performance. A key component of this delivery involves the utilization of technology. Technology of the 21st century has enabled people to experience learning virtually, that they could only do in person in past generations. Technology has provided a new horizon of personal development, research, and application. Among other things, it provides the ability to reach an unlimited number of people, turn complex clinical research into easily understood applied information, and have reliable personal developmental resources in the palm of one’s hand. However, there are also constraints, such as competing with social media for the attention of users and learning how to apply psychological and developmental theories and research into a virtual and time-condensed platform that can be consumed on a smartphone. Working within those limitations but taking advantages of the opportunities, MindVue uses several methods to build these skills such as digital learning modules, user reports, community discussion boards, coaching sessions, workshops, and access to an extensive resource library that includes, videos, podcasts, research articles, popular press articles, interviews, and interactive activities. Although inspiration for each developmental activity is varied, there is a philosophical foundation that rests at the heart of everything MindVue does. First, it is believed that each person has intrinsic worth. Second, MindVue also believes each person has the potential to grow, change, and develop. Many of the MindVue activities are rooted in two key psychological traditions: the theories underpinning person-centered therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). A key tenant of person-centered theory known as “unconditional positive regard” is a cornerstone to the outlook adopted by MindVue. If there is going to be a technological medium through which people can develop positive facets of character, it is believed that the helping technology must view each person as an individual. Second, CBT serves a foundational basis for much of MindVue’s applied work. Cognitive behavioral therapy originated under Aaron Beck in the 1950s 406

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

and has been molded and shaped to its present form. It posits that each person has control over themselves, including their cognitions and behavior. In believing that a person’s thoughts often drive behavior, the practice works to modify people’s harmful or ineffective thoughts and thinking patterns with more productive thoughts that promote improved life outcomes. Moreover, CBT is the product of decades of research that has culminated in what can be one of the most effective therapies for people seeking help with a myriad of personal and developmental issues. Cognitive behavioral therapy’s philosophical underpinnings are rooted in Stoicism, where it is believed that logic can be used as a tool to discredit false beliefs and worldviews. Cognitive behavioral therapy has a long history of success and is used within psychotherapeutic practice to help with several psychopathologies such as anxiety and depression. However, its use is not reserved only for those searching for help to cope with psychological distress. It can be applied as a non-medical model for personal and group development. MindVue applies the principles of CBT to many developmental materials, including the feedback and language utilized in reports, learning modules, coaching sessions, and assessment debriefings. As displayed in Table 22.3, MindVue utilizes tenets of CBT in the application of its work to help maximize human potential. MindVue uses an array of strategies to help build non-cognitive factors within people. One of these strategies involves providing coaching and mentoring to help support individuals. After a person completes the MindVue Profile, they can get access to a detailed report outlining their results. This report provides knowledge for how the person scored relative to other people in MindVue’s global database while also providing an understanding for areas of strength and opportunities for improvement. For leaders within an organization or those that will be helping to build these skills in others (e.g., chief people officer, student success coach, employee wellness director, and mental performance coach), Figure 22.2 shows how additional reports can be generated to provide insights into team-level data as well as reports to guide the leader in knowing how to coach

Table 22.3 MindVue’s application of CBT principles as a non-medical tool for personal and professional development CBT principles

MindVue application

Active Directive

The learning is not a passive experience. The learner drives their development. The learner can direct their own learning path while still providing the opportunity to be mentored through each learning module. Each learning module is between 7 and 10 minutes. As the assessment reflects how the user is currently feeling, the modules target their immediate cognitions and behaviors. Each module is designed to help the individual develop mindset skills and grow as an individual. The learning experience platform is designed to allow the user autonomy over their learning path and to help guide them once they have chosen their path. The user’s learning path is initiated with the completion of a psychometric assessment. While enabling the user to choose their own learning path, each learning experience is based on clinical and scientific research. Each learning module asks the user to apply what they learned in the module to their everyday life. The learning experience requires the user to engage in introspection and self-analysis, both in their shortcomings as well as their strengths.

Time-limited Present-centered Problem-oriented Collaborative Structured Empirical Use homework Honesty

407

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

Figure 22.2 MindVue reports utilized to foster skills. Section of MindVue platform where users can select from options of individual reports, team reports, manager reports, or leader reports. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

and mentor the individual to help them be at their best. The relationship that is developed between the learner and the coach can enhance the development of the non-cognitive skill being targeted. MindVue has found that these reports tend to be important in helping individuals and teams. The data and the subsequent reports ignite conversations that in many cases would have never otherwise happened. Equipped with talking points and conversation starters found in the reports, the data permit leaders to be much more aware of areas of need while also allowing organizations the ability to be much more targeted with who, how, and where they work to support their people. As shown in Figure 22.3, data can be dissected and filtered by organizational leaders to identify

Figure 22.3  Filtering dashboard analytics to support individuals, teams, and organizations. Image courtesy of the authors.

408

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

individuals or teams needing further support. For example, a student success coach within a higher education setting could identify students struggling with a sense of hope, intrinsic motivation, and grit and then proactively reach out to those students to support them as they navigate through the first year of school. By being aware of how a person is currently thinking and feeling, it allows leaders to proactively reach out to support, mentor, and coach individuals. The conversations that emerge from this data can be transformational and make a significant impact on a person’s life.

Learning Modules for Growth and Development In addition to utilizing data, analytics, and reports to support individuals and teams, MindVue has also created an array of interactive learning modules to foster these skills. Figure 22.4 provides a depiction of these modules. The modules incorporate an array of learning formats such as the use of videos, written activities, formative assessments, drag and drop features, as well as numerous other interactive activities to generate active learner engagement. Designed as micro-learning experiences taking about ten minutes to complete, the MindVue learning modules utilize research-based methods to foster non-cognitive skills. Using machine learning, the MindVue platform can provide a set of recommended modules personalized to each individual to help them cultivate the right skills at the right time based on their unique MindVue Profile results. These modules can be completed via MindVue’s web-based platform or native mobile application. The activities within the modules work to go beyond simply teaching what each non-cognitive factor is. Instead, the goal of each module is to get the learner to apply the concepts within their own life. Figures 22.5–22.19 illustrate a particular module focusing on helping individuals improve their time management. In this module, learners engage in an interactive activity where they analyze how they spend their time each day. Using a video to spur reflection, learners imagine what their best life would look like if they were spending their time in a manner that would help them

Figure 22.4  MindVue modules to cultivate non-cognitive skills. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

409

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

accomplish their goals. After this activity, learners complete the time allocation activity again and then analyze the difference between how they currently spend their time each day versus how they should spend their time if they were living their optimal life. Using their comparison chart as a guide, learners are finally asked to write in an online journal to identify goals and action steps to help them best manage their time to live their best life.

Figure 22.5  Opening slide of MindVue’s module on time management. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

Figure 22.6  Reinforcement of the importance of this MindVue activity. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

410

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

Figure 22.7  Section of MindVue module on time management. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

Figure 22.8  Introduction to the interactive MindVue activity in the time management module. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

411

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

Figure 22.9  Follow-up directions in MindVue module. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

Figure 22.10 Interactive activity where the learner contemplates and illustrates how they allocate their time each day. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

412

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

Figure 22.11  Follow-up transition after the interactive activity. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

Figure 22.12  Reflective video included within the MindVue module to generate reflective thinking. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

413

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

Figure 22.13  Directions for the next section of the time management module. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

Figure 22.14  Second part of the directions following the video for the MindVue module. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

414

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

Figure 22.15  Repeat of earlier interactive activity when in the frame of living one’s optimal life. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

Figure 22.16 Comparison of the interactive activity in which the learner compares their current time allocation to how they believe they should spend their time if living their best life. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

415

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

Figure 22.17 Portion of the MindVue module utilizing the online journal feature to write action steps for goal setting. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

Figure 22.18  Part one of the conclusion of the time management module. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

416

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

Figure 22.19  Part two of the conclusion of the time management module. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

As individuals complete learning modules, the MindVue platform also includes a community message board to facilitate interaction among learners. Having a community of support can help facilitate further discussion and application around mindset development. The community board allows users to discuss their own development with other users who are going through the same modules. These moments of social support enable the user to place more focus on the modules as they begin to develop a sense of accountability to each other while working on their own personal development.

Reassessing Non-Cognitive Skills to Track Growth Over Time Because the MindVue Profile provides a snapshot of how a person is thinking and feeling, there is value in reassessing individuals, teams, and organizations to track changes and growth of scores over time. Over the last two decades, there has been much discussion among researchers about whether non-cognitive skills are something that can be cultivated. Can growth mindset be enhanced? Can grit and resilience be cultivated? Is a person’s integrity malleable to change? In line with what is being found in the psychological literature, MindVue concurs that these noncognitive factors are not immutable personality facets but instead are psychological factors that can be developed. Because these factors tend to slowly evolve over the course of weeks to months, MindVue recommends reassessing individuals after 6–12 months of time and then annually thereafter following the first reassessment. Reassessing on a more frequent basis, such as every quarter, would likely lead to assessment fatigue among individuals and could negatively impact the validity of the tool. 417

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan

Figure 22.20  Example of the MindVue growth dashboard showing a group’s changes in scores over time. Source: Image courtesy of the authors.

Allowing time between reassessments permits an individual to see how their mindsets have changed and grown since they originally took the assessment while maintaining the validity of the tool. Despite there being wider acceptance that these non-cognitive skills are something that can be cultivated, there is still ambiguity around knowing to what degree they can be impacted. As might be expected, MindVue’s research has found that better growth occurs when there is greater engagement in completing the MindVue learning modules. Figure 22.20 provides an example of an anonymized client within the MindVue platform. This figure demonstrates the shifts in scores seen among a group of university Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) Cadets. The initial assessment was provided in the fall semester and then the reassessment was provided at the conclusion of the spring semester within the same academic year. Improvements in non-cognitive skills included a 41% increase in resilience, a 58% increase in grit, a 61% increase in self-efficacy, a 55% increase in adaptability, and a 58% increase in integrity. At the time of this writing, MindVue has started to collect reassessment data to help provide greater clarity in understanding to what degree these skills can change. With MindVue’s various clients ranging from corporate professionals, university faculty and students, military groups, and others, MindVue has seen growth in the MindVue composite score (which serves as an aggregate of all the scales measured on the MindVue Profile) ranging from 10% growth to upward of 75% growth, with a 40% gain being the average across all users. At the individual level, MindVue data support that nearly four out of five of people demonstrate growth in these factors. The remaining 22% show no changes, or in some cases, show a decrease in scores. Although the MindVue modules, coaching, and training are a key part in developing these skills, it is important to reiterate that they are not the only factors that can influence these skills. There is a myriad of other sociological forces that can influence how a person responds to the items and ultimately scores on the MindVue Profile. Experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic, changes in workplace leadership, shifting family dynamics and family responsibilities, experiencing the loss of a loved one, receiving a difficult medical diagnosis, and experiencing greater burnout at work are just a few examples of the numerous factors MindVue has witnessed that can shape and influence a person’s non-cognitive skills. 418

The Application of Character Measurement and Development

Questions for Future Research Research and work around the measurement and development of non-cognitive skills is still very much in its infancy. As MindVue continues its quest to help people across the world measure and build these non-cognitive skills to enrich lives and improve team and organizational performance, there are many questions MindVue hopes to continue to explore in the years ahead. Some of these questions include:

• Are there particular non-cognitive skills that are more malleable to change than others? To what degree can each of these skills be fostered?

• Can people of all ages foster these skills? Are there ages at which these skills are more easily cultivated?

• Beyond utilizing a self-report measure, what are other effective and scalable methods to measure non-cognitive factors?

• What learning pedagogies are the most effective in helping to build these skills? • What specific sociological forces have the greatest impact on a person’s non-cognitive skills? • In addition to online learning modules, what are other scalable learning solutions to help cul-

tivate these factors? How might artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and augmented reality be utilized to help measure and foster non-cognitive skills? • Within applied settings, what are the best methods to generate engagement so that individuals complete the educational training needed to help foster these skills? • What are the differences in scores between various nationalities and cultural groups across the world, and what learning resources can be cultivated to best serve diverse groups of people?

Conclusions There is mounting evidence from various bodies of research showing the importance of noncognitive skills across the life span. From young ages to old, these skills are demonstrating through a growing array of studies to be related to numerous performance and positive life outcomes. Ranging from academic performance in school, to employee performance and positive workplace outcomes, as well as physical and mental wellness indicators, there are many benefits to taking steps to foster these important life skills. With an awareness of this importance, MindVue has pioneered steps to apply the science of character to generate scalable solutions to assist people across the world in cultivating these skills. Using a psychometric assessment to first provide insight and understanding for how a person, group, or organization is thinking and feeling, proactive steps can then be taken to utilize data analytics, reports, learning modules, as well as coaching and training to help individuals cultivate these valuable factors. With each group that assesses and takes steps to build these skills, lessons are learned that contribute to the greater knowledge regarding the application of the science of character to positively enrich lives. When combined with innovative research being conducted at leading universities across the world, this work continues to understand, uncover, and unlock human potential across the world.

References Anders Ericsson, K. (2008). Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general overview. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15(11), 988–994.

419

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan Anger, S., & Schnitzlein, D. D. (2017). Cognitive skills, non-cognitive skills, and family background: Evidence from sibling correlations. Journal of Population Economics, 30(2), 591–620. Arnstein, P., Caudill, M., Mandle, C. L., Norris, A., & Beasley, R. (1999). Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between pain intensity, disability, and depression in chronic pain patients. Pain, 80(3), 483–491. Asken, M., Siddharth, G., Isha, S., Michelle-Ashley, R., Abourizk, N., & Vinod, N. (2020). Grit in medical education: Differing perspectives of residents and mentors. Cureus, 12(5). Avey, J. B., Patera, J. L., & West, B. J. (2006). The implications of positive psychological capital on employee absenteeism. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(2), 42–60. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998). Bartone, P. T. (2006). Resilience under military operational stress: Can leaders influence hardiness? Military Psychology, 18(sup1), S131–S148. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351–355. Bender, A., & Ingram, R. (2018). Connecting attachment style to resilience: Contributions of self-care and self-efficacy. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 18–20. Bleidorn, W., Kandler, C., Hülsheger, U. R., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2010). Nature and nurture of the interplay between personality traits and major life goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 366. Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Selfconcept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141. Cormier, D. L., Dunn, J. G., & Dunn, J. C. (2019). Examining the domain specificity of grit. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 349–354. Corsello, J., & Minor, D. (2017). Want to be more productive? Sit next to someone who is. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/02/want-to-be-more-productive-sit-next-to-someone-who-is Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343–359. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(9), 887–898. Credé, M. (2018). What shall we do about grit? A critical review of what we know and what we don’t know. Educational Researcher, 47(9), 606–611. Davidson, B. (2014). Examining the relationship between non-cognitive skills and leadership: The influence of hope and grit on transformational leadership behavior. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas. Davidson, B., Morgan, T., & Plank, R. (2018). Technical report: The development and validation of the MindVue Profile. Unpublished manuscript. Doorley, J. D., Goodman, F. R., Kelso, K. C., & Kashdan, T. B. (2020). Psychological flexibility: What we know, what we do not know, and what we think we know. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(12), 1–11. Duckworth, A. L. (2011). The significance of self-control. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2639–2640. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101. Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237–251. Dugan, R., Hochstein, B., Rouziou, M., & Britton, B. (2019). Gritting their teeth to close the sale: The positive effect of salesperson grit on job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 39(1), 81–101. Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning–Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 247–296). Academic Press. Dweck, C. (2016). What having a “growth mindset” actually means. Harvard Business Review, 13(2), 2–5. Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2010). Exploring the relative and combined influence of mastery-approach goals and work intrinsic motivation on employee turnover intention. Personnel Review, 39(5), 625. https://doi. org/10.1108/00483481011064172.

420

The Application of Character Measurement and Development Garcia, E. (2016). The need to address non-cognitive skills in the education policy agenda. In Non-cognitive skills and factors in educational attainment (pp. 31–64). Brill. Heckman, J., & Rubenstein, Y. (2001). The importance of noncognitive skills: Lessons from the GED testing program. American Economic Review, 91(2), 145–149. Howard, J. M., Nicholson, B. C., Madson, M. B., Mohn, R. S., & Bullock-Yowell, E. (2021). Exploring student-athlete grit as a mediator in the relationships between parenting, academic success, and mental health outcomes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 16(2), 109–129. Huberts, L. W. (2018). Integrity: What it is and why it is important. Public Integrity, 20(sup1), S18–S32. Huen, J. M., Ip, B. Y., Ho, S. M., & Yip, P. S. (2015). Hope and hopelessness: The role of hope in buffering the impact of hopelessness on suicidal ideation. PloS One, 10(6), e0130073. Jackson, C. K. (2012). Non-cognitive ability, test scores, and teacher quality: Evidence from 9th grade teachers in North Carolina (No. w18624). National Bureau of Economic Research. Jackson, C. K. (2018). What do test scores miss? The importance of teacher effects on non–test score outcomes. Journal of Political Economy, 126(5), 2072–2107. Jeong, J. Y., Seo, Y. S., Choi, J. H., Kim, S. H., Lee, M. S., Hong, S. H., & Park, D. E. (2019). The influence of grit on turnover intention of university hospital nurses: The mediating effect of job involvement. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 49(2), 181–190. Johnston, D. W., Kung, C. S., & Shields, M. A. (2021). Who is resilient in a time of crisis? The importance of financial and non-financial resources. Health Economics, 30(12), 3051–3073. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—Self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80. Kamphaus, R. W., Winsor, A. P., Rowe, E. W., Kim, S., Flanagan, D. P., & Harrison, P. L. (1997). A history of intelligence test interpretation.  In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 32–47). American Psychological Association. Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 865–878. Kautz, T., Heckman, J. J., Diris, R., Ter Weel, B., & Borghans, L. (2014). Fostering and measuring skills: Improving cognitive and non-cognitive skills to promote lifetime success. OECD education working papers, No. 110, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxsr7vr78f7-en. Kern, M. L., & Friedman, H. S. (2008). Do conscientious individuals live longer? A quantitative review. Health Psychology, 27(5), 505. Kuhnen, C. M., & Melzer, B. T. (2018). Noncognitive abilities and financial delinquency: The role of selfefficacy in avoiding financial distress. The Journal of Finance, 73(6), 2837–2869. Lee, D. G., Kelly, K. R., & Edwards, J. K. (2006). A closer look at the relationships among trait procrastination, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 27–37. Lefcourt, H. M. (1991). Locus of control. Academic Press. Leonard, J. A., Lee, Y., & Schulz, L. E. (2017). Infants make more attempts to achieve a goal when they see adults persist. Science, 357(6357), 1290–1294. Lewina, O., James, P., Zevon, E. S., Kim, E. S., Trudel-Fitzgerald, C., Spiro, A., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2019). Optimism is associated with exceptional longevity in 2 epidemiologic cohorts of men and women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(37), 18357–18362. Lira, B., O’Brien, J. M., Peña, P. A., Galla, B. M., D’Mello, S., Yeager, D. S., Defnet, A., Kautz, T., Munkacsy, K., & Duckworth, A. L. (2022). Large studies reveal how reference bias limits policy applications of selfreport measures. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 19189. Li, J. B., Yang, A., Dou, K., & Cheung, R. Y. (2020). Self-control moderates the association between perceived severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and mental health problems among the Chinese public. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13), 4820. Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures. American Psychiatric Association. Luban, D. (2003). Integrity: Its causes and cures. Fordham L. Rev, 72, 279. Maddi, S. R. (2006). Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 160–168. Maddi, S. R., Brow, M., Khoshaba, D. M., & Vaitkus, M. (2006). Relationship of hardiness and religiousness to depression and anger. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(3), 148.

421

Brian Davidson and Troy Morgan Maddux, J. E., & Gosselin, J. T. (2012). Self-efficacy. The Guilford Press. Mandelbaum, T. (2018). The relationship between attachment and grit in lower income adolescents. Journal of Character Education, 14(1). Martin, A. J., Nejad, H. G., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. D. (2013). Adaptability: How students’ responses to uncertainty and novelty predict their academic and non-academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 728–746. Massachusetts Board of Education (1849). The Massachusetts system of common schools; Revised edition of the tenth annual report of the first secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education. Dutton and Wentworth, State Printers. Matthews, M. D., Learner, R. M., & Annen, H. (2019). Noncognitive amplifiers of performance: Unpacking the 25/75 rule. In M. D. Matthews, & D. M. Schyner (Eds.), Human performance optimization: The science and ethics of enhancing human capabilities (pp. 356–382). Oxford University Press. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. Musich, S., Wang, S. S., Schaeffer, J. A., Kraemer, S., Wicker, E., & Yeh, C. S. (2021). The additive impact of multiple psychosocial protective factors on selected health outcomes among older adults. Geriatric Nursing, 42(2), 502–508. Musumari, P. M., Tangmunkongvorakul, A., Srithanaviboonchai, K., Techasrivichien, T., Suguimoto, S. P., Ono-Kihara, M., & Kihara, M. (2018). Grit is associated with lower level of depression and anxiety among university students in Chiang Mai, Thailand: A cross-sectional study. PloS One, 13(12), e0209121. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. Sarzosa, M., & Urzúa, S. (2015). Bullying among adolescents: The role of cognitive and non-cognitive skills (No. w21631). National Bureau of Economic Research. Schanzenbach, D. W., Nunn, R., Bauer, L., Mumford, M., & Breitwieser, A. (2016). Seven facts on noncognitive skills from education to the labor market. Washington: The Hamilton Project, 1–14. Shoji, M. (2020). Early-life circumstances and adult locus of control: Evidence from 46 developing countries. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, No. 99987, 1–47. Shure, N. (2021). Non-cognitive peer effects in secondary education. Labour Economics, 73, 102074. Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press. Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (2017). Life skills, wealth, health, and wellbeing in later life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 114(17), 4354–4359. Stillman, S., & Velamuri, M. (2020). Are personality traits really fixed and does it matter?. IZA discussion papers, No. 13342, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA). US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2013). Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century. VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). American Psychological Association dictionary of psychology. American Psychological Association. Wechsler, D. (1943). Non-intellective factors in general intelligence. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(1), 101. Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (Eds.). (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 3–19). The Guilford Press. Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774–800.

422

23 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND THEIR EMERGING ROLE IN ADOLESCENT CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT* Reflections and Opportunities Prerna Banati, Elizabeth M. Dowling, Nicola Jones, Keenan Madi, and Agnieszka Malachowska Influenced by the understanding that young people are critical participants in sustainable development and building resilient, democratic societies (Lansford & Banati, 2018; Leman et al., 2017; Lerner et al., 2018), international development agencies (IDAs1) are increasingly prioritizing positive youth development (PYD) programs that build on the strengths of young people and see them as resources to be empowered rather than as problems to be solved (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). To promote the thriving of young people, IDAs seek to capitalize on the opportunities and resources available to young people across levels of their social ecology, including in their homes, with families and peers, in schools, communities, and faith institutions (Alvarado et al., 2017; Naudeau et al., 2008; UNICEF, 2018; USAID, 2012; WHO, 2018; World Bank, 2007). Aligned with this shift of IDAs to a strengths-based understanding of young people has been an increasing interest in the theoretical, empirical, and applied study of aspects of PYD, including character development, of young people from the majority world (Alvarado et al., 2017; Banati, 2021; Lansford & Banati, 2018; Leman et al., 2017; Lerner et al., 2019; Pastorelli et al., 2021; Tirrell et al., 2019). This interest is informed by a growing understanding of the process of positive development and character development (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2006; Nucci & Narvaez, 2008; Wang et al., 2015) provided by developmental scientists, practitioners, and programmers who are increasingly partnering to better understand not only what character attributes can be assigned as “good character” for diverse youth living in diverse contexts, but also how to promote “good character” and, importantly, how to measure it (Berkowitz, 2011; Lerner, 2019, 2021; Lerner et al., 2021; Nucci & Narvaez, 2008; Tirrell et al., 2019, 2020).

* The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this chapter. Their views do not necessarily represent the views, decisions, or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Priya Marwah and Anahit Minassian in the preparation of this chapter.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-26

423

Prerna Banati et al.

The shift of IDAs toward investing in the study and programming of positive development approaches is taking place at a steady pace. However, investment in the study and programming of character development, per se, by IDAs has not been as steady. The latter is challenged by the definition of what “good character” means across the diverse contexts IDAs operate. These institutions may work between and across nations and regions of the world, with diverse families of different value bases, cultures, faiths, and traditions, and in some of the most challenging political contexts, where objective assessments of “good character” may be fraught with complexity steeped in generations of historical and social injustice. Attempting to define and measure character requires not only a deep understanding of the young people and the culture in which a youth development program is offered and in which research is being conducted, but also experienced research capacity to study and work collaboratively with stakeholders within the community to unpack specific cultural variations within the construct of character (Banati, 2021; Lerner et al., 2021; YouthPower Learning, 2017). It is the strong belief of the coauthors of this chapter that it is because of the challenges IDAs face defining “good character” between and across communities, nations, and regions of the world that there is a very sparse library of theory-informed and rigorous scientific testing of IDAsupported programs focused on promoting “good character” in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Why then, the reader might question, is a chapter on IDA engagement in character development research and programming warranted? Certainly, deciding to write this chapter involved great discussion, consideration, and a fair degree of consternation among the coauthors. If IDAs were not operationalizing program outcomes as character strengths (for the reasons described above), it might not only be misguided for us to pursue the development of this chapter but, we worried, it could also potentially be unethical. The last thing the study of character development and PYD in LMICs needs is for scholars and researchers to impose a measurement model of character development on programs and IDAs that is neither reliable nor valid. Doing so is exactly the opposite of rigorous science to which we have committed our careers. However, as researchers with many decades of experience in the LMIC space focused on the study of adolescent development, who not only have been involved in studies of character development and PYD (e.g., Banati, 2021; Banati et al., 2023; Lansford & Banati, 2018; Lerner et al., 2018, 2021; Tirrell et al., 2019, 2020) in LMICs but have also been fortunate enough to see the impact of these programs, including those funded by IDAs, on the lives of thousands of young people in hundreds of programs around the world, rather than pass on the challenge, we decided to accept it. We hope the chapter inspires a deeper discussion about the meaning and measurement of “good character” across communities, nations, and regions of the world, resulting in increased engagement and investment of IDAs in character development programming and research.

Defining Character and Character Development Programs After accepting the baseline understanding that, historically, for the reasons described above, IDAs have not been explicit in including programs on “character” or the “development of character” in their portfolios of investment, a key hurdle was for us to grapple with the complexity of the meaning of “good character” across communities, cultures, and nations and to consider if and how those complex meanings are, in fact, targets of investment by IDAs. At this early stage of the writing process, through our grappling, we found inspiration in the framing of Berkowitz and Bier (2007, 2014; see also Berkowitz, this Handbook; Berkowitz & Bier, this Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 5) who describe the attempt to define character development programming as akin to entering a “semantic minefield,” explaining that, depending on the context and culture, 424

International Development Agencies and Their Emerging Role

programming focused on the development of character can be understood to be related to morality and moral education, values and values education, social-emotional learning (SEL), PYD, adolescent empowerment, and other constructs of development. Berkowitz (2016) explains that what is common in these programs is that they are “fundamentally about socializing each subsequent generation of youth to be contributors to, rather than detractors from, the common good; to nurture justice and caring in the world. In some cases they may focus more on social competencies (e.g., social-emotional learning) or on knowledge of the good (e.g., values and character education) or on socio-moral critical thinking competency (e.g., moral education) or on the knowledge, skills and dispositions of a contributing member of a democratic society (e.g., civic, citizenship or democratic education), but in all cases they are about supporting the positive development of children and adolescents as agents of justice and care.” These targeted outcomes of character development programs are similar to USAID’s operationalization of PYD, which identifies four domains of youth development that are present in PYD programs in LMICs (i.e., the development in youth of assets, agency, and contribution and an enabling environment) (Alvarado et al., 2017). These domains “encompass the essential aims of PYD and recognize youth have necessary skills and resources to succeed, be empowered to make changes for themselves, be productive members of society and contribute to positive well-being beyond themselves, and be surrounded by structures and people that positively reinforce them” (Alvarado et al., 2017, p. 11). This overlap in conceptualizations of character development and PYD makes both theoretical and programmatic sense. There are, in fact, models of PYD (Lerner et al., 2021 for a review) that include a focus on character strengths/attributes as key components of PYD (e.g., Benson, 2007; Damon et al., 2003; Lerner & Callina, 2014). Lerner et al. (2021) go further to place approaches to character development as one of four overlapping approaches in developmental science, including PYD, SEL, and resilience science. This history and framing gave us the confidence we needed to enter the minefield and be comfortable with the fact that, whereas character per se might not be a well-identified (or measured) target of IDA programming, IDAs do invest, and are increasingly investing, in program areas related to PYD, SEL and youth empowerment, particularly with the emergence and growth of strengths-based programming and a growing recognition by IDAs of the positive impact of faithbased organizations on the development of young people around the world (Belshaw et al., 2001; Pinckney et al., 2020; see also Sim et al., this Handbook). Having entered into the proverbial minefield, we proceeded with the caution of informed researchers who understand that there is great variation in the meanings of the targeted outcomes of these programs (e.g., the development of morals and/or values) within and across communities and populations of youth. The next step for us, therefore, was to see if we could come to agreement on a definition of character that benefited from the theory and framing described above and by our own experiences with PYD programs in LMICs that was both comprehensive enough to be relevant to the range of programs named by Berkowitz and Bier (2007, 2014; see also Berkowitz & Bier, this Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 5) and their targeted competencies of development (Berkowitz, 2016) in which IDAs invest and flexible enough to be relevant to specific programs in specific contexts serving specific samples of youth (see Lerner et al., 2021 for more information about application of the Specificity Principle to theoretical applications and program analyses of character development programs; see also Bornstein, this Handbook). It was clear that a multi-dimensional definition of character would best provide us with the applied relevance we would need to move forward with the chapter. In seeking such a definition, we were once again guided by Berkowitz (2002) who described character as “an individual’s set of psychological characteristics that affect that person’s ability and inclination to function 425

Prerna Banati et al.

morally. Simply put, character is comprised of those characteristics that lead a person to do the right thing or not to do the right thing” (p. 48; see also Berkowitz, this Handbook) and by recent research which identifies four categories of constructs within this “constellation” (Baehr, 2013, 2017; Lerner & Callina, 2014; Lickona & Davidson, 2005; Seider, 2012), including:

• Moral character attributes such as integrity, justice, caring, and respect including for the differences between people (Berkowitz, 2011; Lickona & Davidson, 2005),

• Performance character attributes such as diligence, perseverance, a positive attitude, and selfdiscipline (Lickona & Davidson, 2005),

• Civic characteristics, involving the knowledge, skills, and commitments related to being a positively engaged citizen (Seider, 2012; Zaff et al., 2011); and

• Intellectual attributes such as those which Baehr (2013; see also Kotzee & Baehr, this Handbook) describes as love of learning, seeking truth, and creativity.

With this framing and multi-dimensional definition as our guides, we no longer felt we were standing within a minefield. Instead, the authors agreed that there is a wide spectrum of IDAsupported programs that fit within the Berkowitz and Bier (2007) naming of character education programs (i.e., morality and moral education, values and values education, SEL, PYD, adolescent empowerment, and other programs) and that promote the development of the attributes identified within the above-defined categories, including some programs that focus on one or more (even all four) of these dimensions (we provide case study examples of these programs later in the chapter). We hope this chapter provides a useful frame for better understanding the history of IDA investment in programs that promote these strengths (i.e., character strengths). We do not assume that this framing is all-encompassing, fully capturing the history of IDA investment in youth development programming associated with this multi-dimensional understanding of character. We do, however, hope our framing inspires discussion and future IDA-supported partnerships and investments in character development research and programming. The next section of the chapter presents a cursory description of the roots of IDA engagement in strengths-based programming for young people. We then provide examples of three types of youth development programs (i.e., social justice and rights-based education programs; peacebuilding and nation building programs; and civic engagement and adolescent empowerment programs) that are common recipients of IDA funding and that include training and resources (e.g., curriculum, mentoring, opportunities to contribute) common to character education programs identified by Berkowitz and Bier (2007) (e.g., promoting social emotional learning, PYD, youth empowerment). We then situate youth development outcomes that align with the multi-dimensional operationalization of character development defined above within the theories of change and logic frameworks to social justice and rights-based education programs, peacebuilding and nation building programs, and civic engagement and adolescent empowerment programs. We offer a case study example of each. We then explore the challenges and considerations for IDAs related to measurement and improved capacity building in the monitoring and evaluation of character development programs. We conclude by providing suggested next steps for IDAs interested in further advancing the field.

The Roots of IDA Investment in Children and Young People Historically, the work of IDAs has been to serve as catalytic actors driving development, promoting human rights, and supporting national efforts to become more self-reliant and sustainable. Areas of investment have included governance, democracy and peace, market development 426

International Development Agencies and Their Emerging Role

including employment and business development with increasing attention to social development and equity-based efforts in poverty reduction, health, education, nutrition, and gender. IDAs are also focused on scale. Early multilateral efforts to engage with youth were originally focused on supporting post-war reconstruction and peacebuilding efforts and/or were anchored in national and international security concerns. Whereas children (ages 0–18) have always been a targeted population for development assistance, youth (ages 15–24, and for some countries up to age 30) was not routinely considered a unique target population for assistance until the 1970s when the United Nations held its First World Youth Assembly, coinciding with 25th anniversary of the United Nations. In the last 50 years, young people have remained a priority for the United Nations, signaling a growing focus of program efforts from across state and non-state actors, with many efforts to further engage with the ideas of youth and to provide platforms for their collaboration and participation (United Nations, 2022). By the early 1980s, youth participation was more centrally embedded into the United Nations’ mandate as evidenced by the fact that 1985 was declared as the International Year of Youth. Young people were recruited as advocates and ambassadors to further objectives of the international multilateral system – with the United Nations at its core. This engagement concentrated on conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and strengthened institutional governance, and took the form of conferences, meetings, events, talks or discussions, focused on promoting peaceful resolution and stronger systems. Meaningful child and adolescent participation were further bolstered with the signing of the international Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1990, which laid the foundations for meaningful participation of young people. This visionary document, signed by all 196 UN member states except by the United States, is founded on principles of freedom of expression and association and protection of religious and cultural freedoms (United Nations CRC, 1990). Throughout the 1990s, global action by IDAs on youth began to become increasingly internalized in country-level operations and programs that targeted youth and began expanding into new development activities. The adoption of the World Programme of Action for Youth by the UN General Assembly in 1995 was a milestone policy framework for national action and international support to improve the situation of young people around the world. Representatives of 146 countries attended the World Conference of Youth Ministers in Lisbon, Portugal in 1998, committing their governments to placing national youth policy formulation, implementation, follow-up processes, and funding at the highest political levels. During this meeting, measurable time-bound goals and indicators related to youth development were introduced. These formative measurement frameworks had the aim of transparently assessing and making visible the situation of youth and their inclusion in social and economic society. Setting of baselines and measures of progress sought to enable monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of national policies that had been agreed upon. The early 2010s ushered in an era of discontent for young people around the world. Major uprisings, anti-government protests, and violence escalated throughout the Arab states and expanded globally. Youth were centrally located in these resistance movements, as well as the social and political unrest that ensued. The Arab Spring recast the social and cultural discontent experienced by youth as political objectives (Anderson, 2013). For example, politicization of youth has resulted in unrest and destabilization including in Libya and Tunisia. At the same time, national investments in young people were considered wise and worthy due to their demographic weight and the potential for nations to reap economic and social dividends as a result. Particularly in Africa, where the current demographic situation of declining birth rates and increasing life expectancy are currently creating a once-in-history opportunity, governments are prioritizing skills and capacity development to maximize the potential of young people to create economic growth, while simultaneously reducing potential risk for discontent and political 427

Prerna Banati et al.

uprising (Bloom et al., 2017). Although under-resourced, the investments have demonstrated young people’s capacity for stimulating the development of new social, cultural, and political ways of engaging, innovations in communicating and connecting with peers, creating positive movements, and developing social networks, both online and offline, which have been viewed as both a potential threat and as an opportunity for political systems and national and international development efforts (Anderson, 2013). This duality is demonstrated in well-known young activists such as Malala Yousafzai, whose life and advocacy has heightened awareness of the power of investment in the education of girls, despite political threat (Yousafzai & McCormick, 2014); and by Greta Thunburg and the Fridays for Future movement, which spearheaded a call to address global climate change, driven by Greta’s own personal conviction and resolve (Thunberg, 2019). In response to the growing national interest, and recognition of the power of young people in effecting change, youth development programming increasingly became a focus of technical assistance and financial investment by IDAs. Through large investments such as GPE (Global Program for Education) and Global Funds, sectors such as education and health are, at this writing, setting the framework of engagement between IDAs and young people in a life course and intergenerational perspective, understanding that investing in youth has potential positive implications for future, sustainable development (see https://www.globalpartnership.org/ and https://www.theglobalfund.org/en/). At the same time, a notable surge in investments in adolescent girls in particular is taking place, with a focus on girls’ skills, education, and tackling harmful practices like child marriage and female genital mutilation. These noted examples of promoting and protecting the foundations of human rights also undergird global goals such as the sustainable development goals (SDGs), which provide high-level outcome statements that nations seek to achieve through effective programming including in strengths-based adolescent development programming (see https://sdgs.un.org/goals). Although there has been a notable shift in perspective by IDAs to young people being potentially powerful agents of positive change whose strengths must be harnessed and whose health and well-being matters, how character development fits into this shift is not well theorized or studied. In the next section, we propose a framework for situating character development, as defined above, within existing IDA programmatic models that invest in PYD outcomes and provide case study examples from current programs,

Applying a Theory-Informed Framework to IDA Investment in Character Development Programming in LMICs As a result of a growing trend by IDAs to invest in strengths-based programming and research (Banati, 2021; Lerner et al., 2021), there is variety in the type of IDA-supported programs that promote positive development. However, missing in the stated outcomes of PYD that these programs identify within their goals and objectives are constructs that are identified as being related to character or character development. In this section, we provide what we hope is a useful and illustrative framing of IDA-supported programs that do, in fact, include targeted constructs that fit within the multi-dimensional definition of character provided at the start of this chapter. The framing includes examples of IDA-supported programs with high-level, community, national, and global-level outputs of social justice and rights-based education; peacebuilding and nation building; and civic engagement and youth empowerment. We then situate character (including the diverse domains of character identified above, i.e., moral, performance, intellectual, and civic) within the logic models of these programs (character typically can be found as moderators and/or outcomes leading to these higher-level community, 428

International Development Agencies and Their Emerging Role

national, and global outputs). Finally, for each type of program, we provide a case study example of a program supported by IDAs that promote these constructs.

Social Justice and Rights-Based Education Programs Social justice programs are often rights-based programs that address issues of accessibility to resources, including advocating at the political and programming level for equity and the opportunity to have a voice in decision-making about experiences and policies that impact well-being. Social justice for children and youth are often framed in education about human rights, most typically the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As outlined in Article 12 and Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), children and youth have the right to a voice, education, and to be fully informed about their rights. The United Nations has also included human rights education in the SDGs as a specific target (Target 4.7) of Goal 4 on inclusive and quality education. Rights-based education is a component for action in the context of UN initiatives on preventing and countering violent extremism, as well as in the UN Youth Strategy launched in September 2018. Human rights education contributes to the prevention of violence, the promotion of peace, equality, sustainable development, and participation in decision-making processes within democratic systems. Child rights-based education supports children and youth to become empowered with knowledge and tools that prepare them to be global citizens and act in ways that demonstrate empathy and commitment to diversity, dignity, and equality (Howe & Covell, 2005). Social justice and rights-based education programs supported by IDAs include those that, among others, have community, national and global level outputs related to poverty reduction, girls’ empowerment, reproductive rights and health-based interventions, risk-informed education, youth employment, community development, and environmental management. Associated outputs include the integration and analysis of multiple hazards, shocks, and stresses (e.g., food shortages or local conflicts), reduction in vulnerability of youth to hazards, shocks, and stresses, strengthened capacities of national ministries to prepare, prevent, and respond to hazards, shocks, and stressors. The intended outcomes of programming include constructs associated with strengths-based development, including attributes of “good character” that align with the multi-dimensional definition of character provided at the start of this chapter. For example, within girls’ empowerment programs, program activities such as life skills training, rights-based education, health information, and leadership opportunities have intended outcomes that include empowering girls to stand up for themselves and their own rights and to educate others about the rights of girls and all people. To achieve these outcomes, girls’ empowerment programs focus on building in girls and young women strengths such as a sense of equity, integrity, respect for other and the self and compassion (Austrian et al., 2020; Banati et al., 2021; Birdthistle et al., 2018). These constructs align well with the dimension of moral character presented at the start of the chapter (i.e., integrity, justice, caring, and respect). A similar analysis can be applied to the other dimensions of character. The same framing and analysis can be applied to poverty reduction programs which have been designed, in part, to achieve social justice and equal rights for youth including through youth employment, community development, or environmental programming. These programs include as intended and/or desired moderators or outcomes moral character attributes such as equity; performance character attributes such as competence, confidence, resilience, coping, and grit to improve 429

Prerna Banati et al.

the lives of self and others through mentoring or counseling services; intellectual character attributes such as commitment to learning and perspective taking; and civic character attributes such as serving as an advocate and a convener of other youth to push for change, including through peer-led leadership (Adoho et al., 2014). UNICEF’s Adolescent Kit for Expression and Innovation (the “Kit”) is an example of a social justice and rights-based education program that promotes the development of strengths that align well with the previously described dimensions of character. The Adolescent Kit for Expression and Innovation, developed by UNICEF in 2018 (see www.adolescentkit.org), is a package of guidance, tools, activities, and supplies to support adolescents ages 10–18, especially those who are affected by humanitarian crises, in coping with stressful circumstances by building healthy relationships and giving them the tools to engage positively with their communities. The Kit’s development was led by UNICEF’s Adolescent Development and Participation (ADAP) section, a cross-sectoral support team based at UNICEF Headquarters, in collaboration with program leaders, partner organizations, and adolescents in Indonesia, South Sudan, Myanmar, Bhutan, Palestine, Haiti, Uganda, and Jordan. The Kit aims to bring about positive change in adolescents’ lives through arts and innovation. The Kit promotes the Adolescent Circles approach, which involves bringing groups of girls and boys ages 10–18 together in a safe space on a regular basis to have fun, cope with difficult experiences, learn, and work together. It draws from programmatic approaches in psychosocial support, life skills education, child protection, social cohesion, and peacebuilding. The Kit can be used by anyone managing programs or working directly with adolescents in humanitarian and vulnerable development contexts, including staff across different sectors, teachers, child friendly space facilitators, youth facilitators, and community volunteers. All or part of the Kit can be integrated into programs for adolescents in areas such as child protection, education, and youth development. The Kit has been used in several countries where UNICEF operates humanitarian programs and provides a practical approach to developing curriculum relevant to specific children and youth (e.g., adolescent girls) in specific communities and settings (e.g., camps for the internally displaced). For instance, the Facilitation Technique section of the toolkit provides guidance on sensitive topics related to gender-based violence (GBV) such as confidentiality, use of adolescent girl-friendly language, reproductive health and safety sessions, and positive discipline. In 2020, the kit was used in Colombia to support the national emergency response to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Early on, the Government declared a state of emergency, instituting a lockdown and closing schools to control the spread of the disease. These measures remained in place until December 2020, giving rise to secondary effects on adolescents and their families. UNICEF developed the Adolescentes en Movimiento por sus Derechos Initiative (“Adolescents for their Rights”) to adapt to the emergency with a view to ensuring learning opportunities for adolescents by implementing action-oriented participatory approaches to self-care (see Adolescents in Humanitarian Situations – Adolescent Kit). In Colombia, the kit includes a series of activities that can be easily done at home while complying with prevention measures. These kits were distributed digitally to a network of over 3,000 young people who passed them on to their communities through WhatsApp, Facebook, and other digital channels. The first activity highlighted the importance of self-care. Over 1,400 adolescents around the country shared videos and pictures of how they were taking care of themselves during the lockdown. Further sharing on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter with the hashtag #YoMeQuedoEnCasa (#IStayAtHome) and #AdolescenesEnMovimiento (#TeensOnthe Move), achieved 48,161 interactions on Facebook alone. Although the program has not yet been evaluated for its impact on character development per se, if one was to view the program and its intended outputs through the definition of character 430

International Development Agencies and Their Emerging Role

proposed in this chapter, the activities in the Kit that focus on building in young people skills in self-expression, problem solving, and willingness to explore new ideas align well with previously defined intellectual character attributes. Similarly, through the Adolescent Circles approach, the program builds moral character strengths such as compassion and empathy, civic character strengths such as positive relationships, and performance character strengths such as perseverance.

Peacebuilding, Community-Building, and Nation-Building Programs IDAs understand that young people have an important role to play in peacebuilding and post-war reconstruction efforts. In fact, young people are considered central to intergenerational conflict mitigation and preventing or countering violent extremism (PVE/CVE) efforts. Research shows that long-term, localized development initiatives that address the reasons that engage children and young people in violence not only increase the voices of youth related to peace and youth participation in those efforts but also contribute to PVE (YouthPower Learning, n.d.). Common peace and community- and nation-building programs supported by IDAs include programs focused on peace and social justice education, conflict resolution training, youth leadership, girls’ empowerment, life skills training, youth employment, and mentoring (UNICEF, n.d.a). A leading example of IDA investment in engaging youth in peacebuilding efforts is Resolution 2250, unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council Security in 2015 (UN Security Council, 2015). The resolution encourages States to establish mechanisms that involve young people in meaningful participation as peacebuilders as a method for preventing violence and building peace around the world. Resolution 2250 is the first Security Council resolution fully dedicated to promoting the role of young people in promoting international peace and security. In 2018, the UN Security Council reaffirmed the need to fully implement Resolution 2250 in Resolution 2419 (UN Security Council, 2018) which calls on all relevant stakeholders to increase youth representation in negotiating and implementing peace agreements. At the same time as these resolutions were being developed and implemented, the first UN youth strategy report was written for engaging youth as partners in the work of the United Nations (United Nations, 2018). The strategy identified five priority areas, including engagement, participation and advocacy; informed and healthy foundations; economic empowerment through decent work; youth and human rights; and peace and resilience-building. In all areas, the strategy dictates that youth are to be supported as agents of positive change. Related to the fifth priority area of peace and resilience-building, the UN strategy builds on the mobilization of youth as partners, with the intention of changing mindsets within the United Nations from a view of youth as either perpetrators or victims of violence to a view of youth as partners in preventing violence and building and sustaining peace. In 2015, a multi-country, multi-donor evaluation of child and youth participation in peacebuilding programs in Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Nepal was conducted and published (McGill et al., 2015). The evaluation identified four contributions of programs focusing on adolescents as peacebuilders, including: (1) young peacebuilders become more aware of and active citizens for peace; (2) young peacebuilders increase peaceful cohabitation and reduce discrimination; (3) young peacebuilders reduce violence; and (4) young peacebuilders increase support to vulnerable groups. In the evaluated programs, young people became more aware and active citizens for peace as they became more sensitized to the concept of peace and the idea that peace is a possibility. The possibility of peace generated hope and the belief that peace in their families, communities, and nations could become a reality. As a result, the program promoted young people to seek out actions they could take in their daily lives to promote and achieve peace, 431

Prerna Banati et al.

including strengthening their knowledge including in understanding the causes and consequences of violence (intellectual character strengths), skills, including “soft skills” such as negotiation and empathy, but also in “hard skills,” such as skills to strengthen their own livelihoods (performance character strengths) and commitments related to being a positively engaged citizen (civic character strengths). In another example, in 2016, UNICEF developed a range of resources and tools for countrylevel teams and offices and their partners to use to promote peacebuilding. As an example, in response to the challenges and “pulls” for adolescents to engage in violence and conflict, UNICEF’s ADAP created the Peacebuilding Competency Framework (Adolescents as Peacebuilders Toolkit, v1.0 Final.docx (8 June 2016); unicef.org). The framework can be used in the development of new programs or can be integrated into existing programs. The goals of the program are for adolescents to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with the framework’s competencies to “transform conflict, build peace and make positive change in their communities” (p. 3). The toolkit includes ten peacebuilding competency domains: critical thinking and decision-making, creativity and innovation, communication and expression, identity and self-esteem, hope for the future and goal setting, leadership and influence, empathy and respect, problem solving and conflict management, cooperation and teamwork, and coping with stress and managing emotions. Many of these align with character attributes described above. The toolkit recognizes that peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts are politically complex and may require conflict sensitivity and innovation. At the same time, such efforts need to be feasibly implemented in some of the toughest parts of the world. As such the toolkit advocates for identifying an entry point for introducing the competency framework, including through education (including non-formal education, accelerated learning or service learning programs, or curricula development programs); protection and psycho-social support initiatives (such as communitybased child protection networks and committees or adolescent friendly spaces); life skills and adolescent/youth participation initiatives (including life skills or vocational training programs, rehabilitation and reintegration of adolescents formerly associated with Armed Groups into art, music and/or creative media programs); health, nutrition, HIV prevention and improvements in local water and sanitation, as well as social innovation programs. To continue with the framing proposed in this chapter and provide examples of the ways in which IDAs support character development programming, it is not a stretch to see that the competency domains of the framework overlap well with the four dimensions of character. For example, critical thinking and decision-making, creativity and innovation, communication and expression are, according to the definition provided, performance and intellectual character attributes. Similarly, goal setting, leadership and influence, problem solving and conflict management, coping with stress, identity development, and self-esteem align well with the performance character attributes of young people described at the start of this chapter. Finally, hope for the future, empathy, and respect align well with moral character attributes and cooperation and teamwork align well with civic attributes. We want to reiterate that we are not claiming that the competency domains that are part of the framework are reliable or valid measures of character, per se, for any of the programs or communities of youth in which UNICEF implements the Peacebuilding Framework. That specific research has not yet been conducted. However, given the overlap in the constructs identified in the multi-dimensional definition of character and the domains of competencies in the Peacebuilding Framework, we hope the case study serves as both an illustrative example of the ways in which IDAs invest in programs that promote constructs of character development and, as well, provide inspiration for future research (by UNICEF and other IDAs) aimed at better understanding that investment and program impact. 432

International Development Agencies and Their Emerging Role

Another useful resource that builds on the UN resolutions, youth strategy, and competency framework and that was developed by UN agencies UN DPPA, UNDP, and UNFPA for engaging youth in peacebuilding is a resource entitled, Youth, Peace and Security: A Programming Handbook. The handbook provides guidance to UN entities on the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of interventions in different contexts that are sensitive to and inclusive of all youth (United Nations and Folke Bernadotte Academy, 2021). The document discusses opportunities to address theories of change in programming for peacebuilding among youth. An example relevant for the study of character is found in programs focused on inclusion. One objective of such programming is to foster reconciliation, by addressing “historical memory, truth and reparations, transitional justice and social cohesion” (p. 55). These programs work to develop trust using real and meaningful processes of social cohesion and inclusion, and, in some ways, rely on the development of positive attributes related to moral and civic character including a sense of justice and solidarity, as well as being a committed and engaged citizen. It is noteworthy that many peacebuilding and development programs include elements of building respect and tolerance for intersectional differences – whether based on gender, disability, religion, and/or citizenship. However, undeniably building long-lasting peace among fragmented communities is challenging. For example, in 2016, PeacePlayers committed itself to a youth-led evaluation of its work with Catholic and Protestant youth in Northern Ireland. After years of fighting, and despite a formal peace agreement signed in 1998, negative stereotypes and mistrust persisted among the Protestant and Catholic in parts of Northern Ireland. Most communities remained segregated, preventing the development of positive peer and community relationships necessary for a sustainable and peaceful future. However, the evaluation of the community sports intervention revealed that building interpersonal trust among participating Protestant and Catholic youth did not translate into higher levels of engagement or continued friendship once participants returned to their communities. This situation was because other factors contributed to tension and created divisions between the youth, including physical barriers in residential neighborhoods (Peace Players International, 2018). Although rigorous evaluation of many such programs are often not available, Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence a multi-country longitudinal study of 20,000 young people (Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence;| GAGE [odi.org]) has undertaken an extensive effort to evaluate the Makani or “My Space” adolescent empowerment program, implemented by UNICEF in Jordan. The Makani youth empowerment program supports the well-being and development of vulnerable children and adolescents in host and refugee communities in Jordan. The largest program of its kind, it reached 169,684 adolescents (10–19 years) and 40,000 adults in 137 centers across the country between 2019 and 2021. Initially designed to provide Child Protection Services and educational support to Syrian refugees from the mid-2010s, the program has evolved to become a broad, multi-pronged support package, encapsulated in the motto “I am safe, I learn, I connect.” This package includes: learning support services in core subjects (including Math, Arabic, English and Science); linkages with a labeled cash transfer, Hajati (“My Needs”) and the Jordanian Social Safety Net Programme (Takaful); science and technology innovation labs for older adolescents (aged 15–17 years); life skills training; child protection; psychosocial support; sports; and more recently, financial and digital skills in addition to online access to services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and school closure in Jordan. Makani is managed by UNICEF Jordan and implemented by local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and government agencies (including the Ministry of Social Development, signaling government buy-in to the approach) in host communities, and by Syrian volunteers in Azraq and Zaatari refugee camps. A key part of the program involves skilling up local partners to deliver programming (Devonald et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2019, 2022). 433

Prerna Banati et al.

Makani’s approach to development is informed both by UNICEF’s global adolescent development strategy and commitment to accountability to young people, and by national staff and partners’ deep knowledge and experience of the communities with which they work. The Makani curriculum is underpinned by UNICEF global strategies centered around adolescent participation and civic engagement (UNICEF, 2018, 2020) and expression and innovation (UNICEF, 2019, 2020), which focus on developing in adolescents a set of core competencies which support them in reaching their full potential. These competencies span individual self-knowledge (e.g., engaging intellectual character strengths such as developing a positive sense of identity and self-esteem) and resilience (e.g., engaging performance character strengths such as coping well with stress and managing emotions) and effective communication (Banati et al., 2021) and expression of emotions with others (e.g., engaging performance and moral character strengths such as having and communicating empathy and respect), and managing conflict with others (engaging performance and civic character strengths). A core strength of the Makani approach is its flexibility in adapting to the changing context in which adolescents have found themselves in Jordan over the past decade, and creatively integrating the program’s commitment to character development throughout these various phases. At this writing, there are encouraging signs that this focus on adolescent character development is becoming more mainstreamed within Jordan, at least partly due to Makani. With the goal of building a more sustainable model, UNICEF Jordan has, over time, moved away from a reliance on international NGOs to roll out the program. Increasingly the program works through local communitybased and faith-based organizations, as well as the Ministry of Social Development.

Civic Engagement and Community Empowerment Programs Programs that focus on promoting service and/or civic engagement and community empowerment engage children and youth in activities and behaviors that are intended to improve communities and/or assist others and, through that contribution and engagement, empower youth with the skills to be changemakers in their communities and society. Common IDA-supported programs focused on adolescent and youth civic engagement and community empowerment engage youth in community and youth mobilization programs, climate management and improvement programs, social innovation programs, arts, sports, and theatre. IDAs also promote policies and laws that seek to support the participation of youth in civic life and community empowerment. IDA funding also helps to strengthen platforms, including digital platforms, for youth participation, including participating in decision-making at community, national, and global levels. They also seek solutions and spaces for youth, especially marginalized youth, to address roadblocks to their participation (e.g., youth civic engagement and community empowerment IDA-supported programs; see UNICEF, n.d.b); World Health Organization, n.d.). In these programs, IDAs engage youth participation in meaningful ways, including developing youth councils (which are formal bodies made up of youth who advise decision-makers on matters of import to children and youth), engaging youth in local governance efforts and decisions, providing youth with a seat on governing boards and opportunities to organize and be advocates for themselves and their peers, promoting youth leadership programming and opportunities for service (USAID, 2014; WHO, n.d.). According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University, civically engaged youth and those contributing to their communities engage in problem solving, cooperation, and creativity (e.g., to address community challenges). Youth civic engagement can also lead to “increased academic performance and improved 434

International Development Agencies and Their Emerging Role

social-emotional well-being. It helps young people build skills and networks that are valued in the workplace and can thus be a source of economic mobility. When youth feel empowered to take action, and when they see their efforts achieve positive change, it can have a profound and lasting impact” (CIRCLE, n.d.). This skill building aligns well with building intellectual, performance and civic character strengths. Programs that promote civic engagement and youth participation also build strengths such as kindness, caring, and respect and strengths such as altruism, and responsibility (Park, 2004). These strengths align well with moral character strengths. In recent years, many IDAs (such as WHO, UNICEF, WFP, UNFPA, UNAIDS, World Bank, and USAID) have invested in the study and promotion of youth participation and civic engagement. These programs facilitate and advocate for adolescent participation across diverse contexts. Examples include disaster risk reduction programming by the WFP in Indonesia and Bangladesh, where the WFP has been training young volunteers in disaster management since 2004 (World Food Programme, 2022), programming with the migration response from the crisis in Venezuela in 2018 (see UNICEF, 2020), and strengthening systems for local governance in the Philippines (UNICEF, 2007), among others. In 2018, UNICEF developed a conceptual framework for the measurement of adolescent participation. The framework defines participation not only as a fundamental right but also as a contribution to the empowerment and well-being of adolescents. The constructs identified in the framework align well with those in the multi-dimensional definition of character offered at the start of the chapter. For example, the framework includes measures of program impact on adolescent’s belief in themselves as agents of positive change and in developing skills of collaboration to improve communities and society (e.g., performance character strengths) as well as measures of impact on realization by youth of their rights and the skills needed to hold duty-bearers accountable (involving moral, performance, intellectual, and civic character strengths). According to the framework, the experience of influencing and holding duty bearers accountable also reinforces in young people a sense of efficacy, capacity, and self-confidence (developing performance character strengths) (see https://www.unicef. org/media/59006/file). In 2016, the collective strengths of UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women, WHO, UNAIDS, and the World Bank Group were combined in the H6 partnership to deliver technical support and advance the Every Woman Every Child Global Strategy (Every Woman, Every Child, 2015) in support of country leadership and action for women’s, children’s, and adolescents’ health. This group came together to collectively endorse an adolescent well-being framework (Ross et al., 2020) that emphasizes the role of civic engagement and contribution to society. Although the framework is, at this writing, in the early stages of operationalization, WHO is working to develop measures to monitor and evaluate national programs against the framework. At this time, the framework includes high-level constructs including connectedness, learning, and agency. Each of the high-level constructs has subconstructs which align well with the dimensions of moral, intellectual, performance, and civic character proposed in this chapter. The domain of connectedness refers to social and cultural networks that promote positive, meaningful relationships with others, including family, peers, and, where relevant, teachers and employers. Connectedness is related to having an attitude of responsibility, caring, and respect for others as well as a sense of ethics, integrity, and morality (akin to moral character strengths). Connectedness also involves promoting in youth empathy, friendship skills, and sensitivity as well as social, cultural, and civic engagement and the skills (involving performance, civic, and intellectual character strengths) needed to contribute to change and development in their own lives and/or in their communities. The domain of learning, competence, education, skills, and employability 435

Prerna Banati et al.

has the following sub-domains of relevance to our discussion on character development: learning refers to commitment to, and motivation for, continual learning, referring to intellectual character attributes such as love of learning, and performance character attributes such as perseverance and self-discipline. Education through schools or informally refers to resources, life skills, and competencies necessary for cognitive, social, creative, and emotional growth. In particular, competencies to thrive include knowing their rights and how to claim them, and how to plan and make choices. Skills are described as the acquisition of technical, vocational, business, and creative skills to be able to take advantage of current or future economic, cultural, and social opportunities. The third domain of relevance for our discussion on character is agency and resilience. Agency is defined as having self-esteem, a sense of agency and of being empowered to make meaningful choices and to influence their social, political, and material environment, and as having the capacity for self-expression and self-direction appropriate to their evolving capacities and period of development. Identity is described as feeling comfortable in their own self and with their identity(s), including their physical, cultural, social, sexual, and gender identity and having a sense of purpose, desire to succeed, and optimism about the future; resilience is described as being equipped to handle adversities both now and in the future, in a way that is appropriate to their evolving capacities and stage of development; finally, fulfillment is described as feeling fulfilled to their potential now and that they will be able to do so in the future.

Methods and Measures of Character Development with Implications for IDAs As strengths-based programming has become more common within the portfolio of the IDA system (Alvarado et al., 2017; Banati, 2021; Lerner et al., 2021), constituency and stakeholder demand for improved program efficiency, transparency, and accountability are placing a high premium on objective measurement of programmatic outputs, outcomes, and impacts. However, despite this increase in interest and investment, strengths-based adolescent development programs in LMICs are relatively under-theorized and as a result not easily and/or rigorously evaluated (Alvarado et al., 2017). This lack of research and program evaluation is even more pronounced as related to character development (Tirrell et al., 2021). A consequence of insufficient attention to evaluation is that programming effects – both anticipated and unanticipated – are not sufficiently documented. Randomized control trials (RCTs), often considered the “gold standard” for impact evaluation, are expensive, stretching already limited programming budgets and require specialized skills and training to conduct, which are not easy to find in low resource settings (Banati, 2021). RCTs also have methodological and conceptual challenges (Lerner et al., 2018), for example, in establishing the effectiveness of promotive or preventive interventions (Banati et al., 2023), and can also be fraught with ethical concerns including withholding potentially impactful interventions from others who might benefit from them. A key finding of a 2017 USAID-commissioned systemic review of the application and impact of PYD approaches, including character development, was that there is a lack of rigor in evaluation of programs in LMICs and in program design and implementation. The research found that programs promoting PYD were doing so “without a theoretical underpinning or understanding of PYD” (Alvarado et al., 2017, p. 5) and that there was “a lack of robust and consistent measurement of PYD outcomes” and “few instances of longitudinal studies or evaluations of PYD programs” (p. 40). The report described “a tremendous need to invest in advancing the field, piloting new strategies, and rigorously evaluating and documenting programs that are being implemented” 436

International Development Agencies and Their Emerging Role

(pp. 5–6). It is clear from the report that advancing the field of both PYD and character development requires investment in capacity building focused on theory, methods, and measures. IDAs can serve an important role in this respect, by first demanding the inclusion of and budgeting for state-of-the-art measures as part of its suite of measures used for program assessment and, second by investing in capacity building in the form of practitioner-researcher collaborations focused on tool development and scientifically rigorous program evaluations. YouthPower Learning, launched by USAID in 2015, is an excellent example of IDAs filling this role. In support of the agency’s 2012 Youth in Development Policy report (USAID, 2012) which outlines strategic priorities for youth around policy, programming, and partnerships, the goal of the initiative is to influence, inspire, and disseminate PYD research, programming, and investment in LMICs, with a particular focus on youth contribution to global development goals and outcomes, such as the SDGs. YouthPower Learning has developed multiple resources and tools for researchers and practitioners around the world. These resources and tools are open source and can be accessed online by practitioners and program evaluators. As an example, the YouthPower.org learning hub includes a Measurement Toolkit (Hinson et al., 2016) which supports implementers and evaluators of youth programming in LMICs to integrate PYD principles in their monitoring and evaluation systems and effectively measure PYD outputs and outcomes within their programs. The PYD Toolkit includes measures of program level performance over time, and building in implementation research questions to support validation and ultimately influence multi-sector outcomes and the broader impact of youth programs. The first part of the toolkit invests heavily in the description of a well-articulated framework focused on investing in the assets, agency, and contribution of youth while recognizing the enabling environment around them. Domains, features, constructs, and indicators are proposed throughout the key phases of program design and evaluation, from defining the research questions to disseminating the evaluation findings. The toolkit presents some of the more robust guidance on evaluating character development programs globally. Although not an IDA, Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF) has created a capacity building platform to support its Global Innovations in Character Development (GICD) initiative (see Dill & Simpson, this Handbook). The platform includes global experts in character development research and developmental science who are paired with grantee organizations and program evaluators from LMICs to provide support on a wide range of program evaluation support and training. Such a model needs to be replicated and/or scaled to have the broader impact IDAs seek on development goals. See https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/projects-database/20420 for more information about the TWCF Platform. Although more investment in open-source tool development and capacity building support such as YouthPower Learning’s hub and TWCF’s GICD platform is needed, a range of different measures, designs, and methods are increasingly being used in program evaluations of programs in LMICs (e.g., see Banati, 2021; Lansford & Banati, 2018; Leman et al., 2017; Lerner & Bornstein, 2021; Tirrell et al., 2019, 2020, 2021). Key lessons learned from those studies and sources include that there are theory-based methodological requirements related to measurement, research, and program design that researchers and program evaluators must use to effectively describe, explain, and optimize PYD and the development of character strengths for youth around the world. Capacity-building tools and networks (such as the YouthPower Learning toolkit and the TWF Platform) are needed to support programs in designing and implementing rigorous program evaluations of research. This is a specific aspect of character development research and programming in LMICs that could greatly benefit from additional investment from IDAs. Other chapters in this Handbook explain both the challenges of studying character development within and across contexts and communities of youth, including youth living in the majority 437

Prerna Banati et al.

world and have provided examples of different tools and measures that have been used and tested, including those being tested in LMICs. These studies (and their respective measures of character strengths) and others (e.g., validation of the VIA-Youth tool; see Khumalo et al., 2008; McGrath, 2015; Ruch et al., 2014; Van Eeden et al., 2008; see also McGrath, this Handbook) are useful examples for IDAs interested in investing in measure development, program evaluations, and translating lessons learned into policy or program responses for global application.

Discussion and Conclusions Character development programs are a new frontier for IDAs, meriting further exploration. Taking steps into this unchartered territory, this chapter has sought to operationalize constructs of character development for IDAs by providing a framework and highlighting examples of ways in which IDAs have invested in strengths-based character development programs, which have included constructs that align with the theory-informed definitions of character provided at the beginning of the chapter. We make some recommendations below to support the institutionalization of such programs meaningfully into the portfolios of IDAs. As far we are aware, a systemic review similar to the one conducted by USAID on PYD has not been conducted on character development programs in LMICs. The synthesis of existing studies in systemic reviews could help advance the study of character development by providing information from existing studies that provide a lens into both the specificity of the impact of programs and the diversity of samples and methodologies that exist to study character development. However, to be able to conduct such a review requires an adequate number of studies using similar measures of character, consistent reporting of psychometric properties of those measures, and including existing studies of sufficient quality and with variability (e.g., in sample ethnicities, age) to be able to identify variability in the psychometric properties. All researchers and program evaluators must consider and enact the appropriate steps to conduct rigorous science in their respective attempts to describe, explain, and optimize the course of positive development and character development among diverse youth around the world. Research on positive youth and character development will benefit from crosswalks between developmental scientists and programmers in the field. Such partnerships would enable IDAs to have access to the best evidence, scale programs based on good science and good metrics, and allow them work across population groups and nations while remaining sensitive to cultural context. More evidence is needed to explain the roles of context, culture, and community in defining character values in adolescents, including who instills them and at what age and, as well, how are they upheld and perceived by adolescents, parents, and peers. This evidence is particularly relevant in resource-constrained or humanitarian situations, where the societal fabric may have eroded as a result of conflict or where families and children are displaced. Knowledge on how character development programs can successfully operate in communities with low social cohesion or poor community infrastructure can take us one step further to assisting vulnerable youth worldwide. Unpacking the critical variables enabling people (e.g., parents, teachers, peers, communities) and contextual factors (e.g., economic resources, education, access to services, governance mechanisms) to successfully promote positive values in young people can help to strengthen the delivery of programs. In recognition of the multiple and intersecting ecological influences on young people, youth programming in LMICs are increasingly integrating across the distal-proximal continuum and across sectors. Asking how best to introduce character building programs into such models can help to identify entry points for these programs. Similarly, scholars and practitioners have yet to 438

International Development Agencies and Their Emerging Role

understand if character development programs are more likely to be successful when coupled with employment guarantee schemes, cash transfer programs, or parenting programs, for example. Implementation research on such programs can be a useful resource to answer some of these questions. For successful implementation of programs that promote positive character, key questions exist including regarding the optimal timing and duration of intervention, as well as the sustainability of the outcomes. Investments in longitudinal research are needed to capture how character attributes evolve as children grow, and how and when interventions can best contribute to this. Given that much program monitoring and evaluation has been developed using the deficit model for adolescents, IDAs could benefit from investments in capacity building related to monitoring and evaluation of strengths-based programs. Strengthening factors and processes enabling meaningful participation of adolescents in program design research, monitoring, and evaluation could be one focus area. Research suggests young people’s participation is influenced by personality differences, social and emotional skills, and literacy levels; and requires a sense of belonging and trust of others, opportunities to socialize with peers, and activities that adolescents consider fun (Wridt, 2018). In bringing rigorous research and measurement to IDA programming, the study of character development will not be straight-jacketed by Western definitions of character but, instead, will be recognized and understood as a culturally diverse process for adolescents, growing up in diverse contexts, environments, and situations.

Note 1 In this chapter, we use the term International Development Agencies (IDAs) to reflect bilateral, intergovernmental and multilateral organizations that provide development assistance and/or technical assistance to nation states. IDAs seek to work in partnership with nation states to achieve mutually agreed upon objectives, with mutual respect and bringing complementary strengths.

References Adoho, F., Chakravarty, S., Korkoyah, D. T., Lundberg, M. K., & Tasneem, A. (2014). The impact of an adolescent girls employment program: The EPAG project in Liberia. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6832, 48 pages. Alvarado, G., Skinner, M., Plaut, D., Moss, C., Kapungu, C., & Reavley, N. (2017). A systematic review of positive youth development programs in low-and middle-income countries. YouthPower Learning, Making Cents International. Anderson, C. W. (2013). Youth, the ‘Arab spring,’ and social movements. Review of Middle East Studies, 47(2), 150–156. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43741449. Austrian, K., Soler-Hampejsek, E., Behrman, J. R., Digitale, J., Jackson Hachonda, N., Bweupe, M., & Hewett, P. C. (2020). The impact of the adolescent girls empowerment program (AGEP) on short and long term social, economic, education and fertility outcomes: A cluster randomized controlled trial in Zambia. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–15. Baehr, J. (2013). Educating for intellectual virtues. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47, 248 262. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12023 Baehr, J. (2017). The varieties of character and some implications for character education. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1153–1161. Banati, P. (Ed.). (2021). Sustainable human development across the life course: Evidence from longitudinal research (p. 290). Bristol University Press. Banati, P., Banerjee, A., Daelmans, B., & Baltag, V. (2023). The need for new models to measure the impact of prevention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 72(1), 9–11. Banati, P., Rumble, L., Jones, N., & Hendriks, S. (2021). Agency and empowerment for adolescent girls: An intentional approach to policy and programming. Journal of Youth Development, 16(2–3), 239–254.

439

Prerna Banati et al. Belshaw, D. G. R., Calderisi, R., & Sugden, C. (Eds.). (2001). Faith in development partnership between the World Bank and the churches of Africa. Regnum Books. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-4848-5 Benson, P. (Ed.). (2007). Developmental assets: An overview of theory, research, and practice. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446213803 Berkowitz, M. (2016). Op. Ed.: Navigating the semantic minefield of promoting moral development. Retrieved January 6, 2023, from https://www.amenetwork.org/oped/2016/2/15/navigating-the-semantic-minefieldof-promoting-moral-development-by-marvin-w-berkowitz Berkowitz, M. W. (2002). The science of character education. In W. Damon (Ed.), Bringing in a new era in character education (pp. 43–63). Hoover Institution Press. Berkowitz, M. W. (2011). Leading schools of character. In A. M. Blankstein & P. D. Houston (Eds.), The soul of educational leadership series. Vol. 9. Leadership for social justice and democracy in our schools (pp. 93–121). Corwin. Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2007). What works in character education. Journal of Research in Character Education, 5, 29–48. Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2014). Research-based fundamentals of the effective promotion of character development in schools. Education. https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203114896. ch14. Birdthistle, I., Schaffnit, S. B., Kwaro, D., Shahmanesh, M., Ziraba, A., Kabiru, C. W., & Floyd, S. (2018). Evaluating the impact of the DREAMS partnership to reduce HIV incidence among adolescent girls and young women in four settings: A study protocol. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–15. Bloom, D. E., Kuhn, M., & Prettner, K. (2017). Africa’s prospects for enjoying a demographic dividend. Journal of Demographic Economics, 83(1), 63–76. CIRCLE. (n.d.). Why is civic engagement important? Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Retrieved January 28, 2023, from https://circle.tufts.edu/understandingyouth-civic-engagement/why-it-important Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_2 Devonald, M., Jones, N., Małachowska, A., Alheiwidi, S., Al Amaireh, W., Alshammari, F., & Shareef, Q. (2021). Empowering adolescents through an integrated programming approach: Exploring the effects of UNICEF’s Makani programme on Dom adolescents’ well-being in Jordan. Policy brief. Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence. Every Woman Every Child. (2015). The global strategy for women’s children’s and adolescent’s health (2016-2030). Hinson, L., Kapungu, C., Jessee, C., Skinner, M., Bardini, M., & Evans-Whipp, T. (2016). Measuring positive youth development toolkit: A guide for implementers of youth programs. YouthPower Learning, Making Cents International. Howe, R. B., & Covell, K. (2005). Empowering children: Children’s rights education as a pathway to citizenship. University of Toronto Press. Jones, N., Alabadi, T., Alheiwidi, S., Al Amaireh, W., Shareef, Q., Alshammari, F., & Presler-Marshall, E. (2022). Tackling digital exclusion among disadvantaged adolescents in Jordan: What difference does access to devices and online platforms make? Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence. Jones, N., Baird, S., Presler-Marshall, E., Małachowska, A., Kilburn, K., Abu Hamad, B., & Abu Hammad, B. (2019). Adolescent well-being in Jordan: Exploring gendered capabilities, contexts and change strategies. A synthesis report on GAGE Jordan baseline findings. Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence. Khumalo, I., Wissing, M., & Temane, Q. M. (2008). Exploring the validity of the VIA-inventory of strengths in an African context. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 18, 133–144. Lansford, J. E., & Banati, P. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of adolescent development research and its impact on global policy. Oxford Academic. Retrieved December 23, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1093/ oso/9780190847128.001.0001, Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2006). Character education. In K. A. Renninger, I. E. Sigel, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Child psychology in practice (pp. 248–296). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Leman, P., Smith, E., & Petersen, A. (2017). Introduction to the special section of child development on positive youth development in diverse and global contexts. Child Development, 88. https://doi.org/10.1111/ cdev.12860

440

International Development Agencies and Their Emerging Role Lerner, R. M. (2019). Frontiers in theory-predicated research in youth development: A commentary. Journal of Youth Development, 14(1), 1–23. Lerner, R. M. (2021). Foreword: Understanding and enhancing human development among global youth: On the unique value of developmentally-oriented longitudinal research. In P. Banati (Ed.), Sustainable development across the life course: Evidence from longitudinal research (pp. xxvii–xxxiv). Policy Press/ Bristol University Press. Lerner, R. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2021). Contributions of the specificity principle to theory, research, and application in the study of human development: A view of the issues. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101294 Lerner, R. M., & Callina, K. S. (2014). The study of character development: Towards tests of a relational developmental systems model. Human Development, 57(6), 322–346. Lerner, R. M., Jervis, P., & Bornstein, M. H. (2021). Enhancing the international study of positive youth development: Process, specificity, and the sample case of character virtues. Journal of Youth Development, 16 (2–3). https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2021.1042 Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. B., Geldhof, G. J., Gestsdottir, S., King, P. E., Sim, A. T. R., Batanova, M., Tirrell, J. M., & Dowling, E. (2018). Studying positive youth development in different nations: Theoretical and methodological issues. In J. E. Lansford & P. Banati (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent development research and its impact on global policy (pp. 68–83). Oxford University Press. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Murry, V. M., Smith, E. P., Bowers, E. P., Geldhof, G. J., & Buckingham, M. H. (2021). Positive youth development in 2020: Theory, research, programs, and the promotion of social justice. Journal of Research in Adolescence, 31(4):1114–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12609 Lerner, R. M., Tirrell, J. M., Lerner, J. V., Geldhof, G. J., Gestsdottir, S., King, P. E., Sim, A. T. R., & Dowling, E. (2019). The end of the beginning: Evidence and absences studying PYD in a global context. Adolescent Research Review, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-018-0093-4 Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. (2005). Smart and good high schools: Integrating excellence and ethics for success in school, work, and beyond. Center for the 4th and 5th Rs (Respect & Responsibility). McGill, M., O’Kane, C., Bista, B., Meslaoui, N., & Zingg, S. (2015). Evaluation of child and youth participation in peacebuilding. Global Partnership for Children and Youth in Peacebuilding. McGrath, R. E. (2015). Character strengths in 75 nations: An update. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(1), 41–52. Naudeau, S., Cunningham, W., Lundberg, M. K. A., & McGinnis, L. (Eds.). (2008). Programs and policies that promote positive youth development and prevent risky behaviors: An international perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2008(122), 75–87. Nucci, L. P., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of moral and character education. Routledge. Park, N. (2004). Character strengths and positive youth development. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 40–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4127634 Pastorelli, C., Zuffianò, A., Lansford, J. E., Thartori, E., Bornstein, M. H., Chang, E., Deater-Deckard, K., Di Giunta, L., Dodge, K. A., Gurdal, S., Liu, Q., Long, Q., Oburu, P., Skinner, A. T., Sorbring, E., Steinberg, L., Tapanya, S., Uribe Tirado, L. M., Yotanyamaneewong, S., Al-Hassan, S., Peña Alampay, L., & Bacchini, D. (2021). Positive youth development: Parental warmth, values, and prosocial behavior in 11 cultural groups. Journal of Youth Development, 16 (2–3). https://doi.org/10.5195/ jyd.2021.1026 Peace Players International. (2018). Youth-Led programme evaluation. PeacePlayers-Northern-Ireland_ Youth-Led-Evaluation_Jan-2018.pdf Pinckney, H. P., Clanton, T., Garst, B., & Powell, G. (2020). Faith-based organizations: Oft overlooked youth development zones. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 38(1), 141–150. https:// doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2019-8232 Ross, D. A., Hinton, R., Melles-Brewer, M., Engel, D., Zeck, W., Fagan, L., & Mohan, A. (2020). Adolescent well-being: A definition and conceptual framework. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(4), 472–476. Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94–111. Ruch, W., Weber, M., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2014). Character strengths in children and adolescents. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 57–64. Seider, S. (2012). Character compass: How powerful school culture can point students toward success. Harvard University Press. Thunberg, G. (2019). No one is too small to make a difference. Penguin.

441

Prerna Banati et al. Tirrell, J. M., Dowling, E. M., Gansert, P., Buckingham, M., Wong, C. A., Suzuki, S., Naliaka, C., Kibbedi, P., Namurinda, E., Williams, K., Geldhof, G. J., Lerner, J. V., King, P. E., Sim, A. T. R., & Lerner, R. M. (2020). Toward a measure for assessing features of effective youth development programs: Contextual safety and the “Big Three” components of positive youth development programs in Rwanda. Child & Youth Care Forum, 49, 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-019-09524-6 Tirrell, J. M., Gansert, P. K., Dowling, E. M., Williams, K., Iraheta, Lerner, J. V., King, P. E., Sim, A. T. R., & Lerner, R. M. (2021). Interrogating ergodicity and specificity in youth development programs in El Salvador. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101243 Tirrell, J. M., Gansert, P. K., Geldhof, G. J., Dowling, E. M., Lerner, J. V., King, P. E., Sim, A. T. R., Iraheta, G., Williams, K., & Lerner, R. M. (2019). Illuminating the use of the specificity principle to go inside the black box of programs: The sample case of an El Salvador positive youth development program. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 227(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000363 UN Security Council. (2018). Resolution 2419. UN Security Council Resolution 2419. Retrieved January 24, 2023, from http://unscr.com/files/2018/02419.pdf UNCRC. (1990). United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 7 March 1990, E/CN.4/RES/1990/74. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from https://www.refworld.org/ docid/3b00f03d30.html UNICEF. (n.d.a). Peacebuilding and social cohesion Saving children’s lives by addressing the root causes of conflict and fragility. Retrieved January 24, 2023, from https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/ peacebuilding-social-cohesion UNICEF. (n.d.b). Adolescent participation and civic engagement. Retrieved January 26, 2023, from https:// www.unicef.org/adolescence/participation UNICEF. (2007). The Impact of Youth Participation in the Local Government Process: The Sangguniang Kabataan Experience. The Impact of Youth Participation in the Local Government Process. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/282866168_The_Impact_of_Youth_Participation_in_the_Local_Government_Process UNICEF. (2018). UNICEF programme guidance for the second decade: Programming with and for adolescents. UNICEF. www.corecommitments.unicef.org/kp/unicef-programme-guidance-for-the-second-decade.url UNICEF. (2019). Evaluation of innovation in UNICEF work case study: Adolescent kit for expression and innovation. United Nations Children’s Fund. (Adolescent Kit for Expression and Innovation.pdf (https:// www.unicef.org/evaluation/media/916/file/Adolescent%20Kit%20for%20Expression%20and%20Innovation.pdf)). UNICEF. (2020). Engaged and heard! Guidelines on adolescent participation and civic engagement. UNICEF. (2020). Meaningful adolescent participation in community engagement behavioural and social change: Venezuelan migrant flow response in Colombia. Meaningful-adolescent-participation-incommunity-engagement-and-behavioural-and-social-change.pdf (unicef.org). United Nations. (2018). Youth 2030: Working with and for young people – United Nations youth strategy. https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/18-00080_UN-Youth-Strategy_Web.pdf United Nations. (2022). NR025633.pdf (un.org) Why-It-Matters_75-Milestones-in-InternationalCooperation.pdf (un.org) international-cooperation-and-youth.pdf (ungeneva.org) www.un. org/events/youth98). https://www.un.org/en/whyitmatters/Why-It-Matters_75-Milestones-in-International-Cooperation.pdf United Nations and Folke Bernadotte Academy. (2021). Youth, peace and security: A programming handbook. https://www.unssc.org/sites/default/files/yps_programming_handbook.pdf United Nations Security Council. (2015). Resolution 2250. UN Security Council Resolution 2250. Retrieved January 24, 2023, from http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/2250 USAID. (2012). Youth in development policy: Realizing the demographic opportunity. USAID. USAID (2014). Youth engagement in development: Effective approaches and action-oriented recommendations for the field. USAID. Van Eeden, C., Wissing, M. P., Dreyer, J., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2008). Validation of the values in action inventory of strengths for youth (VIA-youth) among South African learners. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 18, 145–156. Wang, J., Hilliard, L., Hershberg, R., Bowers, E., Chase, P., Champine, R., Buckingham, M., Braun, D., Gelgoot, E., & Lerner, R. (2015). Character in childhood and early adolescence: Models and measurement. Journal of Moral Education, 44. 10.1080/03057240.2015.1040381. World Bank. (2007). World development report 2007: Development and the next generation. Author. http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/556251468128407787/pdf/359990WDR0complete.pdf

442

International Development Agencies and Their Emerging Role World Food Programme. (2022). Championing youth participation in disaster management, Indonesia and Bangladesh share good practice. Championing youth participation in disaster management, Indonesia and Bangladesh share good practice | World Food Programme (wfp.org). World Health Organization. (n.d.). WHO Youth Engagement. Retrieved January 28, 2023, from https://www. who.int/initiatives/who-youth-engagement World Health Organization. (2018). Global Accelerated Action for the Health of Adolescents (AA-HA!) Global Accelerated Action for the Health of Adolescents (AA-HA!) (who.int). Wridt, P. (2018). Young People’s participation in program design research, monitoring, and evaluation. In J. E. Lansford & P. Banati (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent development research and its impact on global policy. Oxford Academic. Yousafzai, M., & McCormick, P. (2014). I am Malala: How one girl stood up for education and changed the world; Teen edition retold by Malala for her own generation. Hachette UK. YouthPower Learning. (2017). A systematic review of positive youth development programs in low- and middle-income countries. Making Cents International. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MR58. pdf YouthPower Learning. (n.d.). Promising practices in engaging youth in peace and security and P/CVE: Summary of key interventions and examples. https://www.youthpower.org/sites/default/files/YouthPower/resources/Peace%20and%20Security%20Brief%209-21-17%20PRINT%20FINAL-OK.pdf Zaff, J. F., Kawashima-Ginsberg, K., Lin, E. S., Lamb, M., Balsano, A., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Developmental trajectories of civic engagement across adolescence: Disaggregation of and integrated construct. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 1207–1220.

443

24 INTERNATIONAL FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS Integrating Science and Ideology Alistair T. R. Sim, Elizabeth M. Dowling, Jonathan M. Tirrell, Jacqueline V. Lerner, and Kate Williams Religious faith and secular science, although often presented as polarized and having opposing world views, are, at their core, on the same quest. The pursuit of meaning, the promotion of truth, the advancement of well-being, and the improvement of civil societies are common goals, and, in these pursuits, both faith and science share a need for objective and rigorous evidence (Polkinghorne, 2007). Neither faith nor scientific perspectives are devoid of bias (Rutjens et al., 2018); the pursuit of science that rejects a role for religious faith is as biased—and, therefore, as limiting—as is the pursuit of religious ideology that ignores or rejects credible scientific evidence. Ideologies that influence either faith or science practice can therefore be obstacles to truth discovery; but equally, human advancement policy and practice can become validated and/or improved by a reflective openness to new learning, which should, after all, be the hallmarks of both science and faith-based disciplines. Such dilemmas are perhaps most apparent in the development of children and youth, particularly vulnerable children and youth, as secular and religious institutions now agree on the importance of character virtues in the positive development of human society (Arthur, 2021; Snow, 2018; UNICEF, 2019); yet both secular and religious institutions experience the tragic and often devastating consequences of negative or poorly developed character in society (Faggioli & O’Reilly-Gindhart, 2021; Guriev & Treisman, 2022). At their best, the world’s religions all, in their own way, place an emphasis on living the “golden rule” (i.e., treating others as you yourself wish to be treated), holding positive attitudes, practicing good behavior, and maintaining healthy/positive social relationships. But how can faith-based organizations (FBOs) ensure that their interventions, in both design and implementation, have a positive impact on the development of those they serve and avoid the potential for undesirable effects arising from ideologies unsupported by evidence? What is the evidence thus far that supports the role of FBOs as being effective in promoting character development and positive youth development (PYD)? In the pursuit of advancing a positive human development agenda, FBOs are widely recognized and capitalized on for delivering aid and development programs across the globe due to their strategic location, transcendent motivation, and the established importance of faith in the lives of the majority of the world (Wilkinson, 2019). Indeed, most literature on FBOs is focused on better understanding local context and actors in order to improve program delivery (Brass et al., 2018; 444

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-27

International Faith-Based Organizations

Marshall et al., 2021). In contrast, the pursuit of scientific evidence on the roles of religion and/ or spirituality, in all its diverse contexts, as influential elements of human development and of human attitudes and behaviors remains relatively recent, being largely ignored by secular NGOs and development agencies; and religious and/or spiritual elements are only ideologically incorporated into programs by FBOs (Myers, 2019). Many youth development programs, delivered by both NGOs and FBOs, have responded to calls for more holistic programs that include soft skills education (UNICEF, 2019). Emerging research now acknowledges the significant interplay between religiosity, spirituality, and PYD— and acknowledges that this interplay requires further and deeper investigation (Jensen et al., 2020; Lerner et al., 2021)—with the potential to increase mutual understanding and to narrow the gap between science and ideology in research and practice. Within the context of the growing evidence base for how religion/spirituality influences PYD generally, and character development more specifically, this chapter calls for FBOs, secular NGOs and development agencies, funders, and academia to increasingly work together in sustained ways to advance such understanding not only to more effectively capitalize on local faith actors to deliver aid but also to, together, advance theory-predicated policy and guidelines on religion and spirituality in youth development program design and implementation.

Faith-Based Organizations Defined Although there are diverse definitions and discrepant understandings, assumptions, and realities about the extent to which the activities and operations of individual FBOs are aligned with specific religious teachings and/or the intentions of specific religious communities and congregations (Clarke, 2011; Heist & Cnaan, 2016; Rick, 2009), the authors of this chapter agree with Berger’s (2003) definition, describing FBOs as: formal organizations whose identity and mission are self-consciously derived from the teachings of one or more religious or spiritual traditions and which operate on a nonprofit, independent, voluntary basis to promote and realize collectively articulated ideas about the public good at the national or international level. (p. 16) Different from religious communities or congregations that focus more on the experience of and relationship with the sacred or divine, FBOs more intentionally focus on the function/work of a religious organization on a society, community, or group (Berger, 2003; Rakodi, 2012). FBOs can range from local, grassroots organizations with small staff sizes with a singular focus in programming, to international organizations with broad networks within and across countries, significant financial resources, experienced staff, and a comprehensive/multi-pronged approach to improving human lives. Within the FBO umbrella, broadly defined, the focus of programming most typically engages employees and volunteers in a close working and/or service relationship with communities, with a focus on addressing issues of poverty and inequality (such as improving access to goods and services, combating extreme hunger, providing access to healthcare and education) and promoting religious freedom (USAID, 2019). Yet, FBOs differ in their policies and extent to which their faith and religious beliefs influence their program design and implementation (Clarke & Ware, 2015). The role of FBOs in social and economic development is a history often viewed through a lens of cultural imperialism and racism, particularly of Christian missions and missionaries, that 445

Alistair T. R. Sim et al.

inspired and continue to inspire the work of many FBOs (Barry, 2008; McCalister, 2012; Riseman, 2008). Despite this history, many of the early missionaries also brought resources, knowledge, and training that served as the early infrastructure and foundation for the health and educational services that exist in many countries and that continue to serve hundreds of millions of vulnerable people around the world (Olivier et al., 2015; Schmid et al., 2008). It has been said that the Church “led the way, long before governments” (Gifford, 2015, p. 91).

The Rise of Large-Scale International FBOs By the late 19th century, across both Europe and the United States, some of the larger Christian missionary societies and volunteer religious movements were beginning to grow. The Young Men’s Christian Organization (YMCA) and the Young Women’s Christian Organization (YWCA), two well-known FBOs, were founded in England in 1844 and 1855, respectively. They are considered to be two of the earliest youth-serving FBOs in the world. Today, the YMCA reaches over 60 million people in 120 countries, providing programming and support focused on positive youth empowerment, and the YWCA supports millions of women in over one hundred countries on character-related issues such as female empowerment, civil rights, and leadership development (YMCA, 2022). In 1865, the Salvation Army, originally called The Christian Mission, was founded by William Booth in London, after he left the ministry to train evangelists throughout England to “fight for the souls of lost men and women.” Within 10 years, Booth and his wife, Catherine, had trained over 1,000 volunteers and evangelists to convert “thieves, prostitutes, gamblers, and drunkards” to Christianity. By 1885, the Salvation Army had converted 250,000 Christians in England. Since then, its work has diversified and spread across the world, currently working in more than 100 countries, serving to provide housing, food and financial aid, counseling and social support services for youth, veterans, seniors, victims of human trafficking, and those living in prisons, as well as advocacy and disaster response (Salvation Army, 2022). In the early 20th century, FBOs increasingly diversified into ones with even greater emphasis on international aid and development as holistic expression and application of their religious and spiritual ideologies and now involve much more in terms of goals, work, and mission than the early missionary efforts that often inspired their development. Given that there are varying foci of FBOs and despite several mapping and scoping studies (e.g., mapping health-focused FBOs in Africa; see Olivier et al., 2015), there is no reliable source of the number of FBOs in the world and the specific aspects of social and economic development on which they are focused (Olivier et al., 2015). However, several large-scale international FBOs have now evolved from humble, ideologically driven mission-based beginnings to now account for billions of dollars of annual investment. These FBOs include the Salvation Army ($4.16 billion in revenue in 2021), World Vision International ($1.23 billion in revenue in 2021), Compassion International (CI; $1.1 billion in revenue in 2021), Catholic Relief Services (CRS; $933 million in revenue in 2021), Food for the Poor ($755 million in revenue in 2021), American Joint Jewish Distribution Committee ($431 million in revenue in 2021), Tear Fund ($691 million in revenue in 2021), and Islamic Relief ($191 million in revenue in 2019) (Forbes, 2021) (see Appendix A for a brief history of these FBOs). In the Giving USA 2022 report, American donors alone gave $136 billion to the religious sector in the United States in 2021 (Giving USA, 2022) and FBOs are now major players in economic and social development. Why, then, has it only been within recent decades that international secular development organizations have looked to engage with international FBOs as partners in their efforts? 446

International Faith-Based Organizations

Investment in FBOs by Secular International Development Agencies For much of the early history of FBOs, the relationship between FBOs and international secular development organizations was “fragile and intermittent at best, critical and confrontational at worst” (Marshall & Keough, 2004, p. 1). This divide was partly because Western donor organizations were influenced by the separation between church and state that is common in Western democracies (e.g., the First Amendment of the American Constitution is often interpreted as requiring a separation of church and state). The divide was also partly based on the mistrust donor agencies historically had (and, in some instances, continue to have) related to the motivations and intentions of FBOs, which were often negatively assumed to be related to an ideology-driven motivation and prioritization to proselytize and build the membership of particular religious communities (Berger, 2003; Clarke, 2011; Tomkins et al., 2015). Secular development organizations also tended to function with a mindset that religion and religious communities were barriers to development, rooted in tradition and historical ideology, and inflexible in responding to social and political change. At the same time, religious leaders often view(ed) their communities of faith as protectors of those traditions and histories, defending against what they believed was degradation of moral values (Berger, 2003; Clarke, 2011; Ver Beek, 2000). With the turn of the 20th century, however, FBOs (led predominantly by Christian churches) and secular donor agencies slowly began to dialogue and engage with each other, largely fueled by opportunities arising from the large and strategic presence of FBOs within the international development sector (Berger, 2003; Clarke, 2007; Duff & Buckingham, 2015; Haakenstad et al., 2015; Olivier & Paterson, 2011; Olivier et al., 2015). The start of this engagement is generally understood to have been in the late 1990s, when the World Bank’s then President, James Wolfensohn, and former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George Carey, held a series of conferences of donor representatives and faith leaders (in London in 1998, Washington, DC in 1999, and Canterbury in 2002). The intention was to build dialogue between FBOs, faith leaders and faith communities, and development institutions, with the key focus being to alleviate extreme poverty. Those conferences eventuated into the World Faiths Development Dialogue, which recognized collaborations between faith communities and development as a significant new focus and strategy of funding, discourse, and policy (Belshaw et al., 2001; Marshall & Keough, 2004). Around the same time, findings of Voices of the Poor—a World Bank study from the 1990s to 2000, which captured the views and experiences of more than 60,000 people from 60 countries—were released and disseminated. Within the report, FBOs were frequently listed on people’s lists of “important institutions,” particularly in rural areas (as compared to urban). Spirituality, faith in God, and connecting to the sacred in nature were identified as important parts of the lives of the poor, and FBOs and faith communities were seen as valued providers of assistance to the poor (Narayan et al., 2000). The results of the report began to influence the discourse and decision-making of secular international development organizations (Clarke, 2007; Marsh & Marshall, 2003). Today, the World Bank partners with FBOs on advocacy, relationship-building, and evidence-building (Clarke, 2007; Marsh & Marshall, 2003; World Bank, 2022). For example, the International Partnership on Religion and Sustainable Development brings together over 100 governmental and intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, and FBOs to work on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (World Bank, 2022). Indeed, many international development organizations believe that the contribution of FBOs is critical to making progress on the SDGs (Olivier et al., 2015; UNFPA, 2009). UNICEF recognizes 447

Alistair T. R. Sim et al.

the common beliefs the organization shares with FBOs in serving vulnerable children from around the world, including a “belief in human dignity, a dedication to end injustice and a commitment to care for the marginalized” (UNICEF USA, 2022). UNICEF sees religious communities as “one of the strongest advocates for the world’s most vulnerable children and families, providing them with guidance, aid and comfort” (UNICEF, 2020, p. 9). They see the values of religious communities reflected in The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), explaining that religious communities and FBOs have “[a] strong consensus about the dignity of life and rights of every child, a wealth of institutional knowledge and experience in supporting children and young people living in extreme conditions, and often in the poorest communities, deep cultural, religious, and traditional knowledge, that facilitates a level of trust, empathy, and communication, and significant local networks and resources to assist and familiarize migrant and refugee children with the integration process and ensuring they can access support from local services and authorities they deserve” (UNICEF, 2020, p. 9).

FBOs as Partners in Social and Economic Development: Strengths and Weaknesses In the last few decades, as the role of international FBOs in social and economic development has become more prominent (in regard to funding, volunteer membership, and engagement in international development partnerships) and recognized (in regard to their contribution to social and economic development), the impact of FBOs on the social and economic development of people and communities has slowly but increasingly become an area of academic study. Since the early 2000s, there has been an increase in the number of studies and publications on the topic (see, e.g., Bompani, 2019; Clarke, 2007; Heist & Cnaan, 2016; Swart & Nell, 2016; Ver Beek, 2000) and scientific lessons about the strengths and weaknesses of engaging FBOs as partners in social and economic development efforts are emerging.

Strengths of FBOs At their best, FBOs are trusted institutions, with a common language, with local, national, and international networks, that model cooperation.

FBOs Are Trusted Institutions In many places in the world, FBOs are trusted more than secular institutions (Heist & Cnaan, 2016; Jones & Petersen, 2011) and religious leaders are seen as more trustworthy than any other group of public leaders. This greater trust is earned because FBOs and faith leaders tend to have a long-term presence in the communities they serve with long-standing commitments to their memberships. FBOs also tend to work (or have partners who work) at the grassroots or local levels, with employees and/or partners that can typically speak the local languages spoken by the communities they serve and understand the culture in which they work (Moyer et al., 2012; Olivier et al., 2015). In majority-Muslim populations, De Cordier (2009) found that Muslim FBOs are more trusted and effective because Western relief organizations are associated with a “corrupt West.” In situations of conflict and migration, trust in religious communities allows FBOs to serve as guides and partners in mediation, reconciliation, and feelings of safety (Olivier et al., 2015; UNICEF, 2012, 2020). 448

International Faith-Based Organizations

With a Common Language In majority-world countries, FBOs tend to serve the most vulnerable people. In addition, the language of faith (e.g., religious idioms) that guide the practice of FBOs often reflects the cultural norms and values that frame and guide the lives of people living in poverty. As a result, FBOs are better able to engage the vulnerable people in their programming and in discussions related to human development and human rights, as compared to secular and/or development agencies that do not present with that common language (Clarke & Jennings, 2008; UNICEF, 2012, 2020).

With Local, National, and International Networks FBOs typically have local and often national and/or international networks that can be mobilized for a more efficient and sustainable localized and scaled response (Heist & Cnaan, 2016; Hovey & Saleem, 2008; UNICEF, 2012). For example, CRS mobilizes the global Caritas network for the Catholic Church, which includes national and local archdioceses for its emergency responses and development programs. In Ukraine, Caritas Ukraine and Caritas-Spes are working with 64 local Caritas centers throughout western Ukraine and neighboring countries to provide shelter, food, safe drinking water, and first aid to thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs). They also provide transportation to unite families that have been torn apart during the war with Russia (Caritas, 2022).

That Model Cooperation FBOs often serve as models of cooperation in humanitarian relief responses. For example, in 2006, during heavy fighting in eastern Sri Lanka, the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) and Muslim Aid (MA) worked together to provide relief services to IDPs from Muslim communities. They joined forces to manage the logistics of the relief efforts and delivery of assistance. In addition, both organizations worked with the religious leaders of their respective faith traditions to mobilize volunteers who brought food and other needed supplies to the IDP camps. As a result of this cooperative effort, UNMCOR and MA continue to work as partners on the international level (Religions for Peace, 2009).

Weaknesses of FBOs The most noted concerns of partnering with FBOs for development initiatives are related to proselytization, and the tendency of some FBOs to prefer to work alone, avoiding partnerships and coalitions, particularly with secular organizations who do not share their faith-based ideologies. Some might also associate FBOs as a source of, or contributor to, armed conflicts, genocide, terrorism, and other human atrocities (Narayan et al., 2000). Although it is important to consider the potential risks and negative sides of engaging FBOs in social and economic development, the strengths are generally believed to outweigh the weaknesses (Heist & Cnaan, 2016; Narayan et al., 2000).

The Issue of Proselytization Although most FBOs focus on delivery of services and resources, not proselytization (Heist & Cnaan, 2016), Narayan et al. (2000) noted that some evangelical FBOs prioritize proselytization 449

Alistair T. R. Sim et al.

over caring for the vulnerable (although the authors noted that those examples are generally smaller FBOs with limited impact on human development). The communities in which those FBOs and religious communities work often recognize that the traditions, practices, and needs of members of the community are not at the center of the FBO work or relationship-building. As such, the presence of such FBOs (and often even the support that might come with it) is often not welcomed. Rather than supporting the people and community, the practice of proselytization can have a negative and potentially injurious effect on vulnerable communities (Brouwer et al., 1996; McCalister, 2012; Narayan et al., 2000; Woodberry, 2012). The historical integration of conversion practices with the distribution of aid by some mission-focused groups has also led to the now much maligned term “Rice Christians”—meaning a convert to Christianity who accepts baptism out of a desire for aid (food, medical services, etc.) and not out of personal conviction (Tapp, 2006; Yang, 1998). Although this practice is largely condemned and discouraged by most FBOs, many still maintain a religious element in their staff hiring and programming, based on their own ideology or that of their local partners; and the extent to which proselytization continues in practice or expected by donors remains difficult to assess.

Coordination and Isolation Whereas many FBOs model cooperation, others might act alone or only with like-minded faith partners to address social and economic development needs, and thus avoid cooperating with secular organizations and/or incorporating scientifically based principles and designs (Lawson, 2013). When organizations work in silos, particularly when addressing complex human development challenges, impact is reduced, and cost is higher. For example, a lack of coordination can lead to a duplication of efforts with organizations focusing on similar villages, communities, or nations, and/or on similar efforts, such as clean water or vaccination campaigns. In addition, FBOs working in isolation can fall victim to “re-inventing the wheel,” supporting a cause or community that has already been addressed/completed. Duplication of efforts also reduces the potential for scale. When the attention and resources of organizations are focused on the same cause and/or the same community without coordination, that attention and those resources may not be directed to the people in need. Lack of coordination can also lead to organizations working for competing purposes and causes, which can undermine the goals and objectives of those involved, resulting in potentially negative impacts on those they are meant to serve. Importantly, when FBOs are working in isolation, it can cause pressure on local leaders or government agencies who might have to navigate and manage multiple projects with disparate timelines, leadership, strategies, and budgets, rather than consolidated projects with joint timelines, personnel, strategies, and budgets (Lawson, 2013).

FBOs as Partners in Youth Development Despite the emergence of evidence revealing the key strengths and weaknesses of FBOs in social and economic development, the effectiveness of FBOs in the holistic development of children and youth, including their character development, is still a largely understudied topic. As detailed earlier, by the late 19th century, FBOs across Europe and the United States began to focus on youth empowerment, civil rights, and leadership development (e.g., YMCA, YWCA). This focus is supported by Bronfenbrenner and Morris’s (2006) bioecological systems model, a core model for human development theory. In the bioecological systems model, the multiple 450

International Faith-Based Organizations

settings that are key for development are detailed, with FBOs being one important context. However, although faith-based settings have been studied in human development, Pinckney et al. (2020) acknowledged that the combination of FBOs with youth development program settings has been widely overlooked in emerging efforts to determine the impact of youth programs on positive development. Yet, if a youth development program has as a core component to genuinely develop the spiritual and religious identities of youth (as compared to proselytization), emerging science indicates that it offers yet another feature for positive growth, in which character development is a critical element. In a faith-based youth development program, religious and spiritual development can provide an enhanced awareness of the self in relation to others. As a young person shares the space with a community of believers, they can forge their identity embedded in a safe context and rely on others for support and connection. The positive outcomes for youth who place a high value on religion and spirituality are increasingly being documented. For example, according to King (2003): Religion offers a spiritual context in which a young person can explore issues related to identity development. The beliefs, worldview, and values of religious traditions provide an ideological context in which a young person can generate a sense of meaning, order, and place in the world that is crucial to identity formation. (p. 1) Youth development programs aim to promote youth strengths, and the extant research has documented that the strengths and positive outcomes important to PYD programs are associated with higher religious involvement. Early research noted that religion serves as a protective factor and contributes to healthy adolescent development by decreasing adolescent problem behavior, as well as promoting health-related outcomes (Bjarnason, 1998; Gonzalez & Branch, 1999; Jessor et al., 1995). Academic and social competence is also linked to youth who have a religious orientation (Donahue & Benson, 1995; Regnerus, 2000; Youniss et al., 1999). Higher religious importance is also positively related to a higher level of personal meaning and prosocial behavior (King & Furrow, 2004), and religious youth are more likely to volunteer in their communities. Likewise, religious youth are more likely to have ties with non-parental adults who can provide guidance and mentoring for positive growth. Religion has also been linked to adolescent moral development (Hart & Fegley, 1995; Suad Nasir & Kirshner, 2003) and thus its integration in community youth settings can add to the existing resources aimed at enhancing PYD. Research has also confirmed differences in a variety of individual and ecological resources between religiously active youth and their nonactive peers (Wagener et al., 2003). For example, religious youth have been found to have higher levels of personal restraint, parental and adult support, positive values, school bonding and engagement, and social competence. Another study found that religion and spirituality were associated with thriving, which referred to the absence of problem behaviors and the presence of healthy behaviors (Dowling et al., 2004). These findings further support the idea that FBOs have the unique ability to integrate positive features of youth development programs with their focus on faith and spiritual development. In early research that addressed the community setting, Blyth and Leffert (1995) found that religious activity was a vital community strength linked to individual well-being. Regular attendance at religious services (at least once a month) was a key indicator of a healthy community. At the individual level, religiousness in youth is linked to specific moral behaviors and attitudes. Again, early research identified a positive association between adolescent religiosity and the presence of prosocial values and behavior (Donahue & Benson, 1995). Youth in this study 451

Alistair T. R. Sim et al.

were more likely to value helping others and volunteering than were their less-religious peers. Youniss et al. (1999) also reported that adolescents who took religion seriously were more focused on improving their communities, on developing their personal identities, and were committed to their schooling. In addition, students who believed that religion was important in their lives were almost three times more likely to participate in community service than were those who did not believe religion was important. These findings suggest that there exists a positive contribution of religion to adolescent well-being, serving as both a protective influence and a catalyst for positive development.

FBO-Based Positive Youth Development (PYD) Programs Many FBO-based programs focus on the development of youth strengths, virtues, and character— a focus that aligns with the approaches taken in PYD programs. These programs typically integrate the already-documented key features and qualities of programs that promote positive youth outcomes. These features are detailed below. FBOs that provide the ingredients for PYD in their programming are in a unique position to enhance not only the spiritual and religious development of youth, but their character development as well. Early in the study of youth development programs, Eccles and Gootman (2002) offered several key ideas to add to our understanding of the contexts that would facilitate positive growth. They concluded that the features of such positive developmental settings include physical and psychological safety, appropriate structure, and positive social norms. Adding to the Eccles and Gootman (2002) framework, Roth and Brooks-Gunn (2003) concluded that programs aimed at PYD should have: (1) specific program activities; (2) atmosphere; and (3) goals. In other words, these programs must go beyond prevention to include the promotion of positive development. Catalano et al. (2004), in assessing extant literature, affirmed the Eccles and Gootman (2002) framework, and defined PYD programs as those that foster at least 5 of 15 outcomes in youth: (1) bonding; (2) resilience; (3) social competence; (4) emotional competence; (5) cognitive competence; (6) behavioral competence; (7) moral competence; (8) self-determination; (9) spirituality; (10) self-efficacy; (11) clear and positive identity; (12) belief in the future; (13) recognition for positive behavior; (14) opportunities for prosocial involvement; and (15) prosocial norms. Roth and Brooks-Gunn (2003) and Blum (2003), as well as others (e.g., Rhodes & DuBois, 2008), informed what Lerner (2004) argued in delineating the three fundamental characteristics of effective PYD programs. When these “Big Three” characteristics are concurrently present and integrated in programming offered in a safe space, PYD can be promoted (see also Tirrell et al., 2020; Tirrell et al., 2021). They are: 1. positive and sustained adult-youth relationships (i.e., relationships between a young person and an adult who is competent, caring, and continually available for at least a year, such as a mentor, coach, or teacher); 2. life-skill-building activities (e.g., activities that enhance skills pertinent to goal selection, goal optimization [using resources to meet goals], and compensation [reassessing in the face of blocked goals]); and 3. opportunities for youth participation in, and leadership of, valued family, school, and community activities. Given that many FBOs naturally exhibit the Big Three in safe spaces—they provide mentoring and cultivate caring relationships with non-parental adults, they teach life skills, and they provide 452

International Faith-Based Organizations

opportunities for contribution and leadership—they are already well-poised to purposefully promote character development using approaches informed by PYD theory and practice. However, the extent to which the ideologies of FBOs advance or hinder such development requires further investigation.

Advancing Theory and Evidence in International FBOs By now, we have demonstrated that youth religious and spiritual engagement is associated with positive outcomes at both the individual and communal levels. We have described FBOs as trusted institutions, with a common language, with local, national, and international networks, that model cooperation; but can also suffer from ideologically driven practices such as proselytization, mistrust, and isolation. Nonetheless, by aligning the positive activities of FBOs with the key features of effective PYD programs—the above-noted Big Three, described as caring adult-youth relationships, life-skill-building activities, and opportunities for contribution and leadership—FBOs are fertile ground for fostering and promoting the character development of youth. However, advancement requires navigating conflict and tensions, such as those described earlier, that might be particularly expected when seeking to integrate science into a faith-based setting. Indeed, FBOs are often overlooked as contexts for PYD, and research integrating FBOs and PYD is still in its infancy (Pinckney et al., 2020), perhaps due to the predominance of Western foci in the PYD and character development literatures. As noted, most FBOs began as missionary work informed and motivated by a faith-based ideology. However, there are often philosophical tensions between science and religion, with each operating from different assumptions and/or worldviews (Terry et al., 2015). A challenge, then, is to integrate theory-predicated and evidence-based approaches to PYD and character development with a program’s faith-based mission—to integrate science with ideology. Some scholars have sought to reconcile this tension, for instance, by working to define a “Christian psychology” field that embraces research and makes theological cases for using empirically supported best practices (see Barnett, 2008; Craddock, 2001; Graham et al., 2005; Johnson, 2007, 2010; Miller & Delaney, 2005; Miller & Jackson, 2010; Sisemore, 2011; Terry et al., 2015). FBOs have also been positioned to facilitate and provide mental- and behavioral-health services (Kloos & Moore, 2000; Kramer, 2010). Nonetheless, to effectively integrate evidence-based practices in FBOs—and to ensure that otherwise good-intentioned programs do not have unintentional negative or harmful effects, termed “iatrogenic effects” (Moos, 2012)—scientifically rigorous monitoring and evaluation efforts, and an openness to evidence-informed self-questioning and reflection, should also be prioritized and maintained. As Terry et al. (2015) summarized: Despite concerns FBOs may have, using empirical approaches to choose programs and evaluate their success is not antithetical to faith practices; rather, it may be viewed as consistent with the religious values of applying knowledge and wisdom and carefully managing resources. Though differing focuses on effectiveness versus faithfulness may introduce conflict—particularly when the evidence base for an intervention or service is limited, solely relying on intuition when choosing programs may result in negligible, stunted, or harmful outcomes. Programs that are implemented should be continuously evaluated to help determine if that program is performing effectively. (p. 220) However, FBOs have typically been slow to embrace evidence-based programming (Terry et al., 2015). Gaps remain between the advancement of theory, through largely Western empirical 453

Alistair T. R. Sim et al.

research, and its appropriateness for, and/or timely application in, international FBO monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and program design. These gaps require attention. Obstacles include mutual mistrust, misinformation, and fear of loss of ideological or cultural identity, as well as very practical constraints of workforce capacity and organizational inertia or priorities. Progress in removing these obstacles is being made, albeit slowly, as the science of faith grows and as FBOs embrace greater scientific evidence of their effectiveness. The latter has perhaps been driven more by changes in new-generation donor and sponsor expectations and government watchdogs than by ideological shifts but, nonetheless, is changing the FBO culture and landscape for good. An important element of improving the FBO scientific landscape has been the emergence of the application of theory and measurement within the secular NGO sector. The seminal contributions of applied and award-winning academics with international foci such as Sachs (2005), Easterly (2007), Banerjee and Duflo (2011), along with scientifically based development agencies such as the Gates Foundation (2022) as well as independent academically based measurement agencies such as the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (JPAL, 2022a), Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA, 2022), and International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie, 2022), have undoubtedly raised the scientific standards of international development that are influencing the FBO sector. Indeed, an increasing number of collaborative research projects between FBOs and academia have specifically addressed the effectiveness of programs that have an intentional faith basis and focus. For example, Wydick et al. (2013) published the first impact assessment of a Christian child sponsorship program in a high-profile economics journal, and Bryan et al. (2020) carried out a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the impact of an evangelism program on economic outcomes. These rigorous studies to some extent catalyzed the emergence of similar academically run studies addressing the impact of FBO programs (e.g., Feeny et al., 2022). In recognition of the predominance of religious actors, individuals, and organizations in international development, as already discussed, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has long pursued a formal strategy of religious-leader and faith-community engagement, but only recently promoted a deeper engagement that was both evidence-based and focused on shared assistance and objectives (Marshall et al., 2021; USAID, 2022). Similarly, many international FBOs engage with local faith communities for their strategic location and capacity for aid delivery and development initiative delivery, but this engagement has been primarily due to shared ideologies and has historically lacked theory-predicated, evidence-based approaches. Indeed, this situation prompted the establishment in 2012 of the Joint Learning Initiative on Faith (JLIF) whose mission is focused on the “urgent need to build our collective understanding, through evidence, of faith actors in humanitarianism and development” (JLIF, 2022). Among their goals are excellence in the quality, management, and accessibility of evidence and effective communication to academics, policymakers, and practitioners. JLIF coordinates learning hubs, carries out collaborative research projects with international FBO and academia, and curates a large resource library of peer-reviewed material as well as gray material, a rich source of learning not always available in peer-reviewed literature, but containing important contextual understanding and impact measurement outputs. Whereas JLIF is interfaith, the Accord Network is an exclusive association of Christian evangelical organizations seeking to promote “excellence in integral mission” that “acknowledges the spiritual realm,” “measures what matters,” and “tells the story with integrity” (Accord, 2022). Among its activities, the Network publishes a semi-annual peer-reviewed journal (Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy: The Journal of the Accord Network), whose goals are to “learn how to improve the way faithful Christians, whether practitioners, academic researchers, or both, engage the world and work to create thriving communities” and to “foster the mutual enrichment 454

International Faith-Based Organizations

of reflective practitioners and engaged academics through a vibrant dialogue among both communities.” Although the creation of its own membership journal may isolate the research of this community from its secular or other-faith counterparts, it has some potential to better educate its members on research methodology and the integration of science and ideology in their programs (Check et al., 2021; Green et al., 2020). Indeed, through this journal, Kumar (2022) argued strongly for a measurement framework that not only champions excellence in evidence, but also promotes intentional reflexivism that questions their values, prejudices, and assumptions. Although many, if not most, FBOs have now recognized the need to bring accurate evidence to inform program design and implementation, the extent to which they have developed transparent policy, plans, and relevant expertise to address the interplay between science and ideology, in ways that ensure scientific accuracy and minimize negative ideological influences, is difficult to assess. World Vision has developed a “Channels of Hope” approach to bring about effective behavior change for faith communities to address deeply entrenched beliefs and practices that hinder good development using “factually-correct information and insight into scriptures and faith traditions” (World Vision, 2022). A recent independent study of their programs confirmed that faith identity (ideology) and development practice (science) are mutually influential and “it is this combination of faith and development that builds or lessens trust, encourages or discourages participation and engagement and can create or limit impact as a result” (Jennings et al. 2020, p. 73). Although these changes in the international FBO sector are encouraging, they are still in their relative infancy and the gap between theory and practice requires further narrowing with better integration between the two, not only to improve practice based on current theories, but also to develop better contextualized theoretical models and measurement tools. The authors of this chapter are therefore calling for even greater and more sustained collaboration between academia, NGOs, and FBOs for mutual understanding, growth, and shared global advancement of holistic human development, particularly in children and youth. Academia requires a deeper practical, cultural, and contextual awareness, that can be learnt from on-going engagement with their NGO and FBO colleagues; and NGOs/FBOs can not only apply state-of-the-art theory and measurement tools to their monitoring and evaluation and program-design work but also can themselves be directly involved in the generation of new relevant theories and measurement tools, including studying ideological influences on their programs. Through an intentional program of sustained partnership, much needed longitudinal and other frontier research, that advances both theory and practice and is informed by and responsive to rapidly changing global contexts, can be undertaken together (Lerner et al., 2021). Such sustained partnerships also have the potential for greater mutual understanding of long-standing ideological perspectives and for the broader breaking down of barriers between science and faith.

The Sample Case of Compassion International By way of illustration from the authors’ own experiences in advancing this agenda, we now turn to the sample case of CI. Although international FBOs that are seeking to promote PYD often operate in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where youth are marginalized from the resources needed for health, well-being, and thriving, as noted by USAID, there is a lack of PYD programs in LMICs that are demonstrating strong theoretical underpinnings of programs, robust and consistent measurement of outcomes, and rigorous and longitudinal studies and evaluations of existing programs (YouthPower Learning, 2017). One FBO that has sought to respond to the USAID call is CI (see Lerner et al., 2021). CI’s program model is a holistic one—designed to meet the specific needs of individual children and 455

Alistair T. R. Sim et al.

youth, spanning the first 18–22 years of their lives (average program exposure is approximately 11.6 years)—and one that invests in both material support, skill development, and character development (Sim & Peters, 2014). Partnering exclusively with diverse local Christian churches to deliver its programs, CI offers unique opportunities to study the developmental pathways of children and youth over significant periods of time in diverse faith contexts. CI’s 70-year transformation from a small ideologically driven ministry into a large international FBO with revenue over $1 billion is a narrative that reflects both embracement of, and struggles with, integrating scientific principles and evidence into its faith ideology-motivated program design, implementation, and measurement (Sim & Peters, 2014). Although the earliest internal policy documents from the 1970s indicated commitment to programs with (1) demonstrable benefit, (2) continuing quantifying evaluation, and (3) increasing effectiveness, the relative amount the organization spent on monitoring, evaluation, and research remained less than 0.2% of the total global program budget until around 2017, placing it among the bottom 16% of organizations for such investment (Morariu et al., 2016). Historically, like many FBOs, CI’s missional focus, lack of supporter-expectations for evidence of effectiveness (e.g., see Terry et al., 2015), and unprecedented financial growth year after year may have led to an ideological sense of calling that overshadowed any sense of urgency around investment in effectiveness measurement for a number of years. However, following a significant re-orientation and reorganization, and an increasing commitment of the organization to delivering evidence-informed programs, this investment has now risen over sixfold at the time of writing to a total of 1%–2% of the organization’s 2022 budget. The Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Learning (MERL) team has also been elevated to report directly to the Chief Program Officer, and no longer sits under the program implementation team, for added accountability, objectivity, and visibility. This change has allowed the MERL team to implement best in-class monitoring, evaluation, and research tools and methods to begin to evaluate the 2.2 million participants in programs and to increasingly advance effective programmatic interventions. At the time of this writing, this team has grown to 60+ globally based staff, and 50+ national office-based staff. During this period, program measurement activities have matured from accountability monitoring of program finances, inputs, and processes, to the creation of an integrated multi-national MERL team that carries out theory-predicated approaches to participant selection, monitoring of program implementation, evaluation of program outcomes, in-depth measurement of participant satisfaction, and measurement of impact, all using mixed methodologies including counterfactual controlled studies, longitudinal designs, and qualitative insights. The team follows the 3ie standard for publication of impact evaluations as their internal standard for quality. During this time, the MERL team has also championed the creation of a Theory of Change and the movement of program implementation from limitless in duration to running on a program cycle. These two significant organizational changes have created a natural environment for a regular cadence of evaluation and program revision and are helping to move the organization toward a culture of evidence-informed learning. The MERL team also includes a dedicated Learning team that creates data systems, analytics and customer-centric visualizations, knowledge management, and education for application of evidence by all actors across the organization. Currently under development is the provision of highquality evidence via an app, in as real-time as possible. The vision of the app is that, at one end, when combined with a catalog of best practices for child and youth development interventions and curricula, it allows global practitioners to design and manage the best possible theory-predicated, evidence-informed, context-relevant programs for church-based implementers to provide the best 456

International Faith-Based Organizations

possible individualized programs to participants; and, at the other end, it meets the increasing needs of donors and accountability overseers for evidence of effectiveness and transparency by providing the same information in the app. Importantly, any new MERL measurement instruments and impact-evaluation methods are governed by agreed-on academic principles and standards for data quality, usability, relevance, and contextualization. This governance includes on-going academic review and is overseen by a dedicated science advisor with a senior academic background.

Compassion International PYD Partnership As well as integrating scientific theory and practice into their MERL operations, CI has also pursued the advancement of developmental theory in LMIC contexts through academic research partnerships. The CI Study of PYD is a multi-year researcher-practitioner partnership among CI, Tufts University, Boston College, and Fuller Theological Seminary, which was initiated to, together, advance high-quality PYD science, based in contemporary models of human development (Lerner et al., 2019) and in the capitalization on advances in methods and measurement for rigorous longitudinal development research (Lerner et al., 2021). Science and ideology are integrated in the CI Study of PYD by objectively studying faith, religion, and spirituality as strengths and/or assets in the lives of youth, in LMICs where religion is often a central feature of the culture and community (see Hardy & King, 2019; King & Boyatzis, 2015; King et al., 2011, p. 2019, 2021; Vaughn et al., in press). In El Salvador, the CI Study of PYD has established robust measurement models for assessing youth spirituality, PYD, and thriving (Tirrell et al., 2019); and has responded to calls made to assess progress toward the United Nations (2015) SDGs by demonstrating applications of the Bornstein (2017, 2019) specificity principle (Tirrell et al., 2019, 2021)—that is, by disaggregating data across pertinent subgroups in efforts toward understanding what works, for what specific child, in what specific contexts, at what specific times, and in what specific ways. In Rwanda, the CI Study of PYD created a measure to assess program quality by operationalizing the above-noted “Big Three” features of effective PYD programs (Tirrell et al., 2020) and, as well, tested the measure in El Salvador and further illuminated youth perceptions of program quality via a mixed-methods study (Tirrell et al., 2021). At this writing, the CI Study of PYD, which has been in operation for six years, is continuing its longitudinal data collection for another three years and expanding research into Uganda testing a person-specific (idiographic) approach to studying PYD, which has the potential to advance fundamental theories of global PYD, its measurement, and the management of diverse programmatic needs at the individual level (see Yu et al., 2021). Importantly, this “farm-to-table” researcher/practitioner partnership involves not only strategic division of labor based on expertise, but also long-term, purposeful, cross-institutional engagement for mutually beneficial learning and consistent high-quality data generation and practical application. Thus, for research activities, the academic partners take primary responsibility for study design, planning, management, data analysis, and writing academic publications, while CI assumes primary responsibility for data collection, based on their local knowledge and experience, and commits to transparent publication of all results. Irrespective of these primary responsibilities, all partners review and critique all activities, through weekly and needs-based meetings. The multi-year partnership commitment also affords opportunities for academic partners to provide on-going advice and critique of program theory, MERL team measurement tools, methods, design, and analysis and, in turn, receiving practical field insights from the application of their recommendations. 457

Alistair T. R. Sim et al.

At this writing, 19 peer-reviewed articles have been produced through this partnership and PYD theory models and the measurement tools have been developed and incorporated into routine outcome monitoring by CI. Through this experience, we have identified several key elements that we believe are necessary if such partnerships are to be fruitful in narrowing the gaps between theory to practice and between science and ideology. First, it is critical that all partners develop mutual respect and trust, at both personal and professional levels. FBOs may be suspicious of secular or other-faith partners, and academia may be skeptical of FBO objectivity, research expertise, and approaches. Considerable time must be spent understanding each other’s capacities, priorities, and ideological perspectives, with a commitment to agreed-upon standards and mutual change through learning. Ideally, FBOs would already have a strong research identity (JPAL, 2022b) and professional capacity in order to minimize the learning-and-trust curve and the time it takes to identify and execute critical research agendas. Second, executive and/or senior-level leadership support is essential to ensure that there is an organizational-wide commitment to an applied research program at the fundamental academic level. Although enthusiastic individuals can form partnerships of mutual interest, it can often be difficult to get sustained traction, resource prioritization (funding, workload), and results uptake within often-changing organizational strategies, circumstances, and perspectives without top-down commitment. Indeed, the incorporation of evidence into policy is an organization-wide culture that must exist or be developed (JPAL, 2022b). It is also critical that this level of leadership commits to full transparency and publication of results, as a necessity for academic productivity and wider-sector learning; yet it is something of which FBOs can be fearful or suspicious. Similarly, there should be commitment to, and systems in place or developed for, research dissemination to practitioners and other consumers who may lack sufficient scientific backgrounds. Third, although periodic engagement between academia and FBOs can be productive (e.g., Wydick et al., 2013), such short-term project-focused engagement limits what can be achieved in both theory development and evidence-based practice. An agreed long-term purpose and commitment that evolves over time allows for more longitudinal or extended programs of research that provide a full understanding of developmental change. In addition, in our case, this relationship has also allowed us to organically develop multipurpose engagement in mutually beneficial ways as needs arise. Examples are new applied research topics, donor funding opportunities, measurement-tool creation, theory-predicated intervention design, and specific results dissemination practices that meet diverse stakeholder needs. Fourth, NGO financial years/strategies can be barriers to meaningful research advancement, particularly for soft-money-dependent partners on different funding cycles. To address this issue, core funding from partners can provide a foundational level of commitment, and the joint pursuit of external research funding can not only reinforce the partnership but also take advantage of the diverse opportunities available to each of the partners’ spheres of influence. This opportunity is particularly important in the science/faith domain where ideological perspectives can restrict funding opportunities.

Summary and Conclusions In the early 1970s, David Sackett at McMaster University spearheaded the establishment of evidence-based medicine, that is now accepted and implemented globally as the best approach to medical practice and patient care (Thoma & Eaves, 2015) and serves as a valuable template for the 458

International Faith-Based Organizations

expansion of evidence-based practices into all areas of human development. According to Sackett et al. (1996): Evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidencebased medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. Good doctors use both individual clinical expertise and the best available external evidence, and neither alone is enough. Without clinical expertise, practice risks becoming tyrannized by evidence, for even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual patient. Without current best evidence, practice risks becoming rapidly out of date, to the detriment of patients. (p. 71) By inference, in short, the best evidence-based development of any discipline and practice requires the integration of the best evidence with the best expertise, acquired through shared learning, critique, and experience between basic scientists, beneficiaries, and practitioners, in an ongoing manner that keeps all actors focused on the common goal of human advancement. Difficulties associated with ivory-tower academia and poor program ideologies and practice (perceived or real) can be broken down by shared commitment to such on-going learning. Today, medical practitioners are trained in research methodology and are accredited according to strict standards that include critical evidence appraisal and are themselves heavily involved in setting and executing the research and evidence-informed teaching agenda. Similarly, basicscience academics are teaching, designing new medical diagnostics and therapies, and doing their research on theoretical models and measurement alongside practitioners, such that the line between both sides of the coin becomes blurred. The patient is the ultimate winner. We believe that all elements of human development practice, much of which is designed and delivered by the NGO sector (particularly FBOs), can benefit from similar integration of science and practitioner expertise. Our experience is that a high proportion of FBO development work is intuitive and experiential, even though it often conceptually aligns, to at least some extent, with positive evidence-based theoretical models. Pockets of resistance to change or to scientific evidence remain obstacles to be overcome. These obstacles persist as a result of either opposing ideologies or lack of key professional expertise, and the rapid rise of evidence and changing contexts mean that, without incorporating scientific evidence, programs can quickly become outdated and ineffective. As academia and development practitioners (secular and faith) increasingly form their own relational developmental ecosystems, credible evidence regarding the importance of religion and spirituality in human development will increasingly emerge and break down ideological barriers to the benefit of all actors, not the least of whom will be those children and youth living in marginalized and vulnerable environments.

Appendix A: Rise of FBOs in the Early 20th Century The American Joint Jewish Distribution Committee (JDC) was founded during World War I (WWI) and was the first US-based Jewish organization to provide large-scale funding support at an international level. After WWI, the JDC was deeply involved in efforts to rebuild communities in Eastern Europe and during the lead up to and during and after World War II (WWII), they conducted relief efforts, emigration aid, resettlement efforts, rebuilding efforts and social welfare and cultural and educational programs. The JDC now works in more than 70 countries, with a focus 459

Alistair T. R. Sim et al.

on poverty alleviation, providing safety to Jews living in danger, and supporting vulnerable people living in Israel. It also engages in disaster relief efforts and developmental assistance around the world (JDC, 2022). Founded in 1943, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) was started by Catholic Bishops of the United States to support survivors of WWII in Europe. CRS now works in more than 100 countries, serving over 130 million people. The organization promotes the healthy development of the most vulnerable people by responding to emergencies and natural disasters and tackling disease and poverty. Through its programming and funding CRS is also committed to building a more just and peaceful world (CRS, 2022). World Vision was founded by Bob Pierce in the 1950s to care for vulnerable children and people. At its founding, World Vision was focused on bringing mission services to East Asia. It is now one of the largest Christian FBOs in the world, working in almost 100 countries. The organization has responded to some of the worst humanitarian crises of the last 50 years, including in Ethiopia in the 1980s where they were one of the first organizations on the ground to address the devastating famine. In the 1990s, they responded to the AIDS crisis in Africa at a time when the disease was highly stigmatized by the Christian community. They responded to the orphan crisis in Romania, and to the aftermath of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, reuniting families, supporting resettlement, providing emergency assistance, and starting peacebuilding activities and programs. In the 2000s, they responded to the effects of the tsunami in the Indian Ocean by raising over $350 million to support families and communities in the five most affected countries. World Vision has also worked in the Middle East for over 40 years. Since 2011, they have been supporting families impacted by the Syrian war. In 2020, they were supporting over 3.4 million of the world’s most vulnerable children through its child-sponsorship program. They also supported 27 million people experiencing humanitarian crises, provided 10 million people with food, and 3.4 million people with access to clean water (World Vision, 2022). Compassion International was formally established in 1963, after a decade of work by Reverend Everett Swanson who was moved to respond to the needs of children orphaned by the Korean War. At first, Revered Swanson accepted donations at Christian revival meetings to provide fuel and rice for orphaned children; within 10 years, his efforts were supporting 108 orphanages and homes in South Korea. At this writing, Compassion International is a child and youth development and child-sponsorship organization, working in 25 countries, supporting over 2.2 million children, with the mission statement of “releasing children from poverty, in Jesus’ name.” Through a holistic child development model, Compassion International supports the physical, social, economic, and spiritual development of children living in poverty (Compassion International, 2022). In 1968, the Evangelical Alliance Relief Fund Committee met for the first time to form a vision for a new organization which would become Tearfund. Its aim was to marry Christian compassion with practical action around the world. Today, Tearfund works in more than 50 countries, partnering with local churches and partners to respond to humanitarian emergencies and conflicts and to advocate for policies and practices that address poverty and injustice (Tearfund, 2022). Food for the Poor is an ecumenical Christian organization that was established in Jamaica in 1982 by Ferdinand Mahhfood. Food for the Poor now provides diverse services across 17 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean including food, housing, healthcare, education, fresh water, and emergency relief (Food for the Poor, 2022). Islamic Relief was founded in 1984 by Dr. Hany El-Banna and his fellow students from the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom to address an ongoing famine in Africa. After going door-to-door in 1985 to raise funds for its first project, which was a chicken farm in Sudan, 460

International Faith-Based Organizations

Islamic Relief Worldwide now works in 45 countries in and outside of Africa, providing emergency aid, carrying out long-term development, and campaigning for change, impacting over 10 million people each year (Islamic Relief Worldwide, 2022).

References Accord. (2022). About us. https://accord-network.causemachine.com/im-principles Arthur, J. (2021). A Christian Education in the Virtues: Character Formation and Human Flourishing. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781003141877 Banerjee, A., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. PublicAffairs. Barnett, K. L. (2008). [Review of the book: Foundations for soul care: A Christian psychology proposal by E. L. Johnson]. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27(2), 179–181. Barry, A. (2008). Evangelists of empire: Missionaries in colonial history. Melbourne: Scholarship Research Centre in collaboration with the School of Historical Studies. https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/ items/cc986917-b9c1-5953-a6a8-1f1050e5e5ae Belshaw, D. G. R., Calderisi, R., & Sugden, C. (Eds.). (2001). Faith in development: Partnership between the world bank and the churches of Africa. Regnum Books. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-4848-5 Berger, J. (2003). Religious nongovernmental organizations: An exploratory analysis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14(1), 15–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27927824 Bjarnason, T. (1998). Parents, religion and perceived social coherence: A Durkheimian framework of adolescent anomie. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(4), 742–754. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388154 Blum, R. W. (2003). Positive youth development: A strategy for improving adolescent health. In R. M. Lerner, F. Jacobs, & D. Wertlieb (Eds.), Handbook of applied developmental science: Promoting positive child, adolescent, and family development through research, policies, and programs (pp. 237–252). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233642.n31 Blyth, D. A., & Leffert, N. (1995). Communities as contexts for adolescent development: An empirical analysis. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743554895101005 Bompani, B. (2019). Religion and development: Tracing the trajectories of an evolving sub-discipline. Progress in Development Studies, 19(3), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993419829598 Bornstein, M. H. (2017). The specificity principle in acculturation science. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 12, 3–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616655997 Bornstein, M. H. (2019). Fostering optimal development and averting detrimental development: Prescriptions, proscriptions, and specificity. Applied Developmental Science, 23(4), 340–334. https://doi.org/10.1 080/10888691.2017.1421424 Brass, J. N., Longhofer, W., Robinson, R. S., & Schnable, A. (2018). NGOs and international development: A review of thirty-five years of scholarship. World Development, 112, 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2018.07.016 Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human Development. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Brouwer, S., Gifford, P., & Rose, S. D. (1996). Exporting the American gospel: Global Christian fundamentalism. Routledge. Bryan, G., Choi, J. J., & Karlan, D. (2020). Randomizing religion: The impact of protestant evangelism on economic outcomes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 136(1), 293–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/ qjaa023 Caritas International. (2022). Crisis in Ukraine. https://www.caritas.org/what-we-do/conflicts-and-disasters/ crisis-in-ukraine/ Catalano, R., Berglund, L., Ryan, J., Lonczak, H., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. The ANNALS of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 98–124. http://doi.org/10.1177/ 0002716203260102 Check, K., Green, R., & Kumar, S. (2021). Toward laying the foundation for Christ-centered monitoring & evaluation, Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy: The Journal of the Accord Network, 1, 61–69. https://crdajournal.org/index.php/crda/article/view/417

461

Alistair T. R. Sim et al. Clarke, G. (2007). Agents of transformation? Donors, faith-based organisations, and international development. Third World Quarterly, 28(1), 77–96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4017794 Clarke, M. (2011). Development and religion: Theology and practice. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/ 10.4337/9780857930736 Clarke, G., & Jennings, M. (Eds.). (2008). Development, civil society and faith-based organizations: Bridging the sacred and the secular. Palgrave Macmillan. Clarke, M., & Ware, V. A. (2015). Understanding faith-based organizations: How FBOs are contrasted with NGOs in international development literature. Progress in Development Studies, 15(1), 37–48. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1464993414546979 Compassion International. (2022). History of Compassion International. https://www.compassion.com/history.htm Craddock, A. E. (2001). Beyond rivalry: Psychology and theology as complements. Hillfort Resources. CRS. (2022). Catholic relief services: Through the years. https://www.crs.org/about/crs-history development. De Cordier, B. (2009). Faith-based aid, globalization and the humanitarian frontline: An analysis of Western-based Muslim aid organisations. Disasters, 33, 608–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717. 2008.01090.x Donahue, M. J., & Benson, P. L. (1995). Religion and the well-being of adolescents. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01328.x Dowling, E. M., Gestsdottir, S., Anderson, P. M., von Eye, A., Almerigi, J., & Lerner, R. M. (2004). Structural relations among spirituality, religiosity, and thriving in adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 7–16. Duff, J. F., & Buckingham, W. W. (2015). Strengthening of partnerships between the public sector and faithbased groups. Lancet, 386(10005), 1786–1794. Erratum in: Lancet. 2015;386(10005):1738. Easterly, W. (2007). The white man’s burden: why the west’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. Penguin Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgm018 Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10022 Faggioli, M., & O’Reilly-Gindhart, M. (2021). A new wave in the modern history of the abuse crisis in the catholic church: Literature overview, 2018–2020. Theological Studies, 82, 156–185. Feeny, S., Clarke, M., Westhorp, G., Jennings, M., & Donohue, C. (2022). Impacts of child sponsorship communications: Findings from world vision programs. Development in Practice, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.10 80/09614524.2021.2018403 Food for the Poor. (2022). About us. https://foodforthepoor.org/about-us/ Forbes. (2021). America’s top charities 2021. https://www.forbes.com/lists/top-charities/?sh=b3805cd5f501 Gates Foundation. (2022). About us. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about Gifford, P. (2015). Christianity, development, and modernity in Africa. Hurst. Giving USA Foundation. (2022). Giving USA 2021: The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2021. https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-limited-data-tableau-visualization/. Gonzalez, R., & Branch, C. W. (Eds.). (1999). Adolescent gangs: Old issues, new approaches. Brunner/ Mazel. Graham, E., Walton, H., & Ward, F. (2005). Theological reflection: Methods. SCM Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1748-0922.2006.00088_14.x Green, R., Mallonee, N., & Check, K. (2020). MERL in the time of COVID-19. Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy: The Journal of the Accord Network, 2, 1–12. https://crdajournal.org/index.php/crda/ article/view/435 Guriev, S., & Treisman, D. (2022). Spin dictators: The changing face of tyranny in the 21st century. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691224466 Haakenstad, A., Johnson, E., Graves, C., Olivier, J., Duff, J., & Dieleman, J. L. (2015). Estimating the development assistance for health provided to faith-based organizations, 1990-2013. PloS One, 10(6), e0128389. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128389 Hardy, S. A., & King, P. E. (2019). Processes of religious and spiritual influence in adolescence: Introduction to a special section. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29, 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jora.12509 Hart, D., & Fegley, S. (1995). Prosocial behavior and caring in adolescence: Relations to understanding and social judgement. Child Development, 66, 1346–1359. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131651

462

International Faith-Based Organizations Tirrell, J. M., Hay, S. W., Gansert, P. K., Le, T. U., O’Neil, B. C., Vaughn, J. M., Bishara, L., Tan, E., Lerner, J. V., King, P. E., Dowling, E. M., Williams, K., Iraheta, G., Sim, A. T. R., & Lerner, R. M. (2021). Exploring the role of the “Big three” features of effective youth development programs in El Salvador: The sample case of programs of compassion international. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 45(6), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254211022858 Heist, D., & Cnaan, R. (2016). Faith-based international development work: A review. Religions, 7 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/rel7030019 Hovey, G., & Saleem, A. (2008). Faith, relief and development: The Sri Lanka experience. Forced Migration Review, 30. https://www.fmreview.org/burma/hovey-saleem 3ie. (2022). About us. https://www.3ieimpact.org/about-us IPA. (2022). About us. https://www.poverty-action.org/about/what-we-do Islamic Relief. (2022). About us. https://islamic-relief.org/about-us/ JDC. (2022). History of JDC. https://archives.jdc.org/our-stories/history-of-jdc/ Jennings, M., Clarke, M., Feeny, S., Westhorp, G., & Donohue, C. (2020). A potent fuel? Faith identity and development impact in world vision community programming. Journal of International Development, 33(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3512 Jensen, L. A., King, P. E., Schnitker, S. A., & Houltberg, B. J. (2020). Religious groups and institutions as a context for moral development. In The Oxford handbook of moral development (pp. 591–612). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190676049.013.34 Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F. M., & Turbin, M. S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.6.923 JLIF. (2022). About us. Johnson, E. L. (2007). Foundations for soul care: A Christian psychology proposal. Inter-Varsity Press. Johnson, E. L. (2010). Psychology and Christianity: Five views (2nd ed.). IVP Academics. Jones, B., & Petersen, M. J. (2011). Instrumental, narrow, normative? Reviewing recent work on religion and development. Third World Quarterly, 32, 1291–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2 011.596747 JPAL. (2022a). About us. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/about-j-pal JPAL. (2022b). Establishing effective research collaboration: Finding common ground between policymakers and academics. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/blog/6-9-22/establishing-effective-researchcollaboration-finding-common-ground-between King, P. E. (2003). Religion and identity: The role of ideological, social, and spiritual contexts. In J. L. Furrow & L. M. Wagener (Eds.), Beyond the self: Perspectives on identity and transcendence among youth: A special issue of applied developmental science. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203764688 King, P. E., & Boyatzis, C. J. (2015). Exploring adolescent spiritual and religious development: Current and future theoretical and empirical perspectives. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 2–6. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/S1532480XADS0801_1 King, P. E., Carr, D., & Boitor, C. (2011). Religion, spirituality, positive youth development, and thriving. In R. M. Lerner, J. V. Lerner, & J. B. Benson (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Positive youth development: Research and applications for promoting thriving in adolescence (pp. 161–195). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-386492-5.00007-5 King, P. E., & Furrow, J. L. (2004). Religion as a resource for positive youth development: Religion, social capital, and moral outcomes, Developmental Psychology, 40, 703–713. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.703 King, P. E., Vaughn, J. M., Yoo, Y., Tirrell, J. M., Dowling, E. M., Lerner, R. M., Geldhof, G. J., Lerner, J. V., Iraheta, G., Williams, K., & Sim, A. T. (2020). Exploring religiousness and hope: Examining the roles of spirituality and social connections among Salvadoran youth. Religions, 11(2), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ rel11020075 King, P. E., Yoo, Y., Vaughn, J. M., Tirrell, J. M., Geldhof, G. J., Iraheta, G., Williams, K., Sim, A., Stephenson, P., Dowling, E., Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (2021). Evaluating the measure of diverse adolescent spirituality in samples of Mexican and Salvadoran youth. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 13(2), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000279 Kloos, B., & Moore, T. (2000). The prospect and purpose of locating community research and action in religious settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1520-6629(200003)28:23.0.CO;2-5

463

Alistair T. R. Sim et al. Kramer, F. D. (2010). The role for public funding of faith-based organizations delivering behavioral health services: Guideposts for monitoring and evaluation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(3–4), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9351-8 Kumar, S. (2022). Toward building evidence of kingdom impact. Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy: The Journal of the Accord Network, 3, 24–36. https://crdajournal.org/index.php/crda/article/ view/507 Lawson, M. L. (2013). Foreign aid: international donor coordination of development assistance. Congressional Research Report prepared for U.S. Congress, February 5, 2013. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/ R41185.pdf Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: thriving and civic engagement among America’s youth. SAGE Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452233581 Lerner, R. M., Tirrell, J. M., Gansert, P. K., Lerner, J. V., King, P. E., Geldhof, G. J., Dowling, E. M., & Sim, A. T. R. (2021). Longitudinal research about, and program evaluations of, positive youth development in low- and middle-income countries: Methodological issues and options. Journal of Youth Development, 16(2–3), 100–123. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2021.1040 Lerner, R. M., Tirrell, J. M., Lerner, J. V., Geldhof, G. J., Gestsdottir, S., King, P. E., Sim, A. T. R., & Dowling, E. (2019). The end of the beginning: Evidence and absences studying PYD in a global context. Adolescent Research Review, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-018-0093-4 Marshall, K., & Keough, L. (Eds.). (2004). Mind, heart and soul in the fight against poverty. The World Bank. Marshall, K., Roy, S., Seiple, C., & Slim, H. (2021). Religious engagement in development: What impact does it have? The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 19(sup1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/155 70274.2021.1983347 Marsh, R., & Marshall, K. (2003). Millennium challenges for development and faith institutions. World Bank. McCalister, M. (2012). Guess who’s coming to dinner: American Missionaries, racism, and decolonization in the Congo. OAH Magazine of History, 26(4), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/oahmag/oas035 Miller, W., & Delaney, H. (2005). Judeo-Christian perspectives on psychology: Human nature, motivation, and change. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10859-000 Miller, W., & Jackson, K. (2010). Practical psychology for pastors (2nd ed.). Wipf & Stock Publishing. Moos, R. H. (2012). Iatrogenic effects of psychosocial interventions: Treatment, life context, and personal risk factors. Substance Use & Misuse, 47(13–14), 1592–1598. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2012. 705710 Morariu, J., Athanasiades, K., Pankaj, V., & Grodzicki, D. (2016). State of evaluation 2016: Evaluation capacity and practice in the nonprofit sector. https://www.innonet.org/news-insights/resources/ state-of-evaluation-2016-evaluation-capacity-and-practice-in-the-nonprofit-sector/ Moyer, J. M., Sinclair, A. J., & Spaling, H. (2012). Working for God and sustainability: The activities of faithbased organizations in Kenya. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 959–992. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41683090 Myers, B. L. (2019). Mission and development: Two new opportunities and a continuing challenge. Mission Studies, 36(1), 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1163/15733831-12341616 Narayan, D., Patal, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., & Koch-Schulte, S. (2000). Voice of the poor: Can anyone hear us? World Bank Publication 2000. https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/131441468779067441/Voices-of-the-poor-can-anyone-hear-us Olivier, J., & Paterson, G. M. (2011). Religion and medicine in the context of HIV and AIDS: A landscaping review. In B. Haddad (Ed.), Religion, HIV and AIDS: Charting the terrain. University of Kwazulu, Natal. Olivier, J., Tsimpo, C., Gemignani, R., Shojo, M., Coulombe, H., Dimmock, F., Nguyen, M. C., Hines, H., Mills, E. J., Dieleman, J. L., Haakenstad, A., & Wodon, Q. (2015). Understanding the roles of faith-based health-care providers in Africa: Review of the evidence with a focus on magnitude, reach, cost, and satisfaction. Lancet, 386, 1765–1775. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60251-3 Pinckney, H. P., Clanton, T., Garst, B., & Powell, G. (2020). Faith-based organizations: Oft overlooked youth development zones. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 38(1), 141–150. https://doi. org/10.18666/JPRA-2019-8232 Polkinghorne, J. (2007). The science and religion debate - an introduction. The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, 1. https://www.faraday.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/resources/Faraday%20Papers/ Faraday%20Paper%201%20Polkinghorne_EN.pdf

464

International Faith-Based Organizations Rakodi, C. (2012). A framework for analysing the links between religion and development. Development in Practice, 22, 634–650. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41723128 Regnerus, M. D. (2000). Shaping schooling success: Religious socialization and educational outcomes in metropolitan public schools. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39, 363. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/1387820 Religions for Peace. (2009). A guide for building women of faith networks. World conference of religions for peace Women’s mobilization program. United Nations. https://www.religionsforpeaceinternational. org/sites/default/files/pubications/A%20Guide%20for%20Building%20Women%20of%20Faith%20Networks_1.pdf Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Mentoring relationships and programs for youth. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 254–258. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20183295 Rick, J. R. (2009). What is distinctive about FBOs? How European FBOs define and operationalize their faith. Praxis paper 22, INTRAC. https://www.intrac.org/resources/praxis-paper-22-distinctive-fboseuropean-fbos-define-operationalise-faith/ Riseman, N. (2008). Disrupting assimilation: Soldiers, missionaries and aboriginal people in Arnhem Land during World War II. In A. Barry, J. Cruickshank, A. Brown-May, & P. Grimshaw (Eds.), Evangelists of empire? Missionaries in colonial history. University of Melbourne Scholarship Research Centre. Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7(2), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S1532480XADS0702_6 Rutjens, B. T., Heine, S. J., Sutton, R. M., & Van Harreveld, F. (2018). Attitudes towards science. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 125–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.08.001 Sachs, J. (2005). The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. Blackstone. Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and What it isn’t. Biomedical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.312.7023.71 Salvation Army. (2022). Our history. https://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/history-of-the-salvation-army/ Schmid, B., Thomas, E., Olivier, J., & Cochrane, J. R. (2008). The contribution of religious entities to health in sub-Saharan Africa. Cape Town: Study for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. African Religious Health Assets Programme https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237090449_The_ contribution_of_religious_entities_to_health_in_sub-Saharan_Africa Sim, A. T. R., & Peters, M. (2014). Compassion international: Holistic child development. In B. Watson & M. C. Clarke (Eds.), Child sponsorship: Exploring pathways to a brighter future. Palgrave. Sisemore, T. A. (2011). An introduction to the Christian psychology special issue. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 30(4), 271. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A342175927/AONE?u=mlin_oweb&sid=google Scholar&xid=9e1071f6 Snow, N. E. (2018). Positive psychology, the classification of character strengths and virtues, and issues of measurement. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.201 8.1528376 Suad Nasir, N. I., & Kirshner, B. (2003). The cultural construction of moral and civic identities. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 138–147. Swart, I., & Nell, E. (2016). Religion and development: The rise of a bibliography. Theological Studies, 72(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v72i4.3862 Tapp, N. (2006). The impact of missionary Christianity upon marginalized ethnic minorities. The Pacific World, 17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463400019858 Tearfund. (2022). What we do. https://www.tearfund.org/about-us/what-we-do Terry, J. D., Smith, A. R., Warren, P. R., Miller, M. E., McQuillin, S. D., Wolfer, T. A., & Weist, M. D. (2015). Incorporating evidence-based practices into faith-based organization service programs. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 43(3), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164711504300306 Thoma, A., & Eaves, F. F. 3rd (2015). A brief history of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and the contributions of Dr David Sackett. Aesthetic Surgical Journal, 35(8), NP261–263. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/ sjv130 Tirrell, J. M., Dowling, E. M., Gansert, P., Buckingham, M., Wong, C. A., Suzuki, S., Naliaka, C., Kibbedi, P., Namurinda, E., Williams, K., Geldhof, G. J., Lerner, J. V., King, P. E., Sim, A. T. R., & Lerner, R. M. (2020). Toward a measure for assessing features of effective youth development programs: Contextual

465

Alistair T. R. Sim et al. safety and the “Big Three” components of positive youth development programs in Rwanda. Child & Youth Care Forum, 49, 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-019-09524-6 Tirrell, J. M., Gansert, P. K., Dowling, E. M., Williams, K., Iraheta, G., Lerner, J. V., King, P. E., Sim, A. T. R., & Lerner, R. M. (2021). Interrogating ergodicity and specificity in youth development programs in El Salvador. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 73, 101243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appdev.2021.101243 Tirrell, J. M., Gansert, P. K., Geldhof, G. J., Dowling, E. M., Lerner, J. V., King, P. E., Sim, A. T. R., Iraheta, G., Williams, K., & Lerner, R. M. (2019). Illuminating the use of the specificity principle to go inside the black box of programs: The sample case of an El Salvador positive youth development program. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 227(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000363 Tirrell, J. M., Geldhof, G. J., King, P. E., Dowling, E., Sim, A., Williams, K., Iraheta, G., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2019). Measuring spirituality, hope, and thriving among Salvadoran youth: Initial findings from the compassion international study of positive youth development. Child & Youth Care Forum, 48(2), 241–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-018-9454-1 Tomkins, A., Duff, J., Fitzgibbon, A., Karam, A., Mills, E. J., Munnings, K., Smith, S., Seshadri, S. R., Steinberg, A., Vitillo, R., & Yugi, P. (2015). Controversies in faith and health care. Lancet, 386(10005), 1776–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60252-5. Erratum in: Lancet. 2015;386(10005):1738. UNFPA. (2009). Guidelines for engaging faith-based organizations (FBOs) as agents of change. The United Nations Population Fund. https://www.unfpa.org/resources/guidelines-engaging-faith-basedorganisations-fbo-agents-change UNICEF. (2012). Partnering with religious communities for children. UNICEF. https://digitallibrary.un.org/ record/828421. UNICEF. (2019). Global framework on transferable skills. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/media/64751/ file/Global-framework-on-transferable-skills-2019.pdf UNICEF. (2020). From faith to action: Inter-religious conference to safeguard and protect the rights of children affected by migration. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/eca/media/15926/ file/%E2%80%9CFrom%20Faith%20to%20Action%E2%80%9D%20Conference%20Report%20 %20.pdf UNICEF USA. (2022). Faith-based partnerships. https://www.unicefusa.org/supporters/organizations/ civil-society/global-cause-partnerships/our-partners/faith-based United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication USAID. (2019). Faith-based and community engagement impact stories. https://www.usaid.gov/ faith-and-opportunity-initiatives/news/faith-based-and-community-engagement-impact-storiespart-1https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1875/CFOI_Compendium_1_508_Compliant1.pdf USAID. (December 2022). Building bridges in development: A policy on engaging faith-based and community partners. https://usaid.gov/faith-based-and-neighborhood-partnerships/bridges-policy Vaughn, J. M., King, P. E., Mangan, S., Noe, S., Hay, S., O’Neil, B., Tirrell, J. M., Sim, A. T. R., Dowling, E. M., & Iraheta, G. (2022). Agentic and receptive hope: Understanding hope in the context of spirituality through the narratives of Salvadoran youth. Religions, 13(4), 376. https://doi.org/10.3390/ rel13040376 Ver Beek, K.A. (2000). Spirituality: A development taboo. Development in Practice, 10(1). https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09614520052484 Wagener, L. M., Furrow, J. L., King, P. F., Leffert, N., & Benson, P. (2003). Religious involvement and developmental resources in youth. Review of Religions Research, 44, 271–284. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/3512387 Wilkinson, O. (2019) Secular and religious dynamics in humanitarian response. Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780429198618 Woodberry, R. D. (2012). The missionary roots of liberal democracy. American Political Science Review, 106(2), 244–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000093 World Vision. (2022). Our work. https://www.worldvision.org/our-work Wydick, B., Glewwe, P., & Rutledge, L. (2013). Does international child sponsorship work? A six-country study of impacts on adult life outcomes. Journal of Political Economy, 121(2), 393–436. https://doi. org/10.1086/670138

466

International Faith-Based Organizations Yang, F. (1998). Chinese Conversion to Evangelical Christianity: The importance of social and cultural contexts. Sociology of Religion, 59(3), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.2307/3711910 YMCA. (2022). Our history. https://www.ymca.org/who-we-are/our-history Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1999). Religion, community service, and identity in American youth. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2), 243–253. YouthPower Learning. (2017). A systematic review of positive youth development programs in low- and middle-income countries. Making Cents International. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MR58.pdf Yu, D., Yang, P. -J, Michaelson, L. E., Geldhof, G. J., Chase, P. A., Gansert, P. K., Osher, D. M., Berg, J. K., Tyler, C. P., Goncalves, C., Park, Y., Boyd-Brown, M. -J., Cade, W., Theokas, C., Cantor, P., & Lerner, R. M. (2021). Understanding child executive functioning through use of the Bornstein specificity principle. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 73, 101240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appdev.2021.101240

467

25 CHILDREN’S MEDIA AND DEVELOPMENT Interdisciplinary Approaches, Considerations, and Potential Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow As scholars who traverse the fields of psychology, developmental science, and communication, our goal with the present chapter is to help contextualize the role and effects of media in the lives of children with an eye for considering the potential for media, and communication and education around media, to contribute to positive youth outcomes. We offer interdisciplinary and contemporary perspectives highlighting key aspects of what we know about U.S. children’s social, emotional, and character development (SECD), representation, inclusion, and social practices as they relate to media, as well as core gaps that remain in our understanding. We discuss the importance of strengths-based approaches to examining questions about media for youth and highlight examples of the potential for media-based SECD initiatives to positively affect children. We also suggest ideas for moving our fields forward in terms of representing, reaching, and understanding media uses and effects among children across various contexts and with various identities. We describe selected communication and psychology theories that may have the potential to serve this goal, specifically as it relates to children’s televisual media, and we highlight ways to leverage theoretical accounts and empirical findings to address some of the critical gaps that remain. Finally, we discuss how media have the potential for both benefit and harm but also the reality that children and the various stakeholders in their lives retain agency in media use and potential effects, even amidst complex and imperfect media landscapes. Throughout, we emphasize the value of interdisciplinary approaches to advance knowledge on these topics.

Flipping the Narrative in the Study of Children’s Media In the history of communications technologies and their early reception, a dualistic pattern emerges. On the one hand, early adopters of any media platform express optimism that any new technology will expand educational, social, and sometimes even cultural opportunities; on the other, users and critics alike evince concerns about what negative impact a technology might have on children, especially regarding exposure to inappropriate and harmful content and the effects this content might have on children at different developmental stages (Jackaway, 1995; Wartella & Jennings, 2000). This dualism was true for the introduction of early technologies such as film, radio, and comic books. It has also been true for introducing newer technologies, ranging from video games to the Internet to social media sites such as TikTok. Fear and concern are often amplified by sensational 468

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-28

Children’s Media and Development

headlines in the popular press, suggesting, for example, that media violence is causally linked to school shootings, although there is no empirical evidence to support this assertion. It is not only media hype that tends to follow a pattern of assuming the worst concerning media effects. As Wartella and Jennings (2000) point out, prevailing research on the impact of various forms of media on children has been based on this negative assumption. As technologies of any type have become more pervasive, research often focuses on their deleterious effects on children. Indeed, “with the advent of new media…concerns have been renewed and heightened because of the level of interactivity possible” (p. 38). But some researchers flip the script. Applying a strength-based, positive youth development (PYD) framework, scholars rejecting a deficit-based approach frame their research questions differently (for a review, see Lerner et al., 2015). PYD researchers consider the integrated role of multiple developmental contexts, such as family, peers, and schools, on the developing person (e.g., Lerner et al., 2005; Mueller et al., 2011). The PYD perspective is derived from a relational developmental systems-based meta-theory (see Overton, 2015), a conceptual framework centered on the reciprocal processes between an individual and their environment. From this perspective, programs or policies can be designed to enhance youth development through a focus on youth strengths instead of decreasing the supposed deficits in behavior. Communication scholars and those from other disciplines examine potential positive outcomes from children’s media use in other ways, including, but not limited to, children’s learning of prosocial messages from television (e.g., Coyne et al., 2018; see Mares & Woodard, 2005 for a meta-analysis), digital activism (e.g., Boulianne et al., 2020), and the reduction of stereotypes and prejudice (e.g., Aboud et al., 2012). Even with the progress that has been made in understanding the complexity and potential for children’s media, many important questions remain about how various forms of media may be used and designed to help diverse children and adolescents thrive across the entirety of their ecosystems. What may be the most promising insights for developing and engaging with media to promote positive outcomes for youth, including SECD, children’s sense of self, and the reduction of biases and prejudices? In what ways might media alone be effective, and in what ways might families and educators be able to leverage media, or communicate with children about media, to support positive developmental outcomes? Which topics remain understudied but crucial media domains in the lives of youth today? We approach these questions by considering the role of children’s media on children’s SECD.

Social, Emotional, and Character Development and Children’s Media SECD involves a complex system of expressions and competencies related to understanding, regulating, and expressing emotion, as well as social problem-solving, setting and achieving goals, moral reasoning, and social and interpersonal skills (Denham, 2006). One of the most prominent frameworks focused on social and emotional development is the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). CASEL (2012) describes five core social-emotional competencies as a basis of instruction. These competencies include responsible decision-making, relationship skills, social awareness, self-awareness, and self-management. Contemporary conceptualizations of social and emotional development call for an integration of traditional competencies expressed through culture, identity, agency, and belonging (i.e., transformative social and emotional learning; Jagers et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2019). Fostering these competencies can show long-term benefits for children. Early social and emotional competencies are linked to later social adjustment, sympathy, perspective taking in adulthood, positive interactions in social contexts, and respect for personal identities (Domitrovich et al., 2017; 469

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow

Eisenberg et al., 2006). Building these competencies is crucial for children’s mental health and wellbeing (Jones et al., 2015). Character-related competencies, such as honesty, humility, curiosity, gratitude, and perseverance, involve not only having social and emotional capacities but also knowing what it means to do the right thing and acting based on those capacities (Elias, 2014). As reasoning skills, awareness of self and others, and regulation processes progress, children begin to display positive character by displaying more prosocial behavior toward others (Eisenberg et al., 2006), which can be a behavioral marker for many character-related goals. Facilitators of healthy SECD include parents, educators, and other adults in children’s lives, as well as siblings, friends, and peers. Media exposure and co-engagement with others can also facilitate social, emotional, and character-related growth. The following sections provide illustrative examples of the role of media in SECD across the family, school, and peer domains.

SECD and Media within a Family Context Media’s role in the development of social, emotional, and character competencies is influenced by many family-related factors (e.g., Merz et al., 2015). A core area of research in this area is parents’ socialization practices. For example, researchers have studied parent and primary caregiver reactions to children’s emotions, parental discussion of emotions, and parent expression of emotion (Eisenberg et al., 2006). Within media studies, early scholarship focused on the positive effects of parent-child co-viewing television shows. Co-viewing is the act of a parent and child consuming media together without discussing the media content (Takeuchi & Stevens, 2011). Research suggested that the presence of a parent while viewing a television program was sufficient to encourage children’s learning from media content (Christakis, 2009; Rothschild & Morgan, 1987). As theory and scholarship advanced, researchers began to examine the processes by which positive outcomes related to media-related family communication patterns. Active mediation is about the discussion of media content, and can be about encouraging positive or educational content as well as critiquing negative content (Beyens et al., 2019; Nathanson, 2001). Active mediation seems to be especially effective at helping facilitate young children’s adoption of prosocial attitudes and learning from media messages because it can help direct children’s attention to critical parts of the media message (e.g., Rasmussen et al., 2016). Social interaction with media can support children’s learning (Strouse et al., 2013) through modeling (e.g., Demers et al., 2013), direct instruction or questioning about media, or social feedback cues (e.g., adult responses to children’s reactions or behaviors related to media; Gergely et al., 2007). In one illustrative study of preschoolers and their parents, children who watched the animated show Daniel Tiger demonstrated more self-efficacy and emotion recognition, and their parents reported that their child had higher empathy, when the watching experiences were accompanied by active mediation from their parents (Rasmussen et al., 2016). In addition to television viewing, new media and portable digital devices provide the potential for children and adults to engage with media together in frequent, daily interactions. The term “joint media engagement” (JME) describes the process in which pairs engage with media through digital devices (often phones or tablets) to play, create, read, or view the media together (Takeuchi & Stevens, 2011). A 2020 review of parent-child JME (Ewin et al., 2020) showed that the prevalence of JME is varied across studies but that most parents engaged in JME sometimes (41%–72%), compared to frequent JME (13%–38%) and JME refusal (4%–8%). Benefits also vary across studies, with some showing increased learning and warmth through JME scaffolding (Ewin et al., 2020). 470

Children’s Media and Development

Future directions for research about media and families should continue to expand beyond parental media mediation, explore media uses with siblings and other family members, and continue to consider media messages and engagement beyond traditional media. Work should continue to consider changing media landscapes in exploring how families can engage with media together to play, learn, communicate, and create with each other (Hilliard et al., 2021; Nathanson, 2015). As discussed in later sections centered on representation and identity, more work is also needed to examine families with varied lived experiences, differences in how people are portrayed within the media, and differential family socialization patterns by identity groups.

SECD and Media within a School Context Many school-based programs use social, emotional, and character-related initiatives to create a climate where youth feel safe and are ready to learn. Such programs guide instruction and practice of concepts such as perspective taking, effective communication, emotional regulation, moral reasoning, and goal setting. At this writing, every state in the United States has adopted at least prekindergarten social and emotional learning competencies. As of March 2020, 18 states have fully integrated social and emotional curricula and guidelines in grades kindergarten to 12th (CASEL, 2020). Incorporating SECD into school curricula has been linked to positive change in students’ emotional regulation, communication, peer relationships, and overall social competencies (Durlak et al., 2011; Zhai et al., 2015). Of existing SECD programs, many have demonstrated positive outcomes using media-based components. A meta-analysis on the impact of technology on learning (Tamim et al., 2011) found positive support for technology use in formal academic contexts when compared to more traditional means of instruction. Sesame Workshop, for example, created “Little Children, Big Challenges,” a toolkit consisting of resources and video clips to help children understand challenging situations and foster emotional and social connections (Sesame Workshop, 2013). In a study of 159 preschool classrooms, implementation of the toolkit with preschoolers showed positive outcomes such as increased emotion vocabulary, self-control, emotion regulation, and adaptability, as well as reduced teacher-reported emotion control (Oades-Sese et al., 2021). During 2020, in particular, the need for digital media became more urgent as education expanded to online learning and instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educators and parents sought digital materials for not only academic content but also SECD. Prior work has demonstrated the positive potential for media-based educational curricula. A collaboration between Tufts University and the Boston PBS station, GBH, produced the Arthur Interactive Media (AIM) Buddy Project (PBS Learning Media), a supplemental curriculum designed for elementary schools that uses interactive media, the characters from the television show Arthur, and JME between cross-age peer buddies to foster SECD. Implementing this program in elementary school classrooms showed increased social, emotional, and character-related attributes and understanding (Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development, 2017). In the field of creative studies, Doron (2017) designed and tested a ten-week media-based intervention centering perspective taking content. The program included experiential exercises related to television content. Children who participated in the media-based program scored significantly higher in divergent creativity tests at the end of the program; the effects also extended beyond post-testing and were seen outside of the instruction time. This work’s potential highlights how children can practice perspective taking and enhance their creative thinking through daily experiences with media. Continued work should examine the effectiveness of media-based SECD programs with attention to specific populations. Most school programs, such as the illustrations described above, are 471

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow

designed for a general audience. Continued work should examine the potential for interventions intended specifically for minoritized populations, such as Black, Indigenous, and other individuals of color, gender diverse youth, and disabled youth, with a particular focus on outcomes related to safety and feelings of belonging in school, identity development, and identity affirmation.

SECD and Media within a Peer Context As children enter school, an increasingly integral resource for their development comes from their relationships with their peers. At the same time and through their adolescent years, children continue to explore their identities and become increasingly aware of others through observation and peer engagement. Within the framework of social learning theory, children engage with their environment to understand their roles and to learn behaviors from others (Bandura, 2002). Friends, classmates, and other children support an individual child in understanding their place and potential in a larger social context. Formal peer mentoring is one way in which peers can support positive development. Peer mentorship involves regular dyadic meetings between a younger child and an older child who provides the child guidance, support, attention, and care over an extended time (Karcher, 2005). Fostering SECD through media and formalized peer mentorship shows potential for positive outcomes (e.g., through cross-age peer mentorship in the AIM Buddy Project described earlier). Cross-age peer mentoring programs contribute to positive outcomes for mentors and mentees alike (McManus & Russell, 2007), and programs have successfully leveraged media and technology in peer mentorship programs (e.g., in fostering collaborative and metacognitive skills; Carvalho & Santos, 2022). It is also important to understand the informal processes of positive development and peer relationships through media. There are several ways in which peers form friendships and stay connected, including social media. As of 2015, statistics suggest that 92% of adolescents go online daily, 89% belong to at least one social networking site, and 88% have access to a cell phone (Lenhart, 2015). Social media and digital peer communication have become a critical part of the social fabric that comprises adolescents’ lives (Lenhart, 2015; Rideout, 2015). Social media has the potential to be a venue for social support and connection, particularly for youth from marginalized identities (e.g., Rothbaum et al., 2022). To fully understand the social, emotional, and character-related developmental implications of adolescents’ peer experiences, we must consider the central role of social media.

Potentials and Limitations of SECD and Media SECD can be studied with specific outcomes in mind; however, this development represents a process involving individual, context, and sociocultural considerations. Fostering SECD is a lifelong approach to learning, practicing, and developing competencies that are appropriately applied in a particular situation, such as demonstrating humility in learning about something or someone, managing emotions during a challenging situation, or showing empathy toward another. As such, there is not a “one-size-fits-all” approach to facilitate the growth of such competencies. Scholars within the children’s media field have proposed suggestions for creating and using children’s media. For example, in the book Screen Time, Guernsey (2012) takes a communications perspective in describing the importance of considering the three Cs (child, content, and context) when developing, selecting, and engaging with digital media for children, mirroring the theoretical underpinnings of the relational developmental systems framework (Overton, 2015). The Fred Rogers 472

Children’s Media and Development

Center, a resource for early childhood learning and children’s media, applied these three Cs in developing their “Framework for Quality,” a document designed to guide decisions about quality by parents, educators, and media creators (Fred Rogers Center, 2012). The framework outlined the importance of taking children’s individual variation and their contexts into account when creating children’s media. It should be designed to encourage JME, particularly for young children. In the learning domain, Hirsh-Pasek et al. (2015) drew from the science of learning and educational technology fields to introduce four pillars of learning, which they applied to educational digital media: active, engaged, meaningful, and socially interactive. These pillars represent areas of convergence in the field of the “Science of Learning.” Active learning implies involvement during the learning experience and any physical activity that may be occurring, such as swipes and taps. Children’s engagement – that is, their ability to stay on task and undistracted – also supports learning. The meaningful social and emotional relationships established between children and the media characters they see represented in media, also referred to as parasocial relationships, have been shown to facilitate learning and positive developmental outcomes (Calvert et al., 2014; Howard Gola et al., 2013). Meaningful learning goes beyond simple memorization. It occurs when children find the meaning in what they are learning and when they not only connect new material to existing knowledge but also expand their current knowledge and connect to a diverse set of characters or figures to create new conceptual understandings. The discussion thus far has focused on media and interventions for supporting the SECD of youth, as well as how families and youth may engage with each other using media, including news forms of media such as social media, as part of their everyday experiences to foster SECD and learning. It is also important to consider the ways in which more traditional audiovisual media can be socializing forces in children’s lives, and in particular, the ways in which children and families of varying identities and contexts may be affected by and use them in ways that have developmental implications. Particular kinds of representations of identities, behaviors, friendships, and interactions that might be able to support positive SECD outcomes are essential questions to explore. To consider implications for diverse children and their families, the following sections summarize research on these topics that draws heavily from the communication field, specifically media uses and effects.

Representation and Inclusion in Children’s Media Research about representation and inclusion in children’s media has followed two primary trajectories: (1) identifying the extent to which children’s mass media content contains diverse characters in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, and other demographic variables and (2) attempting to assess the extent to which stereotypical images, positive or affirming images, or the complete lack of images (media erasure) might affect children’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. There have also been studies that have tried to assess whether media imagery has any impact on children’s social and emotional development. Most work interrogating the landscape of mass media content for children has focused on television, although some work has also assessed diversity or lack thereof in film (Neff, 1996), children’s literature (Monoyiou & Symeonidou, 2016), advertising targeted at children (Li-Vollmer, 2002), video games (Dickerman et al., 2008), and other platforms. This focus on television is not surprising because, even at the time of this writing, television remains a dominant form of media, especially for young children (Rideout & Robb, 2020). The vast majority of early content analyses of children’s media found significant disparities in representation. Consistently, studies showed an over-representation of White/Euro-American 473

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow

characters and an under-representation of characters of color (Barcus, 1983; Calvert et al., 1997; Greenberg & Brand, 1993; Greenberg & Mastro, 2008; Hammomoto, 1993; Klein & Shiffman, 2009; Mastro & Behm-Morawitz, 2005); Latinx characters (Bramlett-Solomon & Roeder, 2008; Smith et al., 2019), Indigenous characters (Bramlett-Solomon & Roeder, 2008; First Nations Development Institute, 2018; Kopacz & Lawton, 2011), and non-American characters (Dobrow & Gidney, 1998; Dobrow et al., 2018). Other content analyses found male characters to be significantly overrepresented (Barcus, 1983; Signorielli, 2004). Importantly, in their industry-facing content analysis, White and Chik (2021) found that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and plus (LGBTQ+) representation in children’s media is still limited. Gender-expansive representation, in particular, is barely present across the entirety of children’s television content, especially for preschoolers (White & Chik, 2021). However, White and Chik (2021) also note that explicitly labeled and identified LGBTQ+ representation may be on the rise, signaling a potential shift away from predominantly implicitly “coded” LGBTQ+ representation. At this writing, researchers continue to find disparities in the children’s media televisual landscape. For example, in an analysis of television shows for preschool-aged children, Hamlen and Imbesi (2020) found that there continued to be more male than female lead characters and a greater number of White, non-Hispanic characters than characters from underrepresented races/ ethnicities. Lemish and Johnson (2019) found that the majority (65%) of all human characters in their sample of children’s media were White. Whereas the 2021 UCLA Hollywood Diversity Report did show some gains in diversity regarding greater parity in both gender and racial representation in scripted broadcast, cable, and digital leads, it is important to point out that this study did not focus on children’s media (Hunt & Ramón, 2021). More work remains regarding content analyses of character representations across children’s media. Analyses must continue to evolve to consider ways to expand counts and groupings to include more intersectional identities and diversity within the common, broader ethnic-racial categories that have historically been used (i.e., Asian/Asian American, Black/ African American, Latinx/Hispanic, Native American/Indigenous, and White). Additionally, verbal messages and characters’ behaviors related to identity topics, such as portrayals of racism, activism, and racial pride within children’s media, are worthy of being systematically analyzed, as they, too, may socialize children. As will be discussed, the messages and modeling – and how explicitly and concretely they are conveyed – may have implications not only for children’s prosocial learning, their imitation of behaviors, and their views of themselves and others but also on how their families, educators, and peers respond to and use the media. All of these factors would have potential implications for children’s media use and effects. Next, we address the potential importance of the type and quantity of diverse representation in children’s media.

Effects of Stereotypical Media Representation and Underrepresentation Stereotypical media representations of a child’s social group(s) can negatively affect children’s social and emotional development. For example, Graves (1993) found that stereotypical representation of African Americans on television significantly correlated with measures of negative self-esteem among young Black teenagers. Martins and Harrison (2012) suggested that television exposure was negatively related to self-esteem among their Black preadolescent sample. Leavitt et al. (2015) argues that the stereotypical representation of Native Americans may harm their selfesteem and self-understanding; Tukachinsky et al. (2017) found that for both Latino and Black members, negative representations of their own group on prime-time television reduced warm 474

Children’s Media and Development

feelings toward their own group. Fryberg et al. (2008) found that the stereotypical portrayal of American Indian mascots lowered Native people’s sense of community worth and personal worth. In addition, some scholars have postulated that it is not only stereotypical representation of race or ethnicity that can affect children but also a lack of representation. According to the theory of invisibility (Fryberg & Townsend, 2008), when a group is underrepresented in the media, members are deprived of messages or strategies to be a person from that group. According to the theory, invisibility, or lack of representation in popular media, might lead members of under-represented groups to narrow their self-definition, limit their potential occupational opportunities, and have an overall negative effect on self-esteem (Fryberg & Townsend, 2008). A narrowly stereotypical portrayal in media and the erasure of a fuller and more nuanced depiction can negatively affect how outgroup members perceive that group, as demonstrated in an experimental study by Orr et al. (2019) on news depictions of Native Americans. Conversely, exposure of children and adolescents to positive images of racial and ethnic groups other than their own can lead to prejudice reduction (e.g., Cole et al., 2003), increased prosocial explanations for conflict resolutions in cross-ethnic situations (Graves, 2008), and increased willingness to consider children from different groups as potential friends (Mays et al., 1975). As will be discussed, one theorized way to promote such outcomes is via mediated contact (see Banas et al., 2020). Positive ingroup effects from representation are possible, too. Identification with Black male television characters is positively associated with higher physical appearance self-esteem for Black youth (Ward, 2004). Favorable television representations of Latinx individuals and Black individuals are highly associated with positive feelings toward their ingroup (Tukachinsky et al., 2017). Even a brief exposure may promote ingroup representation: Native American middle schoolers reported more school belonging after seeing a photo and reading a paragraph about a Native American youth who was an active and academically successful student than they did after seeing and reading similar information about a White youth or about a youth who was racially/ ethnically ambiguous (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015). Such positive findings motivate opportunities to explore (1) one-time exposure effects to positive ingroup portrayals amidst otherwise heavily invisible representation and (2) the potential for singular, powerful portrayals to possibly effect change, both of which may have implications for the design of interventions. Importantly, Scharrer and Ramasubramanian (2015) also found evidence that media literacy education may have the potential to decrease the impact of media stereotypes about race and ethnicity on adolescents. As the next section shows, this relation may be especially true if families act as active facilitators of their children’s media literacy.

Parent and Caregiver Preferences for Diverse Content Reports show most parents want their children to be exposed to media that present different cultures, religions, and lifestyles and having their children exposed to media about diverse people prompts discussions about race (Rogers et al., 2021). In a small-scale study, Robinson (2022) found that White parents use representation themes in children’s media to talk with their children about race. Although some studies found that White parents may be hesitant to talk to their children about race explicitly (Pahlke et al., 2012; Vittrup & Holden, 2011), even after major racism events in the news cycle, such as the death of George Floyd (Sullivan et al., 2021), Robinson’s (2022) study suggests at least some White parents may be engaging with race and racism directly. Research examining how parents use media to teach and talk to their children about marginalized identities, and the bidirectional effects that characterize these dyadic experiences, is scarce; 475

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow

however, there is some evidence that parents may have preferences about media identity representations for their children. McClain and Mares (2020) found that U.S. Black parents have marked preferences for specific racial representation they hope their child will see in their fictional TV and film programming. They found that Black parents of children of varied ages reported wanting their child to see diverse representations of Black characters and those perceived as similar to the child, especially compared to preferences for metaphorical and ambiguous depictions. In addition, some evidence suggests that parents of ethnically-racially minoritized preschoolers might be exposing their children to more television shows featuring minority protagonists (Mares et al., 2015). Other insights into parental selective exposure are limited but important to investigate, as families may engage in parental mediation around identity topics for their children. Among families with marginalized identities, such efforts might focus on helping children understand who they are and preparing them for bias. Recent work has examined how U.S. Black families reported using media content to socialize their children around race (McClain & Mares, 2022). McClain and Mares (2022) found that Black parents reported socializing their children around media content in four distinct ways: to foster messages of racial pride/equality, to prepare their child for bias, to critique racial media stereotypes, and to avoid racial media stereotypes. Parents’ higher perception of anti-Black bias in their child’s media landscape predicted parents’ reported rates of preparation for bias and pride and equality socialization via media and via interpersonal communication without media (McClain & Mares, 2022). Other work has also examined the effects of mass media representation and stereotypes on socialization within marginalized families (e.g., Rana et al., 2019). In response to biased media coverage of Muslims, parents of Sikh children reported socializing their male children to minimize the observable cultural markers of their identity (e.g., avoiding wearing a turban) to reduce the risks associated with being misidentified and targeted for anti-Muslim hate (Rana et al., 2019). Such choices show some of the harsh and unfair ramifications media prejudices and misrepresentations in children’s ecosystems can have on families. As Rana et al. (2019) highlight, considerations for how minoritized families respond to bias in their children’s media remain under-examined. Although there is evidence about the positive effects that representation may have on children’s positive development, researchers know relatively little about media-related socialization practices, such as the specific kinds of media perceptions and content that might lead parents to employ particular kinds of identity socialization, or how such perceptions or content exposure might affect parents’ or children’s subsequent selection of content. Researchers know little about if there may be differences in strategies or media selection employed based on whether families are raising a child with a marginalized identity that the parent or caregiver shares or not, and whether there are differences based on the child having more than one marginalized identity. Looking forward, one central aspect is clear: Families have the potential to enact agency to leverage the potential positive effects of media and to mitigate the potential negative ones. They can guide, encourage, restrict access to, and help their children become highly literate about media content as they prepare their children to navigate an unfair world.

Youth Perspectives It’s important to consider children’s perceptions of representation in media. A Children Now (1998) study involving a sample of Asian and Asian American, Black, Latinx, and White youth indicated that youth had strong opinions about ingroup and outgroup ethnic-racial media representation. Children – and especially ethnically-racially minoritized children – reported that it was important to see their own ethnic-racial group represented in media. Children noticed stereotypes 476

Children’s Media and Development

in news portrayals, patterns that have continued to be well-documented (see Dixon, 2017, for a contemporary analysis). Children noticed stereotypes in their entertainment media as well; they were also more likely to associate negative attributes (e.g., disobeying the law and laziness) with minoritized characters and positive attributes (e.g., ample money and leadership) with White characters. White children tended to identify White characters as their favorite characters, and children who were ethnically-racially minoritized tended to choose Black characters as their favorites. This study would be an important study to replicate, given that the media landscape has changed since 1998, and concerns and questions about representation for children remain salient and relevant at this writing. Youth may prefer, and even seek out, content they perceive as representative of them in terms of race and gender. This representation preference is important because research continues to find that are disproportionate media use patterns among children of color and White children (Rideout & Robb, 2020; Rideout et al., 2022). Ellithorpe and Bleakley (2016) found that U.S. Black youth reported watching the same top 100 shows as their U.S. White peers, but reported watching additional, separate programs as well – and specifically ones that offered more ethnic-racial representation, suggesting part of the reason why Black youth media use rates might be higher than White youth media use rates is they are seeking out additional, more representative content. Additional media consumption may not inherently lead to negative outcomes (as, in fact, the work of Harrison, 2006, suggests), but this finding calls attention to the importance of youth feeling “seen” in the content they consume. Furthermore, that youth are consuming the same content as their peers at all suggests that peers may be a key factor in youth media consumption patterns, and thereby in potential subsequent effects. Other work has found patterns highlighting the importance of identity in selecting content among children. For example, Knobloch et al. (2005) found that 4- to 6-year-old children preferred videos with stories that featured same-gender characters over stories that featured other-gender characters. Much remains to be learned about the media use behaviors and preferences of youth and the effects of such use. It is critical to study what youth are watching, why, and what they want to be consuming, because this information may help us account for particular developmental outcomes, family socialization patterns, and the kinds of media that might have the most potential for positive effects.

Theoretical Connections and Potential Applications As discussed earlier, representation is important and may have effects on youth and have implications for their families. Yet, gaps persist in the study of children’s media, especially as it concerns identity and well-being. For example, work remains in identifying the particular kinds of representations desired by youth and families of particular backgrounds, the processes by which particular representations may have effects, and the specific conditions and circumstances that may motivate children or parents/caregivers to engage with particular media over others. There is substantial value in interdisciplinary work that applies an asset-based lens to combine the study of child development with the study of media uses and effects. The next section highlights theoretical frameworks from the fields of communication and psychology that have the potential to inform some of the complex considerations regarding mass media in the lives of youth. Among the theories considered are cultivation theory (Gerbner et al., 2002), the drench hypothesis (Greenberg, 1988), social cognitive theory (SCT; Bandura, 2002), the theory of invisibility (Fryberg & Townsend, 2008), and mediated extensions of Allport’s (1954) contact theory (e.g., parasocial contact and vicarious contact). We present an overview of each framework and discuss ways to inform developmentally focused research. 477

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow

Cultivation Theory Cultivation theory (Gerbner et al., 2002) remains a giant in the study of media uses and effects. Its basic proposition is that every day, habitual, heavy media exposure leads to long-term, gradual, cumulative effects. Importantly, effects on how people see and understand the world are expected among individuals who consume a lot of mainstream content, as opposed to those who do not consume a lot of mainstream content. Cultivation was conceptualized within the domain of television effects but has been applied to other mediums, such as films, social media, and video games (see Morgan & Shanahan, 2010). Cultivation theory proposes that media effects operate on a macro level: Media producers widely and repeatedly disseminate a central set of messages about society that are gradually absorbed into the psyche of heavy media consumers. One key argument of cultivation theory is that high media consumption rates are expected to “absorb or override” the behavior and cognitions that might otherwise differentiate individuals’ perceptions of the social world (Gerbner et al., 2002, p. 51). As such, Gerbner et al. (2002) argues that individual demographic variables such as race and age may not be as relevant when considering high exposure to mainstream television content because this high exposure was expected to cancel out differences among individuals. Likewise, differences in genres are expected to have little effect because the messaging across genres was expected to be the same. As Gerbner et al. (2002) argued, all content is produced by institutions with the same shared interests and ways of operating; it is by way of habitually exposure to the “total pattern” of messaging through which cultivation effects are expected to occur (p. 44). However, Gerbner et al. (2002) acknowledged that there are potentially important considerations about the effects of individuals programs, differences among specific individuals and groups, and the role of individuals’ perception and attention, but they emphasize that it is critical not to underestimate the potential for mainstream television to have effects as it was (and remains) one of the centralized and most easily accessible and consumed forms of media. Gerbner et al. (2002) proposed a potential moderator of cultivation effects early on in the theory: real-world exposure and experience (“resonance”; Potter, 2014, p. 1019). As Potter (2014) describes, resonance can be thought of as a double dose; for example, TV viewers living in dangerous neighborhoods with a lot of crime who also watch a lot of television would be expected to have their real-world experiences and their television exposure interact, leading to even greater cultivation effects. Cultivation effects may include the strengthening of preexisting beliefs about, or the shaping of a centralized view of, the social world, such as racial stereotypes or about how mean the world is (Gerbner et al., 2002). Children would not be expected to be immune to such effects, although the topic of cultivation effects among children remains understudied; Gerbner himself never studied children. Importantly, however, existing evidence suggests the importance of considering cultivation effects among children, as does the continued high reports of youth televisual consumption (Rideout & Robb, 2020; Rideout et al., 2022). As mentioned earlier, in their longitudinal study, Martins and Harrison (2012) found that, in line with cultivation theorizing, high rates of U.S. children’s reported overall television consumption predicted lower self-reported global self-esteem over time among Black boys, Black girls, and White girls but not among White boys. This outcome could be due to heavy exposure to the unequal quality and quantity of media representation among these groups. Their findings also seem to align with the theory of invisibility, in that the children with more limited representations seem to have been the ones who experienced detriments to their self-esteem. Harrison (2006) measured whether adolescents’ self-reported self-complexity would be related to their television exposure, predicting – in line with cultivation theory – that heavy 478

Children’s Media and Development

exposure would lead to lower self-complexity. Although Harrison (2006) found some correlational evidence to support this relationship among White adolescent boys and girls, she did not find a significant relationship between television exposure rate and self-complexity among Black female adolescents. Harrison (2006) suggested that this finding may be explained by the possibility that African American adolescents “rely on a more diverse set of sources when constructing their identities” (p. 267). One possible influence could be parental/caregiver socialization, as implied by Harrison (2006). Future work should further examine whether among teenagers with marginalized identities, affirming identity-based parental mediation in particular could disrupt the potential anticipated negative relationship between adolescents’ television consumption and self-complexity – and perhaps even reverse it. Adaptive parental mediation around identity topics may alter the associations between television exposure and preadolescents’ self-esteem found in Martins and Harrison’s (2012) study and such potential associations among even older children. It will be essential to continue examining potential cultivation effects among children of various backgrounds, as they may be factors that partially explain children’s attitudes, beliefs, and even their self-concepts. For example, it could be that youth with strong ethnic-racial identities are less likely to experience cultivation effects because a child with a stronger internal sense of identity may be less susceptible to outside media forces related to their identity, even under heavy consumption. Today’s media landscape looks different in many – but possibly not all – ways than the one that existed when Gerbner et al. (2002) first proposed cultivation theory. Children’s options for content, their accessibility to that content, and the algorithms that tailor their viewing experiences are unprecedented. Yet, it is simultaneously true that a relatively small group of people and organizations still control a majority of mass media content, raising the possibility that at least some degree of centrality in messaging may exist, as Gerbner et al. (2002) originally proposed. Gerbner et al.’s (2002) description of a cultivation effect still likely resonates to some degree at this writing, even in a more expansive media environment that includes streaming among other opportunities for consumption. In 2002, Gerbner et al. wrote: “Even with the expansion of cable and satellite channels serving ever-narrower niche audiences, most television programs are by commercial necessity designed to be watched by large and heterogeneous audiences in a relatively nonselective fashion” (p. 45). As the study of media use and implications for children’s development advances, it will be critical to not simply cast cultivation theory aside but to systematically test what remains relevant about the theory, as it would propose consequences for under and misrepresentation in a media-saturated world.

The Drench Hypothesis A less explored, but nevertheless important, framework is the drench hypothesis (Greenberg, 1988). The focus of the drench hypothesis contrasts with that of cultivation. Cultivation theory proposes that mainstream mass media have universal messaging and that heavy exposure to those messages drives cumulative, gradual effects in a slow “dripping” fashion. However, the drench hypothesis proposes there may also be specific, powerful effects of particular portrayals that “drench” our understanding and perceptions. Greenberg (1988) argues more attention needs to be paid toward particular and potentially powerful portrayals. He argues the media industry does create different portrayals of social groups and people can notice differences, or particularities, in different portrayals (Greenberg, 1988). Particular portrayals, people attend to – such as the critical images that may be unique and non-stereotypical depictions of marginalized individuals – may have more of an effect on viewers than their overall heavy exposure to television, even when a 479

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow

critical image is the singular one of its type (Greenberg, 1988, p. 100). A greater effect might arise from a particular media persona or program that resonates with an individual in some way than from exposure to “accumulated images” across many characters and programs (Reep & Dambrot, 1989; p. 543). The drench hypothesis predicts that it is not the number of characters or depictions that matter but the details of the portrayals, as perceived by the viewer (Greenberg, 1988). For example, Greenberg (1988) notes how minoritized groups have advocated for more representation and been disappointed by having higher quantities – but not necessarily higher quality – of ethnicracial ingroup representations. In terms of effects, a critical image could improve outgroup attitudes such that positive, unique portrayals could change the way that individuals think or feel about other groups. Greenberg (1988) leaves the possibility that such effects could be fleeting or long term and negative or positive. Greenberg (1988) offers characters from The Cosby Show of the 1980s/1990s as examples of those that might have served as critical images for drench effects at the time. Positive, appealing characters like the ones featured in that program had the potential to replace or “drench” the numerous problematic Black characters that a viewer would encounter across the wider array of available programming. Greenberg (1988) suggests that the high level of attention paid to characters might play a key role in “drench” effects. He notes that it is possible that viewers often do not pay attention to “most portrayals of most roles,” but that people probably pay the most attention to a finite set of depictions (p. 99). Those depictions are the ones theorized to resonate with individuals, and that could possibly get embedded into individuals’ memories and go on to have an effect. The factors that may cause particular representations to resonate with various audience members, including children and families, are essential topics for research, as the images individuals attend to may be the ones that yield potential effects. Greenberg (1988) suggests that characters’ and messages’ novelty might play a role in the attention that individuals place on depictions; for example, when individuals find portrayals “striking” for a given reason, perhaps they focus more on them (p. 100). He raises the possibility of characters’ behavior, their intensity, and their moods playing a role in which depictions resonate with viewers. Greenberg (1988) noted that more work was needed to identify what makes different portrayals resonate with different viewers. He also raised the question of whether how individuals resonate with characters may differ by individuals’ sociodemographic variables, noting specifically the potential roles that age and ethnic-racial identity might play and specifically suggesting that research include examining potential effects among youth. Although the particular processes of the hypothesis have not been explicitly delineated, the idea that a particular representation may have powerful effects and that age and identity might play a role in which depictions resonate with individuals, is an important one to consider given the variety and accessibility of media content for children. Drench hypothesis research has been limited since it was introduced, and in particular among children. However, the propositions that Greenberg (1988) raised are ripe for integration with questions about how media might be designed and used to help youth thrive. For example, what kinds of media ingroup representations may resonate most with particular groups of youth and why? Are the representations that resonate the ones that youth deem most affirming of their identity or most useful for navigating identity? Are they the ones most affirmed by youth peer groups, or does it depend? Are there particular kinds of outgroup representations that are most likely to resonate with, or be rejected by, children of specific demographics? How might the representations that resonate with youth be leveraged to promote children’s SECD, including identity development and reducing prejudices and biases? 480

Children’s Media and Development

Social Cognitive Theory SCT (Bandura, 2002) has been applied to media as well (see Bandura, 2009). SCT proposes that people, including children, are agentic, and as such, they can learn attitudes, behaviors, and emotional responses from others (Bandura, 2002, 2009; Ortiz & Harwood, 2007). As it applies to television and media effects more broadly, one implication is that people can learn from observing others in mediated contexts, such as by watching someone on screen (Bandura, 2009). SCT proposes that individuals have the potential to be discouraged or encouraged to engage in behaviors, or to express values, based in part on their perceptions of the punishments or rewards likely to occur as a result. According to Bandura (2009), the process through which observational learning is expected to happen occurs through a series of four processes: (1) attention to the content, (2) retention of the content, (3) production (i.e., planning and rehearsing), and (4.) motivation. Each of these four processes are theorized to be able to be moderated. For example, attention can be moderated by differences in people’s preferences, cognitive capacities, and pre-existing knowledge (Krcmar, 2020). As the drench hypothesis (Greenberg, 1988) would similarly predict, individuals might be more likely to pay attention to particular models than others and to particular kinds of modeling over other kinds of modeling. Retention may be affected by pre-existing skills and knowledge, how much an individual rehearses the modeling, as well as by features such as the vividness of the content (Bandura, 2009; Crigler et al., 1994; Krcmar, 2020). Production can be affected by an individual’s physical ability to enact particular behaviors and how much individuals practice and adjust feedback from their trials (Krcmar, 2020). Motivation is expected to be affected by factors such as the consequences of the model’s actions (e.g., reward and punishment), self-sanctions, and internal values (e.g., how appropriate, wise, or moral an individual deems an action would be to carry out), and by how similar the model seems to be to individuals to themselves, the encouragement individuals may receive, and how self-efficacious individuals perceive themselves to be at carrying out the task (Bandura, 2009; Krcmar, 2020). In addition, attractive characters are more likely than unattractive characters to be imitated by children (Mares et al., 2008). When media show certain actions being rewarded, observers are more likely to anticipate similar positive outcomes for themselves, and therefore might be more likely to imitate those models (Krcmar, 2020). Although it is unclear at which stage identification might moderate effects, identification likely plays a role in imitation, as does reinforcement (Andsager et al., 2006; Bandura, 2009; Krcmar, 2020). As with cultivation, direct (real life) experience is expected to moderate these effects (Nabi & Clark, 2008). SCT in mediated domains has implications for SECD and also for prejudice reduction and representation. It raises questions about the potential effects of prosocial and negative modeling that children may be exposed to via media, considerations for their perceptions of the similarities between themselves and particular characters, and the attributes of characters engaging in particular behaviors. As Mares et al. (2008) note, research about SCT in the domain of children’s media has focused on demonstrating that prosocial media for children has the potential to foster imitation of that content but that work remains around examining children’s ability and differences in comprehending and responding to media content, including whether processes and outcomes vary by children’s social groups. There are also considerations for children’s learning from media that relate to their cognitive development and processing. These considerations have implications for how various prosocial (and negative) messages, and which kinds of characters, are presented to children of varying ages 481

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow

(Mares et al., 2008), as well as on the type of scaffolding that could build around media experiences for children. Mares et al. (2008) highlight the challenges that young children can have with identifying what can often be valuable, yet abstract, prosocial messages from content. Young children tend to focus on the more “concrete, perceptually salient” aspects of stories, which as Mares et al. (2008, p. 270) argue, means that care needs to be taken on the media design front regarding which parts of stories meet these characteristics, given that conflict in stories tends to be both concrete and captivating. In contrast, prosocial messages can often be buried in abstract displays of emotions or motivations (Mares et al., 2008). How might families and educators effectively scaffold learning around well-intended media about issues of diversity and representation in particular? How might media content itself be more effectively designed with children’s cognitive skills and socioemotional and character developmental goals in mind, but still in ways that maximize children’s engagement? Might there be unique benefits to depictions of particular kinds of conflict, such as explicit depictions of interpersonal racism, and might potential effects vary by social identity of the child?

Theory of Invisibility The theory of invisibility (Fryberg & Townsend, 2008) is premised on the idea that invisibility can shape how a person sees themselves and others and their potential. The theory postulates that an individual’s sense of who they are and who they can be is shaped by social representations, which include the quantity and quality of ingroup representation in social contexts, structures, institutions, and materials, including media representations (Fryberg & Townsend, 2008). Although the theory’s precise processes remain to be identified, it has implications for studying media in children’s lives. Representation that is limited or nonexistent can have implications for how people understand themselves and others, see their potential, and identify strategies for navigating spaces (Fryberg & Townsend, 2008). Two kinds of invisibility are relevant to the framework: “relative invisibility” and “absolute invisibility” (p. 177). Relative invisibility involves limited representation, which features both the absence of “rich, varied, positive” ingroup depictions and the presence of negative stereotypes and mischaracterization (p. 177). As Fryberg and Townsend (2008) explain, and as already noted, this type of representation can result in people seeing themselves (and being seen) only through a negative or limited stereotype and not as their whole selves. With absolute invisibility, even negative stereotypes are absent; no ingroup representation exists at all in that domain. Invisibility can leave individuals without schematic references for operating or succeeding in a particular environment (Fryberg & Townsend, 2008). A person’s strategies, sense of belonging, and confidence may falter – which may have the potential to affect an individual’s tenacity, performance, self-esteem, and understanding of themselves (Fryberg & Townsend, 2008). The theory also acknowledges that individuals all have multiple identities (i.e., self-complexity) but that not everyone is given equal chances to see their identities (or their most salient or important ones) equitably, positively, and diversely represented (Fryberg & Townsend, 2008). Yet, with all of these risks at hand for children and the work that remains to explore them, there are also opportunities to explore how families, educators, and children might adapt to inequitable representation. For example, how might the reality of not feeling seen or heard via media serve as a potential catalyst for: activism among youth, adaptive parental mediation, or educators willing to structure their classrooms to affirm children when the mass media environment renders them invisible? As we consider the harm that media may have the potential to inflict on marginalized 482

Children’s Media and Development

children and continue to develop and test theories that may elucidate these processes, it will be equally important to develop and test theories that can capture the resilience of children and the adaptive practices that exist among the people who raise and teach them.

Mediated Extensions of Allport’s Contact Theory Another theory related to examining the potential for media to promote positive youth outcomes are mediated extensions of Allport’s (1954) contact theory. Allport (1954) proposed that intergroup contact would be an effective way to reduce prejudices and biases toward others, specifically if individuals had “equal status” and were pursuing “common goals,” and especially if the contact was approved or supported by institutional structures (e.g., laws and customs) and lead to perceptions of “common interests and common humanity” (p. 281). Mediated extensions of contact theory facilitate contact via media, such as by watching individuals have intergroup interactions on screen or by forming relationships with characters. Although how vital the specific conditions proposed by Allport (1954) may be to the reduction of prejudice and bias has been called into question (Paluck et al., 2019), there is evidence that mediated contact may reduce prejudice among children and adolescents (Aboud et al., 2012; Paluck et al., 2019). One strength of mediated contact is that it may reduce anxiety about intergroup contact (Banas et al., 2020; Bond, 2021), may make contact more feasible (Aboud et al., 2012), and may even facilitate more empathy (Banas et al., 2020; see also Zillmann, 1994). Banas et al. (2020) also raise the point that mediated contact may add the benefit of comfort. Specifically, they argue that when people feel relaxed and feel a sense of control in their environment (e.g., watching a show in the comfort of their own home), they might feel as though the intergroup contact in question – the kind happening through media – reduces risk and is less anxiety-inducing than potential face-to-face contact (Banas et al., 2020). Although the study of mediated contact among children is less studied than mediated contact among adults, the existing findings can inform considerations for thinking about the use of media to support children’s optimal development. We next present an overview of two types of mediated contact: vicarious contact and parasocial contact.

Vicarious Contact One type of mediated contact is called vicarious contact (Ortiz & Harwood, 2007). Vicarious contact is related to SCT (Bandura, 2002), in that it is premised on the idea that individuals can learn by observing others (Ortiz & Harwood, 2007). Vicarious contact speaks explicitly to how an individual’s observations of ingroup members’ contact with outgroup members via media might alter the viewer’s own attitudes and behaviors toward outgroup members in real life (Bond, 2021). As Bond (2021) describes, citing the theorizing of Ortiz and Harwood (2007), vicarious contact is about how “audiences establish connections with ingroup members and learn attitudes and behaviors toward outgroups from the ingroup members and learn attitudes and behaviors toward outgroups from the intergroup interactions that occur between onscreen ingroup and outgroup characters” (p. 578). Vicarious contact is theorized to happen via multiple kinds of media (Vezzali et al., 2014), although most work has focused on televisual media. There is some evidence that vicarious contact can successfully improve outgroup attitudes and behaviors among children. For example, Vittrup and Holden (2011) found that White elementary school children who, over one week, watched video of television programs that emphasized crossracial friendships and that featured diverse casts, such as Sesame Street, were more likely to have 483

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow

positive outgroup attitudes, compared to children in the control group, who did not watch such videos and did not have parent-child discussions about race during the intervention window. However, children’s learning via vicarious contact is not always straightforward. Persson and Musher-Eizenman (2003) found that an intervention that involved exposing children multiple times to a children’s television program aimed at improving racial attitudes over a three-week period had no effect on White children’s racial outgroup attitudes. These findings speak to the reality that media exposure alone may not always lead to positive attitude change; importantly, the authors emphasize the potential for discussions related to diversity to help move the needle (Persson & Musher-Eizenman, 2003). Other work also suggests that how social outgroups are presented in depictions may matter for improving children’s outgroup attitudes (e.g., Cameron & Rutland, 2006). Over several weeks, Cameron and Rutland (2006) presented non-disabled 5- to 10-year-olds with stories about friendships and positive interactions between non-disabled and disabled children. The stories, and the accompanying discussions, varied in how often they explicitly identified characters as belonging to the two social groups (non-disabled and disabled), how much they emphasized “typicality” (e.g., how typical they emphasized a disabled character being of their social group), as well as whether they engaged in “decategorization” (e.g., deemphasizing disability group membership). They found the children who were exposed to the stories that explicitly maintained the salience of the social group categories and that emphasized that the disabled characters were “typical” of their social group were more likely than children in the other story groups to improve attitudes and intended behaviors toward disabled children. There are many ways that the study of vicarious contact could evolve to help elucidate pathways for supporting children. For example, there is important work that remains about potential vicarious contact effects related to reducing prejudice toward specific groups, such as gender expansive children, including potential effects among parents/caregivers, educators, and children of varying ages. Questions also remain about how vicarious contact might be able to affect the attitudes and behaviors of minoritized individuals toward outgroup members, as well as considerations about how vicarious contact might operate among individuals with marginalized intersectional identities.

Parasocial Contact The parasocial contact hypothesis (Schiappa et al., 2005) proposed a different idea related to mediated contact. Specifically, Schiappa et al. (2005) suggested that positive outgroup media depictions might improve individuals’ attitudes about outgroup members via the one-sided “parasocial relationships” that viewers form between themselves and outgroup media personae (e.g., characters and celebrities). As defined by Bond (2021), who draws from the conceptualization of Horton and Richard Wohl (1956), parasocial relationships are “socioemotional bonds that audiences develop with fictional characters and celebrities similar to real-life friendships” (p. 574). Bond (2021) argues that parasocial relationships may hold the potential for “optimal conditions” for beneficial intergroup effects in ways that parallel intergroup friendships in everyday life. As Banas et al. (2020) explained, citing the work of Kanazawa (2002), how people process mediated experiences parallel those that occur in real life, resulting in individuals’ views and treatment of media personae being similar to those that they have of “actual people” (p. 122). The ability for parasocial contact to affect outcomes is theorized to rely on the strength of the parasocial relationships (Bond, 2021). Bond (2021) argues that viewers with stronger parasocial 484

Children’s Media and Development

relationships with outgroup media persona are the ones “afforded the opportunity to vicariously connect with the characters as emotionally substantiative others” (p. 577). Strong parasocial relationships may take time to form, as these relationships depend on a “sense of intimacy” with the media personae (Bond, 2021, p. 577). As such, parasocial contact requires prolonged contact between viewers and the media personae (Bond, 2021). Perceived similarity may also important for the formation of parasocial relationships; individuals’ parasocial relationships are affected by how similar people see themselves and the media character/persona to be (Bond, 2021; Cohen, 2009). Notably, there is evidence that children and teens form parasocial relationships with media personae (Calvert, 2020; Gleason et al., 2017). As has been noted, parasocial relationships may help children learn (Calvert, 2017; Calvert et al., 2014; Howard Gola et al., 2013). This research has implications for the prosocial messages included in children’s programming, as it connects to the potential importance of including positive messages and having children develop meaningful, long-term connections with engaging, likable characters. However, there is limited research on whether children’s parasocial relationships might affect their attitudes and behaviors toward others, their self-perception, or their attitudes and behaviors toward members of their identity groups. We can turn to research with adults to highlight the potential importance of examining parasocial relationships in developmental research. Bond’s (2021) experimental work was one of the first to explore causal relationships between parasocial relationships and prejudices over time. He found that heterosexual adult participants formed meaningful parasocial relationships with outgroup, non-heterosexual television characters. Further, compared to participants who formed weaker parasocial relationships and those in the no-exposure control group, participants who formed stronger parasocial relationships with outgroup characters were more likely to report decreased sexual prejudice. Participants who had the most parasocial relationship growth over time reported the highest levels of sexual prejudice at the pretest, suggesting that parasocial relationships may have stronger effects among people who initially reported stronger prejudices, at least among adults. There was no relationship between participants’ attitudes about sexual minorities and their choice of punishment for an anti-LGB hate crime; their attitudes about a sexual minority television show character, however, did predict their choices (Bond, 2021). Specifically, adults with the strongest parasocial outgroup relationships were more likely than those with weaker parasocial outgroup relationships to be more severe in their sentencing for the perpetrator (Bond, 2021). To the best of our knowledge, no similar study has been conducted among children to examine the role of parasocial relationships on their outgroup attitudes or intended behaviors toward any group over time. Recent work has argued that parasocial contact for improving attitudes toward children with disabilities may not be an effective intervention strategy (Armstrong et al., 2017). However, it is critical to note that interpretations about the efficacy of this form of mediated contact must be drawn from studies that precisely test parasocial contact theory and examine longterm effects over time. In sum, there are developmental considerations for examining parasocial contact theory among children. Child-reported measurement of parasocial relationships can be challenging. Although some scholars like Richards and Calvert (2017) succeeded in developing a reliable child measure subscale for parasocial relationships to move beyond relying only on parental reports, more work remains. Furthermore, the ability for parasocial contact via animation to affect racial attitudes among preschoolers might be affected by children’s ability to process animated characters as members of racial groups (Mares et al., 2015). Mares et al. (2015) found that preschoolers’ ability to match photos of children of varying races and ethnicities 485

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow

to animated characters intended to represent those races/ethnicities moderated the indirect relationship observed between children’s exposure to minority protagonist television programs and children’s racial attitudes. Some questions remain about how families, peers, and educators might foster or encourage the formation and strength of children’s parasocial relationships with particular characters, as some work has shown that factors such as exposure to characterrelated toys and parental encouragement may affect young children’s parasocial relationships (Bond & Calvert, 2014). The effects of mediated contact can go both ways. As Banas et al. (2020) explain, depending on whether such contact is positive or negative, it may contribute to either decreased or increased prejudice. Future work will need to explore ways to mitigate negative outcomes while strengthening positive outcomes, specifically among children and across and within various identities. Significant work remains in examining the role and preferences of families, peers, and educators as it relates to children’s parasocial relationships. Researchers will also need to be open to the possibility that what may be compelling about parasocial contact among one group of children in one capacity might not be similarly effective in other capacities or among other groups.

Looking Ahead Aboud et al. (2012) highlighted the need for more theory-driven, empirical (and especially, experimental) work to test and explore ways to reduce biases and improve outgroup attitudes among children. At this writing, this need remains, as does research examining how media can support children’s positive development and how stakeholders in children’s lives might be able to mitigate any undesirable effects. Examining ways to reduce prejudice toward outgroup members in children (and adults) within majority groups remains essential for the well-being of all children. Just as essential are the less studied domains of how marginalized children and their families might use and be affected by media, including as it concerns efforts to support children’s SECD. There is a particular need to examine the experiences of marginalized groups, including how children and families may use media to navigate identity development and coping strategies for challenging circumstances, such as racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and classism. How media and technology can be integrated into today’s schools to support the pressing needs of youth also continues to be worthy of attention. As these research areas are explored, it will be important to consider children in the entirety of their ecosystems, considering media as an important part – but only one part – of children’s landscapes, and one that seems to be becoming increasingly interactive and expansive. It will also be critical to grapple with children’s and families’ intersectional identities, as intersectionality has implications for how we interpret ingroup and outgroup demarcations. As scholars, we also contend that we must uphold a commitment to not write off media and technology when stimuli or hypotheses fail, because there is sufficient evidence to suggest that media will retain their potential to affect children, for better or worse, and in all kinds of ways – even if those ways are initially hard to capture. If – and when – children struggle to comprehend prosocial messages or resonate with depictions that are intended to be affirming, or if they fail to have their attitudes or behaviors altered by media alone, it is our responsibility to be creative not only in follow-up studies that probe for answers but also in our recommendations to stakeholders. For example, studies should continue to examine how families and educators might scaffold learning in ways that support children beyond what the media might be able to do (or not do) on their own, and what barriers might exist for preventing families and educators from being successful or even willing to engage in media and media-based strategies to support children. 486

Children’s Media and Development

Among the most important research charges is to carefully test the specific propositions of theories that may hold answers to using media to help all children thrive – and to work toward building and testing other theories that leverage interdisciplinary lens that may better explain processes and outcomes among children of varying ages, identities, and contexts. There are opportunities to connect the fields of psychology and communication, in particular, to examine the ways that families, educators, and children themselves agentically use media to navigate complex ecosystems. For example, much more work is needed to connect the child socialization practices documented in the psychological literature (e.g., ethnic-racial socialization) and parental mediation strategies documented in communication literature (e.g., active mediation and restrictive mediation). Across this chapter, we have highlighted the importance of asset-based approaches to the study of media and highlighted the potential for media to support children’s SECD, including their ability to see and celebrate themselves, their families, and others for who they are. We have also highlighted the risks that can be present in media via limited, distorted, or absent representation. At the same time, we have described how families and media literacy strategies might be able to help mitigate the deleterious effects of such representations. We have also highlighted some theoretical propositions in the study of psychology and mass media uses and effects to help guide the design of future work examining the role of media in children’s lives. As this work moves forward, it will be imperative to address gaps in theory and intervention work to best understand the processes by which media can support children’s positive development.

References Aboud, F. E., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L. R., Brown, C. S., Niens, U., & Noor, N. M. (2012). Interventions to reduce prejudice and enhance inclusion and respect for ethnic differences in early childhood: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 32(4), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.05.001 Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Basic Books. Andsager, J. L., Bemker, V., Choi, H. L., & Torwel, V. (2006). Perceived similarity of exemplar traits and behavior: Effects on message evaluation. Communication Research, 33(1), 3–18. Armstrong, M., Morris, C., Abraham, C. & Tarrant, M. (2017) Interventions utilizing contact with people with disabilities to improve children’s attitudes towards disability: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Disability and Health Journal, 10(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.10.003 Banas, J. A., Bessarabova, E., & Massey, Z. B. (2020). Meta-analysis on mediated contact and prejudice. Human Communication Research, 46(2–3), 120–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa004 Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–290. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00092 Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects (pp. 110–140). Routledge. Barcus, F. E. (1983). Images of life on children’s television: Sex roles, minorities, and families. Praeger. Beyens, I., Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2019). Developmental trajectories of parental mediation across early and middle childhood. Human Communication Research, 45(2), 226–250,  https://doi.org/ 10.1093/hcr/hqy016 Bond, B. J. (2021). The development and influence of parasocial relationships with television characters: A longitudinal experimental test of prejudice reduction through parasocial contact. Communication Research, 48(4), 573–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219900632 Bond, B. J., & Calvert, S. L. (2014). A model and measure of US parents’ perceptions of young children’s parasocial relationships. Journal of Children and Media, 8(3), 286–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/174827 98.2014.890948 Boulianne, S., Koc-Michalska, K., & Bimber, B. (2020). Mobilizing media: Comparing TV and social media effects on protest mobilization. Information, Communication & Society, 23(5), 642–664. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/1369118X.2020.1713847 Bramlett-Solomon, S., & Roeder, Y. (2008). Looking at race in children’s television. Journal of Children and Media, 2(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482790701733187

487

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow Calvert, S. L. (2017). Parasocial relationships with media characters: Imaginary companions for young children’s social and cognitive development. In F. C. Blumberg & P. J. Brooks (Eds.), Cognitive development in digital contexts (pp. 93–117). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12809481-5.00005-5 Calvert, S. L. (2020). Parasocial engagement in childhood. The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology, 1–5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0212 Calvert, S. L., Richards, M. N., Jordon, A., & Romer, D. (2014). Children’s parasocial relationships. In A. B. Jordan & D. Romer (Eds.), Media and the well-being of children and adolescents (pp. 187–200). Oxford University Press. Calvert, S., Stolkin, A., & Lee, J. H. (1997). Gender and ethnic portrayals in Saturday morning television programs [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, D.C., United States. Cameron, L., & Rutland, A. (2006). Extended contact through story reading in school: Reducing children’s prejudice toward the disabled. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 469–488. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00469.x Carvalho, A. R., & Santos, C. (2022). Developing peer mentors’ collaborative and metacognitive skills with a technology-enhanced peer learning program. Computers and Education Open, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. caeo.2021.100070 Children Now. (1998). A different world: Children’s perceptions of race and class in the media: A series of focus groups and a national poll of children. Children Now. Christakis, D. A. (2009). The effects of infant media usage: What do we know and what should we learn? Acta Paediatrica, 98(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01027.x Cohen, J. (2009). Mediated relationships and mediated effects. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 223–236). Sage. Cole, C., Arafat, C., Tidhar, C., Tafesh, W. Z., Fox, N., Killen, M., & Richman, B. (2003). The educational impact of Rechov Sumsum/Shara’a simsim: A Sesame Street television series to promote respect and understanding among children living in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(5), 409–422. doi:10.1080/01650250344000019 Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2012). CASEL guide 2013: Effective social and emotional learning programs: Preschool and elementary school edition. CASEL. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2020). SEL policy at the state level. CASEL. https://casel.org/systemic-implementation/sel-policy-at-the-state-level/ Covarrubias, R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2015). The impact of self-relevant representations on school belonging for Native American students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(1), 10–18. https:// psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0037819 Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Holmgren, H. G., Davis, E. J., Collier, K. M., Memmott-Elison, M. K., & Hawkins, A. J. (2018). A meta-analysis of prosocial media on prosocial behavior, aggression, and empathic concern: A multidimensional approach. Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 331. https://doi. org/10.1037/dev0000412 Crigler, A. N., Just, M., & Neuman, W. R. (1994). Interpreting visual versus audio messages in television news. Journal of Communication, 44(4), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1994. tb00703.x Demers, L. B., Hanson, K. G., Kirkorian, H. L., Pempek, T. A., & Anderson, D. R. (2013). Infant gaze following during parent–infant coviewing of baby videos. Child Development, 84(2), 591–603. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01868.x Denham, S. A. (2006). Social-emotional competence as support for school readiness: What is it and how do we assess it? Early Education and Development, 17(1), 57–89. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15566935eed1701_4 Dickerman, C., Christensen, J., & Kerl-McClaim, S. B. (2008). Big breasts and bad guys: Depictions of gender and race in video games. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 3(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15401380801995076 Dixon, T. L. (2017). A dangerous distortion of our families: Representations of families, by race, in news and opinion media. Color of Change and Family Story research report, December. https://colorofchange.org/ dangerousdistortion Dobrow, J., Gideny, C., & Burton, J. (2018, March 7). Why it’s so important for kids to see diverse TV and movie characters. The Conversation.

488

Children’s Media and Development Dobrow, J. R., & Gidney, C. L. (1998). The good, the bad, and the foreign: The use of dialect in children’s animated television. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 557, 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716298557000009 Domitrovich, C. E., Durlak, J. A., Staley, K. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Social-emotional competence: An essential factor for promoting positive adjustment and reducing risk in school children. Child Development, 88(2), 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12739 Doron, E. (2017). Fostering creativity in school aged children through perspective taking and visual media based short term intervention program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 150–160. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.12.003 Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 646–718). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Elias, M. J. (2014). The future of character education and social-emotional learning: The need for whole school and community-linked approaches. Journal of Character Education, 10(1), 37–42. Ellithorpe, M. E., & Bleakley, A. (2016). Wanting to see people like me? Racial and gender diversity in popular adolescent television. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1426–1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-016-0415-4 Ewin, C. A., Reupert, A. E., McLean, L. A., & Ewin, C. J. (2020). The impact of joint media engagement on parent–child interactions: A systematic review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(2), 230–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.203 First Nations Development Institute. (2018). Reclaiming native truth. Fred Rogers Center. (2012). Framework for quality. Fred Rogers Center. Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Oyserman, D., & Stone, J. M. (2008). Of warrior chiefs and Indian princesses: The psychological consequences of American Indian mascots on American Indians. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802375003 Fryberg, S. A., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2008). The psychology of invisibility. In G. Adams, M. Biernat, N. R. Branscombe, C. S. Crandall, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Commemorating brown: The social psychology of racism and discrimination (pp. 173–193). American Psychological Association. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects (pp. 53–78). Routledge. Gergely, G., Kiraly, I., & Egyed, K. (2007). On pedagogy. Developmental Science, 10(1), 139–146. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00576.x Gleason, T. R., Theran, S. A., & Newberg, E. M. (2017). Parasocial interactions and relationships in early adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00255 Graves, S. B. (1993). Television, the portrayal of African Americans and the development of children’s attitudes. In G. Berry & J. K. Asamen (Eds.), Children and television: Images in a changing sociocultural world. Sage. Graves, S. B. (2008). Children’s television programming and the development of multicultural attitudes. In J. K. Asamen, M. L. Ellis, & G. I. Berry (Eds), Child development, multiculturalism, and media. Sage. Greenberg, B. S. (1988). Some uncommon television images and the drench hypothesis. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Television as a social issue (pp. 88–102). Sage. Greenberg, B. S., & Brand, J. E. (1993). Cultural diversity on Saturday morning television. In G. Berry & J. Asamen (Eds.), Children & television: Images in a changing sociocultural world (pp. 132–142). Sage. Greenberg, B. S., & Mastro, D. E. (2008). Children, race, ethnicity, and media. In S. L. Calvert & B. J. Wilson (Eds.), The handbook of children, media, and development (pp. 74–97). Wiley-Blackwell. Guernsey, L. (2012). Screen time: How electronic media—From baby videos to educational software—Affects your young child. Basic Books. Hamlen, K. R., & Imbesi, K. J. (2020). Role models in the media: A content analysis of preschool television programs in the U.S. Journal of Children and Media, 14(3), 302–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798 .2019.1689369 Hammomoto, D. Y. (1993). They’re so cute when they’re young: The Asian-American child on television. In G. Berry & J. K. Asamen (Eds.), Children and television: Images in a changing sociocultural world. Sage.

489

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow Harrison, K. (2006). Scope of self: Toward a model of television’s effects on self-complexity in adolescence. Communication Theory, 16(2), 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00270.x Hilliard, L. J., Stacey, D. C., McClain, A., Batanova, M., & Lerner, R. M. (2021). Media and technology and the family: Exploring the “CASIE” model of media use in youth development. In J. M. Holland, V. P. Jackson, & J. R. Miller (Eds.), African Americans in the human sciences: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 261–275). Lexington Books. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615569721 Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049 Howard Gola, A. A., Richards, M. N., Lauricella, A. R., & Calvert, S. L. (2013). Building meaningful parasocial relationships between toddlers and media characters to teach early mathematical skills. Media Psychology, 16(4), 390–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.783774 Hunt, D., & Ramón, A.-C. (2021). Hollywood diversity report. University of California, Los Angeles. https://socialsciences.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/UCLA-Hollywood-Diversity-Report2021-Film-4-22-2021.pdf Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development. (2017). The Arthur Interactive Media Buddy project: Summary of research findings. Tufts University. Jackaway, G. L. (1995). Media at war. Praeger. Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Williams, B. (2019). Transformative social and emotional learning (SEL): Toward SEL in service of educational equity and excellence. Educational Psychologist, 54(3), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1623032 Jones, S., Bailey, R., & Kahn, J. (2019). The science and practice of social and emotional learning: Implications for state policymaking. State Education Standard, 19(1), 18–24. Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11), 2283–2290. Kanazawa, S. (2002). Bowling with our imaginary friends. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00098-8 Karcher, M. J. (2005). The effects of developmental mentoring and high school mentors’ attendance on their younger mentees’ self-esteem, social skills, and connectedness. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20025 Klein, H., & Shiffman, K. S. (2009). Underrepresentation and symbolic annihilation of socially disenfranchised groups (“out groups”) in animated cartoons. The Howard Journal of Communications, 20(1), 55– 72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646170802665208 Knobloch, S., Callison, C., Chen, L., Fritzsche, A., & Zillmann, D. (2005). Children’s sex-stereotyped selfsocialization through selective exposure to entertainment: Cross-cultural experiments in Germany, China, and the United States. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02662.x Kopacz, M. A., & Lawton, B. L. (2011). Rating the YouTube Indian: Viewer ratings of Native American portrayals on a viral video cite. American Indian Quarterly, 35(2), 241–257. Krcmar, M. (2020). Social cognitive theory. In M. B. Oliver, A. A. Raney, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 100–114). Routledge. Leavitt, P. A., Covarrubias, R., Perez, Y. A., & Fryberg, S. A. (2015). “Frozen in time”: The impact of Native American media representations on identity and self-understanding. Journal of Social Issues, 71(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12095 Lemish, D., & Johnson, C. R. (2019). The landscape of children’s television in the US & Canada. The Center for Scholars and Storytellers. Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. https://policycommons.net/ artifacts/619187/teens-social-media-technology-overview-2015/1600266/ Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Bowers, E. P., & Geldhof, G. J. (2015). Positive youth development and relational-developmental-systems. In W. F. Overton, P. C. M. Molenaar, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Theory and method (pp. 607–651). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lerner, R. M., Theokas, C., & Jelicic, H. (2005). Youth as active agents in their own positive development: A developmental systems perspective. In W. Greve, K. Rothermund, & D. Wentura (Eds.). The adaptive self: Personal continuity and intentional self-development (pp. 31–47). Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

490

Children’s Media and Development Li-Vollmer, M. (2002). Race representation in child-targeted television commercials. Mass Communication & Society, 5(2), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0502_6 Mares, M. L., Sivakumar, G., & Stephenson, L. (2015). From meta to micro: Examining the effectiveness of educational TV. American Behavior Scientist, 59(14), 1822–1846. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215596555 Mares, M. L., Palmer, E., & Sullivan, T. (2008). Prosocial effects of media exposure. In S. L. Calvert & B. J. Wilson (Eds.), The handbook of children, media, and development (pp. 268–289). Wiley-Blackwell. Mares, M. L., & Woodard, E. (2005). Positive effects of television on children’s social interactions: A metaanalysis. Media Psychology, 7(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703_4 Martins, N., & Harrison, K. (2012). Racial and gender differences in the relationship between children’s television use and self-esteem: A longitudinal panel study. Communication Research, 39(3), 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211401376 Mastro, D. E., & Behm-Morawitz, E. (2005). Latino representation on primetime television. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(1), 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200108 Mays, L., Henderson, E. H., Seidman, S. K., & Steiner, V. J. (1975). On meeting real people: An evaluation report on Vegetable Soup: The effects of multi-ethnic children’s television series on intergroup attitudes of children. New York State Education Department. McClain, A. K., & Mares, M.-L. (2020). Race and representation: Black parents’ hopes for their children’s media. Center for Communication Research. University of Wisconsin-Madison. https://ccr.commarts. wisc.edu/projects/childrens-and-parents-responses-to-media/ McClain, A. K., & Mares, M. L. (2022). Media messages: Intersections of ethnic-racial and media socialization in African American families. Research in Human Development, 18(4), 311–329. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15427609.2021.2010491 McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. (2007). Peer mentoring relationships. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 273–298). Sage. Merz, E. C., Zucker, T. A., Landry, S. H., Williams, J. M., Assel, M., Taylor, H. B., Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Clancyn-Menchetti, J., Barnes, M. A., Eisenberg, N., & de Villiers, J. (2015). Parenting predictors of cognitive skills and emotion knowledge in socioeconomically disadvantaged preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 132, 14–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.11.010 Monoyiou, E., & Symeonidou, S. (2016). The wonderful world of children’s books? Negotiating diversity through children’s literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(6), 588–603. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13603116.2015.1102338 Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(2), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151003735018 Mueller, M. K., Phelps, E., Bowers, E. P., Agans, J. P., Urban, J. B., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Youth development program participation and intentional self-regulation skills: Contextual and individual bases of pathways to positive youth development. Journal of Adolescence, 34(6), 1115–1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2011.07.010 Nabi, R. L., & Clark, S. (2008). Exploring the limits of social cognitive theory: Why negatively reinforced behaviors of TV may be modeled anyway. Journal of Communication, 58(3), 407–427. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00392.x Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Mediation of children’s television viewing: Working toward conceptual clarity and common understanding. Annals of the International Communication Association, 25(1), 115–151. https:// doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2001.11679002 Nathanson, A. I. (2015). Media and the family: Reflections and future directions. Journal of Children and Media, 9(1), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.997145 Neff, H. (1996). Strange faces in the mirror: The ethics of diversity in children’s films. The Lion and the Unicorn, 20(1), Johns Hopkins University Press. Oades-Sese, G. V., Cahill, A., Allen, J. W. P., Rubic, W. L., & Mahmood, N. (2021). Effectiveness of sesame workshop’s little children, big challenges: A digital media SEL intervention for preschool classrooms. Psychology in the Schools, 58(10), 2041–2067. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22574 Orr, R., Harratt, K., & Iqbal, M. (2019). American Indian erasure and the logic of elimination: An experimental study of depiction and support for resources and rights for tribes. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(11), 2078–2099. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1421061 Ortiz, M., & Harwood, J. (2007). A social cognitive theory approach to the effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(4), 615–631. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08838150701626487

491

Lacey J. Hilliard, AnneMarie K. McClain, and Julie Dobrow Overton, W. F. (2015). Processes, relations and relational developmental systems. In W. F. Overton, P. C. M. Molenaar, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, volume 1: Theory and method (7th ed., pp. 9–62). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy102 Pahlke, E., Bigler, R. S., & Suizzo, M. A. (2012). Relations between colorblind socialization and children’s racial bias: Evidence from European American mothers and their preschool children. Child Development, 83(4), 1164–1179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01770.x Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25 PBS Learning Media. Arthur Interactive Media (AIM) Buddy Project Educator’s Guide. https:// mass.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/aim17-sel-educatorsguide/arthur-educators-guide-the-aimbuddy-project-an-arthur-social-and-emotional-curriculum/ Persson, A., & Musher-Eizenman, D. R. (2003). The impact of a prejudice-prevention television program on young children’s ideas about race. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(4), 530–546. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecresq.2003.09.010 Potter, W. J. (2014). A critical analysis of cultivation theory. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1015–1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12128 Rana, M., Qin, D. B., & Vital-Gonzalez, C. (2019). Mistaken identities: The media and parental ethno-religious socialization in a Midwestern Sikh community. Religions, 10(10), 571. https://doi.org/10.3390/ rel10100571 Rasmussen, E. C., White, S. R., King, A. J., Holiday, S., & Densley, R. L. (2016). Predicting parental mediation behaviors: The direct and indirect influence of parents’ critical thinking about media and attitudes about parent-child interactions. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 8(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.23860/ JMLE-2016-08-02-01 Reep, D. C., & Dambrot, F. H. (1989). Effects of frequent television viewing on stereotypes: ‘Drip, drip’ or ‘drench’? Journalism Quarterly, 66(3), 542–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908906600302 Richards, M. L., & Calvert, S. L. (2017). Measuring young children’s parasocial relationships: Creating a child self-report survey. Journal of Children and Media, 11, 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798 .2017.1304969 Rideout, V. (2015). The common sense Census: Media use by tweens and teens. Common Sense Media. Rideout, V., Peebles, A., Mann, S., & Robb, M. B. (2022). Common Sense census: Media use by tweens and teens, 2021. Common Sense. Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2020). The Common Sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight, 2020. Common Sense Media. Robinson, K. M. (2022). “That’s messed up!”: White parents’ reflections on anti-Black messages in children’s media and their parental mediation strategies [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Tufts University. Rogers, O., Mastro, D., Robb, M. B., & Peebles, A. (2021). The inclusion imperative: Why media representation matters for kids’ ethnic-racial development. Common Sense. Rothbaum, B., Etengoff, C., & Uribe, E. (2022). Transgender community resilience on YouTube: Constructing an informational, emotional, and sociorelational support exchange. Journal of Community Psychology, 50(5), 2366–2384. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22781 Rothschild, N., & Morgan, M. (1987). Cohesion and control: Adolescents’ relationships with parents as mediators of television. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 7(3), 299–314. Scharrer, E., & Ramasubramanian, S. (2015). Intervening in the media’s influence on stereotypes of race and ethnicity: The role of media literacy education. Journal of Social Issues, 71(1), 171–185. https://doi. org/10.1111/josi.12103 Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72(1), 92–115. Sesame Workshop. (2013). Little children, big challenges educator guide. Sesame Workshop. https://www. sesamestreet.org/toolkits/challenges Signorielli, N. (2004). Aging on television: Messages relating to gender, race, and occupation in primetime. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(2), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15506878jobem4802_7 Smith, S. L., Choueiti, M., Case, A., Pieper, K., Clark, H., Hernandez, K., Martinez, J., Lopez, B., & Mota, M. (2019). Latinos in film: Erasure on screen and behind the camera across 1,200 popular movies. USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative.

492

Children’s Media and Development Strouse, G. A., O’Doherty, K., & Troseth, G. L. (2013). Effective coviewing: Preschoolers’ learning from video after a dialogic questioning intervention. Developmental Psychology, 49(12), 2368. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0032463 Sullivan, J. N., Eberhardt, J. L., & Roberts, S. O. (2021). Conversations about race in Black and White US families: Before and after George Floyd’s death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(38), e2106366118. https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.fd95a2a0 Takeuchi, L., & Stevens, R. (2011, December). The new coviewing: Designing for learning through joint media engagement. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361 Tukachinsky, R., Mastro, D., & Yarchi, M. (2017). The effect of prime time television ethnic/racial stereotypes on Latino and Black Americans: A longitudinal national level study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(3), 538–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1344669 Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Wölfer, R. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948 Vittrup, B., & Holden, G. W. (2011). Exploring the impact of educational television and parent-child discussions on children’s racial attitudes. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 11, 82–104. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2010.01223.x Ward, L. (2004). Wading through the stereotypes: Positive and negative associations between media use and Black adolescents’ conceptions of self. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 284–94. https://doi. org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.284 Wartella, E., & Jennings, N. (2000). Children and computers: New technology, old concerns. The Future of Children, 10(2), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602688 White, A., & Chik, K. (2021, June 21). 259 LGBTQ characters in cartoons that bust the myth that kids can’t handle inclusion. Insider. https://www.insider.com/lgbtq-cartoon-characters-kids-database-202106?page=see-the-data Zhai, F., Raver, C. C., & Jones, S. M. (2015). Social and emotional learning services and child outcomes in third grade: Evidence from a cohort of head start participants. Children and Youth Services Review, 56, 42–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.06.016 Zillmann, D. (1994) Mechanisms of emotional involvement with drama, Poetics, 23, 33–51.

493

26 CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT IN YOUTH PROGRAMS Lessons from Developmental Science Research and Practice Andrea Vest Ettekal, Jennifer P. Agans, Barbara Bolick, and Kimia Shirzad There is growing emphasis on character development in the research and practice of youth development (e.g., Ettekal et al., 2015). Much of the scholarship on character, at least as it relates to youth programs, is framed within a positive youth development (PYD) perspective. PYD, as a developmental process, occurs through mutually beneficial exchanges between youth and their multiple, nested contexts, termed adaptive person ⇔ context relations (Lerner et al., 2014). Primary contexts known to foster PYD and to be ecological assets for youth are voluntary, out-of-school time (OST) youth programs (Vandell et al., 2015). Indeed, many programs explicitly aim to foster in youth the ability to contribute positively to themselves and their societies and such positive contributions can be broadly understood as reflecting PYD. Within the set of mutually beneficial person ⇔ context relations which constitute PYD, some instances additionally engage youth moral agency (Berkowitz, 2012; Nucci, 2017) and may be construed as demonstrations of “character” (Lerner & Callina, 2014; Lerner et al., 2022). Our goal in this chapter is to expound on the conception of “character” within the context of programs provided by youth-serving organizations (YSOs) and as it relates to youth development research and practice. We therefore first provide a conceptual presentation of character as a construct and process, and then describe youth programs and the various ways in which character development is approached by YSOs. Finally, we address the major challenges related to character development research and practice in the context of youth programs. We conclude by summarizing the main takeaways for researchers and practitioners interested in fostering character development through participation in youth programs. Before turning to our discussion of character, it is important to note that across the landscape of YSOs with explicit PYD goals, there is widespread emphasis on the development of positive contributions to youth and society, generally, and on the development of positive character attributes, specifically. However, different organizations prioritize different sets of contributions and many use the term “character” without clear definition. Therefore, we seek to acknowledge both the ways in which programs contribute to the development of youth character and the diversity of meanings encapsulated by the term “character.”

494

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-29

Character Development in Youth Programs

Character is a heterogeneous concept and, as well, youth programs are heterogeneous. Thus, it is reasonable to encounter a variety of conceptualizations and operationalizations of character in youth programs. Recognition and understanding of the variation in how character is conceptualized and applied in youth programs is important for research on character development and for appropriate application in program settings. Importantly, the acknowledgment of heterogeneity in the use of the term “character” does not imply the need for a singular, shared definition, but rather the need for clarity in the use of the term and for explicit definitions applied to specific contexts (Lerner et al., 2022). Working toward specificity around the concept of “character” as it is used in both research and practice can enable more effective promotion of such positive contributions through youth programs (Lerner et al., 2021). Therefore, as a launch point, we provide a general, overarching definition of character as a set of mutually beneficial (adaptive) person ⇔ context relations that enable individuals to engage the social world as moral agents (Lerner et al., 2022). Although we unpack the nuances of this definition of character in the following section, there is also a need to acknowledge our assumption of the purpose of character, given the broad and perhaps abstract nature of our definition. That is, we assume that researchers and practitioners are interested in character for the purpose of enhancing the person as well as society. If a goal of developmental science is to optimize development (Lerner et al., 2014), which involves both person and context, then character development can be one way that optimization is achieved. Of course, there may be disagreement in the scholarship about what constitutes moral action; we underscore a social justice approach which suggests that character development (i.e., the set of mutually beneficial person ⇔ context relations involving moral action) involves improving conditions for all and, in particular, for the individuals and groups who are systematically deprived (Lerner et al., 2010). As such, a better understanding of character development and its promotion in youth programs can facilitate progress toward positively developing youth and society.

What Is Character and How Is It Developed? To understand character development, we begin by defining development and then attending to what is being developed (i.e., character). According to contemporary developmental theory, development involves exchanges between person and context, termed person ⇔ context relations (Lerner et al., 2014; Overton, 2013). That is, individuals are not biologically predetermined agents navigating a separable social world; nor are individuals biologically or genetically deprived structures whose life course is determined solely by the social worlds within which they find themselves. Instead, the development of individuals involves their biology, the social world in which they are embedded, and the mutually influential exchanges between the two (Lerner et al., 2014; Overton, 2013). When such exchanges are mutually beneficial, such that the person benefits the context and the context supports the person, positive development occurs. Positive development or, in other words, optimizing the course of life of human beings is a central goal of developmental science (Lerner et al., 2014). Thus, it is unsurprising that there is a substantial research base on positive development, which includes a range of representative terms, such as flourishing, thriving, and well-being (Bowers et al., 2014; Howell et al., 2013; King et al., 2005; Lerner et al., 2010; Scales et al., 2011). When the developmental process involving mutually beneficial person ⇔ context relations is applied to the study or practice of working with youth, it is termed positive youth development (PYD; Lerner et al., 2014). In the scholarly literature, PYD has been used to represent a developmental process, an approach to designing youth programs, or an instance of a program purported to 495

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al.

foster PYD (Hamilton, 1999). Our definition of character is nested within the conception of PYD as a developmental process. That is, PYD is a specific set of person ⇔ context relations (i.e., the set in which a youth benefits their context and the context supports the youth), which is operationalized in myriad ways. As a developmental process, PYD can be represented by any instance of positive exchanges between youth and context and can be operationalized as any particular positive youth attribute that is conceptually linked with the specific context that supports its development. As an example, the Five Cs model, which is widely applied internationally in PYD scholarship, suggests that PYD is constituted by the Five Cs of character, caring, competence, connection, and confidence (Lerner et al., 2005). Research on the Five Cs model has helped to elucidate how youth programs can serve as primary ecological assets to promote the Five Cs (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005; Lerner et al., 2005; Zarrett & Lerner, 2008). There are, of course, many conceptions of PYD, some of which include character explicitly, such as the Five Cs model, and others which include it implicitly as an outcome or process.

PYD as a Developmental Process: Considerations for Character The development of positive character attributes is one area of PYD scholarship.1 Character represents the instances of mutually beneficial person ⇔ context relations that enable youth to engage morally in the social world (Lerner et al., 2022). The context, in our definition of character, then, should necessarily include the social world or the embeddedness of youth in a society composed of multiple other individuals. Thus, the conceptual emphasis in character development may be more narrowly focused on mutually beneficial person ⇔ person relations, in addition to the person ⇔ context relations described earlier (Lerner & Callina, 2014). Our definition of character also specifies the way in which youth engage the social world, namely as moral agents (Lerner et al., 2022). An obvious challenge to discerning youth character within this definition is specifying what is meant by “moral.” Conceptualizing youth as agents is intended to emphasize that youth have agency to pursue their own desires, purposes, and goals. Moral agency is about using one’s agency in service to others, including other individuals, one’s community, or society more broadly (Nucci, 2017). In a world characterized by globalization, “society more broadly” implies responsibility to a global community (Feixa et al., 2009). However, it also implies that what is “right” or “good” for others will necessarily depend on the norms, cultures, or needs of individuals. Of course, distinct norms, cultures, and needs of the individual often come into conflict (Feixa et al., 2009). Thus, character means applying the appropriate attributes in the right amount, at the right times, and in the right places; a point that shifts the emphasis away from consistency of behavior and to coherency of behavior (Lerner & Callina, 2014). To be more specific, the definition of character that we provide places no inherent value on specific attributes themselves (e.g., there is nothing inherently positive or negative about “honesty”) and, instead, places value on the ways in which attributes are applied in specific settings and situations. In short, focusing youth development efforts on identifying which attributes are important and those which should be fostered is essentially meaningless without treatment of when and how to apply such attributes. Our approach to character development differs from many past conceptualizations of character, which focus on describing and promoting particular character attributes. As alternative conceptualizations involving a focus on specific attributes have been used in efforts to promote character among youth (described in more detail in later sections of this chapter), we provide an overview of some of the ways that character has been defined and studied. After the overview of 496

Character Development in Youth Programs

conceptualizations of character as they pertain to the PYD scholarship, we then shift into the context of youth programs and consider the ways in which character (and its various conceptualizations) is applied in the context of youth programs.

How Character Is Defined and Studied: Related Conceptualizations There are many conceptualizations of character but, as it pertains to PYD, there are at least three specific definitions worth a brief review. We present these alternative definitions of character in a chronological sense, but not with regard to their initial introductions to the scholarly literature; instead, we review them in order of their gaining traction and approval in the literature, in hopes of explaining a general evolution of the concept of character. Later, in the sections that follow, we address the application of such conceptualizations in the specific context of youth programs. First, virtue ethics is among the earliest approaches to the concept of character. Virtue ethics is rooted in ancient moral philosophy and, more specifically, in at least three ancient virtue frameworks that are commonly referenced today: Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Anscombe, 1958; Broadie & Rowe, 2002; Reilly & Navaez, 2018), the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas (Pegis, 1950; Reilly & Navaez, 2018), and Confucian Virtues (Shek et al., 2013). The application of virtue ethics in psychology has informed two juxtaposed approaches. One approach stems from trait theory and has been applied extensively in personality psychology; in this approach, traits are described as general tendencies to act consistently across situations and character traits, then, are those traits which relate to character (McCrae & Costa, 1987; Reilly & Navaez, 2018). Trait theory suggests that individuals are born with predispositions toward certain virtues or vices that are static throughout the life span (Cawley et al., 2000; Noftle et al., 2011). Another approach stemming from virtue ethics and which has been applied in positive psychology is that character virtues are viewed as malleable personal strengths. As an example, the research of Seligman and Peterson conceptualizes character virtues as individual strengths that can be developed through practice and internalized through habit formation (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The Jubilee Center for Character and Virtues (https://www.jubileecentre.ac.uk/) has provided considerable scholarship on character virtues as strengths (see Arthur, this Handbook, Volume II, Chapter 13). A commonality across the two approaches is that each strives for a taxonomy of “universal” virtues. However, following from our conceptualization of character informed by developmental science, a taxonomy is only useful to the extent that it accounts for the application of such virtues in context, a point to which we return when we expound our conceptualization of character within the context of youth programs. Next, character is implicitly present in the social-emotional learning (SEL) scholarship, although the term “character” is often not evoked. SEL is an area of scholarship concerned with developing in youth the capacity for optimal social and emotional functioning and which has been applied extensively in the context of schools (Durlak, 2015; Elias et al., 1997; Osher et al., 2016). The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL; https://casel.org/) has been a major catalyst in SEL scholarship. SEL focuses on equipping youth, for example, with necessary skills to achieve goals, maintain healthy relationships, and make responsible choices (Durlak, 2015). Many SEL models focus on skills training as the approach to developing such capacities. For example, the CASEL framework emphasizes teaching youth self-awareness, selfmanagement, social awareness, responsible decision-making, and relationship skills (Elias et al., 1997). The CASEL framework engages schools, families, and communities to teach and reinforce skills through structured activities delivered through a formal curriculum. SEL incorporates the concept of character to the extent that the focal social and emotional attributes have a moral lens. 497

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al.

In that vein, we argue that the attributes that are the focus in SEL qualify as character if (and only if) they instill in youth the capacity to engage the social world (via mutually beneficial person ⇔ context relations) as moral agents (Lerner et al., 2022). Finally, a third conceptualization of character can be found in character education, in which adult leaders apply intentional programming with the goal of developing youth character. Some applications in character education differentiate types of character, such as performance character (e.g., diligence, perseverance, and self-discipline; Lickona & Davidson, 2005), civic character (e.g., civic contributions that involve the knowledge, skills, and commitments of being an active and positively engaged citizen; Seider, 2012), intellectual character (e.g., love of learning, seeking truth, and creativity; Baehr, 2013), and moral character (e.g., integrity, generosity, honesty, and concerns about human welfare, justice, and rights; Berkowitz, 2012). Although understanding the content and structure of character has certainly had a place in the character education scholarship, the focus in character education is more on process than on content. The Center for Character and Citizenship at the University of Missouri, St. Louis (https://characterandcitizenship.org/) is among the leaders in character education scholarship (see Berkowitz & Bier, this Handbook Volume II, Chapter 14). In character education, the pedagogical focus is on youth reasoning, including moral reasoning (Howard et al., 2004; Leming, 1997). The impetus in character education is that youth need moral reasoning skills to be able to coherently apply the appropriate character attributes, in the appropriate setting, at the appropriate times, and in the appropriate amount. A predominant training model in character education is the PRIMED model, which focuses on: Prioritizing character; building positive and strong Relationships; fostering Intrinsic motivation; Modeling appropriate and coherent application of character attributes; Empowering youth to have moral agency; and using Developmentally appropriate methods (Berkowitz, 2021; see also Berkowitz, this Handbook). The character education approach often involves selecting a set of character attributes on which to focus programming. Then, the approach to developing those attributes involves fostering youth understanding of the attribute and reasoning about when and to what extent to apply it. The approach to character development in character education is aligned with our conceptualization of character to the extent that it acknowledges the importance of the application of character attributes in specific amounts, at specific times, and in specific contexts.

Considerations for How Character Is Defined and Studied Our limited presentation of conceptualizations of character demonstrates the variety of attributes that may be understood as character, the various processes through which character is understood as being developed, and the multiple facets of scholarship on character attributes and their development. The alternative definitions of character as conceptualized within virtue ethics, SEL, and character education have all been applied in PYD scholarship to some extent. However, we believe that there are some factors that should be considered when applying these definitions to promote the development of character in youth, specifically with regard to the ways in which they deviate from the conceptualization of character which we have presented. Our conceptualization of character as a set of mutually beneficial (adaptive) person ⇔ context relations that enables individuals to engage the social world as moral agents (Lerner et al., 2022) is framed within a developmental, PYD perspective (Lerner et al., 2014). As such, it is ideally positioned to inform efforts to enhance or promote the development of character among youth, whereas there are limitations to applying the above-described alternative conceptualizations to the research and practice of PYD. The first limitation to consider is whether the application of virtue ethics, SEL, or character education depicts a definition of development that aligns with theoretical understandings of 498

Character Development in Youth Programs

developmental processes. Relational Developmental Systems (RDS) metatheory defines development as person ⇔ context relations that have systematic (i.e., not random) variation, meaning that in order for something to develop, it must be able to be systematically changed or enhanced (Overton, 2013). Thus, the approach to character development taken in this chapter eschews approaches that define character as a personality trait or set of traits that are largely immutable or static. As an example, in personality psychology, many scholars are interested in studying character virtues as stable traits and use measures that were designed to assess stability (rather than change) (e.g., Schnitker & Emmons, 2007; Schnitker et al., 2017; see also Nelson et al., this Handbook). However, measures designed to assess stability cannot be applied to test hypotheses about the development of character, as development involves systematic change. Consistent with our conceptualization of character, the trait theorist conceptualization may be applied to examine an instance of character (e.g., the structure and content of character in a given moment), but would be insufficient to address character development or to apply in instances where the goal is to optimize character. Second, because our definition of development is based on the understanding that persons are inextricable from contexts, there is no given attribute of a person that can have meaning without being considered within context. Therefore, the notion that there is a set of character attributes (or virtues or traits) that are universally agreed upon is misaligned with our conceptualization of character. Moreover, we similarly oppose the idea that character can be taught in a way that transcends context (e.g., lessons about specific attributes, such as honesty, that focus only on the attribute itself). As an example, virtue ethicists often study character as a set of virtues that are universally and indisputably important, hence the prominent literature on virtue taxonomies in, for example, personality and positive psychology (McCrae & Costa, 1987; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In fact, most approaches to character development offer at least a preliminary menu of attributes that may constitute character. We suggest that these approaches are only appropriately applied to promote the development of character in youth to the extent that they: (1) select virtues that comprise an element of morality (i.e., attributes of youth that enable moral agency) and (2) apply the virtues in a way that is specific to a given context or situation. Third, because our RDS-based definition of development suggests that youth have agency and, moreover, that character means using that agency in service to others (Callina & Lerner, 2017), any processual application of character must account for youth capacity to reason and make personal choices. Following, then, we renounce approaches to developing character through classical conditioning. That is, although using methods of rewards and punishments that simply reinforce behaviors without reason are often used to produce instances of socially desirable behaviors (e.g., Goodman, 2006; Landrum & Kauffman, 2013), social conditioning falls short of producing moral agents capable of reasoning through a set of attributes in a particular instance and determining whether and to what extent which attributes should be applied (Goodman, 2006; Lewis, 2001). Character education, generally, and the PRIMED model more specifically, is an excellent example of an approach that deviates from classical conditioning and toward a focus on youth reasoning and situational discernment (Berkowitz, 2021). Fourth, given the qualification of character development as involving a young person engaging morally with their social world (Lerner et al., 2022), our definition of character development must acknowledge the variation in social worlds in which young people are embedded. Although there are commonalities in the emphasis on and understanding of character across various cultural, philosophical, and religious traditions, we assert that the way in which character is defined and applied is necessarily culturally bound. As a result, dominant cultural values may be prioritized in 499

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al.

the identification of which attributes constitute character and how such attributes are appropriately applied to various settings. In turn, historically marginalized cultural values may be devalued and alternative conceptions of character become overlooked (Camiré et al., 2021; Clonan-Roy et al., 2016; Kochanek & Erickson, 2020). Thus, researchers like Ungar et al. (2008) express a “need for caution when research extends beyond dominant cultural groups” (p. 168), as outcomes and well-being are understood differently based on context and culture (see Spencer, this Handbook). The approach to character development, including the identification of which attributes to foster in young people and the instances in which they should be applied, should depend on the contexts and cultures of the specific youth within them. In sum, we posit that an RDS-based definition of character as a specific instance of person ⇔ context relations involving moral agency (Overton, 2018) should be prioritized in the research and practice of character development, including as it is applied to youth. However, any of the conceptualizations described thus far (i.e., virtue ethics, SEL, or character education) could be applied to promote the development of character among youth if they are modified to avoid the pitfalls described earlier. An excellent tool to guide the application of any approach to character is to use the specificity principle, which suggests that development (i.e., person ⇔ context relations with systematic change) can only be understood through the lens of the specific youth, in the specific context, at the specific point in development, and within the specific historical time (Bornstein, 2017, 2019). The specificity principle is a particularly important concept in youth character development, both in terms of identifying the appropriate attributes of character that should be of focus and in determining how to best foster the skills necessary to apply the attribute in the appropriate ways and at the appropriate times (Lerner et al., 2021). The specificity principle also supplies the reminder of developmentally appropriate applications of character. Character development cannot be imposed on youth, but rather must be fostered through a collaborative process of engaging youth and their developmental self-system (Berkowitz, 2021; Lerner et al., 2022; Nucci, 2019). Youth have greater capacity for moral agency as they progress across the life span (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977) and the attributes of character which we prioritize, as well as the methods used to teach the application of such attributes, should necessarily be aligned with their developmental capacities. Character must, therefore, be conceptualized as a developmental process. Youth programs (as described in the next section) may provide an optimal context to foster character if they utilize developmentally appropriate applications of character that align with our conceptualization of character from an RDS lens.

Youth Programs as Contexts for Development Before examining the ways in which character development can be applied in youth programs, it is important to clarify what we mean by a youth program. Programs are structured sets of activities that are delivered by adults in planned, intentional ways to achieve some stated goal. We use the term “youth programs” in this chapter as an umbrella for a diverse set of programs that serve young people, typically in settings outside of school. We use the term “youth development (YD) program” to refer to the subset of youth programs that have an explicit emphasis on supporting the positive development of their participants, often including the development of character attributes (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Youth programming takes a wide variety of forms, as YSOs strive to offer activities and program structures that will attract and appeal to diverse young people. YD programs seek to do more than simply provide entertainment or task-specific skill development; to be considered a YD program there must be an emphasis on supporting growth in a positive way (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). 500

Character Development in Youth Programs

In contrast, there are also many youth programs that are not intentionally designed to support character development or PYD, including programs with goals related to education (e.g., tutoring programs), athletic achievement (e.g., programs focusing on talent development), or child-care provision (e.g., after-school or summer programs). In this chapter, when we discuss YD programs, we therefore refer to programs that explicitly seek to promote PYD, prosocial skills, or character attributes, and those which are not just programs providing amusement activities to youth. This differentiation acknowledges that not only are all youth programs not YD programs but also that not all YD programs are necessarily character development programs. Although youth programs have some common features, the specifics of how they operate and function within local communities varies across different cultural and national contexts (including government-sponsored programs, non-profit and non-governmental organizations, fee-for-service programs, etc.; Dimitrova & Wiium, 2021). For the purposes of this chapter, it is important to note that although there are international and regional differences in available programs and approaches to working with youth, we focus here on the types of programs and approaches that have received the most attention in the English-language scholarship. The program types on which we focus therefore often reflect the United States (U.S.) cultural context and the desire of North American parents to have a variety of program options for their children. We appreciate the diversity of programming available globally and acknowledge the limitations of focusing on the English-language scholarship and the U.S. cultural context. Keeping these limitations in mind, the next section presents several dimensions on which youth programming can vary and how these factors matter for character development.

A Brief History of Youth Programs in the United States The history of youth programs is intertwined with the history of the scholarly study of adolescent development. That is, programs were created in response to problems identified in youth and the evolution of program design aligns with the evolution of our understanding of how children and adolescents develop. The first major YSO in the U.S., to our knowledge, was the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), which was founded in the mid-1800s, in response to the problem behaviors that young boys displayed as they were drawn into cities during the industrial revolution (Morse, 1913). George Williams, the founder of the YMCA, strived for wholesome recreation that would improve the spiritual condition of young men who were engaged in such problem behaviors as substance use, gambling, and sexual promiscuity (Morse, 1913). During that same time period, the predominant view of adolescence was as a period of “storm and stress” or of turbulence (Hall, 1904). Thus, it is unsurprising that the first programs to emerge from the YMCA, and related others, were deficit-focused and aimed at reducing problem behaviors (Spencer-Wood, 1994). There was a character-focused element of the YMCA to the extent that programming focused on putting Christian values into practice to help young boys develop a healthy body, mind, and spirit. The history of youth programs in the U.S. is also strongly rooted in classism (Witt & Caldwell, 2018). Juvenile crimes increased during and after the industrial revolution, in part, because families in poverty were forced to either send their children into cities to work for pay or, if they were too young to work, to leave them unattended while other family members worked (Nasaw, 1985). As a result, juvenile delinquency increased across the transition into and across the first several decades of the 1900s (Mennel, 1973). The federal government responded to the increase in juvenile delinquency by providing funding to keep young people off the streets; meanwhile, higher social class families pursued separate enrichment activities to keep their children segregated from the 501

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al.

“non-virtuous” lower class (Beiswinger, 1985). The enrichment activities of upper-class children were typically not in the form of structured programs, but rather in the form of unstructured leisure opportunities pursued within the family (e.g., reading, music, and art, practiced at home). Thus, youth programs became prevention-focused for youth in poverty (Nasaw, 1985) and later would be designed as enrichment opportunities for all youth (Catalano et al., 2008). The general design of programs remained deficit-focused throughout much of the 20th century, although these prevention programs increasingly incorporated behavioral science approaches (Catalano et al., 2008). As research on human development progressed into the middle and late 1900s, the view of adolescents as “problems to be fixed” was challenged. That is, empirical evidence suggested that the problems that were the focus of adolescent research were more normative than not and, moreover, most youth went on to be healthy functioning adults, despite the rise in problem behaviors during adolescence (Arnett, 1999). Around the 1980s, then, the view of adolescence changed to one of “strengths to be developed” and this shift affected the design of youth programs (Lerner et al., 2015; Pittman et al., 2001). Instead of intervention designs that targeted single problem behaviors, programs widened in scope to focus either on the prevention of multiple problem behaviors or on the promotion of multiple strengths. In either the prevention or promotion instance of programs, the predominant theoretical approach in programs was to develop youth strengths (Benson, 2002). In the scholarly literature, this theoretical approach became known as “positive youth development” and would from that point become the dominant view in youth development scholarship (Catalano et al., 2008). The strengths-based theory underpinning PYD became the basis of youth programming through the 1980s and 1990s and gained particular traction across the turn of the century (Maton et al., 2004). The PYD approach led programs to focus on promoting positive assets and to adopt PYD models as their theoretical approach to program design. For example, earlier in this chapter, we referred to the Five Cs model of PYD, which focuses on developing the Five Cs of character, caring, competence, connection, and confidence which, in turn, lead to an increase in contribution (e.g., to one’s community) and a decrease in problem behaviors (Lerner et al., 2005). Another dominant strengths-based approach in youth development in this era was the developmental assets model, which categorized assets as either internal (i.e., strengths of the individual) or external (i.e., resources in the context) and focused on aligning internal and external assets to promote youth thriving (Benson, 2006). Notably, in each of these PYD models, which dominated research and practice in youth development, character was present either as an indicator of thriving (i.e., as in the Five Cs model) or as an individual strength (i.e., as in the developmental assets model). As the evidence base for programs as contexts to promote PYD and character grew, youth programming in the U.S. evolved toward a goal of providing a variety of different program types and designs that would appeal to diverse youth interests.

Considering Various Aspects of Youth Programs YD programs are delivered in a wide variety of settings, including through schools and communities. School-based programs are often referred to as extracurricular activities (ECAs) and limited funding is provided through federal and state education budgets to sustain them. Such publicly funded programs may be fairly affordable and accessible to youth; many school-based ECAs are free to the extent that there is no monetary fee to join, with the exception of sports, which nearly always requires a fee (Project Play, 2021). However, school-based programs often face barriers to having an explicit character focus because whether character is an appropriate use of public funds or whether schools are appropriate authorities to make decisions about character is widely debated

502

Character Development in Youth Programs

(Howard et al., 2004). Instead, many school-based ECAs are focused on developing a skill or competency that likely would not be considered character, such as the mathematics club or Spanish club, which emphasize mathematics and language/cultural skills, respectively. Nevertheless, some school-based ECAs, such as student council, may be focused on attributes, such as leadership, that if applied in a way that exemplifies moral agency, could constitute character. Thus, although they are often the most accessible types of youth programs, most school-based ECAs do not have an explicit character lens. Community-based programs are typically delivered through a YSO that is nested within a local community. Community-based programs utilize a variety of funding models, including not-forprofit, profit-based, and government-sponsored programs. Community-based programs are often mission-oriented and many have an explicit focus on character development. For example, programs such as Girl Scouts refer to character development in their mission statements in terms of increasing skills and values that guide girls’ actions and provide a foundation for decision-making. The program indicates that girls will make the world a better place through development of courage, confidence, and character (www.girlscouts.org). Similarly, Boy Scouts of America attempts to help youth to make ethical and moral choices over their life (https://www.scouting.org/). Importantly, there remain substantial barriers to accessing community-based programs relative to programs offered through schools. Examples of potential barriers to accessing communitybased programs include fees to join, transportation to and from a facility that is not an ordinary context for youth (unlike schools, where youth attend daily), and lack of knowledge about a program’s existence (e.g., D’Agostino & Visser, 2010; Perkins et al., 2007). Thus, one dilemma with regard to character development through participation in youth programs may be that school-based programs are relatively more accessible than community-based programs but relatively less focused on character development. Programs serving youth also vary in terms of who they serve, with some providing services only to youth and others incorporating families, schools, or communities as well. Family-oriented programs focus on supporting youth development by modifying parenting styles, enhancing parent-child relationships, or improving the family environment, whereas school-oriented programs focus on improving the lives of individual students (e.g., enhancing achievement motivation), classrooms (e.g., increasing organization and routine within the class), or schools (e.g., creating a sense of cohesion within the student body) (Durlak et al., 2007). Community-based programs rely on prosocial components such as reciprocity, social responsibility, altruism, and volunteerism (Siu et al., 2012) and provide norms, goals, expectations, and opportunities for bonding with peers and adults (García-Poole et al., 2019). Character can be a focus of any program delivered at these various levels of the youth ecologies. Youth programs are often categorized by their programming content or the focus of the activities in which participating youth engage. Common activity types include leadership (e.g., 4-H), mentoring (e.g., Big Brothers Big Sisters), sports (team sports, such as basketball, and individual sports, such as martial arts), performing arts (theater, dance, music, etc.), visual arts (painting, ceramics, photography, etc.), government or civic (e.g., student council), academic clubs (e.g., honor society and STEM clubs), and faith-based (e.g., religious youth groups), among others. The various types of activities available to youth are important to consider in relation to character development for multiple reasons. Various types of activities are necessary to appeal to the diverse interests of youth and to motivate youth to join and stay in programs (Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009). The different types of activities are also associated with different developmental experiences for youth (Hansen et al., 2010; Larson et al., 2006) and, thus, may achieve different developmental goals.

503

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al.

Character can be promoted through any of these types of activities, if character development is an explicit goal and specific strategies are implemented to promote it.

General Approaches to Programming There are two general philosophical approaches to youth programming, namely prevention and promotion (Catalano et al., 2002). Prevention approaches focus on reducing problem behavior(s), often through the development of youth strengths. As it relates to character development, a prevention approach might focus on developing character attributes but as a means of reducing problem behaviors. For example, through Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, youth are paired with mentors who help them develop self-confidence which, in turn, is expected to reduce negative behaviors, such as truancy, substance use, and interpersonal violence (https://www.bbbs.org/about-us). A promotion approach focuses on the explicit goal of developing youth strength(s). Again, as it relates to character development, a promotion approach might include the explicit goal of developing a specific strength that might qualify as a character attribute, that is, if it is applied in a specific context in a way that enables the youth to engage the world as a moral agent (following our definition of character). As an example, the Positive Coaching Alliance is a national non-profit that provides youth programming aimed at enhancing specific attributes, such as growth mindset, resilience, and empathy that, when applied and practiced in sport, can enable youth to become better athletes and better people (www.positivecoach.org). Both prevention and promotion approaches to programming can provide important opportunities for character development. Of course, all programs are not created equal in terms of their potential to promote PYD or character. Indeed, the quality of programming is an essential factor that determines the extent to which programs can achieve their developmental goals. One prominent and influential model for assessing the quality of YD programs was developed by Eccles and Gootman (2002) in a report to the National Academies of Sciences (NAS), which provided a set of eight research-based features that differentiated programs in terms of universal quality (e.g., positive social norms, supportive relationships, and opportunities to belong). However, an important limitation of the evidence base available at the time of the NAS report was that samples were largely White, middle class youth. The lack of diversity of youth samples from which the universal program quality principles were drawn limits generalizability to diverse youth populations (Simpkins et al., 2017; Spencer & Spencer, 2014). The limitation of generalizability of the Eccles and Gootman framework is important, especially when character is a focal process and outcome in programming, because character is instantiated in ways that reflect the relations between individuals and their unique contexts (as compared to universal sets of features or attributes). Character necessarily has cultural and contextual connotations that should be considered, and that matter for discerning program quality. Program quality should also be assessed in terms of its responsiveness to youth ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Culturally responsive programming takes into account the cultural practices, beliefs, values, and knowledge of the target participants (Gay, 2018). For example, Simpkins and colleagues (2017) adapted the Eccles and Gootman (2002) framework to consider various ways in which program structure (i.e., features of the context) could be adapted to be culturally responsive to the youth being served. Similarly, the local cultural context and backgrounds of the specific youth participating in a program should be considered in identifying and defining attributes as character. In other words, youth cultural backgrounds and the cultural contexts in which they live should be a primary factor in defining what constitutes moral action, how features of a context should be adapted to be morally aligned with the local culture, and what processes should be used within a context to foster character development. 504

Character Development in Youth Programs

The specificity principle (Bornstein, 2019) can be applied in programmatic decisions to be culturally responsive: programs should foster specific character attributes that are important and valued in the local culture, use practices that are culturally relevant, and adapt program features to be sensitive to the moral principles grounding the local cultural community. For example, what constitutes a positive social norm will necessarily vary across cultural contexts. In some cultures, collectivism is a dominant moral principle, such that the appropriate ways of acting are in cooperation with the group and for the collective good (Triandis, 1993). In other cultures, such as the culture of White, upper-middle class America, individualism is a dominant moral principle and acting selfishly for the sake of upward mobility might be deemed appropriate or “right.” In short, programs should be as unique as youth. There is no single program, including a type of activity or context for delivery, that will foster character development for all youth; and there is no youth who will be well served by all programs. Programs should be specific to the specific youth served and representative of the specific local cultural context within which they are nested.

Linking Character Attributes with Program Participation Programmatic theories of change (TOCs) are models developed to represent the specific processes through which the activities delivered in programs are expected to cause specific outcomes (see Urban et al., this Handbook). In other words, TOCs serve as a basis of logic models connecting the activities in a program to their intended outcomes (Funnell & Rogers, 2011). Importantly, there are no rules indicating which activities within programs are or should be linked with which outcomes, except logic. The research to date on youth programs has largely linked participation in YD programs, in general or as participation in categories or types of programs (e.g., arts, sports, and clubs), with developmental outcomes or sets of outcomes (e.g., Larson et al., 2006; Zarrett et al., 2009). Thus, TOCs represent the process of how programs “work” more specifically than the process has been represented or tested in the empirical research on youth programs to date. Knowledge of how participation in different types of activities works to promote which types of outcomes is limited and is often referred to as the “black box” in the youth program literature (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003) for at least two reasons. First, there are few studies that include data on the specific activities that comprise a program; participation is often conceptualized as some quantity of participation (e.g., frequency/intensity and duration) in some type of program (e.g., arts or sports) or several types of programs (e.g., arts and sports), which is referred to as breadth (e.g., Agans et al., 2017; Mahoney & Vest, 2012; Zarrett et al., 2009). Second, few research studies use rigorous methods that allow for conclusions about causation (e.g., experiments or quasi-experiments) and, instead, much of the research on youth programs is correlational (Naftzger, 2014). There is certainly enough evidence to suggest that participation in programs, in general, is related to character development, which has been conceptualized in a variety of ways (e.g., Zarrett et al., 2021); however, which types of programs (or activities) best promote which character attributes in which contexts is uncertain. Thus, we posit that researchers and practitioners interested in fostering character development through youth programs should remain open to the potential of many types of programs to promote many different character attributes and that whether and how programs promote character is an empirical question that warrants further investigation. In the next two sections, we demonstrate the diversity of programming available to promote many different character attributes. First, we focus on the missions of different programs to demonstrate how programs that might be categorized similarly in the scholarly literature (e.g., as leadership or as faith-based programs) can have character-focused missions that emphasize a wide range of character attributes. Then, we review the 505

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al.

empirical evidence that exists to suggest which types of programs might be effective to promote various attributes that might constitute character. Of note, a full review of all the various types of programs and activities and their associations with character (and the myriad operationalizations of it) is beyond the scope of this chapter. Thus, our intention is to provide examples of programs and various attributes that might constitute character to demonstrate the diversity of programming and character-related outcomes and to highlight the need for research on character development in YD programs that accounts for program-level diversity.

Mission-Oriented Programming Related to Character Development Many youth programs are delivered through YSOs with explicit missions and goals. When programs function under an explicit mission, the programmatic TOC often includes specific activities that are designed to foster the specific youth outcomes stated in the mission. TOCs are helpful for YSOs to explain their programs and programming approaches within and beyond the organization. TOCs are also helpful as a guide to collecting data to test whether a program is effective and whether a program works the way it was designed to work. When the mission of a YD program is related to character, the TOC must therefore articulate both what aspects of character the program is intended to foster as well as what aspects of the program are intended to support character development. There are many different youth programs that function under explicit missions related to character. Importantly, there is variation across types of programs in terms of which character attributes they aim to develop and, further, whether they conceptualize such attributes as character. There is also variation within program types (e.g., within arts-based programs) in terms of the character attributes they aim to foster and in the terms used to represent the outcomes of interest to the organization. Table 26.1 provides several examples of YSOs and their various programs that have some focus on character development or that include character attributes as intended outcomes of the program. Throughout our examples of programs, we are cautious to use the terminology that the organization uses as part of their mission instead of applying our labels or determinations about whether the attributes constitute character. Nevertheless, the organizations and programs we have chosen as representative in this section are character-focused in some way, whether by their own determination or by alignment with our definition of character presented in this chapter. As shown in Table 26.1, there are many examples of different types of programs available to youth to promote character. A first distinction might be made between prevention and promotion programs. The table provides several examples of prevention programs that include character attributes as youth strengths that enable capacities to prevent problem behaviors. Among the range of risk behaviors are substance use, risky sexual activity, violence, school truancy or dropout, and poor physical health outcomes. There are, of course, many other prevention programs available to youth that focus on other risk behaviors not mentioned here. The primary premise of the prevention programs included in the table is that they include activities designed to promote youth strengths which, in turn, help to reduce problem behaviors. For example, the Life Skills Training program and the Bicultural Competence Skills program each teach youth skills, such as social competence and self-control, that help to avoid substance use. The types of prevention programs provided as examples in the table support character development through a process that aligns with our definition of character, such that they promote the development of attributes (e.g., selfcontrol) that, when applied in specific contexts (e.g., instances when confronting peer pressure to use substances), enhance the youth (e.g., reduce substance use), the other individuals with whom the youth interacts (e.g., modeling resistance to substance use), and the contexts within which the 506

Table 26.1  Examples of youth development programs with character development goals Goal(s) of the program

Activity type(s)

Website/Reference

4-H

This program began as an agricultural career development program, however, over time it evolved into an expansive PYD organization that promotes the Five Cs of PYD and youth contributions to society. Providing academic enrichment opportunities for youth, particularly those who are experiencing poverty and attending low-performing schools. Provides a setting where students can participate in sport activities, express themselves and inspire positive change off the field and outside the classroom to develop creativity, racial equity, leadership, commitment, teamwork, and fair play. Preventing substance abuse by promoting prosocial, coping, problem-solving, decision-making, communication, and social network-building skills. Promoting prosocial skills (e.g., reciprocity, social responsibility, altruism, and volunteerism) and helping youth achieve success in school and avoid risky behaviors. Developing physical fitness, reducing stress, and promoting positive use of leisure time, and leadership skills. This program fosters character development and valuebased leadership skills with the mission of preparing boys and girls to make ethical and moral choices over their life. Preventing maladjustment from family structure changes by promoting resilience and healthy coping.

Various

https://4-h.org/

Academic

https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formulagrants/school-support-and-accountability/21stcentury-community-learning-centers/ https://www.americascoresnewyork.org/

21st Century Community Learning Centers America Scores

507

Bicultural Competence Skills Big Brothers Big Sisters

Boys and Girls Clubs of America Boys Scouts of America

Children of Divorce Intervention Program

Sport; arts

Leadership; educational

https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/262

Mentoring

https://www.bbbs.org/

Sport; recreation

https://bgca.org/

Recreation

https://www.scouting.org/

Life skills; educational

https://www.childrensinstitute.net/ programs-and-services/codip

(Continued)

Character Development in Youth Programs

Program

Table 26.1 (Continued) Goal(s) of the program

Activity type(s)

Website/Reference

Children, Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR)

Preventing adolescent pregnancy, homelessness, and domestic violence by promoting life skills.

Life skills; educational

Community Impact

Promoting educational skills to enrich academic outcomes, address problems faced by students in lowincome neighborhoods, and engage families in youth learning. This program prioritizes volunteer public service, personal development, physical fitness, and exploration. Democracy is the primary political value that is emphasized. Youth develop life skills such as creativity, compassion, critical thinking, and collaboration thought arts which leads to their academic achievement, civic participation, and more success in the workplace. This youth development program accompanies golf instruction with a curriculum designed to build the character strengths of honesty, integrity, perseverance, and respect. The program also aspires to develop “inner strength, self-confidence, and resilience” in youth as they learn and improve their golf game. This program supports youth developing agricultural careers. It also has expanded to teacher, research, and development careers in the agriculture and livestock industry. Providing opportunities for youth to learn new skills, lead, make an impact on their community, have adventurous experiences, make friends, and have fun. Girls build courage, confidence, and character in the program.

Academic

https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/ programs/4-h-positive-youthdevelopment/4-h-access-equity-opportunity/ children-youth-families-risk-cyfar

Congressional Award Program

508

Creative Action’s Artists in Action program First Tee Golf

Future Farmers of America (FFA) Girl Scouts of the USA

Civic

https://www.congressionalaward.org/

Arts

creativeaction.org

Sport

https://firsttee.org/programs/

Leadership

https://www.ffa.org/

Recreation

https://www.girlscouts.org/

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al.

Program

(Continued)

Table 26.1 (Continued) Goal(s) of the program

Activity type(s)

Website/Reference

Life Skills Training

Preventing school dropout, substance use, and violence by promoting strengths, such as school belonging and peer bonding. Supporting military-connected children in education challenges they face due to the military lifestyle, as well as their social and emotional needs. Parents and other adults are empowered to help children be ready for college, workforce, and life. Preventing substance use by promoting drug and alcohol resistance skills.

Life skills; educational

https://www.blueprintsprograms.org/ lifeskills-training-lst/

Mentoring

https://www.militarychild.org/programs/ student-2-student

Leadership; arts; educational Arts

https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/247

Faith-based

https://muslimcenter.org/

Sport; recreation

https://www.navycyp.org/

Arts; leadership

https://myneighborhoodproject.org/

Sport

https://positivecoach.org/media/839777/pca_ character_leadership_wkshp.pdf

Military Child Education Coalition’s Student 3 Student program Midwestern Prevention Project Mirror Image Arts’s “Your Voice” program

509 Muslim Center of New York Youth Program Navy CYP Norris Square Neighborhood Project Positive Coaching Alliance’s Character and Leadership Development Program

This program promotes positive youth development in youth in schools and juvenile detention centers by utilizing interactive theatre. The program provides spaces for youth to express themselves, feel valued, seen, and heard. Promoting Muslim identity, critical thinking, social awareness, and activism. Fostering self-esteem, appropriate relationships, and healthy decision making, along with facilitating academic success. This program provides youth opportunities to explore culture and social-justice issues, developed their leadership skills, make peer relationships by creating visual art, and learning about urban agriculture. Fostering skills that youth need in athletic competitions, classrooms, communities, and future careers by interactive sessions that integrate group learning and case study techniques.

https://www.mirrorimagearts.org/programs

(Continued)

Character Development in Youth Programs

Program

Table 26.1 (Continued) Goal(s) of the program

Activity type(s)

Website/Reference

Promise Neighborhoods

Promoting student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The program operationalizes character development as developing positive relationships, community service, self-care, and adherence to Christian principles. Children develop the qualities of hope, courage, creativity, honesty, and tolerance through theatre.

Academic

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/ promiseneighborhoods/index.html

Faith-based

https://caringmagazine.org/

Arts

http://www.trypskids.com

This program focuses on promoting Jewish values, community service, and love of Israel. This program helps youth to learn to debate issues “that affect citizens in their state,” and propose legislation and give them an opportunity to participate in the debate over legislation on the floor of their state legislature. Helping youth earn High School Equivalency diplomas, workforce credential(s), and placement in a career pathway or higher education. This program trains youth serving organizations to promote youth-led critical reflection in order to identify and address social justice issues in their communities.

Faith-based

https://www.youngjudaea.org/

Civic; leadership

https://www.ymca.org/

Mentoring

https://youthbuild.org/

Civic

https://cfsem.org/initiative/youth-social-justice/

Salvation Army Theater Reaching Young People and Schools (TRYPS) Young Judea

510

Young Men’s Christian Associations’ Youth and Government program Youthbuild YOUth Voice for Social Justice

Notes: Programs presented in alphabetical order.

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al.

Program

Character Development in Youth Programs

youth applies such attributes (e.g., creating a norm against substance use). Indeed, character development as a process and character attributes as focal skills are included in many types of youth prevention programs. Next, there are also many promotion programs that include character as part of their mission to promote youth strengths. Table 26.1 highlights various YSOs with specific programs that have some focus on character development. For example, 4-H is among the largest YSOs in the U.S., and is delivered by Cooperative Extension, the nationwide education system that operates through land-grant universities in partnership with the government to meet the needs of the communities within which they are nested (www.4-h.org). The 4-H mission is to give all young people access to opportunity and one way that they achieve their mission is through the provision of youth programs focused on character development. 4-H offers a variety of different types of programs to support character development, including STEM, agricultural, sport-based, leadership, and civic, among others. Other YSOs that are similarly structured to provide many different types of youth programs, and which include character in their missions, include the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (www.bgca.org), the Y (www.ymca.org), Girl Scouts (www.girlscouts.org), Boy Scouts of America (www.scouting.org), and Girls Inc. (www.girlsinc.org), among others. There are, of course, many different YSOs and programs that represent a singular type of programming, such as arts, sports, or civic, and that include a focus on character. In Table 26.1, we have provided examples of several different types of programs, including mentoring, academic enrichment, sport and recreation, faith-based, leadership, arts, and civic programs. Each of these programs focuses on a singular type of activity as a way to teach youth character attributes or as a way to foster a process of character development. For example, arts programs use activities, such as performance arts (e.g., theater) and visual arts (e.g., sculpture) to promote youth strengths, such as creativity, compassion, and self-empowerment. Sport programs use competitive, physical activities to promote youth strengths, such as self-confidence, coping skills, and teamwork. Notably, a variety of program examples are included in Table 26.1 to demonstrate that different types of programs, such as sport or arts, can promote the same youth attributes, such as the variety of self attributes that may reflect character (e.g., self-esteem, self-worth, self-empowerment, and self-confidence). Moreover, programs within the same category, such as an arts program in which youth engage in theater and an arts program in which youth create sculptures, can promote different youth attributes. Thus, two themes are evident in the table of example programs – that different program types can promote the same character attributes and that the same program types can promote different character attributes. The key is for youth programs to be deliberately designed to deliver specific kinds of activities that are intended to promote specific attributes and help youth learn to apply these attributes in ways that demonstrate character. A diversity of programming is necessary to address the interests of youth and, in turn, to recruit and retain youth in programs. Diversity in programming is also necessary to help youth develop the ability to navigate and negotiate different attributes that constitute character and to practice their application across varied developmental contexts.

Evidence for YD Programs’ Capacities to Promote Character As demonstrated in the preceding section and in Table 26.1, there are many YSOs and programs which aim to promote character development. However, whether programs are effective to meet their character development goals is less clear. Discerning evidence for YD programs’ capacities to promote youth character is difficult for a few reasons. First, it is difficult to assess the effects 511

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al.

of a youth program when the voluntary nature of participation means that random assignment of youth to participate creates challenges to validity, and when participants may differ from nonparticipants in numerous ways (Lerner et al., 2014). Lerner and colleagues (2014) have identified methodological tools that can help researchers assess the effects of youth program participation, such as propensity score analysis, but these tools have yet to be widely adopted by researchers and evaluators designing studies to demonstrate effectiveness of a program (or programs) to promote youth character. The evidence in the scholarly literature for YD programs’ capacities to promote character is therefore limited, in part, because the methods used have limitations to draw such conclusions. Next, discerning evidence for character is also challenging to the extent that measuring character is challenging. A primary challenge to measuring character is the lack of consensus around what constitutes character, either as an attribute or as a process. Of course, as we have articulated in our definition of character, we do not advocate for shared agreement about a set of standardized attributes that constitute character. Instead, we have argued that character is defined as the specific set of mutually beneficial person ⇔ context (and person ⇔ person) relations that enable moral action and, thus, a multitude of attributes could constitute character when exhibited in appropriate contexts. Nevertheless, scholars interested in taxonomies of character attributes have attempted to consolidate attributes that might constitute character into particular groups or families. For example, Zarrett et al. (2021) reviewed empirical research between 1999 and 2019 and found that attributes constituting moral components of character were operationalized as behaviors (e.g., kindness, helpfulness, respect, empathy, and trustworthiness) or cognitions (e.g., understanding and reasoning), among others. From our perspective, the lack of consensus around which attributes constitute character is not a problem, per se, so long as conceptualizations of character attributes derive from well-defined theories and, in turn, inform respective operationalizations (e.g., Lerner et al., 2014). The lack of consensus on defining character does, however, cause limitations to the general conclusions we might draw about character as it relates to youth programs. Despite the largely methodological limitations to drawing conclusions about YD programs’ capacities to promote character, there are some general trends that serve as empirical evidence. As a starting point and to (re-)assert its salience, character is the second most frequently cited goal of YD programs (Mercier et al., 2019; Park, 2004). Moreover, there is strong empirical evidence for character in PYD models, such as the Five Cs model. That is, the evidence for the Five Cs model suggests that participation in youth programs is a strong predictor of PYD, which is constituted by the Five Cs of caring, competence, confidence, character, and connection (e.g., Zarrett et al., 2009); among the Five Cs, character has been the strongest predictor of the sixth C of contribution to one’s community (e.g., Conway et al., 2015). Therefore, there is evidence that character is both a direct and indirect outcome of participation in youth programs. Indeed, there is considerable evidence of the positive impact of participating in youth programs on character attributes (Lerner et al., 2021). A consistent finding is that participation in YD programs of any type is related to increased character, defined in a variety of ways and as a multitude of attributes, compared to non-participation (e.g., Zarrett et al., 2009). When program participation is quantified more specifically to capture variation in dosage, such as by intensity or duration of participation, the relations with character attributes are mixed. For example, one study found that intensity of participation in Boy Scouts of America programs was not associated with kindness (Champine et al., 2016), whereas another study found duration of participation in Boy Scouts of America programs was associated with increased helpfulness (Lynch et al., 2016). Although it is important to note that different operationalizations of both program participation and character were used in the two Boy Scouts of America studies, nonetheless, the general patterns 512

Character Development in Youth Programs

of associations between the program and attributes of character were inconsistent. As another example, some studies show consistent findings, despite slight variations in operationalizations of programs and character: Walker et al. (2017) found that participation in charity, art, and sport programs was positively associated with moral judgment, which was consistent with the findings of Larson et al. (2020) who reported that youth programs promoted moral agency, ethical judgments, and actions. Thus, a general conclusion can be drawn that the evidence is sufficient to suggest that youth programs promote character (Zarrett et al., 2021); however, the nuances related to which types of programs promote which character attributes warrant further scrutiny. A final point worth noting is that we have thus far only addressed one side of the bidirectional arrow constituting character as we have defined it in this chapter – that is, the role of youth programs to promote youth character (i.e., context => person). Character, as we have defined it here, involves exchanges between youth and context and, thus, also involves youth impacts on the context (i.e., person => context). The examples we have provided throughout emphasize the role of programs in developing youth character, such that youth develop the capacity to discern complex situations through participation in various activities delivered in programs. The various examples we have provided of attributes which may constitute character elucidate the diverse ways in which character is manifested in distinct contexts. A fundamental commonality among the various attributes provided as examples throughout this chapter is that of contribution to self, family, community, or society (e.g., Lerner et al., 2005). Thus, an important conclusion, in our view, is that character development should not be a focus of youth programs solely for the sake of developing the attributes for youth themselves, but rather for the sake of enabling youth to engage positively with society. We further posit that purposes for engaging in society be unified around social justice and democracy because, if character involves acting with moral agency and in pursuit of the wellbeing of others (Nucci, 2017), then character development in youth programming is only relevant to the extent that youth develop the capacity to contribute to social justice (Lerner et al., 2010; Smith & Smith Lee, 2020). This approach is foundational to the concept of PYD itself within the Five Cs approach, which posits the sixth C of contribution to community as an important result of the development of the Five Cs of PYD (Lerner et al., 2005). As such, all programs that promote PYD could be understood as supporting the development of character to the extent that they foster mutually beneficial person ⇔ context relations that enable youth to engage morally in the social world (Lerner et al., 2022).

Challenges of Character Development Work As noted in the prior sections of this chapter, many YSOs either explicitly or implicitly seek to promote character development. We have highlighted several of the ways in which character is operationalized in these programs and have described the research evidence for their efficacy. However, there are also many challenges to this work, in terms of both program design and evaluation.

Challenges to Program Design As previously noted, youth programs are designed on philosophies and TOCs that explain how programs approach young people and their development and which affect how youth are situated within the program (Funnell & Rogers, 2011). On the one hand, programs designed through use of a deficit model view youth (or specific categories of youth, whom programs are designed to serve) as problems for the program to solve (Pittman et al., 2001) and view the program as rehabilitating poor character. In the deficit-reduction approach, programming is often viewed as being imposed 513

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al.

on youth rather than as a collaboration with youth. On the other hand, programs that view youth as having agency in their own development may design programs in which youth strengths are central (e.g., Maletsky & Evans, 2017). YSOs vary in the extent to which they are successful in implementing programming that effectively aligns with deficit-reduction versus strengths promotion philosophies. For example, although many programs recognize that encouraging and supporting youth to engage in program development and decision-making can contribute to PYD (e.g., Iwasaki, 2015), collaborating and sharing power with youth can also be difficult (e.g., Burke et al., 2017; Maletsky & Evans, 2017). We believe that character development programming can only be effective when designed to make youth voice central and to empower youth to be a part of the program design and implementation (Dawes & Larson, 2011). Another issue faced by youth programs, especially those seeking to promote character development among youth, is the need to acknowledge cultural differences in the attributes of youth or aspects of character that are valued (Camiré et al., 2021; Kochanek & Erickson, 2020). As previously noted, programs working with diverse populations should be especially thoughtful in developing programming that is accommodating or adaptable to youth of different backgrounds. However, this process is difficult for programs not originally designed to serve youth from different cultural groups, and often requires change in organizational culture (e.g., Larson & Ngo, 2017; Outley & Witt, 2006; Rich & Giles, 2014). In addition, when considering that character is a developmental regulation that includes the social context, some programs may also need to consider how to support assimilation or acculturation processes (e.g., for immigrant youth; Larson & Ngo, 2017). Following Bornstein’s (2017, 2019) specificity principle, the development of any particular character attribute will rely on how the specific features of the program context interrelate with the specific youth being served at that specific point in their lives (Lerner et al., 2021). Similarly, attempts to promote youth attributes, such as resilience and grit, without acknowledging the inequities that lead some youth to need these strengths more than others have been criticized as contributing to systemic injustices (Camiré et al., 2021; Gonzalez et al., 2020; Kochanek & Erickson, 2020). We have articulated a definition of character as more than just a characteristic of the individual, that is, as involving social contexts. However, as the social world can, in fact, undermine positive development through oppressive structures and systems (Gonzalez et al., 2020; OrtegaWilliams & Harden, 2022), the development of character may also require awareness of when individuals should not conform to social expectations. This idea of non-conformity is grounded in Paulo Freire’s (1984) concept of critical consciousness, which “describes how oppressed or marginalized people learn to critically analyze their social conditions and act to change them” (Watts et al., 2011, p. 44). Whereas some YD programs are designed to help youth build critical consciousness (Gonzalez et al., 2020; Ortega-Williams & Harden, 2022), the wide variety of definitions of character across the youth service industry mean that not all programs seeking to promote character development follow this approach. In fact, it is certainly possible that one program’s character-promoting activities may contradict another program’s character-oriented mission. Finally, no program can promote the development of character (or indeed, any other attribute) among youth who do not engage with the program (e.g., Akiva et al., 2013; Bartko, 2005). Gillard and Witt (2008); Lauver and Little (2005) had identified several key strategies for participant recruitment and retention, but most are focused on increasing participant motivation rather than overcoming obstacles to participation and engagement. Programs designed to serve youth from under-resourced or marginalized communities may need to pursue additional strategies such as reducing barriers to access based on factors such as program cost, transportation, etc. (Borden et al., 2006; Pelcher & Rajan, 2016) and ensuring that the program has culturally responsive approaches to staff training and rules for participants (Sjogren & Melton, 2021). Regardless of the 514

Character Development in Youth Programs

population being served, youth development is a process driven by the agency of the young person (e.g., Lerner et al., 2021) and character development in youth programs therefore requires their active participation and investment.

Challenges to Program Evaluation Once a program has been designed and implemented, program evaluation can be used to determine whether it is being implemented as designed (process evaluation) and/or whether it has its intended impact on participants (outcome evaluation) (Ellard & Parsons, 2010). Many programs do not engage in rigorous evaluation (Agans et al., 2020; Arnold & Cater, 2011) and instead rely on anecdotes and instincts with regard to their program’s effectiveness. Programs that do conduct evaluations grapple with a range of challenges, including scarce resources and distrust of evaluators, and the panoply of challenges to program evaluation itself, including questions about appropriate program dosage and difficulty collecting and analyzing data (Chaudhary et al., 2020; Ellard & Parsons, 2010; Ettekal et al., 2017; Izzo et al., 2004). In addition to these general challenges of program evaluation, a major challenge when evaluating youth character programs is the definition and operationalization of character itself, as the definition of character used by the program must be consistent and align with the measurement tools used. We have noted previously that there are vast differences across programs in how character is defined; these inconsistencies can pose challenges when it comes to evaluation because the measures used to capture “character development” must align with the operationalization of character used in the specific program being evaluated. The proliferation of definitions of character has led to a proliferation of measures to assess character (Zamarro et al., 2016), and yet programs may still be unable to find appropriate validated measures for their particular understanding of character, leading evaluators to continually develop new measures (e.g., Agans et al., 2018). In this chapter, we have suggested that Lerner and Callina’s (2014) definition of character as mutually beneficial person ⇔ context and person ⇔ person relations could be used as an overarching framework for understanding character development in youth programs. When engaging in program evaluation, adopting this framework would require programs to move away from an emphasis on measuring specific character attributes (e.g., honesty) as traits of the individual and instead assess the extent to which the program is both supporting youth in their development of character attributes and the extent to which participating youth apply these attributes within and beyond the program. This approach could also support a more holistic understanding of character development that recognizes youth programs as only one of the many contexts in which character development occurs (Lerner et al., 2010), preventing program evaluations from focusing on one aspect of character even when it may be at odds with other aspects of character in other contexts (e.g., choosing between studying and taking care of siblings). Although Lerner and Callina’s (2014) definition is more complex than approaches based on taxonomies of universal character attributes, it allows evaluations to capture character development across contexts.

Conclusions It is widely recognized that youth programs have the capacity to promote character development – in fact, what distinguishes YD programs from other types of fun experiences for youth is that they are intended to support youth toward positive development, often including the development of character. However, the lack of clarity and considerable inconsistencies in how youth programs 515

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al.

operationalize or evaluate character development make it difficult to assess how effective they are in reality. Because this conceptual confusion precludes empirical knowledge of program effectiveness, we suggest that the field must first begin to untangle these issues. One way to do so is to reframe current approaches as different expressions of Lerner and Callina’s (2014) definition of character as a relational process. With the shared understanding of character as both an individual attribute and an effort toward social justice, as compared to a trait located within the individual, it is less divisive for different programs to focus on different aspects of this process – they could utilize common evaluation systems and contribute to shared knowledge of effective programming methods. Such a unified effort to understand character development in youth programs is important to advance research and practice, and so that youth can be supported in learning to apply the appropriate character attributes in the right amount, at the right times, and in the right places.

Note 1 We acknowledge that character development scholarship is not siloed within the scholarship on positive youth development. However, because our theoretical basis is in optimizing human development, we position our definition of character within the positive youth development framing, which we suggest is most pertinent to youth programs.

References Agans, J. P., Johnson, S. K., & Lerner, R. M. (2017). Adolescent athletic participation patterns and selfperceived competence: Associations with later participation, depressive symptoms, and health. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27(3), 594–610. Agans, J. P., Maley, M., Rainone, N., Cope, M., Turner, A., Eckenrode, J., & Pillemer, K. (2020). Evaluating the evidence for youth outcomes in 4-H: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104617. Agans, J. P., Su, S., & Ettekal, A. V. (2018). Peer motivational climate and character development: Testing a practitioner-developed youth sport model. Journal of Adolescence, 62, 108–115. Akiva, T., Cortina, K. S., Eccles, J. S., & Smith, C. (2013). Youth belonging and cognitive engagement in organized activities: A large-scale field study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 208–218. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy, 33: 1–19; repr. in The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe, vol. 3: Ethics, Religion and Politics, 26–42. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981. More recently repr. in Human Life, Action, and Ethics: Essays by G. E. M. Anscombe, edited by Mary Geach and Luke Gormally, 169–194. Exeter, UK; Charlottesville, Va.: Imprint Academic, 2005. Arnett, J. J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist, 54(5), 317. Arnold, M. E., & Cater, M. (2011). From then to now: Emerging directions for youth program evaluation. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3), 80–92. Baehr, J. (2013). Educating for intellectual virtues: From theory to practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(2), 248–262. Bartko, W. T. (2005). The ABCs of engagement in out-of-school-time programs. New Directions for Youth Development, 2005(105), 109–120. Beiswinger, G. L. (1985). One to one: The story of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters movement in America. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America. Benson, P. L. (2006). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. Jossey-Bass. Benson, P. L. (2002). Adolescent development in social and community context: A program of research. New Directions for Youth Development, 2002(95), 123–148. Berkowitz, M. W. (2012). Moral and character education. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, vol. 2. Individual differences

516

Character Development in Youth Programs and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 247–264). American Psychological Association. https://doi. org/10.1037/13274-010 Berkowitz, M. W. (2021). PRIMED for character education: Six design principles for school improvement. Eye on Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351030267 Borden, L. M., Perkins, D. F., Villarruel, F. A., Carleton-Hug, A., Stone, M. R., & Keith, J. G. (2006). Challenges and opportunities to Latino youth development: Increasing meaningful participation in youth development programs. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28(2), 187–208. Bornstein, M. H. (2017). The specificity principle in acculturation science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 3–45. Bornstein, M. H. (2019). Fostering optimal development and averting detrimental development: Prescriptions, proscriptions, and specificity. Applied Developmental Science, 23(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1 080/10888691.2017.1421424 Bowers, E. P., John Geldhof, G., Johnson, S. K., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2014). Special issue introduction: Thriving across the adolescent years: A view of the issues. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(6), 859–868. Broadie, S., & Rowe, C. (2002). Aristotle: Nicomachean ethics: Translation, introduction, commentary. Oxford University Press. Burke, K. J., Greene, S., & McKenna, M. K. (2017). Youth voice, civic engagement and failure in participatory action research. The Urban Review, 49(4), 585–601. Callina, K. S., & Lerner, R. M. (2017). On the importance of coherence in the study of character development. Journal of Character Education, 13(1), 17–25. Camiré, M., Newman, T. J., Bean, C., & Strachan, L. (2021). Reimagining positive youth development and life skills in sport through a social justice lens. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 34(6), 1058–1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2021.1958954 Catalano, R. F., Hawkins, J. D., Berglund, M. L., Pollard, J. A., & Arthur, M. W. (2002). Prevention science and positive youth development: Competitive or cooperative frameworks? Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6), 230–239. Catalano, R. F., Hawkins, J. D., & Toumbourou, J. W. (2008). Positive youth development in the United States: History, efficacy, and links to moral and character education. In L. Nucci, D. Narvaez, & T. Krettenauer (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education, (pp. 423–440). Routledge. Cawley, M. J., III, Martin, J. E., & Johnson, J. A. (2000). A virtues approach to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(5), 997–1013. Champine, R. B., Wang, J., Ferris, K. A., Hershberg, R. M., Erickson, K., Johnson, B. R., & Lerner, R. M. (2016). Exploring the out-of-school time program ecology of Boy Scouts. Research in Human Development, 13(2), 97–110. Chaudhary, A. K., Diaz, J., Jayaratne, K. S. U., & Assan, E. (2020). Evaluation capacity building in the nonformal education context: Challenges and strategies. Evaluation and Program Planning, 79, 101768. Clonan-Roy, K., Jacobs, C. E., & Nakkula, M. J. (2016). Towards a model of positive youth development specific to girls of color: Perspectives on development, resilience, and empowerment. Gender Issues, 33(2), 96–121. Conway, R. J., Heary, C., & Hogan, M. J. (2015). An evaluation of the measurement properties of the Five Cs model of positive youth development. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1941. D’Agostino, M. J., & Visser, A. (2010). Addressing and overcoming barriers to youth civic engagement. International Public Management Review, 11(3), 88–103. Dawes, N. P., & Larson, R. (2011). How youth get engaged: Grounded-theory research on motivational development in organized youth programs. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 259. Dimitrova, R., & Wiium, N. (Eds.). (2021). Handbook of positive youth development. Advancing research, policy and practice in global contexts. Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030702618 Durlak, J. A. (Ed.). (2015). Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice. Guilford Publications. Durlak, J. A., Taylor, R. D., Kawashima, K., Pachan, M. K., DuPre, E. P., Celio, C. I., Berger, S. R., Dymnicki, A. B., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). Effects of positive youth development programs on school, family, and community systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3), 269–286. Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. National Academy Press.

517

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al. Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., Kessler, R., SchwabStone, M. E., & Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ellard, D., & Parsons, S. (2010). Process evaluation: Understanding how and why interventions work. In M. Thorogood & Y. Coombes (Eds.), Evaluating health promotion (pp. 87–104). Oxford University Press. Ettekal, A. V., Callina, K. S., & Lerner, R. M. (2015). The promotion of character through youth development programs: A view of the issues. Journal of Youth Development, 10(3), 6–13. Ettekal, A. V., Konowitz, L. S., Agans, J. P., Syer, T., & Lerner, R. M. (2017). Researcher-practitioner collaborations: Applying developmental science to understand sport participation and positive youth development. Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education, 9(2), 29–45. Feixa, C., Pereira, I., & Juris, J. S. (2009). Global citizenship and the new, new social movements: Iberian connections. Young, 17(4), 421–442. Fraser-Thomas, J. L., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 10(1), 19–40. Freire, P. (1984). Education, liberation and the church. Religious Education, 79(4), 524–545. Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. Jossey Bass. García-Poole, C., Byrne, S., & Rodrigo, M. J. (2019). Implementation factors that predict positive outcomes in a community-based intervention program for at-risk adolescents. Psychosocial Intervention, 28(2), 57–65. Gardner, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Adolescents’ exposure to community violence: Are neighborhood youth organizations protective? Journal of Community Psychology, 37(4), 505–525. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press. Gillard, A., & Witt, P. (2008). Recruitment and retention in youth programs. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 26(2), 177–188. Gonzalez, M., Kokozos, M., Byrd, C. M., & McKee, K. E. (2020). Critical positive youth development: A framework for centering critical consciousness. Journal of Youth Development, 15(6), 24–43. Goodman, J. F. (2006). School discipline in moral disarray. Journal of Moral Education, 35(2), 213–230. Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relation to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education. (Vol. I & II). Prentice-Hall. Hamilton, S. F. (1999). A three-part definition of youth development [Unpublished manuscript]. Cornell University College of Human Ecology, Ithaca, NY. Hansen, D. M., Skorupski, W. P., & Arrington, T. L. (2010). Differences in developmental experiences for commonly used categories of organized youth activities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 413–421. Howard, R. W., Berkowitz, M. W., & Schaeffer, E. F. (2004). Politics of character education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 188–215. Howell, A. J., Keyes, C. L., & Passmore, H. A. (2013). Flourishing among children and adolescents: Structure and correlates of positive mental health, and interventions for its enhancement. In Research, applications, and interventions for children and adolescents (pp. 59–79). Springer. Iwasaki, Y. (2015). Youth engagement-engaging for change: Changing for engagement. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 8(2), 26–43. Izzo, C. V., Connell, J. P., Gambone, M. A., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2004). Understanding and improving youth development initiatives through evaluation. In S. F. Hamilton & M. A. Hamilton (Eds.), The youth development handbook: Coming of age in American communities (pp. 301–326). Sage Publications, Inc. https:// doi.org/10.4135/9781452232560.n13 King, P. E., Dowling, E. M., Mueller, R. A., White, K., Schultz, W., Osborn, P., Dickerson, E., Bobek, D. L., Lerner, R. M., Benson, P. L., & Scales, P. C. (2005). Thriving in adolescence: The voices of youthserving practitioners, parents, and early and late adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 94–112. Kochanek, J., & Erickson, K. (2020). Interrogating positive youth development through sport using critical race theory. Quest, 72(2), 224–240. Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory Into Practice, 16(2), 53–59. Landrum, T. J., & Kauffman, J. M. (2013). Behavioral approaches to classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 57–82). Routledge.

518

Character Development in Youth Programs Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 849. Larson, R. W., & Ngo, B. (2017). Introduction to special issue: The importance of culture in youth programs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32(1), 3–10. Larson, R. W., Walker, K. C., & McGovern, G. (2020). Youth programs as contexts for development of ethical judgment and action. In Lene Arnett Jensen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of moral development (pp. 552–569). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190676049.013.32 Lauver, S. C., & Little, P. M. (2005). Recruitment and retention strategies for out-of-school-time programs. New Directions for Youth Development, (105), 71–89. Leming, J. S. (1997). Whither goes character education? Objectives, pedagogy, and research in education programs. Journal of Education, 179(2), 11–34. Lerner, R. M., Agans, J. P., DeSouza, L. M., & Hershberg, R. M. (2014). Developmental science in 2025: A predictive review. Research in Human Development, 11(4), 255–272. Lerner, R. M., Alberts, A. E., & Bobek, D. L. (2010). Thriving youth, flourishing civil society: How positive youth development strengthens democracy and social justice. In B. Siftung (Ed.) Civic engagement as an educational goal: Carl Bertelsmann Prize 2007 (pp. 21–35). Bertelsmann Stiftung: Gütersloh, Germany. Lerner, R. M., Bornstein, M. H., & Jervis, P. (2022). The development of positive attributes of character: On the embodiment of specificity, holism, and self-system processes. Human Development, 66(1), 34–47. Lerner, R. M., & Callina, K. S. (2014). The study of character development: Towards tests of a relational developmental systems model. Human Development, 57(6), 322–346. Lerner, R. M., Jervis Ortiz, P., & Bornstein, M. H. (2021). Enhancing the international study of positive youth development: Process, specificity, and the sample case of character virtues. Journal of Youth Development, 16(2–3). https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2021.1042 Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alerts, A., Lang, M., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D., Simpson, I., Christiansen, E. D., & Von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Bowers, E., & Geldhof, G. J. (2015). Positive youth development and relational developmental systems. In W. F. Overton & P. C. Molenaar (Eds.), Theory and method. Volume 1 of the Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed.; pp. 607–651). Wiley. Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students’ view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 307–319. Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. (2005). Smart and good high schools: Integrating excellence and ethics for success in school, work, and beyond. Center for the 4th and 5th Rs, Cortland, NY/Character Education Partnership, Washington, DC. Lynch, A. D., Ferris, K. A., Burkhard, B., Wang, J., Hershberg, R. M., & Lerner, R. M. (2016). Character development within youth development programs: Exploring multiple dimensions of activity involvement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57(1–2), 73–86. Mahoney, J. L., & Vest, A. E. (2012). The over-scheduling hypothesis revisited: Intensity of organized activity participation during adolescence and young adult outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 409–418. Maletsky, L. D., & Evans, W. P. (2017). Organizational factors that contribute to youth workers’ promotion of youth voice. Child & Youth Services, 38(1), 53–68. Maton, K. I., Schellenbach, C. J., Leadbeater, B. J., & Solarz, A. L. (2004). Investing in children, youth, families, and communities: Strengths-based research and policy. American Psychological Association. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81. Mennel, R. M. (1973). Thorns & thistles: Juvenile delinquents in the United States, 1825-1940. University of New Hampshire. Mercier, J., Powell, C., Langdon-Pole, G., Finau, F., Hicks, K., Bourchier, L., & Hampton, J. (2019). The Five Cs of positive youth development in an Aotearoa/New Zealand program context. Journal of Youth Development, 14(4), 36–58. Morse, R. C. (1913). History of the North American Young Men’s Christian Associations. Association Press. Naftzger, N. (2014, April). A summary of three studies exploring the relationship between afterschool program quality and youth outcomes. In Ready by 21 National Meeting, Covington, KY (pp. 208–218).

519

Andrea Vest Ettekal et al. Nasaw, D. (1985). Children of the city: At work and at play. Anchor/Doubleday. Noftle, E. E., Schnitker, S. A., & Robins, R. W. (2011). Character and personality: Connections between positive psychology and personality psychology. In K. M. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.) Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward (pp. 207–227). Oxford University Press. Nucci, L. (2017). Character: A multi-faceted developmental system. Journal of Character Education, 13(1), 1–16. Nucci, L. (2019). Character: A developmental system. Child Development Perspectives, 13(2), 73–78. Ortega-Williams, A., & Harden, T. (2022). Anti-Black racism and historical trauma: Pushing the positive youth development paradigm. Youth & Society, 54(4), 662–684. Osher, D., Kidron, Y., Brackett, M., Dymnicki, A., Jones, S., & Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Advancing the science and practice of social and emotional learning: Looking back and moving forward. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 644–681. Outley, C. W., & Witt, P. A. (2006). Working with diverse youth: Guidelines for achieving youth cultural competency in recreation services. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 24(4). Overton, W. F. (2013). A new paradigm for developmental science: Relationism and relational-developmental systems. Applied Developmental Science, 17(2), 94–107. Overton, W. F. (2018). Process and relational developmental systems. In W. F. Overton & P. C. Molenaar (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. Vol. 1: Theory and method (7th ed., pp. 607–651). Wiley. Park, N. (2004). Character strengths and positive youth development. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 40–54. Pegis, A. C. (1950). A lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas, based on the Summa Theologica and selected passages of his other works by Roy J. Deferrari and Mary Inviolata Barry. Speculum, 25, 261–268. Pelcher, A., & Rajan, S. (2016). After-school program implementation in urban environments: Increasing engagement among adolescent youth. Journal of School Health, 86(8), 585–594. Perkins, D. F., Borden, L. M., Villarruel, F. A., Carlton-Hug, A., Stone, M. R., & Keith, J. G. (2007). Participation in structured youth programs: Why ethnic minority urban youth choose to participate—or not to participate. Youth & Society, 38(4), 420–442. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. Pittman, K., Irby, M., & Ferber, T. (2001). Unfinished business: Further reflections on a decade of promoting youth development. In P. L. Benson, & K. J. Pittman (Eds.) Trends in youth development. Outreach scholarship Vol 6. (pp. 3–50). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1459-6_1 Project Play. (2021). State of play 2021. The Aspen Institute. https://www.aspenprojectplay.org/ state-of-play-2021/ Reilly, T. S., & Narvaez, D. (2018). Character, virtue, and science: Linking psychological and philosophical views. Philosophy, Theology and the Sciences, 5(1), 51–79. Rich, K. A., & Giles, A. R. (2014). Managing diversity to provide culturally safe sport programming: A case study. Journal of Sport Management, 29(3), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2013-0160 Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Youth development programs: Risk, prevention and policy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(3), 170–182. Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., & Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2011). Adolescent thriving: The role of sparks, relationships, and empowerment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(3), 263–277. Schnitker, S. A., & Emmons, R. A. (2007). Patience as a virtue: Religious and psychological perspectives. In Research in the social scientific study of religion, volume 18 (pp. 177–207). Brill. Schnitker, S. A., Houltberg, B., Dyrness, W., & Redmond, N. (2017). The virtue of patience, spirituality, and suffering: Integrating lessons from positive psychology, psychology of religion, and Christian theology. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 9(3), 264. Seider, S. (2012). Character compass: How powerful school culture can point students toward success. Harvard Education Press. Shek, D. T., Yu, L., & Fu, X. (2013). Confucian virtues and Chinese adolescent development: A conceptual review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 25(4), 335–344. Simpkins, S. D., Riggs, N. R., Ngo, B., Vest Ettekal, A., & Okamoto, D. (2017). Designing culturally responsive organized after-school activities. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32(1), 11–36. Siu, A. M., Shek, D. T., & Law, B. (2012). Prosocial norms as a positive youth development construct: A conceptual review. The Scientific World Journal, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/832026

520

Character Development in Youth Programs Sjogren, A. L., & Melton, T. N. (2021). The complexities of student engagement for historically marginalized youth in an after-school program. Journal of Youth Development, 16(5), 105–121. Smith, C. D., & Smith Lee, J. R. (2020). Advancing social justice and affirming humanity in developmental science research with African American boys and young men. Applied Developmental Science, 24(3), 208–214. Spencer, M. B., & Spencer, T. R. (2014). Exploring the promises, intricacies, and challenges to positive youth development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1027–1035. Spencer-Wood, S. M. (1994). Turn of the century women’s organizations, urban design, and the origin of the American playground movement. Landscape Journal, 13(2), 124–137. Triandis, H. C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross-Cultural Research, 27(3–4), 155–180. Ungar, M., Liebenberg, L., Boothroyd, R., Kwong, W. M., Lee, T. Y., Leblanc, J., Duque, L., & Makhnach, A. (2008). The study of youth resilience across cultures: Lessons from a pilot study of measurement development. Research in Human Development, 5(3), 166–180. Vandell, D. L., Larson, R. W., Mahoney, J. L., Watts, T. W. (2015). Children’s organized activities. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., pp. 1–40). Wiley. Walker, D. I., Thomas, S. J., Jones, C., & Kristjansson, K. (2017). Adolescent moral judgment: A study of UK secondary school pupils. British Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 588–607. Watts, R. J., Diemer, M. A., & Voight, A. M. (2011). Critical consciousness: Current status and future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(134), 43–57. Witt, P. A., & Caldwell, L. L. (2018). Youth development: Principles and practices in out-of-school time settings. Sagamore-Venture. Zamarro, G., Cheng, A., Shakeel, M., & Hitt, C. (2016). Comparing and validating measures of character skills: Findings from a nationally representative sample. Journal of Behaviors and Experimental Economics. Working paper. Zarrett, N., Fay, K., Li, Y., Carrano, J., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). More than child’s play: Variableand pattern-centered approaches for examining effects of sports participation on youth development. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 368. Zarrett, N., & Lerner, R. M. (2008). Ways to promote the positive development of children and youth. Child Trends, 11(1), 1–5. Zarrett, N., Liu, Y., Vandell, D. L., & Simpkins, S. D. (2021). The role of organized activities in supporting youth moral and civic character development: A review of the literature. Adolescent Research Review, 6(2), 199–227.

521

27 PHILANTHROPIC APPROACHES TO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT Sarah Clement, Richard Bollinger, and Alexandra Was

Philanthropic investments in character development have increased dramatically over the past 40 years, largely driven by increased interest from private foundations and individual donors. These investments vary in focus, scope, and approach across funding organizations, but all are aimed at improving the lives of individuals and communities. This chapter focuses primarily, although not exclusively, on the private philanthropic context, highlighting approaches and specific initiatives from leading family foundations, including the authors’ home institution, the John Templeton Foundation (JTF). To better understand the broader context surrounding current philanthropic approaches to character development, the chapter begins with an overview of how character is defined and a brief history of early character initiatives in the United States. Following a more detailed discussion of current philanthropic approaches, the chapter then closes by outlining the challenges and opportunities that private philanthropies face as we look toward the next generation of grantmaking in character development.

Defining Character The most important place to start when considering philanthropic approaches to character development is the definition and framing of the construct itself. The Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues at the University of Birmingham defines character as “a set of personal traits or dispositions that produce specific moral emotions, inform motivation, and guide conduct” (2022, p. 7). Character development is the changes in these traits or dispositions over time. Character education, as defined by the team at the Jubilee Centre, “includes all explicit and implicit educational activities that help young people to develop positive personal strengths called virtues” (2022, p. 7). Within this virtue framing, aspects of a person’s character can be further categorized as moral character, intellectual character, performance character, and civic character. Moral character includes individual qualities or virtues that foster good relationships (e.g., generosity, forgiveness), intellectual character includes individual qualities or virtues of a good thinker (e.g., intellectual humility, curiosity), civic character includes individual qualities or virtues that create a good citizen (e.g., justice, civility), and performance character includes individual qualities or virtues that

522

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-30

Philanthropic Approaches to Character Development

promote goal attainment (e.g., self-control, perseverance; Baehr, 2011; Colby et al., 2003; Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, 2022; Lickona & Davidson, 2005). The virtue framing is one of three common frames used to describe the purpose and outcomes (e.g., goals) of character-based programs (Handsman, 2021). Within this framing, virtue is seen as a critical component of a flourishing and purposeful life. Therefore, this framework recognizes the value of virtuous individuals and virtuous organizations as valuable ends in and of themselves. The other two types of outcome framing—reducing negative behaviors and promoting academic achievement—that Handsman (2021) identifies, depict character education in a more instrumental light. In these frames, character is a means to some other end, something that can or should be modified to achieve certain outcomes such as a reduction in aggressive behavior or better grades at school. One final example of a commonly used framing for character initiatives, especially in schools and workplaces, is that of character strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). This framing draws upon both virtue ethics and positive psychology, emphasizing psychological health and growth. Similar to the virtue framing, scholars have proposed different subcategories for character strengths. Peterson and Seligman (2004) initially proposed six categories that fall under the virtue headings of wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence. More recent empirical research suggests that character strengths can be categorized into three groups: interpersonal, intrapersonal, and intellectual (Park et al., 2017), with the Character Lab offering the helpful labeling of strengths of heart, strengths of will, and strengths of mind (Character Lab, 2022). The specific definition and framing that each funding organization adopts will be related to the changes they seek in the world and will influence the types of research and programming they seek to support. Although there is variation in definitions across funders, most organizations that are interested in supporting character initiatives seek a world in which individuals are motivated to think and act in ways that are positive for the individual as well as their communities. The next section of this chapter provides specific examples of types of approaches and initiatives.

Historical Context In the United States, there have historically been three major funding sources of character programming and research: the federal government, state governments, and private philanthropy. Federal and state funding for character initiatives largely appeared in the 1990s and early 2000s, with private philanthropy beginning a bit earlier and continuing today. Notably, much of the focus of federal and state funding has recently shifted from character education to social emotional learning, which overlaps with, but is conceptually distinct from character development and character education (Edutopia, 2011; see also Lerner et al., 2021, Figure 1).

Federal Funding In the 1990s and 2000s, reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) allocated significant funds for character education in schools. The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, a reauthorization of the ESEA signed into law by President Bill Clinton, established the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project. Categorized a “program of national significance,” this project allocated $8 million a year to grants to state education agencies to design and implement character education programs in schools. The program requirements aligned with Clinton’s description of character education as “a vital part of building the kind of society that recognizes responsibilities and has a sense of community” (Clinton, 1996, p. 725): projects had to 523

Sarah Clement, Richard Bollinger, and Alexandra Was

involve parents, students, and community members; evaluate outcomes such as discipline, student and staff morale, and participation in extracurricular activities; and focus on one or more social character “elements,” including caring, civic virtue and citizenship, justice and fairness, respect, responsibility, and trustworthiness (although grantees were allowed to focus on other appropriate character elements in addition to, or instead of, those listed). Forty-five states and Washington, D.C. received grants to support projects of up to $1 million and 5 years in length (US Department of Education, 2008). As one example, Georgia’s grant supported 25 schools in implementing character education curricula guided by the Character Education Partnership’s (now known as Character.org) “Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education” (Lickona et al., 2003). The grant to Indiana resulted in the development and piloting of two age-specific character programs, as well as the establishment of a university center focused on providing character education resources and funding to schools. A report by the US Department of Education (2008) described the Pilot Project as “an important first step in defining and promoting the shared responsibility of character education” across families, schools, and communities (p. 9). Through the development and testing of character education models, the creation of relevant resources (including publications), professional training for teachers, and the identification of challenges in implementing character initiatives, the Pilot Project grants laid the foundation for further character education initiatives in schools. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed into law by President George W. Bush, expanded annual funding for character education to $25 million. Similar to the Pilot Project, the Partnerships in Character Education Program offered grants to support the design and implementation of character education programs in schools. It also expanded the eligibility for grants to include local education agencies in addition to states, allowed grantees greater flexibility in identifying and selecting character elements for their programming, and required that programs were both motivated by scientific research and linked to potential improvements in academic achievement. Although there is not a comprehensive report of the grants awarded through this program, a 2011 US House of Representatives report noted that from 2004 to 2009, funds were distributed to 20 states, Guam, and Washington, D.C. (H.R. Rep. No. 112–106, 2011). Another report numbered the grants awarded between 2003 and 2007 at 58 (Person et al., 2009). The program was last funded in 2009 (Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, 2009); the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (the most recent reauthorization of the ESEA, under President Barack Obama) did not include funds specifically allocated to character education.

State Funding Between 1993 and 2004, 23 states passed or edited legislation encouraging or mandating character education in schools (Glanzer & Milson, 2006). During this time, however, few state codes specifically addressed funding for character education initiatives (only six states were noted in Glanzer & Milson’s report; at least one of these states [Iowa] has since removed such funding information; Iowa Code § 256.18, 1994/2002/2003/2009). Some states continue to offer funds for character education, although these funds are often small compared to those for other priorities in education. For example, Arizona’s Character Educating Matching Grant Program allocates $200,000 per year in matching funds to schools implementing a character education curriculum from a pre-approved list of providers (Arizona Department of Education, n.d.; Office of the State Treasurer Arizona, n.d.). In 2021, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Idaho legislators updated the state code to include the Public School Digital Content and Curriculum Fund. This fund offers grants of up to $50,000 to local education agencies to implement digital content or curricula related to character 524

Philanthropic Approaches to Character Development

education, among other areas (e.g., career technical education, reading and mathematics; Idaho Code § 33-4804, 1994/1998/2009/2020).

Private Philanthropy Whereas federal and state funding for character education have primarily focused on the K–12 space, private philanthropies have supported character efforts targeting various settings, contexts, and life stages. There are numerous private foundations and individual donors who are interested in supporting character initiatives. Three of the largest foundations include the Kern Family Foundation, the recently closed S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation, and JTF. The Kern Family Foundation (founded in 1998) has made significant investments in higher education and professional training. Their grants include $87.9 million to the Medical College of Wisconsin since 2017 to support the integration of character and flourishing into medical education and practice (Medical College of Wisconsin, 2022). The S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation (founded in 1957 and closed in 2020) dedicated $130 million from 2014 to 2020 to building the capacity of a group of youth-serving organizations and documenting best practices for adults’ facilitation of youth character development (S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, 2020). JTF (founded in 1987) has funded character development programs and research across the entire lifespan. Its research portfolio seeks to generate insights into the development of character, from the emergence of forgiveness in early childhood to age-related changes in gratitude later in life. Its programmatic work includes funding to support program development, implementation, evaluation, and scaling, with a particular emphasis on science-informed practice. JTF’s most recent funding competition in this area, Character Through Community, resulted in $20 million in awards to organizations that are interested in strengthening their work on character development. In the next section, we discuss philanthropic funding strategies in more detail.

Philanthropic Approaches to Character Development As mentioned elsewhere in this Handbook, the process of character development occurs across the life span; within multiple settings, including the home, school, faith communities, and out-ofschool activities such as scouting and sports; and through a variety of methods such as modeling, teaching, and service opportunities. Given this wide range of ages, contexts, and methods, each philanthropic funder identifies their own personal investment strategy. This personal investment strategy for each funding organization typically reflects the values and life experiences of the donor(s), as well as the cultural zeitgeist that was present during the funding organization’s establishment. Some funders focus their investments on specific ages (e.g., elementary age children), specific contexts (e.g., elementary schools), specific methods (e.g., school curricula for teachers), and/or specific geographic locations (e.g., the city of Chicago). Often, when a funder focuses on specific ages, contexts, methods, or locations, this limitation is clearly articulated in the materials documenting the funders’ approach to funding. What is often less clearly communicated is a philanthropic funder’s theory of change, which is sometimes known as their theory of action. Geneva Global (2018), a consulting firm specializing in philanthropy, notes that a theory of change “articulates how we believe change will happen, and as a result, how we plan to invest time and resources to contribute to that change.” According to Geneva Global, a philanthropist’s theory of change should explain (1) the current situation, (2) the hoped-for change in the world, and (3) the activities/projects that will help shift the situation from its current state to the hoped-for state. A philanthropist’s theory of change is rooted in the types of changes they hope to see in the world, which will then influence the types of approaches that they choose to fund. 525

Sarah Clement, Richard Bollinger, and Alexandra Was

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (n.d.) has developed a five-question method to help philanthropists and funding organizations determine the types of approaches they plan to fund. This method builds off the five simple questions of what, how, where, who, and when. Rockefeller encourages funding organizations to identify what change they seek. Within character development, that might range from impacting the school climate at one university to ensuring all youth, across the nation, have access to excellent character programming. Second, after establishing the what, the how is established, with funding organizations identifying the types of approaches they believe will lead to the change. Finally, a funding organization needs to establish where the change will occur, who is impacted, and when will the change become evident. These last three questions are particularly important because they help identify measurable benchmarks for the funding organizations. Measurable benchmarks allow funding organizations evaluate their approaches and the assumptions underlying these approaches, helping them to continue to learn and their strategies to evolve. The remainder of this section includes an outline of how different theories of change would lead funders to focus on different approaches to character development. We will focus on the following key approaches: general operating support for programs; programmatic projects focused on innovation, evaluation, or scaling; catalyzing ideas through basic research; strengthening systems; changing cultures; and disseminating ideas and resources.

General Operating Support for Programs One basic approach to philanthropic investing is providing unrestricted grants for general operating support. An unrestricted grant means that the donating organization is offering the grant with minimal constraints: the organization’s leadership can allocate the funds in any way they believe will be most beneficial to the organization. A funding organization may choose this approach when an applicant organization’s mission and activities align closely with the mandate of the funder. This type of approach is rooted in a movement known as trust-based philanthropy (Trust Based Philanthropy, n.d.), which seeks to shift decision-making power from the funders to the grantees. It has multiple strengths. It is flexible for the grantee—as circumstances change for the organization, they can quickly pivot in their approach. Often, the reporting requirements for the grantee are quite minimal, saving the grantee time and effort in their communications with the funder. At the end of an unrestricted grant for general operating support, the grant recipient typically presents on the progress they have made toward their goals.

Project-Based Support for Programs Many funding organizations choose to focus on project-based funding approaches. Project-based approaches are time-limited grants with specific goals, usually focused on a subset of the organization’s activities. Ideally, a project-based grant creates a strong alignment between a set of shared goals between the funding organization and the grantee. Three common foci for programmatic project-based grants within character virtue development are innovation, evaluation, and scaling.

Innovation Progress in our understanding of character development, along with advances in technology, present multiple opportunities for organizations and individuals to develop new innovations focused on character development. Numerous opportunities for innovation exist within the technology space as smartphones, social media, and the metaverse continue to change how children, teenagers, 526

Philanthropic Approaches to Character Development

and adults live, work, play, and pray. Additionally, character development scholars continue to deepen our understanding of the nuances of character development. For instance, whereas some of the necessary prerequisites of positive character development have been known for decades (e.g., the importance of at least one caring, devoted adult in a child’s life), scholars are now focused on a more detailed explanation—which interventions are effective, for whom, and under what circumstances (Lerner & Bornstein, 2021). These nuances provide excellent opportunities for new innovative methods for character development.

Evaluation Evaluations can play a critical role in the success of character development programs. Urban et al. (2014) identify how evaluation can help shape programs from their initiation through a full scaling of the program to multiple locations. When a program is new, an effective evaluation structure can provide rapid, iterative feedback to program staff, helping staff to maximize the efficacy of the program potential. Evaluations can also focus on the process of implementing programs, which help program staff understand how to effectively implement and run programs. Understanding effective implementation is especially important when looking toward scaling a program. Evaluations can be helpful when programs are seeking to describe the impacts and effects of their programs. A nuanced and thorough evaluation can help program staff members to “tell their story” using a variety of different types of data, and evaluations can help capture the impact of a program. For all these reasons, philanthropic organizations may choose to invest in funding program evaluations.

Scaling Philanthropic investors in character development are often interested in supporting programs that can “scale.” A program is scalable if (a) the programmatic aspects of what makes a program effective are understood and (b) those elements can be successfully replicated in different settings. A common philanthropic approach is to support a program to replicate itself in a new location or setting, effectively taking what works in one setting and duplicating it in another setting. Effective scaling often involves supporting work to help adjust the program to the cultural context of the new location, a process which helps ensure the program is rooted within the local culture, while maintaining the key elements that led to the initial desire to scale and replicate the successful program.

Strengthening Systems Often, a funder’s theory of change involves the broader system of character development scholars and programs. Through their relationships across different programs and scholars, funders can begin to develop a broader perspective of who is involved in specific aspects of work on character development. A funder may invest in different strategies intended to strengthen the broader system of character development in a particular area. Two strategies that are intended to strength systems are forming networks and resource development.

Forming Networks Due to their numerous funding relationships with a diversity of programs and institutions, funders are occasionally able to recognize when different programs and/or scholars may benefit from collaboration. Often, funders recognize that each funding partner has a unique strength or 527

Sarah Clement, Richard Bollinger, and Alexandra Was

insight that would benefit the broader field. To foster this collaboration, funders may network several of their grantees to help foster shared leaning across the system. Networks can serve various functions. Typically, the primary function is to facilitate efficient communication—often to share lessons learned—with the networked organization often having some method to engage within one another. This function can take the form of the occasional in-person meeting, webinars, Slack channel, or email listserv. This communication enables organizations to share positive developments, but just as importantly, it provides organizations with a structured setting to share what is not working. Although what is working is often rightly celebrated, organizations focused on character development often have limited opportunities to share struggles and setbacks. Increased transparency on what is not working, shared through a network of peers, enables organizations to seek advice, avoid dead ends already identified by others, and brainstorm solutions. Networks are also useful when a funder is looking to shift an entire system in a specific direction. Here, a funder can draw together several key institutions within a particular system to establish specific, systems-level goals. One example of this network is the Kern National Network for Caring and Character in Medicine (KNN). The Kern Family Foundation established this network with the following three major purposes: transforming medical and health professions education using the concepts of caring and character, working with healthcare organizations to influence cultures and environments, and sharing knowledge and engaging partners toward broader policy and systems change (KNN, n.d.). Another example is the Raikes Foundation leading a group of foundations and other institutions and schools to establish the Building Equitable Learning Environments Network (BELE Network). These leaders sought to establish the BELE Network to envision and to try to create an educational system in the United States that prioritizes the learning and development of every student (BELE Network, n.d.). These funders established these networks to accomplish specific systems-level changes; systems-level goals like these are often best accomplished by coordinating the work of multiple partners.

Developing Resources The development of resources focused on character development is another philanthropic approach designed to strengthen the broader system. Resources may include items such as teacher curricula, best practice guidelines, tip sheets, checklists, playbooks, and other useable interventions that practitioners or learners can use to better implement their character development practices. JTF has supported numerous institutions to develop theory-based, empirically informed resources for the broader field of character development. A selection of examples includes the following: playbooks developed by the Character Lab, the Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues’s Framework for Character Education in Schools, University of California Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center’s Greater Good in Action practices, and the tip sheets produced by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s Center for Parent and Teen Communication. By investing in these resources, JTF hopes to equip individual teachers, parents, and students themselves to become engaged in excellent and effective practices.

Basic Research Finally, some philanthropic funders of character development maintain a focus on basic research on character development. Basic research can have several different meanings, and here we are using the term to distinguish basic research on character development from research that specifically 528

Philanthropic Approaches to Character Development

focuses on the effectiveness of a specific program or intervention. In this sense, basic research in character development seeks to deepen the field’s insights into specific questions surrounding how different character strengths develop over the course of the lifetime. Effective interventions are often informed by basic research that has revealed insights into questions such as the following: how do we conceptualize and best measure the character strength over its developmental trajectory, what differences in the development of a specific character strength emerge between different individuals and between different cultures, what environmental and personal factors contribute to the development of this character strength (e.g., parenting practices and school environment), what other personal qualities does this character strength influence (e.g., academic performance, relationship health), and how does this character strength interact with other character strengths. Excellent interventions and practices stand on the strength of a strong and ever evolving understanding to these questions, and so foundations such as JTF continue to invest in deepening the field’s understanding on how character develops.

Challenges Grantmaking in any area comes with associated challenges, including developing evidence-informed theories, the difficulty of measuring impact, identifying the right interventions for complicated social problems, and selecting the most promising projects among many. However, there are also several challenges that are specific to funding in character development that should be considered. One of the most significant challenges is the language and related politics of the term character. A second important challenge is the difficulty of measuring a complex construct, especially when organizations such as JTF are interested in how character develops over time. Finally, when considering how to increase impact, many funding organizations look to scale the interventions they support. Given the nature of character development, however, there are inherent challenges to scaling up programs.

Language and Politics Support for the term character is varied. For example, although K–12 practitioners and policymakers often use multiple terms—interchangeably—to describe “non-academic” or “non-cognitive” skills, a survey of 1,600 K–12 professionals found that character was perceived as more conservative and outdated than other terms (Loeb et al., 2016). Another survey probed 2,000 American parents’ attitudes toward social and emotional learning and related terms (e.g., character education/development, emotional intelligence, positive youth development). When asked to identify the programs—by name alone—that they would most or least want their child enrolled in (from a list of 12), character ended up in the middle of the pack (Tyner, 2021). Others have criticized character as being unclear, fundamentally religious, or anti-democratic (see Kristjánsson, 2013). Such perceptions can affect individuals’, communities’, and institutions’ appetites for engaging with character initiatives. For example, a perceived connection between character education/social and emotional learning and “critical race theory” have led some parents to protest the teaching of character in schools (e.g., Meckler, 2022; Reeves, 2022), and motivated at least one proposed state bill to broadly ban programming that addresses non-academic factors in public schools (Breasette, 2022). Advocates for the usage of the term character note that the conception of “character” as an enduring disposition oriented toward the “common good” has rich roots within philosophical theory, multiple 529

Sarah Clement, Richard Bollinger, and Alexandra Was

religious traditions, and democratic political theory. This term has endured while other faddish concepts have come and gone over the decades (e.g., self-esteem).

Measurement To determine the impact—or potential impact—of a particular character intervention, grantmakers need to know whether the particular intervention is associated with gains in character. However, measuring an individual’s character (at any given point in time) and character development (over time) can be difficult. The first set of challenges related to measuring character is inherent in the methods of measurement themselves, not character specifically; these include limitations around self-report, other-report, and performance tasks. In their article on the subject, Duckworth and Yeager (2015) recommend using a multi-method approach to address these common limitations (but note that doing so can be time or resource intensive). For character-related constructs in particular, researchers will often look at an aspect of an individual’s character in specific contexts; for example, examining the role of self-distancing for increasing self-control (White & Carlson, 2015) or exploring the effects of witnessing an act of gratitude (Walsh et al., 2022). Virtues that are somewhat easier to define and assess—such as self-control, empathy, gratitude, and forgiveness—have a greater number of reliable and valid measures that have been used in a variety of interventions (e.g., Friese et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2017; Teding van Berkhout & Malouff, 2016; Wade et al., 2014). However, more progress is still needed in other areas such as humility, love, and curiosity. Research in these areas has received renewed attention, especially as it relates to measurement, in the past decade (e.g., Kashdan et al., 2018; McElroy-Heltzel et al., 2018), but we do not yet have a canonical set of measures for these constructs. Finally, it can be exceedingly difficult to capture an individual’s full character—as opposed to a specific virtue—at a given point in time, or an individual’s growth in character over time. Several new lines of research have emerged in the past decade that begin to help us understand how to tackle these important questions, both from a conceptual and methodological perspective (e.g., Jayawickreme & Fleeson, 2017; Lerner, 2019; Miller, 2014; Wang et al., 2015). As more researchers tackle the challenges of measuring character, the field moves ever closer to a set of valid and reliable measures that help us understand an individual’s character across time and place.

Scaling Scaling any intervention poses challenges: it requires sufficient organizational capacity to support scaling efforts, a program tested in one context may not easily translate to another, or insufficient buy-in or training can affect an intervention’s success in new settings. Interventions developed in the lab may never make it into the community, especially if publications lack detailed implementation information (see Premachandra & Lewis, 2020). Character interventions can prove particularly difficult to scale because what works is often a particular, supportive person—character does not develop in a vacuum but rather is cultivated in the context of close relationships and communities (Brooks, 2020; Snyder, 2019). When asked to reflect on how their own character had developed, people often report that they were inspired by a parent or other positive role model (National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). Such adults are also integral to creating environments that promote individual growth. These relationships require time and trust to develop—which can be difficult in settings with high turnover or other competing demands (such as afterschool programs or the classroom). 530

Philanthropic Approaches to Character Development

Looking Forward Despite the challenges noted above, or perhaps in part because of them, grantmaking in character development has become more robust over the past 40 years. Philanthropic approaches have expanded significantly beyond the traditional school-based program to include interventions in a wider range of contexts and that move beyond implementation to include innovation, evaluation, and scaling promising programs. The current diversity of approaches to funding character research and programs is valuable, focusing on different aspects of the child’s ecosystem. Snyder (2019) provides a helpful recent account of exemplary character programs that also includes questions that funders and character organizations should consider when thinking about how to impact character outcomes. One notable recent trend in philanthropy is the rise of funder collaboratives and pooled funding (Powell et al., 2019, 2021). These collaboratives allow for increased learning across organizations and increased potential for significant impact. This approach is particularly attractive for donors and organizations with lean staffing structures and those organizations who seek to initiate large-scale systemic change. According to a recent report from The Bridgespan Group, these collaboratives continue to increase in popularity and have the potential to disburse up to $15 billion annually (Powell et al., 2021). Among funders, there is also an opportunity to facilitate connections across individuals and institutions. These connections could include introductions between researchers and practitioners; recommendations for advisors, speakers, or collaborators; or building communities across likeminded practitioners. For a field as diffuse and multifaceted as character, funding organizations can serve as a valuable facilitator of professional connections and networking. Many funding organizations likely facilitate these connections in more informal ways or perhaps simply within funding organizations. However, given the size and diffuse nature of the character community, this facilitation can and should also take place across organizations. It will likely also yield more innovation in research and programming, as applicants explore opportunities at the intersections of various disciplines and practice. As researchers and practitioners continue to innovate, funding organizations should follow suit. Philanthropy as a practice benefits from continued feedback, learning, and experimentation. And just as certain programs are tailored for certain communities and certain outcomes, philanthropic approaches to character development should be tailored to the communities and outcomes the funder seeks to support. Science funders adapted to the global need for rapid research on COVID-19 with fast grants (Else, 2021). How can funders adapt to the current climate of grantmaking for character development? With an engaged funding community and a focus on improving the lives of individuals and communities, there is no shortage of opportunities for the future.

References Arizona Department of Education. (n.d.). Character education. https://www.azed.gov/character-education Baehr, J. (2011). The inquiring mind: On intellectual virtues and virtue epistemology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604074.001.0001 Breasette, A. (2022, January 20). Bill proposed in Oklahoma Legislature to rid of social emotional learning in schools. KFOR. https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/bill-proposed-in-oklahoma-legislatureto-rid-of-social-emotional-learning-in-schools/ Brooks, D. (2020). The second mountain: The quest for a moral life. Random House Trade Paperbacks. Building Equitable Learning Environments Network. (n.d.). The BELE Network: Building equitable learning environments. https://belenetwork.org/about/

531

Sarah Clement, Richard Bollinger, and Alexandra Was Character Lab. (2022). Character. https://characterlab.org/character/ Clinton, W. J. (1996). Public papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton, 1995. United States Government Printing Office. Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens: Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility (Vol. 6). John Wiley & Sons. Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.31 02%2F0013189X15584327 Edutopia. (2011, October 6). Social and emotional learning: A short history. https://www.edutopia.org/ social-emotional-learning-history Else, H. (2021, August 3). COVID ‘Fast Grants’ sped up pandemic science. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02111-7 Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. (2015). https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW114publ95.pdf Friese, M., Frankenback, J., & Loschelder, D. D. (2017). Does self-control training improve self-control? A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1077–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691617697076 Geneva Global. (2018, July 10). Why your theory of change is critical to your organization’s impact. https:// www.genevaglobal.com/blog/why-your-theory-of-change-is-critical-to-your-organizations-impact Glanzer, P. L., & Milson, A. J. (2006). Legislating the good: A survey and evaluation of character education laws in the United States. Educational Policy, 20(3), 525–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0895904805284115 H.R. Rep. No. 112-106. (2011). https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/112th-congress/housereport/106 Handsman, E. (2021). From virtue to grit: Changes in character education narratives in the U.S. from 1985 to 2015. Qualitative Sociology, 44(2), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-021-09475-2 Idaho Code § 33-4804. (1994 & rev. 1998, 2009, 2020). https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/ title33/t33ch48/sect33-4804/ Improving America’s Schools Act, Pub. L. No. 103-382, 108 Stat. 3519. (1994). https://www.congress.gov/ 103/statute/STATUTE-108/STATUTE-108-Pg3518.pdf Iowa Code § 256.18 (1994 & rev. 2002, 2003, 2009). https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/chapter/256.pdf Jayawickreme, E., & Fleeson, W. (2017). Does whole trait theory work for the virtues? In W. SinnottArmstrong & C. B. Miller (Eds.), Moral psychology: Virtue and character (pp. 75–103). Boston Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1n2tvzm.9 Kashdan, T., Stiksma, M. C., Disabato, D. J., McKnight, P. E., Bekier, J., Kaji, J., & Lazarus, R. (2018). The five-dimensional curiosity scale: Capturing the bandwidth of curiosity and identifying four unique subgroups of curious people. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jrp.2017.11.011 Kern National Network for Caring & Character in Medicine (KNN). (n.d.). https://knncaringcharactermedicine.org/ Kristjánsson, K. (2013). Ten myths about character, virtue and virtue education – Plus three well-founded misgivings. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 260–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2 013.778386 Lerner, R. M. (2019). Character development: Four facets of virtues. Child Development Perspectives, 13(2), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12315 Lerner, R. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2021). Contributions of the specificity principle to theory, research, and application in the study of human development: A view of the issues. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 75, Article 101294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101294 Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Murry, V. M., Smith, E. P., Bowers, E. P., Geldhof, G. J., & Buckingham, M. H. (2021). Positive youth development in 2020: Theory, research, programs, and the promotion of social justice. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 1114–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12609 Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. (2005). Smart and good high schools: Integrating excellence and ethics for success in school, work, and beyond. Center for the 4th and 5th Rs. https://www.amazon.com/ Smart-Good-High-Schools-Integrating/dp/B000JRF28O Lickona, T., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2003). CEP’s eleven principles of effective character education. Character Education Partnership.

532

Philanthropic Approaches to Character Development Loeb, P., Tipton, S., & Wagner, E. (2016). Social and emotional learning: Feedback and communications insights from the field. Edge Research, Inc. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/ sel-feedback-and-communications-insights-from-the-field.aspx Ma, L. K., Tunney, R. J., & Ferguson, E. (2017). Does gratitude enhance prosociality?: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 601–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000103 McElroy-Heltzel, S. E., Davis, D. E., DeBlaere, C., Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Hook, J. N. (2018). Embarrassment of riches in the measurement of humility: A critical review of 22 measures. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1460686 Meckler, L. (2022, March 28). In ‘social-emotional learning,’right sees more critical race theory.Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/03/28/social-emotional-learning-critical-race-theory/ Medical College of Wisconsin. (2022, June 23). Kern Family Foundation invests $50 million to transform medical education and profession of medicine. https://www.mcw.edu/newsroom/news-articles/ kern-family-foundation-invests-50-million-to-transform-medical-education-and-profession-of-medicine Miller, C. B. (2014). Character and moral psychology. OUP Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199674367.001.0001 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Approaches to the development of character: Proceedings of a workshop. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24684 No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002). https://www.congress.gov/107/ plaws/publ110/PLAW-107publ110.pdf Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. (2009, May 6). Budget FY 2010 - Appendix, budget of the United States government, fiscal year 2010. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BUDGET-2010-APP/ Office of the State Treasurer Arizona (n.d.). Revenue distributions. https://www.aztreasury.gov/revenuedistributions Park, D., Tsukayama, E., Goodwin, G. P., Patrick, S., & Duckworth, A. L. (2017). A tripartite taxonomy of character: Evidence for intrapersonal, interpersonal, and intellectual competencies in children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.08.001 Person, A., Moiduddin, E., Hague-Angus, M., & Malone, L. M. (2009). Survey of outcomes measurement in research on character education programs (NCEE 2009-006). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/2009006.pdf Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. American Psychological Association; Oxford University Press. Powell, A., Morfit, S., & John, M. (2021). Releasing the potential of philanthropic collaborations. The Bridgespan Group. https://www.bridgespan.org/insights/library/philanthropy/philanthropiccollaborations Powell, A., Wolf Ditkoff, S., & Tversky, F. (2019, July 10). How philanthropic collaborations succeed, and why they fail. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/how_philanthropic_ collaborations_succeed_and_why_they_fail Premachandra, B., & Lewis, N. A. (2020). Do we report the information that is necessary to give psychology away? A scoping review of the psychological intervention literature 2000–2018. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620974774 Reeves, K. (2022, April 18). Conservative parents protest character education in Texas schools. Spectrum News 1. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south-texas-el-paso/news/2022/04/18/conservative-parentsprotest-character-education-in-texas-schools Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. (n.d.). Making change happen: Creating an outcome-based strategy. https:// www.rockpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/RPA.3747_Making_Change_Happen_digital_MA.pdf S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation. (2020, July). Education program snapshot: Character. https://doi.org/10.15868/ socialsector.37442 Snyder, A. (2019). The fabric of character: A wise giver’s guide to supporting social and moral renewal. Philanthropy Roundtable. Teding van Berkhout, E., & Malouff, J. M. (2016). The efficacy of empathy training: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000093 The Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues. (2022). The Jubilee Framework for Character Education in Schools (3rd ed.). Trust Based Philanthropy. (n.d.). How can philanthropy redistribute power? https://www.trustbasedphilanthropy.org/

533

Sarah Clement, Richard Bollinger, and Alexandra Was Tyner, A. (2021). How to sell SEL: Parents and the politics of social-emotional learning. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. https://sel.fordhaminstitute.org/ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Character Education and Civic Engagement Technical Assistance Center. (2008). Partnerships in Character Education, State Pilot Projects, 1995–2001: Lessons learned. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502099.pdf Urban, J. B., Hargraves, M., & Trochim, W. M. (2014). Evolutionary evaluation: Implications for evaluators, researchers, practitioners, funders and the evidence-based program mandate. Evaluation and Program Planning, 45, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.03.011 Wade, N. G., Hoyt, W. T., Kidwell, J. E., & Worthington, E. L. Jr. (2014). Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(1), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035268 Walsh, L. C., Regan, A., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2022). The role of actors, targets, and witnesses: Examining gratitude exchanges in a social context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17(2), 233–249. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17439760.2021.1991449 Wang, J., Ferris, K. A., Hershberg, R. M., & Lerner, R. M. (2015). Developmental trajectories of youth character: A five-wave longitudinal study of Cub Scouts and non-Scout boys. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(12), 2359–2373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0340-y White, R. E., & Carlson, S. M. (2015). What would Batman do? Self-distancing improves executive function in young children. Developmental Science, 19(3), 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12314

534

28 THE TEMPLETON PHILANTHROPIES Heather Templeton Dill and Jennifer Templeton Simpson

Sir John Templeton was a pioneer in the mutual fund industry who became a prominent philanthropist dedicated to supporting research and programs on the development of good character, among other philanthropic interests. He attributed his success in business to the moral principles that he was taught as a child growing up in south central Tennessee and to the lessons he learned, throughout his career, about the importance of an individual’s good character in business affairs. For Sir John, as he became known after being knighted by the Queen of England in 1987 for his philanthropic work, each of us determines the kind of person we want to be. “As you respond to life’s experiences,” he wrote, “the choices you make become the building blocks that create and construct your character” (J. Templeton, 2002, p. 175). Sir John understood that research about good character would reveal new insights, and he decided to include research about character development in the funding objectives for the three philanthropic entities he created to carry out his philanthropic work. The John Templeton Foundation, the Templeton World Charity Foundation, and the Templeton Religion Trust are three separate charitable organizations with a mandate to advance Sir John’s philanthropic interests, which include (but do not require) supporting character development research and character development programs (John Templeton Foundation, 2005). The John Templeton Foundation has been supporting character development efforts since the 1990s—launching new fields of research, creating a community of scholars working to better understand how character develops over the life span, and experimenting with various programs to encourage character development in everyone from the very young to retirees. To understand how the Templeton philanthropies approach (and have approached) investments in character, it is helpful to know why Sir John cared about character development, and it is useful to consider the work he supported initially. The chapters in this Handbook highlight some of the Templeton philanthropies’ most significant investments in character development over the last 20 years. Sir John tried various ways to cultivate interest in developing good character. When he found willing partners, he engaged them. When he identified underexplored areas of work, he funded the research. In time, the three organizations created by Sir John to support robust research on the topics he cared about have laid the groundwork for serious academic scholarship on character development, with the hope that character development will always be central to education, to career development, and to a comprehensive understanding of what it means to be human. This chapter tells that story. DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-31

535

Heather Templeton Dill and Jennifer Templeton Simpson

Sir John Templeton Sir John grew up with a mother who encouraged open-minded inquiry and entrepreneurial activity. From an early age, in the small community of Winchester, TN, Sir John sold vegetables from his mother’s garden at a profit and he cornered the market on the Fourth of July by purchasing fireworks in a neighboring county and selling them in his town for a premium. Not one to pass up a challenge, Sir John set a goal of attending Yale University, which meant that he had to take calculus for his entrance exam. But the local high school did not offer calculus. So, Sir John designed and taught the course himself. He later matriculated at Yale University in 1930. In 1954, Sir John created the Templeton Growth Fund, a mutual fund with a global mandate to find stocks and companies that were doing business in Europe and Asia. Sir John came to appreciate the opportunities for economic growth outside of the United States during his trip around the world in 1936 after completing a Rhodes scholarship at Oxford University. He considered his investment work as a ministry to help people increase their material wealth so that they could plan for retirement, send their children to college, or develop a thoughtful approach to saving money. But he found his greatest joy in helping the world grow their spiritual wealth through the work of the Templeton philanthropies. In 1992, Sir John sold the Templeton family of funds to the Franklin Group and turned his attention fully to realizing his philanthropic vision. He summarized his vision in Wisdom From World Religions: Pathways Toward Heaven on Earth, a book he published in 2002 and one of the books he cites in the governing documents for each of the three Templeton philanthropies. “Modern science has revolutionized our understanding of the world,” he wrote, This is quite obvious. But what impact have these developments had on our knowledge of God? How do we see human beings fitting into the overall scheme? We know very little—probably less than 1 percent of what can be discovered—about God and fundamental spiritual principles. (J. Templeton, 2002, p. 18) And thus, Sir John set out to learn more about the spiritual dimension of human existence, which included a great interest in character development. Sir John often connected his success in business to the people and the community in Winchester, TN. Sir John’s father taught him the virtue of thrift and hard work. From his mother, he learned the value of being honest, diligent, reliable, and future-minded. Sir John’s mother showed him how “the content of his character could either lead to success or failure. His mother … taught him how right thoughts can forge right actions” (J. Templeton & Ellison, 1987/2013, p. 18). When asked about the influences that shaped his character, Sir John shared stories of people who demonstrated that one’s character mattered more than one’s social or financial status. In the introduction to Writing From the Heart, the first publication of Laws of Life essays (an early program of the John Templeton Foundation described later in this chapter), Sir John wrote, Very few doors were locked … a person’s word and handshake were sacred; and honesty was always the best policy. With so many models and examples of positive character, I was able to identify and practice the values by which I wanted to lead my life. (J. Templeton, 2001, p. xi)1 Sir John’s mother, Vella Handly Templeton, also exposed Sir John to the benefits of religious belief and practice. Because she was involved in the activities of a local church, Sir John also 536

The Templeton Philanthropies

participated in church programs including as superintendent for the Sunday School. Along the way, Vella discovered the Unity School of Christianity (Unity) and subscribed to Unity’s publications, which Sir John found lying around the house. Unity is a Christian religious sect that evolved from the interaction between Christianity, Transcendentalism, and the late 19th-century New Thought movement. Charles and Myrtle Fillmore founded the Unity School of Christianity in 1903 after Myrtle came to believe (and Charles eventually agreed) that she had been cured from tuberculosis because of her religious beliefs and commitments. As they sought to understand Myrtle’s experience, Charles and Myrtle developed a set of ideas about the nature of God and God’s involvement in human affairs. They began writing about their experiences as early as 1889 and developed a robust communication enterprise that included their most popular publication, The Daily Word (which still exists today), and a far-reaching radio program (Mosley & Dunlap, 2006; Vahle, 2002). With an emphasis on the “power of positive thinking,” the importance of prayer, and the belief that spiritual truths can be found within all faith traditions, Unity planted seeds of insight in a young John Templeton that would later define his approach to philanthropy and to character development. Specifically, Sir John believed religious faith and spiritual insights contributed to positive character formation. He developed this view at the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in Winchester and as an adult Sunday school teacher in Englewood, NJ: It was in Sunday school that I was introduced to the Golden Rule. It was in Sunday school also that I first read the Sermon on the Mount, which is at the very heart of the Christian gospel and should be studied and memorized by every Sunday school student. (J. M. Templeton & Ellison, 2006, p. 3) Sir John’s first philanthropic investments involved substantial investments in religion. He created the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1972 (which was renamed the Templeton Prize in 2008), joined the board of Princeton Theological Seminary, created the Templeton Theological Seminary in The Bahamas (where he moved to take up permanent residence in the 1960s), and supported a program to hang plaques with verses from the Bible on the walls of Bahamian school classrooms (Proctor & Phillips, 2012). In fact, Sir John wrote The Templeton Plan: 21 Steps to Personal Success and Real Happiness to share his belief that “the person who lives by God’s principles is the same person who will succeed in life, making lasting friendships and most likely reaping significant financial rewards” (J. Templeton & Ellison, 1987/2013, p. xiv). In Wisdom From World Religions, which is a collection of maxims and principles that draw from the world’s faith traditions, Sir John wrote, “Persons who are spiritually focused usually cope better with stress, have strong social support, and enjoy a higher quality of life (e.g., well-being, self-esteem, job and marital satisfaction, altruism)” (J. Templeton, 2002, pp. 164–165). Although Sir John understood that “religions can sometimes bring out the worst as well as the best in people, (he) wanted to see the best” (Post, 2012, p. ix).

Character Development and the Templeton Philanthropies Sir John created the Templeton Religion Trust in 1984, the John Templeton Foundation was incorporated in 1987, and the Templeton World Charity Foundation was established in 1996. Since the early 1970s, Sir John had been shaping a philanthropic mandate built on a deep commitment to religious belief and practice—the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, which was started in 1972, is one example. The first charter of the John Templeton Foundation did not include character 537

Heather Templeton Dill and Jennifer Templeton Simpson

development among the funding areas described in the purpose section of this governing document, but Sir John had already started supporting character development programs in Winchester, TN, and by 1995, “supporting character development research and character development programs” was added to the purposes of the John Templeton Foundation (John Templeton Foundation, 1995). Over the next 10 years, Sir John continued to revise the governing documents for the Templeton philanthropies. With respect to character development, he outlined three ways to support character development: research about how character is formed in individuals, dissemination of the results of such research, and support for programs that aspire to cultivate good character. And he included 19 different character traits that he thought were particularly important. These character traits, or character virtues (as Sir John’s son, Jack Templeton, would call them), consist of a set of traditional virtues such as love, joy, and generosity, and several other character traits, such as future-mindedness, beneficial purpose, and entrepreneurship, that reflected Sir John’s particular perspective on good character.2 Sir John believed that a well-functioning society required a strong moral framework and he directed the philanthropies he created to contribute to human flourishing by supporting character development.3 The John Templeton Foundation led the work in character development, experimenting with many different programs in the first 20 years of its work. The Templeton World Charity Foundation and the Templeton Religion Trust began making grants in 2010 and 2012, respectively, pursuing work in character development that aligned with their grant making strategies. Across all three organizations, the Templeton philanthropies funded basic research on character in disciplines as diverse as psychology, philosophy, and theology. Some of this work launched new fields of inquiry. Other investments tapped into work that was already in development, and an innovative program developed by the Templeton World Charity Foundation expanded research on character well beyond the domain of institutions and programs in the United States or Western Europe. In each of these efforts, the Templeton philanthropies have focused primarily on implementation and/or evaluation of promising, evidence-based programs, as well as on applied and translational research on character.

Early Investments in Character Development But early investments in character development took a different approach. The John Templeton Foundation supported two main areas of work—an essay contest and an honor role for colleges and universities that made character formation a core component of their institutional work—before launching into academic field development and support for research on and about character virtue development.

The Laws of Life Essay Contest In 1987, Sir John launched the Laws of Life essay contest in his hometown of Winchester, TN to thank the town for celebrating his receipt of a Knight Bachelor by the Queen of England: “Sir John wanted to give his own meaningful gift to his community, and that is how the first Laws of Life Essay Contest was born” (Veljkovic, 2003, p. xviii). The essay contest invited young people to write about the principles and values by which they wanted to live. The contests began in the Franklin County schools and offered cash prizes for first-, second-, and third-place authors, with smaller cash prizes for those who received an honorable mention. The teacher of the first-place winner also earned money for supporting and promoting the program (Clement, 2014). 538

The Templeton Philanthropies

Sir John believed that if students were given the opportunity to think and write about the kind of person they wanted to be, they would carry these principles with them throughout their lives, and they would be more likely to put these ideals into practice. His affiliation with Unity instilled an appreciation for religious teachings. The book of Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible, for example, instructs that “As one thinketh in her heart, so is he” (King James Bible, 1769/2016, Proverbs 23:7). Charles Fillmore taught the same: “Thoughts held in mind produce after their kind.” The Daily Word, a publication of Unity, included a maxim or principle with a relevant scripture verse for diurnal reflection (Post, 2012). Sir John derived great meaning from Unity’s emphasis on spiritual aphorisms, and he began to draft his own texts of moral principles, spiritual maxims, and other sayings. These books, Riches for the Mind and Spirit, Discovering the Laws of Life, and Wisdom from World Religions, underscored Sir John’s interest in introspection as a way to develop good character. Despite Sir John’s interest, it took some time for these first essay contests to generate a reasonable number of applications. After two years, Sir John began working with family members in Winchester, TN to establish a regular rhythm for the prize program and to ensure the program was integrated into the local schools. By the early 1990s, Sir John was encouraging friends and colleagues to start their own prize programs. But uptake was slow as many thought Sir John had sufficient financial wherewithal to support the program on his own. When the John Templeton Foundation increased its commitment to the Laws of Life program around the turn of the 21st century by giving small grants to fund the first year of an essay competition and hiring staff to advance the program, the Laws of Life essay contest grew to become one of the John Templeton Foundation’s signature grant making initiatives. At its peak, the John Templeton Foundation was funding 132 contests in 28 countries. The most successful contest was being run by Junior Achievement in China, which received four grants from the John Templeton Foundation over a 10-year time period and reached nearly 2 million students (Clement, 2014). Although the John Templeton Foundation ultimately moved away from supporting the Laws of Life program because it required a significant investment of time and resources to generate and sustain interest, the program continues in The Bahamas (where Sir John lived from the 1960s), in Georgia (where a relationship with the Georgia Rotary Clubs provides both financial and institutional support), and Winchester, TN (where the program has become one of the long-standing opportunities in the Franklin county school system). The Laws of Life essay program is no longer a core feature of the work that the Templeton philanthropies support. Research funded by the John Templeton Foundation suggested that Laws of Life essay contests do have a measurable impact on the character of those who write the essays, at least in the short term. However, an essay contest alone does not contribute to the development of good character, and therefore, the John Templeton Foundation shifted its work to funding research projects and evaluating character development programs. There was also a similar shift away from the Honor Roll for Character Building Colleges and Universities.

The Honor Roll for Character Building-Colleges and Universities The John Templeton Foundation established the Honor Roll for Character-Building Colleges (Honor Roll) in 1989 “to recognize institutions that emphasize character development as an integral part of the undergraduate experience” (J. M. Templeton & Schwartz, 1999, xii). In the forward to The Templeton Guide: Colleges That Encourage Character Development, Jack Templeton wrote, “Although developing good values is certainly a lifelong process, the college years are critical to forming a strong and steady character. … Recognizing this, college educators play an 539

Heather Templeton Dill and Jennifer Templeton Simpson

important role in reinforcing and strengthening the ideals and values that students already hold” (J. M. Templeton & Schwartz, 1999, pp. vii–viii). The guide further describes the John Templeton Foundation’s view “that character development does occur in a wide variety of higher-education settings” (J. M. Templeton & Schwartz, 1999, p. ix). The Honor Roll was part of a larger initiative called College and Character: A National Initiative, which was “an effort to … foster widespread dialogue and activities with the higher education community about the importance of character development” (J. M. Templeton & Schwartz, 1999, p. xiii). The Honor Roll identified “institutions that emphasize(d) character development as an integral part of the undergraduate experience” (John Templeton Foundation, 1999, p. 279). The John Templeton Foundation named 350 colleges to this honor roll between 1989 and 1999, evaluating applicants with the following criteria:

• A clear and compelling vision and mission that express a commitment to prepare students for lives of personal and civic responsibility;

• The significant involvement and participation of faculty in forming and shaping the ideals and standards of personal and civic responsibility;

• Evidence that a wide variety of programs exists to prepare students for lives of personal and civic responsibility;

• The integration of personal and civic responsibility standards and activities into the core curriculum or areas of academic study;

• External recognition or honors; and • Procedures to assess effectiveness of campus-wide character-development programs (p. 279). According to Bob Hermann, a long-time associate and co-author with Sir John, “in 1995 the applicant institutions were asked to,” explain how their undergraduate programs “encourage(d) students to explore (their) moral reasoning process, foster(ed) positive attitudes and overall wellbeing, encourage(d) spiritual growth and moral values, promote(d) community-building values, and advocate(d) a drug-free lifestyle” (Hermann, 1998, p. 76). To identify qualified institutions, the John Templeton Foundation sent a nomination packet to “all four-year accredited colleges and universities in the United States” and hired Dr. Jon C. Dalton, director of the Institute on College Student Values at Florida State University, to conduct the review process (J. M. Templeton & Schwartz, 1999, p. 381). Undergraduate institutions could nominate programs such as academic honesty programs, faculty and curriculum programs, volunteer service programs, student leadership programs, spiritual growth programs, civic education programs, and more to be considered for an exemplary program award. Colleges That Encourage Character Development recognized 405 programs in their 1999 publication. The John Templeton Foundation also invited nominations for their presidential leadership awards, designed to honor college and university presidents who “established character development as a high priority and (supported) the design and implementation of campus wide activities that prepare students for lives of personal and civic responsibility” (John Templeton Foundation, 1999, p. 227). But the Honor Roll itself attracted the most attention with schools issuing press releases to celebrate being named to the Honor Roll for Character-Building Colleges and local papers highlighting the designation in their reports (Greenburg, 1997). Institutions that wanted to apply received “an extensive application form” with questions that required a written response to the criteria. In addition, the Institute on College Student Values conducted their own research to identify programs,

540

The Templeton Philanthropies

presidents, and schools that might not respond to the John Templeton Foundation’s inquiry or otherwise be recognized. This research yielded a pool of 2,500 programs and 1,000 institutions. The Institute worked with an advisory board of academics, university program directors, and administrators to develop the criteria, to determine the selection process, and to outline the categories for consideration. However, even this program had a limited shelf life. After publishing the Honor Roll every other year for 10 years, the John Templeton Foundation disbanded the program and moved on to other areas of work in character development (John Templeton Foundation, 1999, p. 381).

The Campaign for Forgiveness Research By the late 1990s, the John Templeton Foundation was looking beyond programmatic work in character development to substantive research on character and character traits. The Campaign for Forgiveness Research launched in 1998 built on a successful request-for-proposal (RFP) program that the John Templeton Foundation ran in 1997 to fund research on the concept of forgiveness (Campaign for Forgiveness Research, 1998). This initiative was the John Templeton Foundation’s first significant RFP program, and it would become a model that the Foundation employed many times to carve out new academic terrain in areas of work that had been undervalued because they were deemed to be difficult to study or too religious in orientation. Indeed, the John Templeton Foundation’s commitment to understanding the role of religion in human experience as exemplified by Sir John’s personal interest in religious belief and practice positioned the John Templeton Foundation to take on this work. The John Templeton Foundation’s interest in studying forgiveness began when Sir John “sent a fax (to the staff at the John Templeton Foundation) saying, ‘Could you study forgiveness?’” (O’Brien, 1999, p. 1). In response, the John Templeton Foundation hosted a conference entitled The Science of Forgiveness: A Research Symposium in October 1997 and launched a request for proposals shortly after that. The RFP wanted to support research programs designed to understand the elements of forgiveness, how people come to forgive, whether there are biological foundations of forgiveness, and the impact of forgiveness on the one offering forgiveness and on the one being forgiven. The Foundation received over 200 letters of intent, invited 134 to submit a full proposal, and funded 20. They had allocated about $3 million in funding for the program and increased that to $4 million after the significant response from applicants. One year later, the John Templeton Foundation created a separate charitable entity run by Dr. Everett Worthington in Richmond, VA, where he taught, to raise additional capital for funding research on forgiveness and to expand the work that was already being done. By 2003, the Campaign had raised and distributed over $10 million to support research on forgiveness and a public relation campaign that raised awareness of this work in publications as diverse as People Weekly and The Chronicle of Higher Education (Worthington, 2019).4 In time, the John Templeton Foundation came to understand the impact of these initial investments in research on forgiveness. Dr. David Myers, a professor of psychology, captured some of this impact in a keyword search on PsychInfo for the years prior to and after the launch of the forgiveness RFP and Campaign. “A title search will miss many pertinent articles, but should show any trend,” and indeed the trend was clear (Myers & Witvliet, 2019, p. 193). Between circa 2000 and 2017, there was a dramatic increase in publications about forgiveness—and this increase involved just a count of academic publications (Myers & Witvliet, 2019). In this same time period, books have been published, documentaries have been released, and many outlets have incorporated research on and about forgiveness into their work.5

541

Heather Templeton Dill and Jennifer Templeton Simpson

Expanding Work in Character Development By 2000, the John Templeton Foundation was ready to build on early investments in character development, using an RFP model to study other character virtues, such as love, gratitude, and generosity, and funding programs to cultivate character in school-aged children and young adults. Research on love followed quickly on the heels of the John Templeton Foundation’s venture in funding research on forgiveness. In 1999, with funding from the John Templeton Foundation and the Fetzer Institute, Dr. Stephen Post co-chaired a conference on “altruism, empathy and related fields” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This conference led to an initial round of empirical research projects on compassionate love, funded by the Fetzer Institute, and in 2001, Dr. Post founded the Institute for Research on Unlimited Love (IRUL) with funding from the John Templeton Foundation (Oman & Meyer, 2013). IRUL would go on to fund many different RFP programs on altruism, compassion, service, and love of God and neighbor. Whereas the John Templeton Foundation only provided one major grant to IRUL ($8,000,000 in 2001), IRUL used the funds to support 50 research projects on love. According to Dr. Post, “the idea that you can study something like love in very creative ways is empowering for people” (John Templeton Foundation, 2006, p. 78). Like the Campaign for Forgiveness Research, IRUL tilled new academic soil by funding empirical work on a character virtue that had been the terrain for theologians and philosophers. Around the time that the John Templeton Foundation began exploring research programs on love, they gave their first grant to Dr. Robert Emmons, professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, to study gratitude. Called “Perspectives and Dimensions of Gratitude,” the Foundation made the grant in 1999. Ten years later, the John Templeton Foundation awarded $5 million to Christian Smith at the University of Notre Dame to launch the Science of Generosity, and in 2010, the Foundation held a planning meeting to explore the potential for funding research on intellectual humility. This meeting on intellectual humility turned into a $5.4 million grant on the Science of Intellectual Humility, rounding out the Foundation’s most significant investments in research on individual character virtues. Over a period of 20 years, the John Templeton Foundation had made research on character a serious academic concern by funding projects that yielded hundreds of articles, developing the careers of scholars interested in character development, and providing a research base to inform character development programs.

The Purpose Prize Alongside work on forgiveness, gratitude, generosity, and intellectual humility, the John Templeton Foundation wanted to understand the concept of beneficial purpose. This work began with another query from Sir John: “How can we promote a vision of purpose in retirement?” The answer was to create a prize, the Purpose Prize, that recognized individuals who had used their time and talents after retirement to start a second career focused on a social good. Winners of the Purpose Prize include former artists, medical workers, victims of trauma, CEOs, accountants, lawyers, federal judges, journalists, and more who created something new to “address an important social issue in a new way” (Freedman, 2016). Nominees had to be at least 60, they must have begun working on the issue in their 50s, and they were required to have plans to continue their work for another five years (Freedman, 2016). Marc Freedman at Civic Ventures received the first grant from the John Templeton Foundation to launch the Purpose Prize in 2004. Within 12 years, the John Templeton Foundation allocated $17.3 million to support and promote the Purpose Prize. But unlike earlier investments, other funding partners came to the table, 542

The Templeton Philanthropies

providing 65% of total project costs for the launch and continuation of the Purpose Prize program. The results were remarkable, and the Purpose Prize stands as one of the John Templeton Foundation’s most successful philanthropic ventures because the program continues into 2023 without funding from the John Templeton Foundation. When Sir John created the John Templeton Foundation, he hoped that other philanthropists would share his vision for human flourishing by supporting the projects that Sir John funded. The Purpose Prize is one example where Sir John’s interests aligned with the funding interests of other grant making organizations. In fact, it was co-launched with the Atlantic Philanthropies in 2006 (John Templeton Foundation, 2012). On the 10-year anniversary of the Purpose Prize, Marc Freedman reported the results. The Prize program had received over 10,000 nominees, recognized 500 winners and Purpose Prize fellows, gave away $5 million to those receiving a Purpose Prize, achieved the designation of the “MacArthur genius award” for individuals over 70, and earned many accolades in top-tier media outlets (Freedman, 2016). Reports from the grantee organization that ran the Purpose Prize, Civic Ventures (which later became Encore.org), showed millions of dollars in co-funding from private philanthropists and other major private foundations in the United States, and in 2015, the Purpose Prize reached a new milestone: the American Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP) agreed to run the Purpose Prize. In 2011, AARP sponsored their first Purpose Prize, and within four short years decided to shepherd the Purpose Prize into a new era. Marc Freedom (2016) described the potential impact in this way: We believe the Purpose Prize has potential to take its message of later life creativity and innovation to every corner of the globe—demonstrating how life’s second half can be a time when everyone has the chance to become a force for change. (para. 4)

Developing a Strategy for Promoting Character Development Sir John Templeton passed away in July 2008, just months before one of the most significant financial meltdowns in history. It was a difficult time for many philanthropic organizations, but Sir John’s passing began a new chapter in the life of the John Templeton Foundation. Between 2008 and 2012, the John Templeton Foundation grew by over $1.5 billion. This dramatic growth required new team members to allocate a bigger sum of money. For the first time in its history, the John Templeton Foundation established a Character Development department to coordinate the Foundation’s grant making activity in character development, and in doing so, the Foundation expanded its scope of work in the field of character development. By 2014, the Board of the John Templeton Foundation adopted a strategy for grant making in character development, and both the structure of the plan and the themes in the strategic plan would inform the Foundation’s grant making in character development for the next 10 years. Meanwhile, the Templeton World Charity Foundation and the Templeton Religion Trust were just coming to life as grant making entities and, although they drew inspiration from the John Templeton Foundation’s grant making in character development, in time, Templeton World Charity Foundation and Templeton Religion Trust developed their own grant making initiatives in character development. The decade between 2012 and 2022 is marked by three major themes in promoting character: the work of the Jubilee Centre for Character & Virtues, an investment in what the John Templeton Foundation has called the Science of Character Virtue, and a multi-national venture run by the Templeton World Charity Foundation called Global Innovations in Character Development. Each of the Templeton philanthropies supported other programs and projects during 543

Heather Templeton Dill and Jennifer Templeton Simpson

this time, but these three themes or areas of work are particularly significant investments in research on character development.

The Jubilee Centre for Character Virtue In 2012, Dr. James Arthur, of the University of Birmingham, launched the Jubilee Centre for Character and Values (now the Jubilee Centre for Character & Virtues) at the House of Lords in London. This project was the vision of two men: Dr. John M. Templeton, Jr., who was Sir John’s oldest son and who served as president of the John Templeton Foundation from 1987 to 2015, and Dr. James Arthur, a professor of education who had been studying and writing about character education since the early 1990s. Dr. Arthur was a scholar and former teacher who had found a ready audience for character education, at least in the United Kingdom. Dr. Templeton was a former pediatric surgeon who had turned his zeal for healing physical ailments into a passion for making investments in the spiritual well-being of young people. By the time that Dr. Templeton and Dr. Arthur met, Dr. Templeton had become a champion of promoting character development, and he was beginning to see a unique opportunity to advance character development in the United Kingdom. Initially, the John Templeton Foundation awarded two grants to Dr. James Arthur to explore the state of character education in the British school system. The first project focused on students aged 14 to 19; the second extended the research to individuals ranging in age from 3 to 25. The second “study found that participants were comfortable using the language of character with some ease, but that terms were often used interchangeably” (Thompson, 2022, p. 38). This finding created an opportunity for developing proposals on moral education (and) identifying an appropriate language that can be used by practitioners in situations “on the ground” (Thompson, 2022). After receiving two additional grants from the John Templeton Foundation to create character development programs, Dr. Templeton and Dr. Arthur began to envision a substantial investment in research on character development based in the United Kingdom. 6 Dr. Templeton wanted to honor his father, Sir John Templeton, on the hundredth anniversary of Sir John’s birth in 2012, and Dr. Arthur had a vision to rebuild a robust framework for cultivating good character across the life span based on a neo-Aristotelian conception of character with a healthy dose of 21st-century realpolitik (Thompson, 2022). The Jubilee Centre began its work on June 1, 2012 with a $9.1 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation called Gratitude Britain. Between 2012 and 2022, the Foundation gave four grants to support the work of the Jubilee Centre. The second and third grants were called Service Britain and Transformative Britain, respectively, to reflect two themes Queen Elizabeth highlighted for her Diamond Jubilee, which she celebrated in 2012. Dr. Templeton and Dr. Arthur chose the word Jubilee for the Centre to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee and to honor the good character and virtue she had exhibited throughout her long reign. Although the John Templeton Foundation does not generally support the same project for more than three years, Dr. Templeton set out to support the Jubilee Centre for 10 years. He did not live to see the 10 years completed, but the Board of the John Templeton Foundation honored Dr. Templeton’s vision for the Jubilee Centre, based on the Centre’s accomplishments, and funding continued into 2023. The details of the Jubilee Centre’s work are recorded elsewhere in this Handbook (see Arthur, this Handbook) and in Aidan Thompson’s book, Character & Virtues: 10 years of the Jubilee Centre. Thus, the only point made in this chapter is that the Jubilee Centre far exceeded the expectations of Dr. Templeton and of Heather Templeton Dill, who became president of the John Templeton Foundation in 2015 when Dr. Templeton passed away. Thompson summarized the reasons for Jubilee’s success: it had support for 10 years of work, it conducted research with a focus 544

The Templeton Philanthropies

on applications and dissemination, it did work across different sectors of society, it worked with policy makers to encourage a greater commitment to character development, and it earned attention from scholars and practitioners all over the world who wanted to see character development prioritized in their communities (Thompson, 2022). It is also worth noting that the John Templeton Foundation supported many innovative efforts in conjunction with its support for the Jubilee Centre. Some of these investments are summarized below and described in greater detail in other chapters in this Handbook. But the Jubilee Centre stands out in the story of the Templeton philanthropies’ support for character development because of Dr. Templeton’s role in creating the Centre and because of his commitment to funding the Jubilee Centre for 10 years. Dr. Templeton was especially interested in the role that good character plays in ensuring a free, stable, and prosperous society, and he believed that because the United Kingdom had birthed many significant global reform movements, it was the right place to establish a center dedicated to research on character and virtue (J. M. Templeton, 2012).7

Strategic Priorities in Character Development 2014 to 2024 As the John Templeton Foundation grew in size and scope, it reorganized its grant making activity, and the Character Virtue Development department was charged with carrying out Sir John’s mandate for character development. In 2014, the Character Virtue Development team announced a five-year strategy focused on cultivating virtue across the life span through evidence-based programs, supporting the dissemination of resources and information about character development, and establishing a developmental science of virtue. With a focus on these themes, the John Templeton Foundation funded grants on underexplored topics such as kindness, honesty, and character development in seminaries. The Foundation identified and supported exceptional leaders such as Angela Duckworth, Ethan Kross, and Amrisha Vaish, who advanced our understanding of character virtues by publishing in top-tier journals. And the Foundation supported innovative grant making models including (a) a funding competition (called New Assessments and Measures of Virtue, launched in 2013) to create measures of individual character traits, which might be used to assess character development programs and (b) large-scale initiatives in the school setting, including an entire school dedicated to cultivating intellectual virtues (The Intellectual Virtues Academy; see Churchill et al., this Handbook). The net result of this activity was a significant increase in research on and interest in character development. Although much of this interest emerged organically alongside the John Templeton Foundation’s work in character development, the Foundation provided the funding that enabled scholars to investigate individual character traits, which created a research literature on character development and influenced the creation of many character development programs. This Handbook captures the Foundation’s track record with chapters on positive psychology (see McGrath, this Handbook), intellectual humility (see Kotzee & Baehr, this Handbook, and Dykhuis, this Handbook), gratitude (see Nelson et al., this Handbook), purpose (see Bronk, this Handbook), forgiveness (see Tirrell, this Handbook), generosity (Vaish & Beeler-Duden, this Handbook), grit (see Erbe et al., this Handbook; see Raver & Ledford, this Handbook), resilience (see Pool et al., this Handbook, Volume II, Chapter 6, and positive youth development (see Buckingham et al., this Handbook), which are among the many themes of research the Foundation has supported. Chapters on the PRIMED model (see Berkowitz & Bier, Handbook Volume I, Chapter 5), the Smart and Good Schools model (see Lickona, this Handbook), The Jubilee Centre (see Arthur, this Handbook), The Oxford Character Project (which has been a grantee of the Templeton World Charity Foundation; see Brooks et al., this Handbook), the Wake Forest Program for Leadership 545

Heather Templeton Dill and Jennifer Templeton Simpson

and Character (see Lamb & Townsend, this Handbook), the University of Oklahoma Institute for the Study of Human Flourishing (see Snow, this Handbook, Volume II, Chapter 17), the Stanford University Center of Adolescence (see Malin, this Handbook), the Tufts University Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development (see Buckingham, this Handbook), the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Center for Parent and Youth Teen Communication (see Pool, Ginsburg et al., this Handbook), and the Intellectual Virtues Academy (see Churchill et al., this Handbook) feature both research and programs funded by the John Templeton Foundation over the last 20 years. In 2020, the John Templeton Foundation launched a new strategic plan to update and refocus its grant making activity in character development. Building on the work the Foundation had been supporting, the Character Virtue Development team at the John Templeton Foundation identified four themes for this second round of grant making in character development based on a wellconsidered strategic plan:

• • • •

strengthen character development programs through communities of practice; increase access to scientific findings on character and child development; catalyze research on character development and social norms; and increase the number of early career scientists who study character development (John Templeton Foundation, 2020, p. 3).

And in 2021, to pursue the first theme in this new strategy, the Foundation initiated the Character Through Community funding competition, which resulted in grants to 23 organizations seeking to strengthen their understanding and practice of character development through communities of practice (i.e., “group[s] of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly;” Wenger et al., 2002, as cited in John Templeton Foundation, 2023, “What is a ‘community of practice?’” section). Communities of practice “come together regularly to share knowledge, innovate, and solve problems” (John Templeton Foundation, 2023, “What is a ‘community of practice?’” section). The Foundation had been funding standalone efforts to promote character development for over 20 years. Character Through Community aimed to leverage that work and build the networks that would “advance the science and practice of good character” far beyond where the John Templeton Foundation could go on its own (John Templeton Foundation, 2020).

Global Innovations in Character Development When the Templeton World Charity Foundation began developing its own grant making portfolios around 2009/2010, it looked for ways to support character development in non-Western countries. Taking the “World” in its title seriously, the Templeton World Charity Foundation gave grants to projects in South Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and The Bahamas. In 2018, the Templeton World Charity Foundation launched Global Innovations in Character Development to find and support character development programs and research projects in Latin America, the Caribbean, and low- and middle-income countries all around the world. Using the model of a funding competition, the Foundation initiated three calls for proposals between 2018 and 2022 and ultimately funded 41 projects in 25 different countries. The range of projects supported via Global Innovations in Character Development draws from prior work supported by the John Templeton Foundation and branches into new areas that reflect the beliefs and practices of local cultural environments. A three-year project to the City University of Hong Kong, for example, explored the impact of Dr. Everett Worthington’s 546

The Templeton Philanthropies

REACH Forgiveness program in Columbia, Indonesia, Mainland China, Ghana, South Africa, and Ukraine.8 The PRIMED for Character Education in Colombian Schools: School Leadership Development project supported a partnership with the Centre for Character and Citizenship at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and Coschool S.A.S., a Columbian character education organization (see Berkowitz & Bier, Handbook Volume I, Chapter 6), to test the use of Dr. Marvin Berkowitz’s PRIMED model in 10 Columbian schools. And the Utu: Building Character with Innovative Edu-cartoons project pushed the character development initiatives supported by the Templeton philanthropies into new areas and new ideas. Utu is a Swahili concept that refers to kindness, gratitude, trust, respect, and empathy as primary communal virtues. The program funded by the Templeton World Charity Foundation explored whether a cartoon program can help children understand their rich cultural heritage.

Conclusions: Investing in Spiritual Prosperity Sir John wrote his first book in 1981. It was called The Humble Approach: Scientists Discover God, and it was a manifesto for those who wanted to better understand the fundamental realities of the natural world and to explore the spiritual dimension of human existence. “Everyone now understands the term ‘laws of nature,’ Sir John wrote in a chapter called Laws of the Spirit, “… Not everyone, however, yet understands ‘the laws of the spirit,’ … [by which] we mean universal principles … that can be determined and tested by extensive examination of human behavior and other data” (J. Templeton, 1998, p. 118). Sir John’s ultimate objective for character development was to help individuals become more useful and more spiritually prosperous—he wanted people to be transformed. He wrote in the foreword to The Templeton Plan, “It is my vision that more and more people worldwide will lead lives of happiness, usefulness, and prosperity if we work continuously toward spiritual growth and better understanding of the virtues by which we should govern ourselves” (J. Templeton & Ellison, 1987/2013, p. x). For Sir John, these virtues were rooted in spiritual truths that governed the world and that could be studied and put into practice. And that is what the Templeton philanthropies have tried to do. The Templeton philanthropies have supported innovative research on character development because Sir John Templeton believed in the power of research to challenge prevailing assumptions, to inform best practice, and to help people in every nation of the world discover the laws of the spirit, the moral principles by which we should all live in order to make the world a better and a more prosperous place. Although Sir John never used the words “human flourishing,” his vision for the role that character development ought to play in the lives of individuals, institutions, and communities is a picture of what it means to be fully human and to flourish across all domains of life. And the exciting fact is that we still have so much to learn.

Notes 1 In The Templeton Touch, William Proctor (2012) wrote, “The schools, churches and families he knew felt it their duty to teach ‘strength of character,’ which meant reliability and self-control. . . unlike many of his [Sir John’s] playmates, he felt an inner drive virtually from toddlerhood to incorporate those values into his own life in the most practical way” (p. 11). 2 The 19 character traits that Sir John includes in the governing documents for each of the Templeton philanthropies are: ethics, love, honesty, generosity, thanksgiving, forgiving, reliability, entrepreneurship, diligence, thrift, joy, future-mindedness, beneficial purpose, accelerating creativity, communication, constructive thinking, curiosity, humility, and awe. 3 Sir John’s clearest statement on this point is in a speech he gave in 1993 at Buena Vista University. Entitled, “The Religious Foundation of Liberty and Enterprise,” the speech outlined Sir John’s views of

547

Heather Templeton Dill and Jennifer Templeton Simpson the virtues that were essential to economic freedom and the vices that inhibited economic progress for all members of society. “The ethics that govern an economy must be secure, meaningful, and they must match our highest spiritual aspirations” (J. Templeton, 1993). 4 See Worthington (1999) and Heller (1998) for articles about the Campaign and research funded from the RFP. 5 Power of Forgiveness, Hidden Brain, and Greater Good Science Center. 6 The John Templeton Foundation gave Dr. Arthur four grants between 2006 and 2011. The first two grants researched the state of character development in the British School system. The second two grants supported two programs to help students develop good character. Together, these four grants laid the groundwork for the Jubilee Centre and demonstrated that Dr. Arthur had great capacity to launch an interdisciplinary center wholly dedicated to research on character and virtue. 7 In his speech at the House of Lords on May 16, 2012, Dr. Templeton explained why a private foundation based in the United States would support the creation of a major research center on character and virtue in the United Kingdom. Dr. Templeton noted the many contributions that the British Isles had made to human progress. “The reality is,” he said, “that this island alone (plus the peoples of Ireland) have produced enormous transformative changes not only for the benefit of millions and millions of people in this island nation (a nation so amazingly small a piece of territory compared to the rest of the world)—but even more so—a nation of centuries of beneficial transformative changes around the world.” He gave the following examples: Isaac Newton, Alan Turing, William Harvey, James Watts, Adam Smith, the concept of freedom of religion (especially as exemplified in William Penn), William Wilberforce, the Boy Scouts, and the Salvation Army. 8 REACH Forgiveness was developed by Everett Worthington in 2001. REACH stands for the five steps that are part of a process of learning to forgive: (R) Recall the hurt, (E) Empathize with the offender, (A) Altruistic gift of forgiveness, (C) Commit, and (H) Hold onto forgiveness. Dr. Worthington was the original director of the Campaign for Forgiveness Research launched by the John Templeton Foundation in 1998.

References Campaign for Forgiveness Research. (1998, October 1). Former President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dr. Robert Coles and Ruby Bridges Hall endorse $10 million Campaign for Forgiveness Research [Press release]. Clement, S. (2014). A brief history of the laws of life essay contest [Unpublished internal report]. John Templeton Foundation. Freedman, M. (2016, February 10). Encore.org announces AARP as new home of Purpose Prize. Encore.org. https://encore.org/purpose-prize-moves-to-aarp/ Greenburg, D. (1997, May 23). University lauded for character building. LA Times. https://www.latimes. com/archives/la-xpm-1997-05-23-me-61713-story.html Heller, S. (1998, July 17). Emerging field of forgiveness studies explores how we let go of grudges. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/emerging-field-of-forgiveness-studiesexplores-how-we-let-go-of-grudges/ Hermann, R. (1998). Sir John Templeton: From Wall Street to humility theology. Templeton Foundation Press. John Templeton Foundation. (1995). Articles of amendment and restatement of the charter. John Templeton Foundation. (1999). Colleges that encourage character development. Templeton Foundation Press. John Templeton Foundation. (2005). Articles of amendment and restatement of charter. John Templeton Foundation. (2006). Capabilities report 2006. http://capabilities.templeton.org/2006/menu. html John Templeton Foundation. (2020). Character virtue development strategic plan 2020-2024. https://www. templeton.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CVD-Strategic-Plan-2020-2024_updated.pdf John Templeton Foundation. (2023, January). Character through community. https://www.templeton.org/ internal-competiton-fund/character-through-community Mosley, G., & Dunlap, R. (2006). Association of Unity Churches International: Its beginning, its evolution, its vision for worldwide service. Courier Printing. Myers, D. G., & Witvliet, C. V. O. (2019). Response: Finding and funding forgiveness—and other virtues. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 38(3), 193–195.

548

The Templeton Philanthropies O’Brien, E. (1999, September 22). About absolution. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Oman, D., & Meyer, K. N. (2013, May 29). Research on unlimited love: First-wave findings and future directions (rev. ed.). Institute for Research on Unlimited Love. https://unlimitedloveinstitute.org/downloads/ RESEARCH-ON-UNLIMITED-LOVE-OMAN-REPORT.pdf Post, S. G. (2012). Foreword. In J. Templeton (Ed.), The essential worldwide laws of life (pp. vii–xii). Templeton Press. Proctor, W., & Phillips, P. (2012). The Templeton touch (rev. ed.). Templeton Press. Templeton, J. (1993, October 21). The religious foundations of liberty and enterprise. The speech given by Sir John Templeton on October 21, 1993, at Buena Vista University in Iowa. Templeton, J. (1998). The humble approach: Scientists discover God. Templeton Foundation Press. Templeton, J. (2001). Foreword. In P. Veljkovic & A. Schwartz (Eds.), Writing from the heart: Young people share their wisdom (pp. xi–xvii). Templeton Foundation Press. Templeton, J. (2002). Wisdom from world religions: Pathways toward heaven on earth. Templeton Foundation Press. Templeton, J. M. (2012, May 16). Launch of the Jubilee Centre for character and values [Speech]. House of Lords. Templeton, J. M., & Ellison, J. (Eds.). (2006). Riches for the mind & spirit: John Marks Templeton’s treasury of words to help, inspire & live by. Templeton Foundation Press. Templeton, J. M., & Ellison, J. (2013). The Templeton plan: 21 steps to success and happiness. Templeton Press. (Original work published 1987). Templeton, J. M. Jr., & Schwartz, A. J. (1999). Introduction. In J. Templeton Foundation (Ed.), Colleges that encourage character development (pp. vii–viii). Templeton Foundation Press. Thompson, A. P. (2022). Character & virtues: 10 years of the Jubilee Centre. Imprint Academic. Vahle, N. (2002). The unity movement: Its evolution and spiritual teaching. Templeton Foundation Press. Veljkovic, P. (2003). Introduction. In S. H. Meyer, J. Meyer, & P. Veljkovic (Eds.), Teen ink: What matters (pp. xvi–xix). Health Communications, Inc. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press. Worthington, E. (1999, June 14). Healing power. People Weekly, 93–94. Worthington, E. L. Jr. (2019). A campaign for forgiveness research: Lessons in studying a virtue. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 38(3), 184–190.

549

29 CHARACTER FIRST, THE PATHWAY TO EXCELLENCE A Case Study of NPX Point Avenue K12 Education Programs in Hanoi, Vietnam Trang U. Le and Daniel G. Hwang Across the lifespan, character has been linked to positive development and well-being (Lerner et al., 2021a, 2021b). Despite such importance of character for development, there is no universally accepted definition of the construct. For example, scholars have defined character as the composition of personality aspects that are morally valued (Park & Peterson, 2009), “the skills, dispositions, and excellences that are required to live well and competently, the life that is good for one to live” (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2006, p. 260), as well as “the set of psychological characteristics that motivate and enable one to function as a moral agent, to perform optimally, to effectively pursue knowledge and intellectual flourishing, and to be an effective member of society” (Berkowitz et al., 2017, p. 34). Western scholars have conducted many theoretical and empirical works on character and thus, character has been perceived as a Westernized concept. However, character and character education have been of great interest in both the East and the West, as evident in the works of Kong Qiu, Socrates, Aristotle, among others (Pham & Bui, 2018). As character may be perceived differently across contexts, it is important to understand how character is conceptualized, as well as how character education is implemented in non-Western cultures (see Banati et al., and Sim et al., this Handbook, Chapter 23, Volume II). This chapter explores how NPX Point Avenue, an education technology company focused on a K12 private premium bilingual and international school and after-school training market, approaches character education in Southeast Asia and, more specifically, Vietnam.

Country Context: Vietnam as a Setting to Study Character Education With about 97.5 million people, Vietnam is the most populous country in Southeast Asia. In a way, Vietnam is homogeneous—more than 85% of the Vietnamese population is from Kinh ethnicity (also called Viet), whereas the remaining population is from 53 other minority ethnicities (Vietnam Census Bureau, 2019). From being one of the world’s poorest nations, Vietnam has embarked on major economic reforms to become a middle-income economy in just one generation (World Bank, 2022). Indeed, the nation has seen significant improvements in economic growth, living standards, as well as access to infrastructure services, healthcare, and education (Dang & Glewwe, 2018; World Bank, 2022). 550

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-32

Character First, The Pathway to Excellence

Culturally, Vietnam has been deeply influenced by Confucianism due to its long cultural exchange with China (Hằng, 2019). Confucianism highlights the Five Constants of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness (Hằng, 2019). The first Constant of benevolence entails treating others with humanness, care, and unselfishness. The second Constant of righteousness entails acting with fairness, integrity, and unselfishness; however, such unselfishness is rooted in steadfastness in the face of temptation instead of out of consideration for others’ needs in the Constant of benevolence. The third Constant of propriety entails acting with proper etiquette and sensitivity to one’s social place. The fourth Constant of wisdom entails correctly appraising situations, as well as discerning moral from immoral behaviors. Finally, the fifth Constant of trustworthiness entails keeping one’s word (Csikszentmihalyi, 2020). In addition to the Five Constants, Confucian principles enforce absolute respect and obedience of subordinates to superiors (such as students to teachers), children to parents, and wife to husband (Doan, 2005). These Constants and principles have great influences on education, teaching, and learning practices in Vietnam (Hằng, 2019). For example, the Five Constants are centered in the character education curriculum (Doan, 2005). The principle of absolute respect and obedience of subordinates to superiors typically translates to the idea that the teacher is the only source of knowledge. In classroom practice, this translation often means direct teacher-student knowledge transmission (Hằng, 2019). In the next section, we discuss character education in Vietnam, as well as its influences and limitedness.

Character Education in Vietnam The Vietnamese national education system includes five levels. The lowest level is preschool education for children aged 3–5, followed by primary education for children aged 6–10, secondary education for children aged 11–18, higher education, and postgraduate education (Socialist Republic of Vietnam’s Ministry of Education and Training [SRV MOET], 2019). The national education system takes a content-based curriculum approach to education, which has several limitations in terms of quality and effectiveness (Hằng, 2019; Ho et al., 2018). To address these limitations, the Vietnamese government implemented educational reform in 2020 to transition from a contentbased approach to a competency-based approach (SRV MOET, 2019). The competency-based approach is thought to move away from the traditional passive teacher-student knowledge transmission toward a more constructivist approach to teaching and learning (Hằng, 2019; Hằng, 2020). The Vietnamese education curriculum places a strong emphasis on character and citizenship education (Doan, 2005; SRV MOET, 2019). Hence, character education is compulsory in all K12 grades. The syllabus of character education in each grade is typically topic-based. For example, at the primary education level, lessons focus on cultivating the Five Constants, covering topics such as building proper manners and behaviors at home and school, nourishing family love, and saving money and time. Lessons often started with pictures, storytelling, rhythm and rhyme verse, followed by comprehension questions and inference questions (Doan, 2005). At the secondary education level, students study the same topics covered in primary school. However, as part of their character education curriculum, they also study the Constitution of Vietnam and the basic rights and duties of Vietnamese citizens. The limitations of the content-based curriculum approach can be seen in the character education curriculum in Vietnam. Specifically, despite the stated importance of character education in the Education Law (SRV MOET, 2019), it is a common belief that character education demonstrates little impact on students’ character (Doan, 2005; Pham & Bui, 2018). Scholars (e.g., Doan, 2005; Hằng, 2019) have suggested several reasons for this marginal impact. First, the content and 551

Trang U. Le and Daniel G. Hwang

teaching materials are not of high quality. For example, teachers widely criticize character education topics as plain, narrow, and repetitive (Doan, 2005). In secondary education, character education is also confounded with political and legal teaching, limiting opportunities for character development (Duong, 2000). In addition, the reading texts are of low quality and do not stimulate students’ interests (Doan, 2005; Hằng, 2019). There is also a lack of practical and relevant activities to promote character development. Specifically, students are regularly requested to participate in various social activities ranging from contests to campaigns, which are usually aimed at reviewing revolutionary traditions, training young people to love and respect labor, and preserving socialist values (Doan, 2005). However, these activities are often perfunctory and fused with political narratives, and may not be effective in promoting character. Second, the traditional passive teacher-student knowledge transmission does not effectively promote students’ character development (Hằng, 2019). In Vietnam, character education lessons often start with teacher-led activities dominated by the teacher talking, followed by teaching through asking questions (Doan, 2005). In her empirical study of character education in primary schools, Hằng (2019) surveyed teachers and students and found that teachers often expected “correct” rather than reasonable answers and opinions. When students gave unexpected/wrong answers and opinions, the most frequent reaction of teachers was to correct them (Hằng, 2019). Such a reaction may decrease students’ morale and prevent them from thinking deeply about character education. Finally, students have little incentive to study character education. Education in Vietnam overemphasizes exams and academic achievement (Ho et al., 2018; Le et al., 2022). Because high school and college entrance exams in Vietnam focus on math, Vietnamese literature, and English as a foreign language, students dedicate their efforts to studying these subjects (Hoang, 2018; Vietnamnet, 2022a, 2022b). In addition to formal schooling, students also participate in supplementary schooling to ensure that they do well on these focused subjects (Boman, 2022; Dang & Glewwe, 2018). These efforts allow Vietnamese students to have high mathematics and reading comprehension skills (as evident in high PISA international assessment scores, Boman, 2022; Dang & Glewwe, 2018); yet, they leave students little time for character development. Given these limitations, the current educational reform requires an innovative redesign of the character education curriculum to promote students’ character strengths (Hằng, 2019; SRV MOET, 2018). Scholars have suggested revisiting and adapting Confucian principles so that they are more dialectical and practical (Hằng, 2019). For example, the character education curriculum should be revised to keep up with globalization (Hằng, 2019; Pham & Bui, 2018). This approach to character education in the time of globalization has been successfully implemented in countries such as Japan, Korea, and Singapore (Pham & Bui, 2018). In addition to the curriculum, teaching methods should also be revisited. Specifically, teachers should move away from the teacher-centered, textbook-based approach toward a more competency-based, constructivist approach to character education (Anderson, 2007; Hằng, 2020; Hằng et al., 2015). For example, instead of small isolated questions, teachers should focus on learning problems. Solving these situated problems can encourage transformative learning and critical thinking among students (Hằng, 2019, 2020). Indeed, empirical research shows that students listen attentively, speak loudly and honestly when giving answers, and remain quite fair in assessing peers’ opinions (Hằng, 2019). This approach to character education would also align with the SRV MOET’s (2018) stated goal of promoting higher-order thinking competencies in educating students. In the following section, we present a case study of an innovative, constructivist approach to character education in Vietnam: that of NPX Point Avenue K12 education programs. 552

Character First, The Pathway to Excellence

NPX Point Avenue Approach to Character Education in Vietnam Founded in 2018 by Mr. Daniel G. Hwang, commonly referred to as Danny, and his brother Mr. Samuel Hwang, NPX Point Avenue is a private education technology company that provides early childhood through college educational services across Southeast Asia. Mr. Danny Hwang, a Korean American, graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point in 2006. After West Point, he served for six years in the US Army as an active-duty infantry officer, including serving in two combat deployments overseas in Iraq. In 2018, Mr. Hwang pivoted from the army to join the education sector with his brother in Southeast Asia. Mr. Danny Hwang chose Vietnam because of its socio-economical-historical contexts. Specifically, not only does Vietnam share cultural similarities with South Korea, where the two brothers are originally from, but it also has a young population and the potential to become a leader in Southeast Asia in technology and entrepreneurship. With the motto of “Character first, the pathway to excellence,” NPX Point Avenue aims to empower the next generation to transform the world through wisdom, integrity, and compassion. As of now, NPX Point Avenue has five afterschool centers across Southeast Asia: two in Hanoi, two in Ho Chi Minh City, and one in Bangkok. In addition, it has various leadership camps and two K12 campuses (the True North School) in Hanoi. In this chapter, we feature how NPX Point Avenue’s leadership camps and the True North School approach character education.

NPX Point Avenue Leadership Camps as Character Development Programs Starting in 2018, the 12-day NPX Point Avenue leadership camps provide students aged 9–16 with an immersive outdoor experience in a technology-limited environment. Modeled after West Point camps and consistent with NPX Point Avenue’s “Character first, the pathway to excellence” motto, these leadership camps focus on students’ personal growth through character development, rigorous academics, and physical training. Specifically, Point Avenue leadership camps prepare students to be model citizens by encouraging them to cultivate positive skills and habits (e.g., taking care of one’s physical and emotional well-being, being mindful of others) and to learn from mentors who invest in their development. Based on their age, students take three inquiry-based courses on leadership, entrepreneurship, and global and cultural awareness. The character development course utilizes Martin Seligman’s positive psychology approach to character development (Seligman, 2011; see also McGrath, this Handbook). In this course, students are coached to cultivate discipline and positive skills in preparation for future challenges; they also learn to focus on their strengths rather than weaknesses. In addition to academics, all students participating in leadership camps take part in rigorous physical training. For example, students get training in plyometrics, body workouts, and fitness techniques. They also participate in physical fitness challenges, as well as team sports such as American football, Frisbee, and volleyball. In addition to physical training, students also take part in a farming project to learn elements of leadership through the tangible benefits of hard work. Specifically, they plant, till, dig, mix, tend, and harvest vegetables in the mornings. At the end of the camps, students take part in a full-day hike to showcase their leadership and physical skills. These physical and leadership activities allow students to build grit, a growth mindset and teamwork, as well as to get involved in the community.

The True North School Approach to Character Education Opened in September 2022 in Hanoi, Vietnam, the True North School (TNS) is a premium bilingual and international educational institution. The school’s mission is to help students discover 553

Trang U. Le and Daniel G. Hwang

their “true north”—a moral compass guiding them to discover their own identity and become contributing members of society—through four pillars of excellence: Character Development, Academic Rigor, Wellness, and Global Citizenry. By cultivating creative thinking and curiosity, the school aims to teach students to become citizens with strong self-discipline in an ever-changing world. In addition, through logging off the visual screen, TNS aims to empower students through experiences that develop character such as empathy, grit, and resilience. The TNS philosophy statement emphasizes that the school and the family must partner together to help students achieve their social, moral, and academic potentials. TNS students learn about their own/host country, Vietnam, and reflect on how different countries can learn from each other. TNS also works with students to develop self-esteem, integrity, and perseverance, as well as the courage to defend their views while respecting the views of others. In addition, TNS teaches students how to build their own student-led initiatives through social responsibilities and the value of volunteering. Below, we highlight how TNS incorporates the school’s mission and philosophy in its academics and aspects of student life to promote students’ character development.

Academics Because TNS is a premium bilingual and international K12 school, it has greater freedom to develop its character education curriculum. The character education curriculum used at TNS was developed by the TNS academic team, which studied the SRV MOET 2018 Curriculum and international curricula (e.g., CASEL-approved Kindness in the Classroom curriculum and Pearson Edexcel Global Citizenship curriculum). Combining national values and global citizenship, the TNS curriculum not only covers the topics taught in public schools, such as to be courteous, listen to parents, care about surrounding others, know where to properly dispose of waste, observe traffic regulations, and practice good citizenship, but also teaches students about current global issues such as racism, gender equality, peace and war, environmental protection, and global warming. TNS approach is therefore consistent with scholars’ recommendation to modernize the character education curriculum (e.g., Hằng, 2019). In addition, TNS believes that people with good character appreciate culture and diversity. As such, TNS teaches students about their cultural identity and being proud of their heritage. Specifically, TNS students study the Vietnamese language and culture five days per week so that they can communicate in the national language and appreciate the culture of their own/host country. Furthermore, TNS extends the context of global perspectives and issues into extracurricular activities. For example, TNS explicitly teaches students to value diversity—the school hosts a schoolwide International Teacher Day to expose students to various cultures and to celebrate diversity. Students also participate in school events such as Space Day, debate tournaments and charitable events. These activities support TNS’s curriculum and teach students the meaning of “otherness.” TNS also uses a constructivist approach to teaching character. Prior to class, students spend five to seven minutes to meditate. This short meditation enables students to develop the skill of mindfulness, and instills calmness and focus. In TNS classes, including character education classes, students are encouraged to ask questions they are interested in (including those about controversial topics), provide feedback, and share opinions in a respectful manner. In addition, students are given topics that encourage them to discuss and reflect on similarities and differences between cultures, gender identity, and belief systems. Students also examine why it is important to recognize, respect, and celebrate such diversity. 554

Character First, The Pathway to Excellence

An example of how TNS approaches character education is the privilege walk activity in Global Citizenry class. This activity is a powerful tool used to help students recognize and understand the various forms of privilege and injustice that exist in society. During the activity, students are given fictional identities, asked to line up side by side, and given a series of statements or questions. They are then instructed to take a step forward or backward based on their personal experiences and privileges related to those statements. This experiential exercise prompts students to reflect on aspects such as race, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, and ability, among others. By visually witnessing the disparities that arise from unequal opportunities and systemic biases, students gain a deeper understanding of the advantages and disadvantages individuals may face based on their identities. The privilege walk activity fosters empathy, encourages critical thinking, and challenges preconceived notions, ultimately motivating students to become agents of change and work towards a more just and inclusive society. As discussed above, this dynamic teaching approach may foster students’ critical thinking and character development more effectively than the teacher-centered, textbook-based approach (Hằng, 2019, 2020). Founded by an education technology company, TNS emphasizes technology in its character education curriculum. Given that technology has brought profound changes to the current social world and personal interactions, TNS students reflect on what kindness looks like in a digital format, such as how they can show empathy and kindness in a video call or a text message. TNS students also think about building their character digital ethos through making good digital ethical decisions. In a lesson, TNS teachers ask students to conduct a Google search to look for a quick copy-and-paste answer that can be manipulated to look like it is their own thinking. The class then discusses the ethics associated with this action. Given the rise of tools such as the open AI chatbot ChatGPT, it is important that students use these tools ethically instead of for cheating (Sankaran, 2023). Another example of how TNS employs technology in its character education is via gamification. Because young students greatly enjoy graphic novels, webtoons and anime, TNS is working with Teracomix (https://teracomix.com/), a K6 friendly edutainment webtoon platform, to explore the development of its own set of Marvel-like character heroes. Via these characters, students will learn what good character looks like, and how they can develop their own character strengths.

Student Life Taking a whole-person approach to education, TNS aims to promote students’ character development in aspects of student life, as well. First, TNS trains all staff, not just teachers, to serve as role models and mentors for their students. School staff work closely with students to help them develop a growth mindset and character strengths. In doing so, they also build positive relationships with their students. In addition to mentorships, TNS also implements a House System to encourage friendly rivalry among students and foster a stronger sense of community and tradition. The school calendar has House Days set aside to promote a sense of community, establish traditions, and emphasize the virtues of character education. Extracurricular activities, which take place during the day or after school on a weekly or daily basis, build students’ self-discipline, demonstrate the importance of the wider community, and help shape a healthy respect for authority from adult and student leadership. For example, TNS incorporates character education in its camps, such as Grit Camp, where students learn self-discipline, collaboration, and teamwork. In 2022, students in Creation for a Cause, a STEM-centric club, assisted the Center of Pet Animal Protection and Studies in developing designs that improve the mobility of paralyzed dogs and cats. Such an activity can promote students’ sympathy and humanity. Students in Rising Stars/Broadway Starts, a musical club, collaborate with their musical 555

Trang U. Le and Daniel G. Hwang

instructor to organize musical shows. The organizing process allows students to develop their confidence, performing skills, and teamwork. Their first debut show successfully took place in December 2022 with an audience of more than 80 people. The profits from the debut show were donated to charity and to fund future shows that will raise more money for charity. Another example is the TNS Journaling, Publishing and Design Club. The club’s magazine brings together students of all abilities to write fiction, non-fiction, scripts and poetry to express their gratitude and aspirations to parents, teachers, mentors, and peers. Finally, IronTeen is the most popular club at TNS that promotes the Wellness pillar and reinforces resilience through endurance training. Students in large groups of 40–50 gather with mentors to travel around Vietnam to compete in 10- and 21-km running races. From the abovementioned examples, it is clear that TNS extracurricular activities are not simply something students do just for fun; instead, they are a means to teach students that they are part of a larger community, and they have the ability and responsibility to make their community a better place to be in.

Lesson Learned from NPX Point Avenue Programs Consistent with how scholars have conceptualized character as a multidimensional construct (see Nucci, this Handbook; see McGrath, this Handbook), NPX Point Avenue respects culture and diversity and regards character as having multiple character strengths. As discussed in this chapter, character may be manifested differently in different contexts—in Vietnam, many character strengths stem from Confucianism. Indeed, a person of good character in Vietnam is one who acts according to the Five Constants of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness (Hằng, 2019). Yet, with the changing default of modernization, and the transition to globalization, what constitutes good character grows more complex. For example, as already noted, some Confucian principles, such as absolute obedience of wife to husband, are no longer appropriate and should be revised. In addition, although it is important for students to be proud of their culture and heritage, it is equally important that they learn about and appreciate other cultures and diversity. For instance, whereas ethnic minorities account for about 15% of the population, they consist of 73% of the Vietnamese people who live in poverty (Dutta, 2022). Yet, the majority Kinh students have few opportunities to learn about the ethnic minorities in schools, not to mention the growing inequality of opportunities for these groups. As such, it is important to include current social issues in the curriculum—this inclusion will promote students’ character strengths (such as respect and empathy), as well as citizenry. In addition to modernizing the curriculum, NPX Point Avenue programs also use constructivist, innovative teaching methods. Indeed, TNS students are encouraged to ask questions and give opinions in the classroom. As this approach is consistent with the SRV MOET’s (2018) stated goal of promoting higher-order thinking competencies among students, it is expected to become increasingly popular in Vietnamese character education classrooms. In addition, TNS students learn about character development via interesting activities, not just textbooks. Learning about what constitutes good character via analyses of comic characters is also promising, given that gamification has been shown to promote character development among youth (Hilliard et al., 2018). Finally, because character development also happens outside of the classroom, it is important to take a whole-person approach to character education. Indeed, the rigorous NPX Point Avenue leadership camp training enables students to develop character strengths such as grit and determination, while farming projects can teach students the value of hard work. As well, developing designs aiming to help paralyzed animals can encourage students to be more sympathetic. Although 556

Character First, The Pathway to Excellence

Vietnamese public schools have limited resources for extracurricular activities, school staff can intentionally use such activities to promote students’ character development. For example, instead of directing students to donate money to a predetermined charity, school staff may allow students to conduct research about different charities and decide on where they want to donate the money. In doing so, students can learn more about less privileged others, prompting character strengths such as sympathy, kindness, and gratitude.

Conclusions Although character education is emphasized in the Vietnamese education curriculum, its quality and effectiveness can be improved (Doan, 2005; Hằng, 2019). For example, scholars have suggested that character education may benefit from a revised curriculum and innovative teaching methods (Hằng, 2019, 2020). In this chapter, we have presented the sample case of the NPX Point Avenue K12 education programs as a potential new approach to character education in Vietnam. Although NPX Point Avenue programs have fewer constraints than public schools, they can offer some useful suggestions for public schools’ character education. For instance, students should be given opportunities to learn from interesting materials, to give their honest opinions, and to engage in extracurricular activities intentionally aimed at promoting character development. As seen in this chapter, character is a complex construct. Consequently, a natural next question is what can be used to measure character attributes in different contexts (e.g., respect as a character strength may look different in Vietnam compared to in the US). Once context-specific measures are developed, how can they be used to measure the effectiveness of the activities that have been described to see whether engagement with the programs promotes character development? That is, does, and to what extent, the duration, intensity, and quality of activity engagement result in systematic enhancement of participants’ character? This question raises the point that program evaluations involving change-sensitive measurements of character that are used in change-sensitive evaluation research designs (i.e., longitudinal designs) must be a part of the future development of the organization. For example, although NPX Point Avenue programs’ approach to character education is consistent with what scholars have recommended, it is not clear if participation in such programs in fact systematically promotes character development. Therefore, rigorous evaluation of these program components is needed. In addition, because the goal of NPX Point Avenue programs is to work in different contexts across Asia, it will be important for such evaluations to be culturally sensitive. These evaluations would allow for a better understanding of what constitutes good character in different contexts, as well as what can be done to promote character development in such contexts.

References Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Taylor & Francis. Berkowitz, M. W., Bier, M. C., & McCauley, B. (2017). Towards a science of character education: Frameworks for identifying and implementing effective practices. Journal of Character Education, 13(1), 33–51. Boman, B. (2022). Vietnam’s exceptional educational achievement: A thematic review of the emerging literature. Discover Education, 1–14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2020). Confucius. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/confucius/ Dang, H.-A. H., & Glewwe, P. W. (2018). Well begun, but aiming higher: A review of Vietnam’s education trends in the past 20 years and emerging challenges. Journal of Development Studies, 54(7), 1171–1195. Doan, D. H. (2005). Moral education or political education in the Vietnamese educational system? Journal of Moral Education, 34(4), 451–463.

557

Trang U. Le and Daniel G. Hwang Duong, T. T. (2000). Suy nghĩ về văn hóa giáo dục Việt Nam [About Vietnamese cultures and education]. Tre Publisher. Dutta, P. V. (2022). Access to social assistance among ethnic minorities in Vietnam. World Bank. https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/37248 Hằng, N. V. T. (2019). The implementation of critical thinking in Vietnamese primary school moral education classes. Issues in Educational Research, 29(3), 732–755. Hằng, N. V. T. (2020). Design of a competency-based moral lesson for teaching critical thinking skills in Vietnamese primary schools. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 115–133. Hằng, N. V. T., Meijer, M., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2015). The implementation of a social constructivist approach in primary science education in Confucian heritage culture: The case of Vietnam. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 665–693. Hilliard, L. J., Buckingham, M. H., Geldhof, G. J., Gansert, P., Stack, C., Gelgoot, E., Bers, M. U., & Lerner, R. M. (2018). Perspective taking and decision-making in educational game play: A mixed-methods study. Applied Developmental Science, 22(1), 1–13. Hoang, N. V. (2018). Thi cử và đổi mới giáo dục [Examinations and education reform]. https://baoquocte.vn/ thicu-va-doi-moi-giao-duc-77271.html Ho, N. T., Nguyen, L. T., Nguyen, T. T., Hang, N. V. T., & Nguyen, T. T. (2018). The development of critical thinking for students in Vietnamese schools: From policies to practices. American Journal of Educational Research, 6(5), 431–435. Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2006). Character education. In A. Renninger, I. Siegel, W. Damon, R. Lerner, & E. Series (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, 248–296). Wiley. Le, A. V., Han, P., Khaing, M. M., & Farrar, O. (2022). An emerging dragon: Vietnamese Education after Resolution 29. In F. M. Reimers, U. Amaechi, A. Banerji, M. Wang (Eds.), Education to build back better. Springer. Lerner, R. M., Jervis, P., & Bornstein, M. H. (2021a). Enhancing the international study of positive youth development: Process, specificity, and the sample case of character virtues. Journal of Youth Development, 16(2 & 3), 402–422. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Murry, V. M., Smith, E. P., Bowers, E. P., Geldhof, G. J., & Buckingham, M. H. (2021b). Positive youth development in 2020: Theory, research, programs, and the promotion of social justice. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 1114–1134. Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Character strengths: Research and practice. Journal of College and Character, 10(4), 1–10. Pham, T. V., & Bui, N. T. (2018). Moral education at Vietnamese schools in the present globalization trend. American Journal of Educational Research, 6(6), 795–803. Sankaran, V. (2023, February 9). Cheating by students using ChatGPT is already on the rise, surveys suggest. The Independent: UK. https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/chatgpt-cheating-students-openai-chatbotb2278850.html Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press. Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Education and Training (SRV MOET). (2018). Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông tổng thể [The new general educational programs]. https://moet.gov.vn/tintuc/Pages/CTGDPT-Tong-The.aspx?ItemID=8421 Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Education and Training (SRV MOET). (2019). Luật Giáo Dục [Education Law 2019]. National Politics Publisher. Vietnam Census Bureau. (2019). Kết quả toàn bộ Tổng điều tra dân số và nhà ở năm 2019 [Completed results of the 2019 Vietnam population and housing census]. https://www.gso.gov.vn/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ Ket-qua-toan-bo-Tong-dieu-tra-dan-so-va-nha-o-2019.pdf Vietnamnet. (2022a, May 30). Lịch thi vào lớp 10 ở 63 tỉnh, thành phố năm 2022 [2022 High school entrance exam schedules in 63 counties and cities]. https://vietnamnet.vn/lich-thi-vao-lop-10-nam-2022-cua-63tinh-thanh-ca-nuoc-moi-nhat-2019193.html Vietnamnet. (2022b, July 24). Phổ điểm các môn thi tốt nghiệp THPT [2022 High school graduation exam subjects’ grade distributions]. https://vietnamnet.vn/pho-diem-cac-mon-thi-tot-nghiep-thpt-2022-2042421.html World Bank. (2022). The World Bank of Vietnam. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/vietnam/overview#1

558

30 INTELLECTUAL VIRTUES ACADEMY OF LONG BEACH* Integrating Intellectual Virtues into the DNA of a School Eric Churchill, Jacquie Bryant, and Jason Baehr The seed for the Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach (IVALB) was planted in November 2008, when two friends and philosophers, Jason Baehr and Steve Porter, imagined opening a charter school to begin in five years. The initial idea was to build a small school (100–200 students) with a low student-faculty ratio in the city of Long Beach. The two founders began to take that initial idea more seriously once the vision for a school that educated for intellectual virtues began to emerge. Over the next two years, they did extensive research on charter schools and how to go about building one. This research involved attending charter-related conferences to better understand how charter schools operate, having discussions with senior school district officials (including the district superintendent) to gain a better understanding of charter petition requirements, and developing cost estimates to understand the financial framework required. Once the founders better understood the logistics of opening and operating a charter school, and had a clearer view of the vision, a series of public information sessions were held in June 2010 for prospective stakeholders, families, and students. From these sessions, a small volunteer founding team was born which would shoulder much of the work of building the school. Through the budget planning process, it became clear that the team would need significant external funding to be successful. So, in September 2011, the team submitted a grant proposal to the John Templeton Foundation (JTF) requesting over one million dollars to develop IVALB’s educational model and create the school. The grant was preliminarily approved in December 2011 with formal approval in March 2012. IVALB was incorporated in 2012 and the board was seated shortly thereafter. This act led to a brief period to build the school with a deadline of * The Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach was built on the backs of many people who gave of their time, talents, and resources. The hard work of the early founding team members, Ed Castro, Jason Baehr, Steve Porter, Karyn Pace, Shelly Millsap, Mynor Montiel, and Jesse and Rebecca Irwin, provided the foundation from which the school grew. Founding teachers Cari Noble and Ian McCurry have invested in creating a school model far beyond the walls of their individual classroom, from the nitty-gritty details of a daily student experience to envisioning a school model supportive of each stakeholder. The generous support of the John Templeton Foundation has been indispensable to IVALB’s success, especially in the school’s early years. Finally, we dedicate this chapter to the memory of Danielle Montiel, whose passion to see this school launch and be successful motivated us to keep pushing forward. As much as the mission, vision, and model are part of IVALB’s DNA, Danielle’s influence is also deeply integrated into the bones of the school.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-33

559

Eric Churchill, Jacquie Bryant, and Jason Baehr

Figure 30.1  Detailed list of activities undertaken to open IVALB.

September 4, 2013 (the first day of school). Under the direction of Board President Eric Churchill and Program Administrator Danielle Montiel, the founding team began to build the core elements of the school, including: completing a successful charter petition to Long Beach Unified School District; securing non-profit status; identifying a suitable location for the school; identifying and hiring the founding principal, Jacquie Bryant, and founding teachers; developing systems and policies; securing additional state funding to build out classrooms; purchasing technology and textbooks; formulating curriculum and instructional programs aligned with the school’s unique educational philosophy; building a budget to support the school in the first year; and much more (for a chronological list of all activities see Figure 30.1). After a busy one-year build-out, IVALB opened its doors to its first class of 50 sixth-grade students in the fall of 2013. Currently, the IVALB family of schools comprises a 6th- to 8th-grade middle school (IVALB) and a separate 9th- to 12th-grade high school (IVA High), which opened in 2016. As of the fall of 2022, IVALB has 13 teachers, 8 support staff, and 4 school leaders including a Principal, Director of Programs and Operations, Counselor, and Instruction and Intervention Coordinator. The school has a diverse student body with the largest ethnicity categories including 40% Hispanic students, 30% White, 10% Black, and 17% Multi-ethnic. In addition, 13% of IVALB students are identified as Special Education and around 30% have household incomes at or below levels eligible for free or reduced-price meals. With a total of 234 students, and 78 students at each grade level, each class size has 26 students, allowing for a small classroom environment conducive to active intellectual engagement and deeper learning. The school employs a rigorous academic curriculum in each content area and offers multiple electives and physical education, all of which are aligned with the Common Core State Standards and aim at promoting deep understanding. The educational program offers students frequent opportunities to practice and grow in intellectual virtues. In support of this academic approach, students at IVALB have small weekly advisory groups intended to foster caring relationships, provide students with an understanding of intellectual virtues, and nurture their curiosity. The adult volunteers who lead these groups (including teachers, staff members, and parents) create opportunities for the students to reflect on and understand their own intellectual character strengths and limitations, discuss their intellectual character goals, and explore and lead group inquiries into topics and questions of their choosing. IVALB also has a robust extra-curricular program, with eight athletic teams, a large number of student or teacher-created clubs, as well as before- and after-school programs. In its 10 years of operation, IVALB has enjoyed remarkable success. It is oversubscribed, in a sound financial position, and student test scores exceed local district and state averages. The 560

Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach Table 30.1  Nine core intellectual virtues with descriptions and slogans Category

Question

Agree or Strongly Agree

Academics

“Overall, my school provides me (my child) with an appropriate level of academic challenge.” “Overall, my school provides me (my child) with an appropriate level of academic support.” “Overall at IVA, my teachers push me to become a better thinker.” “Class content encourages students to become aware of and seek to understand diverse ideas and cultures.” “This school promotes academic success for all students.” “My teachers invite questions from students and will respond to questions, concerns, or confusion from students.” “There are one or more adults who care for me and who I can go to for help.” “The school provides social-emotional support for my child.” “IVA is a supportive and inviting place for students to learn.” “At IVA, my child is growing in a sense of wonder and depth of inquiry.” “At IVA, my child is growing in their sense of self.”

98% Students 99% Parents 94% Students 97% Parents 93% Students

Academics Academics Academics Academics Academics Community Community Community Vision for Learning Vision for Learning

91% Students 97% Students 96% Students 87% Students 93% Parents 95% Students 95% Parents 95% Parents

culture of the school is connected, vibrant, hopeful, and centered around intellectual exploration and growth. These impressions are supported by annual surveys of teachers, students, and parents, which indicate a strong school climate, high satisfaction rates, positive student-teacher relationships, and a challenging and supportive academic environment. Table 30.1 presents the most recent school climate survey results as of this writing. In this survey, 213 students out of 234 responded to the survey and 130 parents responded equaling around 65% of IVALB families. Responses to questions focused on academics, community, and vision for learning were overwhelmingly positive.

Model, Mission, and Vision One of the most distinctive features of IVALB—and arguably one of its greatest strengths—is how deeply and systematically the school has implemented its educational mission and vision. As the founding team built the school, they had a keen desire to integrate these elements into the DNA of the school as early as possible to ensure there was no separation between these elements and the day-to-day operations. In this section, we provide an introduction to and overview of IVALB’s mission and vision and identify some of their advantages. In the subsequent section, we will highlight some ways in which the mission and vision have been integrated into the DNA of the school. To better understand the mission, vision, and program at IVALB, it is important to highlight a few characteristics of intellectual virtues. Intellectual virtues are the character attributes of good thinkers and learners, such as curiosity, open-mindedness, and intellectual courage. Intellectual virtues are not identical to moral virtues such as kindness and compassion, nor to civic virtues such as tolerance and respect. Intellectual virtues are the character strengths of good thinkers, whereas moral and civic virtues are the character strengths of good neighbors and citizens (respectively). 561

Eric Churchill, Jacquie Bryant, and Jason Baehr

Although distinct from each other, these virtue-types overlap in complex and interesting ways. For instance, to be a good neighbor or citizen, one must think in ways that are careful, attentive, and fair, that is, in ways that are expressive of several intellectual virtues. As well, intellectual virtues should not be confused with other intellectual excellences or achievements like knowledge, natural intellectual ability, or critical thinking or problem-solving skills. A person can know a great deal about a great many subjects and be intellectually “gifted,” while also being intellectually arrogant, dishonest, or closed-minded, that is, while lacking virtues like intellectual humility, honesty, and open-mindedness. Similarly, a person might possess a wide range of critical thinking or problem-solving skills but be unmotivated to use them or to use them well. As such, this person might be intellectually lazy, careless, or otherwise deficient in intellectual virtue. As these distinctions suggest, intellectual virtues comprise a personal dimension of good thinking or “intelligence.” They are qualities we need to think and reason well; but they also say something important and favorable about who we are as persons (Baehr, 2021; see also Kotzee & Baehr, this Handbook). At IVALB, we conceive of intellectual virtues as having three primary dimensions: a competence or skill dimension, a motivational dimension, and a judgment dimension (Baehr, 2021). These dimensions are nicely illustrated in connection with the virtue of open-mindedness. To be open-minded, a person must be competent at perspective-switching: they must have the ability to think outside the box, consider and give a fair hearing to alternative views, and the like. However, a person can have the competence of perspective-switching but be unmotivated to use it, and thereby fall short of the virtue of open-mindedness. Accordingly, intellectual virtues also have a motivational dimension: to be open-minded, one must have the ability to perspective-switch while also being motivated to use it. But neither is this sufficient for the virtue of open-mindedness. For, one could be capable of perspective-switching, and motivated to perspective-switch, but be disposed to perspective-switch at the wrong time, toward the wrong people or ideas, in the wrong amount, and so on. If a person is too restrictive in their thinking about when they should perspective-switch, they might be closed-minded; or, if they are too permissive in their thinking, they might be gullible. Thus, to possess an intellectual virtue, one must also possess and exercise good judgment about when, toward whom, and for how long to deploy the virtue’s characteristic competence or skill. IVALB’s educational program is structured around nine core intellectual virtues (see Table 30.2 for descriptions and slogans). Three of these virtues (curiosity, autonomy, and humility) are important for getting the learning process started and headed in the right direction. Three are important for keeping the learning process on the right track (attentiveness, carefulness, and thoroughness). And three are aimed at overcoming familiar obstacles to learning and intellectual growth, including a tendency to think in narrow or familiar terms (open-mindedness), a fear of intellectual failure or embarrassment (courage), and an inclination to quit or to avoid intellectual struggle (tenacity). IVALB’s mission is to foster meaningful growth in intellectual character virtues in a thoughtful, challenging, and supportive academic environment. Several features of this statement are worth calling attention to. First, we do not assume that most students will be transformed into paragons of intellectual virtue during their three years at the school. Intellectual virtues are ideals that people can aspire to and can exemplify to a greater or lesser degree. Our aim is to help students make meaningful or significant progress toward these ideals. Second, the aim is to help foster progress in intellectual virtues in the context of academic teaching and learning. At IVALB, “character education” is not a separate program or initiative, distinct from the business of teaching academic content and skills. Instead, it is a way of educating for knowledge and skills. Third, we place a premium on creating an environment—in individual classrooms and at the school at large—that 562

Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach Table 30.2  School climate survey results Virtue

Description

Slogan

Curiosity

A disposition to wonder, ponder, and ask why. A thirst for understanding and a desire to explore. A capacity for active, self-directed thinking. An ability to think and reason for oneself. A willingness to own one’s intellectual limitations and mistakes. Unconcerned with intellectual status or prestige. A readiness to be personally present in the learning process. Keeps distractions at bay. Notices important details. A disposition to notice and avoid intellectual pitfalls and mistakes. Strives for accuracy. A disposition to seek and provide explanations. Unsatisfied with mere appearances or easy answers. Probes for deeper meaning and understanding. An ability to think outside the box. Gives a fair and honest hearing to competing perspectives. A readiness to persist in thinking or communicating in the face of fear, including fear of embarrassment or failure. A willingness to embrace intellectual challenge and struggle. Keeps one’s eyes on the prize and doesn’t give up.

Ask questions!

Autonomy Humility Attentiveness Carefulness Thoroughness Open-mindedness Courage Tenacity

Think for yourself! Admit what you don’t know! Look and listen! Get it right! Go deep! Think outside the box! Take risks! Embrace struggle!

is conducive to the practice and development of intellectual virtues. In particular, we seek to create environments that promote active thinking, rigorous intellectual engagement, and relational connection. IVALB’s ultimate aim or goal is captured by its vision statement, which is to equip students to engage the world with curiosity and thoughtfulness, to know themselves, and to live well. This statement underscores the link between intellectual virtues and some important personal and broadly ethical goals. We believe that to live well and to have a positive impact on one’s community, it is important to approach all areas of life with curiosity and thoughtfulness. It is also important, as Socrates taught, to “know thyself.” By supporting students’ development of intellectual virtues, and by helping them acquire a better understanding of their own intellectual character strengths, we aim to help them live good, meaningful lives, inside and outside of the classroom. IVALB’s distinctive approach to character education has some notable advantages. First, the language of intellectual virtues offers an attractive way of “fleshing out” certain familiar but elusive educational aims, such as the promotion of “lifelong learning” or “critical thinking.” The latter constructs are appealing but are rarely spelled out in concrete detail. The language of curiosity, carefulness, tenacity, open-mindedness, and humility provides a concrete way of conceptualizing the intellectual profile of a lifelong learner or critical thinker. As such, it can help schools and teachers better articulate and pursue some of their deeper and more personal educational objectives. Second, an emphasis on intellectual character development can naturally and authentically be integrated into academic instruction across content areas. Whereas a math or science teacher, say, may have a difficult time knowing how to work an emphasis on moral virtues such as kindness or compassion into their day-to-day instructional activities or curriculum, it is likely to be much easier and more natural for them to integrate a focus on intellectual virtues such as curiosity, carefulness, thoroughness, and tenacity. Thus, educating for intellectual virtues is a form of 563

Eric Churchill, Jacquie Bryant, and Jason Baehr

“character education” that is especially well suited to an academic environment. Third, educating for intellectual virtues also speaks to what, at this writing, are some of the great social and political problems and needs of our time. One such need concerns knowing how to navigate the information landscape in an age of misinformation. Whereas any adequate solution to this problem must be multi-faceted, students who are trained to ask thoughtful questions (curiosity), attend to the limits of their knowledge (humility), think outside the box (open-mindedness), and persist in the face of intellectual struggle (tenacity) will stand a better chance of being able to discern fact from fiction in today’s challenging informational environment. A related point concerns public discourse. For democracy to function well, individuals not only need reliable access to credible information about political matters, but they also need to be able to engage constructively with people who see things differently than they do. This act takes considerable curiosity, open-mindedness, intellectual humility, and intellectual tenacity. To summarize, educating for intellectual virtues is a way of approaching character education that speaks to some of the deeper and more personal aims of education, can be integrated naturally across the curriculum, and helps students develop the kind of skills and dispositions necessary for responsible citizenship and living well.

In Practice Whereas the theoretical framework and justification for the benefits of teaching for intellectual virtues may seem apparent, the implementation of practices that bring these to life can be more challenging. IVALB educates for intellectual character growth “in the context of” academic teaching and learning. This point is a crucial qualification. At IVALB, character education does not take the form of an extracurricular or afterschool program. Nor does it consist primarily of lessons about intellectual virtues. Instead, the school integrates a concern with intellectual character development into all aspects of the educational program. The idea is to help students make progress in intellectual virtues in the process of acquiring disciplinary knowledge and skills. But at IVALB, this progress is not just considered important for students; rather, the intellectual character growth of all stakeholders is valued and supported. To that end, in several key components of the school—the educational program, with the board of governance, and in regard to interpersonal relationships—a premium is placed on creating opportunities to practice intellectual virtues, modeling these virtues, and providing an understanding of what intellectual virtues are and why they are important (to visualize the relationship, see Figure 30.2). What does this look like in practice? We will begin answering this question by exploring three pedagogical practices that are widely implemented at IVALB. We will highlight how these practices are integrated into the educational program, board governance, and relationships between

Figure 30.2 Integration of intellectual virtues into key components of the school occurs through practicing, modeling, and understanding of intellectual virtues.

564

Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach

staff, parents, and teachers. We will then turn our attention to three beliefs, attitudes, or values that also align with and help promote the school’s character-based mission.

Understanding the Virtues IVALB equips its students with an understanding of intellectual virtues and encourages them to apply this knowledge to their understanding of themselves as thinkers and learners. This practice can be traced to an Aristotelian insight. In his discussion of eudaimonia (human happiness or flourishing), Aristotle observes that if we desire to flourish or live good lives, we must do what we can to understand and obtain a sharp focus on this goal. He says: “Surely, then, knowledge of the good must be very important for our lives? And if, like archers, we have a target, are we not more likely to hit the right mark? If so, we must try at least roughly to comprehend what it is …” (Aristotle, 2000, p. 4). Similarly, IVALB’s commitment to helping its students pursue and achieve meaningful growth in intellectual virtues requires introducing them to intellectual virtues in general and to the school’s nine core virtues in particular. This instruction occurs during events such as student orientation, weekly advisory groups, and other schoolwide routines and practices (e.g., a weekly “virtues ceremony” in which teachers call attention to individual students’ practice of particular virtues). The assumption is not that students will become intellectually virtuous simply by learning about intellectual virtues. Rather, as Aristotle’s archery metaphor suggests, the aim is to familiarize students with the language and concepts of intellectual virtue so they can better grasp and pursue growth in these qualities. It is also to help students perceive the value of intellectual virtues—their intrinsic, personal value, but also how they are related to other things students care about (e.g., being a good friend, academic achievement, or a successful career). Acquainting students with the value of intellectual virtues is a way of boosting their motivation to grow in these qualities. In addition to helping students understand what intellectual virtues are and why they matter, IVALB also provides them with frequent opportunities to apply this knowledge to how they think of and understand themselves. Through self-report surveys, formal and informal feedback from teachers—including intellectual character-focused report card comments, parent-student-teacher character conferences, and other feedback processes—students are encouraged to develop a “mental model” of their intellectual character strengths and limitations. This kind of self-reflection is an opportunity for them to begin incorporating intellectual virtue concepts into their very identities as thinkers and learners and to take ownership over their own intellectual goals. Office staff, instructional aides, recreational aides, and volunteers receive extensive training in the school’s educational philosophy. Almost every staff member and parent or community volunteer participates in the weekly virtue-based advisory program. Even parents and board members are given regular opportunities to learn about and practice IVALB’s educational philosophy (e.g., through school communications, parent academies, and school events that invite them to ask questions, reflect on their experiences as learners, and practice various “thinking routines”). Teachers are encouraged to develop a firm understanding of IVA’s nine “master virtues” in a summer pedagogy seminar as well as through quarterly advisory training and ongoing weekly professional development. The summer pedagogy seminar and advisory training systematically convey what intellectual virtues are, what intellectual character is, and examine each of the nine “master virtues” in particular. During the year, teachers spend time together reading about the virtues, as well as reading selections from the school’s intellectual character bookshelf, which includes a collection of books that help deepen their understanding of the core principles, practices, and postures involved with an intellectual virtues educational model. These books include Jason Baehr’s Deep 565

Eric Churchill, Jacquie Bryant, and Jason Baehr

in Thought (2021) and Ron Ritchhart’s Creating Cultures of Thinking (2015) and Making Thinking Visible (2011), as well as other books and articles listed on IVA’s online Resource Library. At the board level, an understanding of intellectual virtues is conveyed via the above-mentioned practices and other elements of board agendas and meetings. Board members are also encouraged to take active roles in the school to better understand the mission, vision, and model. Before joining the board, they are asked to meet with the school leaders, visit the schools, and ask questions. Even after being appointed, directors are reminded of the importance of meeting with school leaders and seeking a deeper understanding of the mission. Additionally, some board directors have been advisors in the school’s advisory program, which affords additional opportunities to understand intellectual virtues. While all of this effort can seem difficult, the closer relationship between board and school can be rewarding and result in better alignment.

Opportunities to Practice Intellectual Virtues In the classroom, IVALB teachers create frequent and well-supported opportunities for their students to practice intellectual virtues. The rationale for this approach also goes back to a wellknown observation by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics: “[W]e become builders by building, and lyre-players by playing the lyre. So too we become just by doing just actions, temperate by temperate actions, and courageous by courageous actions” (Aristotle, 2000, p. 23). As noted above, each virtue has a characteristic skill or activity, such as asking thoughtful questions (curiosity), considering alternative perspectives (open-mindedness), and embracing intellectual struggle (tenacity). Therefore, to support their students’ growth in intellectual virtues, IVALB teachers provide them with frequent opportunities to practice and internalize these activities—to cultivate intelligent habits of wondering and asking thoughtful questions, considering multiple perspectives, persisting through intellectual challenge and struggle, and the like. They also support their students’ practice of intellectual virtues by providing necessary instruction, meaningful assistance, and supportive feedback. Often, these opportunities take the form of “thinking routines,” which are carefully structured, thinking-based protocols that “consist of a few steps, are easy to teach and learn, are easily supported, and get used repeatedly” (Ritchhart, 2002, p. 88). Routines like “See, Think, Wonder,” “Claim, Support, Question,” and “Circle of Viewpoints” invite students to practice the “mental moves” characteristic of a wide range of virtues, including curiosity, attentiveness, carefulness, and open-mindedness (Ritchhart et al., 2011). Thinking routines are used across the curriculum at IVALB as a way of encouraging students to practice the skills and abilities proper to intellectual virtues. Through the professional development program, teachers and staff are also given frequent opportunities to practice intellectual virtues in their wondering, exploring, and consideration of a strong and supportive academic program. They are invited to reflect on their own intellectual character strengths, create intellectual character goals for themselves, and reflect on how they can practice intellectual virtues in their professional roles. Before the school year begins, faculty and staff hold a weekend retreat to read about intellectual virtues, reflect on their own practices, and set personal and professional goals for the year. This retreat begins in personal reflection as a segue to discussions about curriculum and instruction. The academic aims of a classroom are grounded in regular and supported opportunities for thinking well. In addition to the pedagogy seminar noted above, IVALB holds weekly two-hour professional development meetings for its small and collaborative team of teachers and school leaders. Occasionally, these meetings are opened to non-classroom staff, including office personnel, instructional aides, and behavioral support teams. On a quarterly basis, community members and parents who 566

Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach

serve as student advisors are also invited to participate. The topics of these cross-disciplinary meetings include curricular and instructional matters, the school’s restorative justice discipline model, how to navigate relationships and communication, and how to incorporate the school’s mission into events such as Back to School Night and student-teacher-parent character conferences. Teachers and staff utilize the same thinking routines and related practices that are used in IVALB classrooms as they explore group-identified big questions and think through rigorous content. IVALB’s adult culture is marked by intellectual humility, vulnerability, and trust, and is supported by deep and substantial opportunities for teachers to read, reflect, discuss, and learn from one another. Using the deeply personal and educational language of intellectual virtues, IVALB teachers and leaders are challenged to grow in their passions for their content area and in their integrated sense of self as educators. The collaborative adult culture is further enhanced by cognitive coaching practices, which involve peers and school leaders observing one another and engaging in listening-focused follow-up conversations, and school leaders helping teachers select strategies and techniques that will allow them to identify and achieve their growth-based goals. IVALB’s professional model is aimed at the growth of our individual and collective intellectual character practice from within our roles and in community together. Practicing and internalizing these intellectual habits is important, not only in the classroom and school-based adult learning communities, but also in the boardroom. Prudent board governance is the key to the success of any organization (this is especially true for charter schools as they utilize public funds in good faith to execute a mission that should benefit the local community). The founding team realized early on that the same practices being taught in the classroom would help in the boardroom. To accomplish this goal, a segment was added to board meeting agendas that focuses on sharing personal stories of growth in intellectual virtues. This segment involves students, board members, teachers, or staff highlighting their practice of intellectual virtues in their teaching, personal activities, or learning. The focus is often to demonstrate personal growth or how a specific virtue was utilized. A natural outcome from this segment is a sense of belonging and connection between those involved at all levels of the school.

Authentic Modeling IVALB school leaders and teachers are thoughtful about and committed to authentically modeling intellectual virtues on a regular basis. This modeling begins with the hiring process, when candidates are asked to reflect on their own thinking and learning by describing what intellectual virtue they have grown in recently, what this growth has looked like in practice, and which virtue they want to grow in. These metacognitive questions are paired with the question, “What do you love about your content area?” The latter question aims to highlight a candidate’s ability to model before they are in the classroom. In their classrooms, IVALB teachers model wondering and asking questions (curiosity), admitting what they do not know (intellectual humility), seeking or demonstrating comprehensive understanding (thoroughness), and taking intellectual risks (courage), among other virtuous skills and abilities. This modeling supports students in their own exploration of intellectual virtues by creating a safe environment where students and teachers are seeking the common goal of growth in intellectual virtues. Teacher modeling of intellectual virtues is important for several reasons. One reason is that it involves practicing what the teachers themselves preach. As John Dewey observed: “Example is more potent than precept; and a teacher’s best conscious efforts may be more than counteracted by the influence of personal traits which he is unaware of or regards as unimportant” (Dewey, 1910, p. 42). Hence, if teachers regularly encourage their students to practice intellectual virtues in how 567

Eric Churchill, Jacquie Bryant, and Jason Baehr

they think and learn, but fail to manifest these virtues in their own thinking and teaching, their actions may undercut their words, and their students may be less likely to practice intellectual virtues themselves. Dewey also observes: “Everything the teacher does, as well as the manner in which he does it, incites the child to respond in some way or another, and each response tends to set the child’s attitude in some way or other” (Dewey, 1910, p. 43). In keeping with this principle, when teachers model intellectual virtues for their students, they provide them with a concrete and instructive picture of what these qualities look like in practice. It is one thing to tell students about open-mindedness or intellectual humility; it is quite another for them to be able to see their teachers take seriously an unexpected challenge or to admit when they cannot answer a question or solve a problem. Moreover, because intellectual virtues are attractive personal qualities—qualities most people would like to possess and to see in friends, children, and other loved ones—modeling intellectual virtues can be inspiring: it can motivate students to practice and cultivate these qualities in themselves. Modeling at the board level must begin with the board chair since the chair sets the tone of the meeting. A strong chair will be able to guide conversations to a deeper understanding of the topic (thoroughness) while always keeping an eye on board limitations (humility). Modeling of intellectual virtues by the chair will provide a safe space to allow members to feel comfortable asking questions (curiosity), sharing opinions (autonomy), and “trying on” other virtues. These seemingly simple acts create space to allow for rich dialogue as the team moves to a vote. Ultimately, although not all decisions may be unanimous, the team is comfortable moving forward with decisions knowing that all opinions were heard, and that a careful and thorough thought process led to the decision.

Caring and Respectful Relationships and Creating a Thoughtful and Supportive Adult Culture With an understanding of how intellectual virtues have been integrated into the DNA of the school, we will now highlight some of the relational aspects of creating a thoughtful and supportive adult culture. IVALB’s concern with personal intellectual formation is further reflected in its commitment to fostering and maintaining caring and respectful relationships across the school. This includes, but is not limited to, relationships among students, between teachers and students, among teachers, between administrators and teachers, between board members and staff, and between parents and board/staff. At its core, IVALB seeks to inspire a kind of intellectual reorientation in its students, encouraging them to widen their intellectual interests, revise some of their intellectual values, embrace intellectual struggle, and take intellectual risks. This kind of reorientation is likely to occur only if the students feel safe, cared for, and respected—only if, in Parker Palmer’s insightful phrase, they are able to “know as [they] are known” (Palmer, 1993, p. 125). Accordingly, at IVALB, there is an overriding emphasis on treating others with respect and care, and an attentiveness to students’ underlying psychological needs and dynamics. Teachers are called upon to approach their students as “whole persons” and to try to understand their words and behaviors through a sympathetic and non-judgmental lens. They are expected to practice empathy, care, and patience. Whereas this orientation toward students is valued in its own right, it is also a way of fostering a sense of connection and belonging that might help students be more open to a deeper, more active approach to learning. As Palmer notes: “the practice of intellectual rigor in the classroom requires an ethos of trust and acceptance” (Palmer, 1993, p. xvii). The board takes a similar approach as members engage with one another. The chair attempts to foster mutual respect between members by encouraging conversations that are measured, 568

Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach

respectful, and relevant. The chair must be able to stop conversations that are counterproductive or detrimental to any of the members involved. The directors are encouraged to speak with respect to one another using personal language and owning their comments. The board’s engagement with parents will be determined in part by local regulations that govern these interactions. At IVALB, a more formal process is taken in these engagements where time is set aside on the agenda for public input or comments on agenda items. However, through these segments, the board chair still allows for respectful conversation limiting negative engagements should they occur. The IVALB board deems it important to model for parents what IVALB teachers model for their students, which includes intellectual virtues like curiosity, open-mindedness, and intellectual humility, as well as an overriding emphasis on treating others with respect and care, and an attentiveness to students’ underlying psychological needs and dynamics. Finally, IVALB’s character-based mission also expresses itself in a thoughtful and supportive adult culture (Berkowitz & Bier, 2007; see also Berkowitz, this Handbook). As described above, a great deal is asked of IVALB teachers: they are expected to create frequent opportunities for their students to practice intellectual virtues, to authentically model these virtues, to regard their students as “whole persons,” treat them with great care and understanding, and more. Given these expectations, it is critical that the teachers themselves be shown and show each other a great deal of care, respect, and support. This expectation involves, among other things, giving the teachers a voice in important curricular and policy matters, supporting their passion for their respective content areas, and providing them with a professional development program that regularly invites them to wrestle with “big questions” in education, reflect on their intellectual character strengths and limitations, set character-based goals for themselves, and periodically review and revise these goals. It also involves creating space and incentive for teachers to listen to and learn from one another, support each other’s growth in intellectual virtues, and help each other think through and meet the daily challenges of classroom teaching. As a consequence, the teaching staff at IVALB is as much a community of thinkers and learners as it is a community of educators. Support for one another as thinkers and learners extends, not just to the school leadership and teachers, but to everyone involved with serving students at IVALB. The thinking and input of stakeholders at each level are valued by the school’s leadership and specific virtue-based engagement is solidified from within the advisory groups and in professional development. Teachers receive regular feedback and coaching through formal observations aimed at teachers’ own intellectual virtue goals and regular informal walkthroughs. Teachers openly share their virtue goals with one another and are encouraged to implement new pedagogical practices in their classes in order to create opportunities for student thinking and contribution. Intellectual courage is highly valued among teachers as they celebrate their growths and struggles together through a regular community circle practice in professional development. The vulnerability and trust developed through regular teacher-to-teacher interactions support the same vulnerability and trust between teachers and students. In short, the virtues that IVALB seeks to foster in its students also govern interactions and relationships between the adults at the school. The result is an adult culture marked by a desire to learn, an openness to others’ ideas, and a commitment to nurturing the intellectual growth of others.

Challenges and Lessons Learned Creating a small and personalized school grounded in intellectual character growth has had its challenges. These challenges are seen in the classroom, in parents’ understanding of the school’s educational model, in the school’s disciplinary model, and in our efforts to assess intellectual 569

Eric Churchill, Jacquie Bryant, and Jason Baehr

character growth. First, the integration of intellectual virtues into the classroom places unique demands on teachers. Rather than being tasked with only delivering content, teachers at IVALB must learn to ask themselves how they can create opportunities for students to think well. This task is at odds with some traditional educational models that focus exclusively on content delivery and assessment. Although not simple, being able to switch perspectives with a focus on the learner is critical to developing lesson plans that promote students’ development as thinkers. Second, as might be the experience in any academically rigorous program, there is a tension between students and parents around academic expectations and/or not wanting to see their child struggle. Parents regularly come to IVALB with the belief that academic acceleration and the quick completion of assignments are the markers of academic achievement. Many are also accustomed to high-achieving students identified and separated from low-achieving students. For parents like these, it can be difficult to understand how IVALB’s classrooms invite deep thinking and understanding, even among mixed achievement levels. Other parents find it difficult to appreciate that students grow in their intellectual character through academic struggle and thus find it difficult to watch their child struggle through an assignment or project. This tension can manifest as anger toward the teacher, frustration with the child for not “getting it,” and even annoyance with IVALB’s educational approach. To help resolve this tension, the school strives for ongoing, open communication with parents and offers them frequent opportunities to learn more about the school’s unique educational philosophy. These opportunities often emphasize the importance of balancing quick solutions and struggle-free learning with a desire for longer-term intellectual formation and growth. Open communication also provides IVALB teachers and administrators an opportunity to practice virtues such as intellectual humility, open-mindedness, and intellectual autonomy. Third, it was clear early on that a traditional discipline model favoring exclusion and punishment would not be in keeping with the school’s culture of thinking, openness, and respect. Because of this understanding, a restorative discipline model aimed at creating accountability and restoring relationships was adopted. Although well aligned with IVALB’s educational philosophy, this model can feel less immediately satisfying to many stakeholders including teachers, students, and parents, be challenging to implement in a broader disciplinary context, and require more time and personnel support. Because IVALB is aimed at long-term character formation, when implementing a restorative justice discipline model, teachers and administrators must be willing to negotiate the tension between this aim and the desire for quick solutions and immediate answers. Although this goal can be accomplished in a school of IVALB’s size, it demands a lot of resources and can be emotionally draining. The school learned quickly that a thoughtful and careful discipline model would require a full-time counselor and behavioral support team to care for the social-emotional and mental health of students individually and as they experience conflict. It also became apparent that this model would be challenging to implement in an environment that focuses on the need for punitive measures to right a wrong. Consequently, staff have had to learn to blend elements of both approaches to ensure the proper corrective measures were taken while still finding restoration. Nonetheless, implementing a restorative justice discipline model has allowed IVALB to take a personalized and formative approach to dealing with conflict and has ultimately fit well with the school’s educational model. Fourth, while implementing a model focused on growth in intellectual character is a worthy educational aspiration, assessment of that growth needs to occur to determine the impact. Over the years, IVALB has taken different approaches to assessing students’ growth in intellectual character. For several years, the school has experimented with administering character-based self-assessment surveys to students at the beginning and end of the year. This approach, although potentially illuminating, is challenging in several ways. Given the complex psychological structure of character 570

Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach

and lack of an internal control, surveys like these provide, at most, a limited window onto the intellectual character growth of students. Moreover, proper administration of the surveys is taxing on teachers and students. And we have found it difficult to locate the resources (of time, money, and scientific expertise) necessary for mining the voluminous data they generate. As a result of these challenges, teachers and staff have also implemented other, less formal ways of assessing students’ intellectual character. These actions include “noticing and naming” students’ progress in particular virtues, substantive character-based qualitative feedback on a semesterly report card, and annual conferences with teachers, parents, and students that focus on evidence of students’ intellectual character development inside and outside of the classroom. Although these methods have proven helpful for internal purposes, and for providing students with a sense of their progress in intellectual virtues, our measurement efforts are a work in progress.

Conclusions IVALB was born out of a desire to build intellectual character in students and ultimately to equip them to engage the world with curiosity and thoughtfulness, to know themselves, and to live well. The founders knew that to do this work well they needed to integrate intellectual virtues into all aspects of the school from the educational program, teacher growth and development, board governance, and the multiple relationships that drive the school (parents, teachers, directors, students). This mission has created a school community marked by an adult culture that is supportive, compelling, and focused on fostering intellectual character growth. In turn, this intercalation into the DNA of the school has resulted in a successful, flourishing school that is in its tenth year of operation. However, this has not come without challenges and limitations. Whereas parent/student satisfaction as well as test scores have been significantly positive, the school continues to learn how to navigate cultural, technological, and societal changes to better support students’ growth in intellectual character. The school leaders practice self-reflection to ensure that the school continues to serve its students, the local community, and the broader educational field.

References Aristotle (2000). Nicomachean ethics (trans. Roger Crisp). Cambridge University Press. Baehr, J. (2021). Deep in thought. Harvard Education Press. Berkowitz, M., & Bier, M. (2007). What works in character education. Journal of Research in Character Education, 5(1), 29–48. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath & Co. Publishers. Palmer, P. (1993). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. HarperCollins. Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. Jossey-Bass. Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible. Jossey-Bass.

571

31 A DEVELOPMENTAL JOURNEY The Center for Character and Leadership Development at the United States Air Force Academy John Abbatiello and Douglas R. Lindsay Department of Defense Instruction 1322.22, Service Academies, dated 24 September 2015, sets out a clear purpose for the nation’s military service academies: The academies provide, each year, newly commissioned officers to each Service that have been immersed in the history, traditions, and professional values of the Military Services and developed to be leaders of character, dedicated to a career of professional excellence in service to the Nation. (DODI 1322.22, 1) Since its establishment in 1954, the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) approached this purpose in many ways, varying the specific emphasis to meet the contemporary needs of the Air Force. As with all the service academies, the honor code served as an important part of this developmental approach. Here, Air Force Academy cadets swear to live by the Cadet Honor Oath, which states “We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does. Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably, (so help me God)” (USAFA website). In recent years, the Academy’s senior leaders decided to focus specifically on the imperative to develop leaders of character for both the Air Force and, since December 2019, the newly established Space Force. This chapter explains the current role of the Air Force Academy’s Center for Character and Leadership Development (CCLD), charged with integrating character and leadership development across all Academy activities. An important part of this narrative is an explanation of the Academy’s Leader of Character Conceptual Framework, the evidence-based philosophy underpinning all character and leadership developmental experiences across academics, military training, and athletic activities. This chapter closes with an overview of recent successes and challenges as well as areas for further work into the future.

History of the Center Before explaining the roles and responsibilities of today’s CCLD, it is important to understand the organizational journey that began almost 70 years ago. Throughout its history, and not unlike the other service academies, the Air Force Academy relied on academic curricula in philosophy, 572

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-34

A Developmental Journey

behavioral sciences, and other core courses; honor code lessons in military training; and daily leadership experiences in cadet squadrons, teams, and clubs to develop character and leadership in its cadets. Developmental emphasis areas shifted over the years, largely in reaction to several honor scandals during the Academy’s history. However, by early 1993 the Academy’s senior leadership set up a committee to examine the need for a center focusing specifically on character development. This initiative stemmed largely from survey data showing a lack of cadet emphasis on the toleration clause of the Cadet Honor Code (Randolph, 2022; USAF Academy Annual History Report, 1993). In October 1993, under the leadership of Superintendent Lieutenant General Bradley C. Hosmer, a member of the Academy’s inaugural Class of 1959, the Academy established a Center for Character Development to act as the Superintendent’s executive agent for the coordination of character development efforts across the Academy. Under the oversight of a commission of senior Academy leaders, the new center had three divisions: the Character Development and Ethics Division to oversee formal character development experiences; the Human Relations Division to develop a “respect for others” curriculum; and the Honor and Honor Education Division to continue existing work in administering the Cadet Honor Code and providing honor curriculum. Of note, this new Center fell under the Commandant of Cadets in the Academy’s organizational structure. Early initiatives included a new 10-lesson core course on character, ethics, and human relations as well as a strong emphasis on developing leadership and character across all Academy activities during the entire four-year span of a cadet’s Academy experience (Bullet Background Paper, 1993). Although the organization of the Center for Character Development evolved over the next several years, two important initiatives developed from this new organization. First was a set of character seminars, beginning with first-classmen (seniors) but later expanding to the other three classes, where cadets discussed issues of character in facilitated discussions with faculty and staff mentors, typically taking place off the Academy reservation. The second initiative was the establishment of the National Character and Leadership Symposium, designed to expose cadets to world-class speakers discussing issues of character and leadership, and to interact with invited cadets and midshipmen from the other service academies as well as civilian college students to gain external perspectives. The first symposium was in 1993 and continues to this day.1 In the late 2000s, with limitations on resources and lacking an effective research and assessment arm, the Air Force Academy reinvigorated the character center concept under Superintendent Lieutenant General John F. Regni and assisted by Lieutenant General (Retired) Ervin J. Rokke, a former Academy Dean and the Academy’s Chair for Character and Leadership. Desiring an emphasis on research, assessment, and true integration of programs, the Academy’s leadership stood up a new CCLD under the Commandant of Cadets in October 2009, adding more personnel to the center and establishing a new Permanent Professor position for Character and Leadership Development to enhance academic credibility. These efforts were soon followed by a fund-raising effort by the Air Force Academy’s graduate community to build a new iconic structure to house the new Center. A 47 million dollar building resulted, with groundbreaking in October 2012 and opening in the spring of 2016 (Norton & Packard, 2009). The Academy’s leadership named the new building Polaris Hall, in reference to the North Star being a symbol of an individual’s moral compass. Designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the Academy’s original architects, the facility consists of a 200-seat Forum, office spaces, seminar and collaboration rooms, a small library, and the Honor Board Room, where cadet-run panels deliberate over the guilt or innocence of cadets accused of honor code violations. The seat of the accused cadet is situated in such a way that when looking up they can see the North Star through an “oculus” at the top of the building’s tower structure. 573

John Abbatiello and Douglas R. Lindsay

The new building opened with some accompanying organizational changes within the Center. Lieutenant General Michelle D. Johnson, the institution’s first female Superintendent and a 1981 graduate of the Academy, decided to split the Center’s staff into two sections. A small portion of the staff served as an Academy Headquarters Character Directorate directly under the Superintendent; this team became responsible for cross-mission element integration, research, assessment, professional development for the staff and faculty, the National Character and Leadership Symposium, and oversight of the Polaris Hall facility. A larger contingent remained under the Commandant of Cadets and retained responsibility for administering the Cadet Honor Code and character and honor educational programs, to include character seminars for each of the four classes. Thus, the CCLD, with a civilian director under the Superintendent and an active duty colonel as permanent professor under the Commandant, worked as a joint task force with clear lines of responsibility in support of character and leadership development. Still, a lack of personnel limited the Center’s ability to achieve its full purpose. In summer 2018, after a review of roles and missions for the Center, Superintendent Lieutenant General Jay B. Silveria directed the most recent change, placing the entire Center under the Superintendent’s headquarters. The Commandant of Cadets retained a significant portion of the former organization’s personnel, to include oversight of the Cadet Honor Code and its educational curriculum. The change stemmed from higher Air Force guidance directing that the Superintendent be directly responsible for oversight of character development. Gradually, the headquarters increased funding and staffing to a sufficient level where the new organization could meet its mission requirements. The current mission statement for the Academy’s CCLD is “to serve USAFA by advancing the development of Leaders of Character for our nation.” Its vision statement is “to be the recognized experts for the development of Leaders of Character.” These aligning statements set a clear purpose for the Center and how it will operate. The move directly under the Superintendent, sent a strong message that the Center will serve as an organizing function for all character and leadership development efforts at USAFA. As previously mentioned, whereas many activities, programs, and processes have existed over the years, they were largely parsed out in different mission elements. This siloed approach limited the synergy that could be achieved by leveraging programs across the institution. With the Center now serving as the Academy’s focal point, integration of efforts across the institution is now possible. Intentionality across the 47-month experience is possible and allows for a developmental approach to character and leadership. However, as with all change efforts, it takes time to change institutional mindsets where all understand a different approach. This point is not to say that previous efforts were not successful. What it suggests is that more intentional and individualized development is now possible.

Leader of Character Framework This approach is also aided by an organizing framework for how USAFA develops leaders of character. Shortly after the CCLD was established in 2009, a group of leading scholars began developing a framework on what it really means to develop as a leader of character (LoC). Although everyone may agree that a leader needs to have character, knowing this need and developing character are two different endeavors. This orienting framework specifically outlines what is meant by an LoC. This framework is vital because if we want to develop leaders of character, we must first understand what an LoC looks like. If we know that target, then we can develop, orient, and program the training and developmental efforts toward that mark. Going back to the purpose of CCLD, knowing the target means we understand the who, what, when, why, and how of the development. 574

A Developmental Journey

Figure 31.1  The leader of character framework

The LoC Framework (Figure 31.1) was created to give action to intent. Its purpose is to outline the ideals of what an LoC should be on a daily basis. It serves as an orienting function for how a leader should show up every day. Because graduates of USAFA will begin their professional lives in service to our great country, it is imperative that they understand this mandate as they lead our nation’s sons and daughters. The first component of the LoC Framework is Living Honorably. As previously mentioned, USAFA has an honor code. It states, “We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.” This code is a clear standard of behavior that is expected of all cadets. Simply put, an LoC lives with honor. This statement means that they consistently practice the virtues that are embodied in the Air Force Core Values of Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence In All We Do. These virtues include honesty, courage, accountability, humility, duty, loyalty, respect, mission, discipline, and teamwork. That list constitutes a tall order, but one that is required of an LoC. Implicit in the honor code are two factors. The first is the standard by which “I will hold myself.” “We will not lie, steal, or cheat…”. An LoC meets this standard. They live that standard. That is irrefutable. Others can rely on me, at all times, to be that standard. The second factor is an accountability piece, “…nor tolerate among us anyone who does.” This part is important because it means that not only can others expect that of me, we can expect that of others. The honor code is a minimum standard. If someone fails to meet that standard, then they will be held accountable. That level of trust and accountability is critical for an LoC and for a leader who will serve in the military. The virtues listed previously are how we enact this standard every day. We practice self-control. We have humility. We respect others, and so on. It is the foundation upon which our leadership is enacted. The second component of the LoC Framework is to Lift Others. What this component means is that as an LoC, part of my charge is to lift others to their best possible selves. Put another way, as part of my duty as a leader, I am to make sure that I am doing everything that I can to optimize the performance of those entrusted to me. This standard means I am challenging them, supporting them, developing them, and inspiring them. This is not an optional component, but it is fundamental to my role as a leader. Contained within that expectation of lifting others is the assumption that I know and understand who I am leading. If I do not understand who they are as individuals (not just as military members), I will not be in a position to lift them because I do not even know 575

John Abbatiello and Douglas R. Lindsay

where they are coming from. I need to know where they are at in order to effectively lift them to their best possible selves. The third component is Elevating Performance. This factor is straightforward and aligns with more traditional notions of leadership. It applies to not only individual performance, but organizational performance as well. As a leader (and specifically an LoC), I not only want to make sure that things are getting done, but that I am creating an atmosphere and culture where those on my team are not only performing, but constantly seeking out more effective ways of doing things. In order to do this task, however, I must make sure that I am providing them the autonomy that they need, the resources that they need, and empowering them to get the work done. Taken together then, it is not just about performance, but performance toward a common and noble purpose. Although these components of the LoC Framework may seem aspirational, they are really operational. It provides an important orienting function. Living Honorably is a daily choice. It is not a destination or a fixed capacity. Lifting Others does not just happen once. It is a continual process. Elevating Performance does not stop when the task is complete, it continues to the next one. The elegance in the Framework is also its simplicity. It provides daily direction for a leader about how to be an LoC. A further benefit of having the LoC Framework is that by understanding its components, we are also in position to start assessing it to see how leaders are progressing. An important component to the LoC Framework is what we refer to as Own, Engage, and Practice. This component is the key interface with the Framework for every cadet. Although we can have the “perfect” developmental process set up, if we fail to engage cadets to participate in the process, then we are missing the opportunity to develop. The first part of this process is to get cadets to OWN the pursuit of their identity as an LoC. What this point means is that they need to understand their role in the process and recognize that they have room to grow. They must be able to know that they are responsible for key components like their attitude and effort, understanding their duty, owning their commitments, and knowing where they fit into the developmental process. Whereas this component of the process may seem a relatively straightforward issue for individuals who have volunteered to serve their country, it is much deeper than that. It is the understanding that development is not something that just happens to them. It is the understanding that they are cocreators in the process and they have ownership in that development. They must own that piece of development so that they can shape it to be the leader they need to be. It also allows them to know their starting point so that they can bring intentionality into their development. The second factor is ENGAGEMENT. There are myriad opportunities for them to develop as leaders of character through academic, military, and athletic opportunities. However, the mere presence of opportunities does not directly transfer to intentional character and leadership development. They must engage with the process. They must intentionally engage with the purposeful experiences that can lead to development. This means taking the time and being premeditated with that time. They need to take the ownership that was mentioned before and align it in a purposeful way to strengthen areas that need development. It is not just a commitment from the individual to be developed, it involves a commitment from the organization to provide meaningful and intentional experiences. This action is an ongoing and deliberate process that begins during their time as a cadet and continues on through their careers as officers. The third factor is that they must PRACTICE. Knowing (owning) my role and understanding the available opportunities (so I can engage) is not enough. Cadets must also practice to hone their development. This factor is where intentions turn into actions. This factor also is where knowing turns into doing, where gaps are closed, and where understanding is gained through failure, success, and repetition. It is often said that practice makes perfect. When we look at character and leadership development, that statement is not entirely true. Practice will build in habits with our 576

A Developmental Journey

actions. However, if we practice incorrectly we will not get the results we want and need. We must be thoughtful, intentional, and diligent (informed by assessment and feedback) in our practice to aim toward confidence in moral and ethical choices. Through the process of owning, engaging, and practicing, we endeavor to develop leaders of character for service to our great nation.

Integration across the Institution As mentioned above, the CCLD seeks to integrate character and leadership development across all mission areas (military, academic, and athletic) of the Air Force Academy. In practice, this integration means that the center provides representatives to committees, working groups, and other governance bodies to provide character and leadership development inputs when needed. Examples include representation on academic and curriculum governance boards and committees, admissions decisions, resourcing bodies, and strategy and accreditation-related working groups. These efforts influence strategic decisions, with the goal of keeping the Academy’s mission to develop leaders of character in focus across all areas. The CCLD also oversees several programs directly supporting the Academy’s mission, serving cadets, faculty, and staff members. Chief among these programs is the National Character and Leadership Symposium, the Academy’s flagship conference that seeks to expose cadets and staff to cutting-edge speakers each year as part of their developmental journey as leaders of character. The symposium “brings together distinguished scholars, military leaders, corporate executives and world-class athletes to motivate and equip participants for honorable living and effective leadership.”2 A key feature of the symposium is attendance by other students—including students from the other federal service academies, Air Force Reserve Officer Training detachments, senior military colleges, and civilian universities—to expose cadets to diversity of thought and perspective during scheduled discussion sessions. Beginning in 2019, the CCLD assumed the role of program manager for the Air Officer Commanding Master’s Program. Here, the Center acts as a force provider—in cooperation with the Dean of Faculty, the Commandant of Cadets, the Air Force Institute of Technology, and the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs—preparing officers to serve in command of cadet squadrons. Each year, 21 active duty officers attend a competitively selected one-year master’s program that develops officers to serve as commanders, leader developers, and educators at USAFA. Coursework includes counseling, adult education, leadership theory, and other pertinent topics designed to prepare these officers for their two-year command role as leader developers. In support of the notion that all faculty and staff must serve as effective role models in the development of Academy cadets, the Center provides a host of professional development seminars and workshops to improve the “soft skills” of the academic, training, athletic, and headquarters staffs (Service Academies, 2015). These offerings supplement existing professional development efforts in each of those mission areas and include sessions on the LoC Framework, emotional intelligence, mindset, personality strengths, and other pertinent topics. Cadets may attend many of these workshops on a voluntary basis. In addition, the Center provides Healthy Relations Education to cadets in workshops overseen by the Commandant of Cadets. Finally, the Center supports two developmental programs for cadet leaders—a series of leadership seminars for cadet commanders and a monthly workshop for cadet athletic team captains. The Center also oversees the Academy’s Outdoor Leadership Complex, an experiential learning center where a Leadership Challenge Tower and other physical apparatuses challenge participants to work together as teams, communicate effectively, and build unit cohesion. The facility serves cadets and permanent party organizations throughout the year and supports cadet military training 577

John Abbatiello and Douglas R. Lindsay

during the summer. In May 2022, a steel, state-of-the art Leadership Challenge Tower opened to replace a wooden structure built in the 1990s. Funded by donors and completed in record time, the new tower is the tallest adventure-based learning facility in the state of Colorado. Several other initiatives provide a research and assessment foundation to underpin the Center’s programs. The Journal of Character and Leadership Development (JCLD),3 initially established in 2009, provides a unique voice on scholarship to support the Academy’s mission. Although several academic journals address leadership, ethics, and moral development, the JCLD fills a unique gap by publishing research and practitioner perspectives on the intersection of character and leadership. The JCLD’s mission is to be the leading publication dedicated to the research, measurement, understanding, and application of character and leadership development. This mission is accomplished through the publication of scholarly articles that examine how character and leadership are developed and implemented into curriculum, education, training, and development programs. The aim of the JCLD is to stimulate and advance the scholarship of character and leadership development through submission from all disciplinary perspectives and organizations that contribute to the knowledge of how character and leadership are effectively developed. This unique mission not only pushes out scholarship from USAFA to the larger academic community, it also serves as a conduit for highlighting important work in other domains that can have applicability at USAFA. Funded by generous support of the Air Force Academy Foundation, the JCLD, in a short amount of time has become a leading journal in character and leadership development. Ongoing research and assessment efforts seek to determine if the Center’s Leader of Character Framework and developmental programs are meeting their intended objectives. A robust survey program collects data from participants, which informs curricular change in a constant feedback process. A unique contribution to the Center’s research is the presence of three senior scholars on the staff. Scholars occupying these donor-funded positions publish and present on character and leadership aspects of the military profession and often teach cadets in academic settings. These scholars represent a wide range of military and academic expertise providing context, guidance, experience, networking, and more to character and leadership development efforts across the institution. Finally, the Center’s role extends to building relationships with external Air Force, Space Force, Department of Defense, and civilian institutions focusing on leader development. An important element of external collaboration is an Air University liaison officer, present for duty at Polaris Hall, to link faculty and staff to achieve a common purpose of developing Air and Space Force leaders. Since summer 2020, the presence of this liaison officer has already achieved increased awareness of Air University’s professional education programs—to include the Squadron Officer College, Air Command and Staff College, and Air War College—as well as enhancing links to Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps and Officer Training School at the Jeanne M. Holm Center for Officer Accessions and Citizen Development at Maxwell Air Force Base. The Center also participates in periodic curricular discussions with the other service academies and normally sends Air Force Academy cadets to their leadership and ethics conferences annually. And as civilian institutions continue to establish leadership centers across the United States, the Center for Character and Leadership seeks out collaborative relationships where there is mutual benefit. Recent efforts have included interactions with Rice University’s Doerr Institute for New Leader, University of Colorado Boulder’s Leadership Center, Arizona State University’s Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, and Texas Tech University, all with the intent of collecting lessons learned in the areas of curriculum, research, and assessment related to character and leadership development.

578

A Developmental Journey

Recent Successes As we have described, CCLD is actively engaged in supporting the development of leaders of character across the USAFA enterprise. As a result, there have been numerous successes over the past several years. The first of these is moving the LoC Framework from a notional construct to official policy. While the Framework has been in existence since 2011, we have struggled as an institution to codify it across the institution. There are many reasons that we can discuss to explain this struggle, but in the end, a Framework that is not used is at best just a good idea. Over the past four years, through the significant support of the last two Superintendents, it has become the orienting function for the institution. Not only has the LoC Framework been institutionalized in policy, strategic guidance, countless programs, and courses, but developmental opportunities have been reoriented to follow the same approach. This alignment has been critical to the corporate understanding of how to effectively develop leaders of character. A new manual, “Developing Leaders of Character at USAFA” codifies the LOC Framework as the Academy’s official developmental doctrine.4 A second success has been Senior Leader messaging. In most public engagements—to both internal and external audiences—the Superintendent makes clear the Academy’s mission to develop leaders of character, to include how we specifically define it per the Framework. As well, our Dean, Commandant, and Athletic Director frequently mention this mission and definition within their own contexts to their respective staffs and external stakeholders. Recurrent references to “Living Honorably, Lifting Others, and Elevating Performance” by our Senior Leaders help to familiarize and remind our Academy staff and faculty about these concepts and go a long way in aligning our understanding of the Academy’s mission. In addition, to cap off this important messaging, the Academy’s 2021 Strategic Plan has as its first goal the objective of: Inspire and reinforce a culture of living honorably; We will institutionally embrace the Leader of Character framework to guide how we define our leaders of character and develop Airmen and Guardians. (USAFA Strategic Plan, 12) A third success has been the intentional focus on assessment. Previously, there were intermittent attempts at trying to assess how we were doing as an institution. These attempts provided some anecdotal support for our efforts, but we were not able to get a critical mass of information around how we were doing corporately or about how we were doing with respect to moving the needle on developing leaders of character. With the implementation of the LoC Framework, there has been a renewed (and aligned) focus on assessment of the various programs and processes at USAFA. As a side benefit to this focus on assessment is the ability for everyone to see where they fit into the process of development. Be it an academic course, a physical obstacle, or a military challenge, it is now possible to link back to the developmental process to see how it supports the development of leaders of character. This linkage not only allows for an intentionality in our processes, but also allows for every faculty, staff, and cadet to align with that purpose. We are not where we need to be yet regarding assessment…no one is. However, we understand where we are headed and are developing an assessment strategy to align with that direction. As we have success in these areas, we endeavor to push this information out to other institutions through outlets like the NCLS, the JCLD, and other institutional engagements.

579

John Abbatiello and Douglas R. Lindsay

Conclusions Establishing the CCLD as the focal point for character and leadership development was rooted in the desire to emphasize thinking, integration of programs, research, and assessment on the Academy’s primary mission. Decades of work, from Academy leaders, staff, and faculty as well as the graduate community, got us to where we are now. But this work is not finished. In an ideal world, we want all of our faculty and staff to see themselves as leader developers as their primary role. We want our upper-class cadets to think the same way. When asked, “what do you do at the Air Force Academy,” we think all of our faculty and staff should answer with a simple response: “I am a Leader of Character who develops Leaders of Character.” Looking back allows us to see why we are heading in the direction that we are. It gives us understanding of where we came from and helps us understand where we need to go. Although we have had some success, we must endeavor to follow the factors of being an LoC as an institution. We must continue to Live Honorably. We must continually lift our personnel to be their best possible selves. We must, finally, elevate the performance of all of those on the team. CCLD is perfectly positioned to support the institution in accomplishing the mission.

Notes 1 https://www.usafa.edu/character/national-character-leadership-symposium-ncls/ 2 NCLS website: https://www.usafa.edu/character/national-character-leadership-symposium-ncls/ 3 JCLD website: https://jcldusafa.org/index.php/jcld 4 https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/usafa/publication/usafaman36-3526/usafaman36-3526.pdf

References Department of Defense. (2015). DOD Instruction 1322.22, Service Academies, September 24, 2015. Norton, J., & Packard, G. (2009). The center for character and leadership development at the U.S. Air Force Academy: Why this, why now? Journal of Character and Leader Scholarship, 1, 27–34. Randolph, S. P. (March 2022). A condensed history of the USAFA honor code and system. Checkpoints, 34–41. USAF Academy Honor Code Website. (2022). Retrieved September 15, 2022, from https://www.usafa.edu/ about/honor/ USAF Academy, Command Historian. (1993). Annual History Report, 1992–1993, Supt 1-61, Volume 1. Clark Special Collections, McDermott Library, USAF Academy, Colorado. USAF Academy, Commandant of Cadets. (1993). “Bullet Background Paper on Center for Character Development (CWC).” Center for Character and Leadership Development Office Files. USAF Academy, Colorado. USAF Academy, Superintendent. (2021). USAF Academy Strategic Plan 2021.

580

32 LEADERS OF CHARACTER, THE COAST GUARD ACADEMY WAY Leonard M. Giambra*, Nathaniel K. Johnson, Andrew D. Ray, Jon Heller, and Ellyn D. Metcalf

The United States Coast Guard Academy (USCGA) is military in character, maritime by nature, and multi-mission by necessity, mirroring the United States Coast Guard. Situated on the banks of the Thames River in New London, Connecticut, the Academy is the smallest and most specialized of America’s five federal service academies. It is an elite professional college renowned for academic excellence and the development of leaders of character, uniquely serving the nation’s present-day maritime safety, security, and stewardship concerns. Currently there are approximately 1,070 matriculated cadets, including international cadets, who pursue Bachelor of Science degrees and are commissioned as Ensigns in the Coast Guard (CG) after a 200-week military, academic, and physical training program.

Leader Development The USCGA experience prepares young men and women who serve their country and humanity with skill, commitment, and character. The Academy’s five Shared Learning Outcomes (SLOs, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2017) guide the educational and professional development of each cadet in the academic, athletic, and military domains. The first SLO, Leadership Abilities, highlights the Academy’s central focus; the remaining four SLOs – instilling exemplary personal and professional qualities; acquiring, integrating, and expanding knowledge; learning communication effectiveness; and honing critical thinking ability – reinforce this primary outcome. “A Leader of Character is one who embodies the CG’s Core Values [Honor, Respect, Devotion to Duty] and influences and inspires others to achieve a goal by seeking to discover the truth, deciding what is right and demonstrating the courage to act accordingly … always” (U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2012, p. 1). Upon graduation, these service-ready ensigns go directly to positions of leadership in one of the most adventurous and rewarding organizations in the world. With the objectives defined and a definitional statement of what a leader of character looks like providing a target, the challenge faced by the USCGA character development staffs is to develop processes and benchmarks that make progress toward these objectives both possible and * The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the United States, the Department of Homeland Security, or the United States Coast Guard.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-35

581

Leonard M. Giambra et al.

measurable using assessment tools that can stand the test of time. To that end, The Guide to Officer and Leadership Development (GOLD) philosophy (Goulet et al., 2012; U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2012), originally adopted in 2002, captures the holistic approach used in the Academy’s Leader Development Program (LDP). At the same time, a new strategy for leader development, known as LEAD was developed by our Management Faculty which solidifies the Academy’s leader development approach to one of individual development grounded in educational, adult development and self-determination theory. The LEAD strategy guides cadets through their leader development journey as they Learn from theory, Experience through practice, Analyze by reflection, and Deepen understanding through mentoring. A third and critical component of leader development is the adoption of the CG’s well-established leadership competencies (U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2022). As part of the LEAD strategy, cadets practice these competencies throughout their USCGA journey. In so doing the cadets engage in leadership behaviors that directly prepare them for the organization they will be serving. GOLD requires all academic faculty, military company officers, and athletic coaches to align more cohesively in a unified commitment to their shared responsibility of developing each cadet across the physical, intellectual, professional and values domains and over the four years with increasing leadership roles of responsibility from follower, role modeler, cadre (specialized professional military trainer) and organizational leader. Growth and development are obvious results of intentional engagements by faculty, staff, and coaches. GOLD also emphasizes to the Academy Community the importance of leaning into these Frequent Quality Interactions as part of the developmental process. The LEAD strategy provides experiences that test the maturity, judgment, and decision-making of future officers rooted in a common language of a set of theories and models as well as the sensemaking process of reflection and mentoring. The LEAD strategy combined with the CG’s leadership competencies provide the framework for a curriculum written for each of the nine experiential leadership programs in which all cadets participate. Cadets are assessed in each of these core developmental programs using behaviorally anchored rating systems known as cadet evaluation reports (CERs). These reports are patterned after performance reviews in the larger CG organization. The Leader of Character Information System (LCIS) and outcome assessment were implemented fully in Fall of 2021 providing a “leadership transcript” as an accumulation of demonstrated proficiency in the 13 Leading Self and Other Competencies. While every CER performance dimension is affinitized to one or more leadership competencies and provides a numerical signal of competence based on supervisor ratings, the nexus between these signals and character development remains unstudied. As the LCIS software is now being used to enable assessments, analysis, and continuous improvement cycles it may one day be of interest for analyses of character development at USCGA.

USCGA Character Education and Training Introduction and History The perceived importance of tying together the concept of leadership and the concept of character is reflected in the vision statements promulgated at various times by Superintendents of USCGA. The “mission statement,” first penned by Rear Admiral Harry Hamlet in 1929 (and later revised to reflect the admission of women to the Academy), states that the mission of the institution is to “graduate young men and women with sound bodies, stout hearts, and alert minds … and with [a] high sense of honor, loyalty, and obedience…” (U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2017). While it is certain that Rear Admiral Hamlet saw stout hearts and a sense of Honor as encapsulating much of what we might call character, the word character does not appear in the mission statement. This 582

Leaders of Character, the Coast Guard Academy Way

omission is currently remedied by highlighting character through the shorter-term and more strategically adaptive “vision statements” of institutional leadership. The 2018–2023 USCGA strategic plan notes that “the Academy executes world-class maritime-oriented academic, professional, athletic and values-based programs to educate, train, and inspire leaders of character.” Here the term is made explicit and it is conceptually defined as being part of a package with leadership. To develop the types of officers the CG needs, the vision of the institution cannot be either to create strong leaders of any character whatsoever; nor can it be to create people of good character who may or may not be leaders. The goal is both, simultaneously, in a method that allows the developmental programs supporting each element to reinforce the other in relevant and practical ways. Character has always been a foundational element of CG officer training. The requirement for CG officers to demonstrate strong, positive character virtues is central to the political and moral value structure present at the founding of the service and at the core of the concept of the CG officer itself. In a letter of instruction to the very first Revenue Cutter Service officers (the original seagoing service that later integrated with other federal agencies to form the CG), the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, writes that commissioned officers: Will always keep in mind that their countrymen are freemen, and, as such, are impatient of everything that bears the least mark of a domineering spirit. They will, therefore, refrain with the most guarded circumspection, from whatever has the semblance of haughtiness, rudeness, or insult… They will endeavor to overcome difficulties, if any are experienced, by a cool and temperate perseverance in their duty – by address and moderation, rather than vehemence and violence. (Hamilton, 1791) Hamilton states that failure to adhere to these instructions will meet with the President’s “pointed displeasure” and that his words have been aimed at individual officers he knows “have been selected with so careful an attention to character, as to afford the strongest assurance, that their conduct will be that of good officers and good citizens” (Italics added, Hamilton, 1791). In the most recent guidance to selection, i.e., promotion boards and panels for officers, the CG Commandant states in the leading paragraph that, “strong moral character” is required, and that “I fully expect all officers to embrace our Core Values of Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty” (U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2021c). While service strategic priorities, demands for specific technical skills, and the challenges facing the organization are ever changing, the requirement for officers to possess and display good character remains a never changing constant.

Character Development: Military Given the importance of fostering and building alignment to the core values as step one in this character development model, the USCGA’s military training program approaches this conceptual and attitudinal alignment as a precursor to all other character development activities. To achieve any meaningful progress on this front, cadets must have a working knowledge of the conceptual content conveyed by the words, Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty. Mere repetition of the words, devoid of a conceptual understanding of them, is insufficient.

Four-Year Honor Training To ensure cadets continually work to develop and maintain their character, USCGA executes a four-year Honor training program supported by the USCGA Leader Development Program and 583

Leonard M. Giambra et al.

associated Chase Hall Practicums (CHPs) for the various classes within the Corps. The Honor curriculum lays the foundation for an entering class, after a month-long summer pre-freshman indoctrination program, to transition to cadets and to align their values with those of the CG and USCGA. The four-year Honor training program aims to solidify a cadet’s adherence to USCGA’s Honor Concept, “Who lives here reveres Honor, Honors Duty. We neither lie, cheat, steal nor attempt to deceive” (U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2019). For fourth-class cadets to understand how important it is to serve with honor and integrity USCGA dedicates an entire unit within the CHPs to Honor training with the end goal for cadets to demonstrate the courage to act with honor and integrity by making sound ethical decisions while inspiring others to do the same. There are 12 associated lessons within the Honor Training unit and each cadet has at least one honor-specific training per year. Lessons focus on managing ethical dilemmas, loyalty, values and character development, and daily ethics (Cadet Training Branch, 2020). The Honor Training unit is structured in a unique way that builds on all previous lessons and simultaneously merging with the Terminal Performance Objective of each CHP. The symbiotic relationship between the Honor Training unit and broader CHPs ensures that cadets continually have honor and integrity on the forefront of their minds throughout all military obligations and development evolutions. In a tightly knit, close quarters institutional living environment like USCGA, cadets are subjected to a training regimen that does not stop at the threshold of certain buildings, behind closed doors, on the athletic field or at the gym, or even on liberty off campus. The notion that cadets must live under the Honor Concept for character building to occur at an unbroken pace provides a primary justification for the pervasiveness and all-inclusive scope of this training environment. Unlike the more nuanced academic studies and leadership roles that cadets are thrust into as they promote through their 200-week program which focus on understanding the character development process for themselves and for those they lead, the initial pre-freshman training focuses on the most obvious aspect of character: conduct – on rules – and on defining the core values and scoping what cadets should and should not do if they are to uphold the core values. Possibly the greatest selling point for living under the core values as a means of developing the habits that lead to character is often, initially, a direct appeal to self-interest. In a micro-environment with fewer guarantees of privacy than a normal citizen is afforded and mostly open, unlocked doors, the question of “what kind of place/society do you want to live in?” has obvious implications on behavior. The answer is that each of them would like to live in a society where no one lies to them, cheats them, or steals from them. In the microcosm of the USCGA training environment, relatively protected from outside forces, cadets can easily be led to understand the truth that, at least here, the formation of that society and way of life is simply up to them and the roughly 1,000 other cadets they live with. No one will come to take that culture away from them if they manage to create and enforce it; and only the cadets who live among each other can create such a culture or force it on them. Once this appeal to self-interest gains traction, the additional benefits of living under the core values follow as logical conclusions from an examination of the best way to live in a society that has been constructed this way. This society is, ideally, simply a microcosm of the organization as a whole and a reflection of its values applied wholeheartedly around the clock, every day of the year. There is no question that such a process that focuses on Honor is one of indoctrination. But it is a process of indoctrination that encourages reflection and self-examination as much, or more, than it encourages the mere acceptance of presented doctrine. In addition to the Devotion to Duty training presented by academic staff as part of Coast Guard History, a cadre of trainers pulled from several academic disciplines lead a team of volunteers from across the entire institutional workforce in small-group-based sessions to examine the Honor Concept; to discuss the definitions 584

Leaders of Character, the Coast Guard Academy Way

of lying, cheating, stealing, and attempting to deceive, as well as the common cadet situations in which these conduct principles apply, and the accountability mechanisms that back-up or ensure their application. The inclusion of academicians along with military officers, musicians, chaplains, business operations personnel, administrative staff, senior enlisted staff, and other willing participants from the CG community conveys the message clearly that the core values, thus presented, are not a special requirement for the training environment at USCGA which can be temporarily adhered to and then discarded, but rather a general set of principles that guide the entire CG workforce around the globe. The initial presentation of the trio of Core Values is rounded out with the engagement of dedicated, professional Diversity and Inclusion staff in the presentation of the Respect value. The Respect value focuses on issues of empowerment, fairness, human dignity, and compassion. Through a series of training efforts, cadets grapple with their individual beliefs and background opinions and assumptions in light of the organization’s core directives and policies on equal opportunity, anti-discrimination and anti-harassment, sexual assault, and diversity (U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2022). Through an examination of the principles of individual conduct, as with each of the other values, the 200-week program is intended to ultimately develop a cadet’s sense of their role in fostering a culture of respect that goes beyond individual conduct to ultimately account for and support an officer’s heightened social and public responsibilities in a free society that promotes individual human dignity.

Cadet Honor Accountability Accountability and adherence to the Core Values of Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty is paramount for character development. If a cadet is suspected of violating USCGA’s Honor Concept, their alleged cadet misconduct case is referred to the Cadet Honor Board (CHB). The CHB is a cadet led, formal inquiry board, chaired by the Regimental Honor Officer, a first-class, i.e., senior, cadet and advised by a commissioned officer, that serves as an advisory board to the Commandant of Cadets. The CHB represents the mature consciousness of the Corps and directly assists in the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct within the Corps by providing a communication and interpretational link between the Corps and the Commandant of Cadets (U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2019). To ensure the first-class cadets that comprise the CHB are in the best position to make impactful and insightful recommendations to the Commandant of Cadets, they are all required to complete additional ethics and honor centric training. The training highlights the importance of ethical decision-making, CG case studies and vignettes, and a deep dive into understanding the origins of the Honor Concept and identifying academic plagiarism. Through formal proceedings, the CHB ascertains additional information, considers all facts of the case, deliberates as to whether an Honor offense occurred, and makes a final recommendation to the Commandant of Cadets as to the cadet’s suitability to remain a member of the Corps of Cadets. After a CHB for a suspected Honor offense, and when cadets are suspected of violating the Regulations of the Corps of Cadets for offenses tangential to Respect and Devotion to Duty, their misconduct is adjudicated at formal Class I Hearings. The reporting, investigation, and adjudication process serve to introduce cadets to a Non-Judicial Punishment-like process that all officers will witness, and at some point in their careers take part in or oversee. The Commandant of Cadets, Assistant Commandant of Cadets, and Company Officers are authorized to preside over Class I Hearings to ensure accountability for cadets’ actions, as accountability for one’s actions is fundamental to being an officer in the military. Both CHBs and Class I Hearings are open to the entire Corps of Cadets to attend to promote transparency throughout the investigation and adjudication process. 585

Leonard M. Giambra et al.

Cadet Remediation Programs It is expected that cadets will make mistakes within the USCGA’s training environment. For cadets, character development cannot be seen as anything but an assisted and guided personal journey in which wrong turns and missteps are inevitable and a natural part of character development. While many keen observers can learn much by example, often the longest lasting or most impactful character development episodes involve mistakes that are recognized, internalized, reflected upon, and then rebounded from. Likewise, the most credible trainers and leaders are often those who can honestly say, “I’ve been there, right where you are standing now, and here is what I learned from that experience.” When a cadet does not act in accordance with established policy, rules, and regulations, USCGA has two structured cadet remediation programs to correct identified character deficiencies (U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2021a). USCGA’s cadet remediation programs focus on the holistic character development of each cadet assigned and allow for all USCGA faculty and staff, as well as mentors, to be directly involved. The programs are developmental in nature and focus on professional, physical, and moral development and exist to promote reflection and critical thinking. Remediation is not a sanction or a punishment, it is instead an opportunity for a cadet to receive additional guidance and mentorship to correct professional, performance, and character deficiencies. USCGA’s remediation programs are consistent with USCGA’s Guide for Officer Leadership and Development and focus on the redress of character (U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2021a). As the program most commonly associated with character development, the Core Values Remediation Program consists of the following two basic elements: (1) placement in an environment, circumstance, or condition where they are encouraged and able to listen and think and (2) inclusion of a known, predictable, and certain consequence if there is a lack of progression or failure, i.e., a recommendation for disenrollment by the Commandant of Cadets or further administrative action (U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2021a). The two distinct remediation programs each have a specific focus and unique elements that help develop reflective practices and direct formal and informal mentoring experiences targeted to those areas of leadership and character development where help is needed. However, both share similarities as well. In both programs, the cadet is ultimately responsible for completing all program requirements and elements and making the necessary changes for growth in the spirit of the CG Core Values. Each cadet also participates in a mentoring connection where, similar to an internship, they apply knowledge to projects and program elements under the supervision of an experienced and respected leader, i.e., a mentor. Additionally, the cadet must journal about Core Values specific topics to develop reflective practices and conduct a role model emulation where the cadet interviews an experienced leader and discusses the root cause of their placement on remediation and how they can continually develop with regard to leadership and officership. Specific to the Core Values Remediation Program, cadets assigned are required to complete a Values in Action – Individual Strengths (VIA, McGrath, 2019; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; McGrath chapter in this Handbook) character-self assessment before beginning and discuss their results with their assigned mentor and Company Officer.

The Wetmore Ethics Forum and Eclipse Day Each year, the Academy dedicates a day for these events to support the development of the Core Values of Honor and Respect (purposely focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion). These events are dedicated to engaging with speakers, dialoguing about tough ethical and diversity challenges, and community engagement. The impetus for both such programs is the recognition that 586

Leaders of Character, the Coast Guard Academy Way

character develop can, intentionally or not, take a back-seat to the daily activities that produce career-impacting measures like the cumulative grade point average and the military-specific “military precedence average” (MPA). Forum events create a self-conscious break in routine that focus on specific challenges in ethical leadership. By pausing regular academic, military and athletic activities for a robust, campus-wide day of events, the forum events, along with their sponsoring entities, send a clear signal that a dedicated and undistracted reflection on these topics is worth the time and effort for everyone aboard USCGA, regardless of their day-to-day roles. The Wetmore Ethics Forum focuses on character development by providing cadets, in a nonacademic setting, with opportunities to discuss ethical issues and leadership challenges with experienced and diverse civilian, government, and military leaders. The Wetmore Ethics Forum reinforces the importance of ethical decision-making and leadership in the professional and personal lives of Leaders of Character and presents cadets with the opportunity to further refine their ethical decision-making skills by broadening perspectives, challenging current belief systems, and emphasize the character is paramount in adverse situations. Eclipse seeks to bring together the greater CG community, local New London, CT community members, and diversity champions from across the Nation to participate in the mentoring and the inspiring of cadets to prepare them for lasting careers as inclusive Leaders of Character for our Service and our Nation. Leaders of Character are equity-minded and culturally competent and ensure the CG thrives in a dynamic global environment.

Cadet Probations USCGA has numerous probationary statuses to which cadets can be assigned by the Commandant of Cadets or Office of the Provost that serve as an awareness tool and alerting mechanism for USCGA faculty and staff to utilize to provide additional mentorship and guidance toward cadet overall development. Cadets are assigned to the Suitability for Service program (i.e., Military Probation) when it is determined that a cadet is militarily deficient, often in their character development, and is not considered to be suitable for commissioning at their present rate of development. This assignment often comes following the awarding of a Class I [Conduct] Offense, and always following an Honor offense. Cadets assigned to Suitability for Service are routinely required to complete additional trainings, extra military instruction, and have various privileges rescinded to assist them in overcoming their deficiency. Cadets are solely responsible for the timely arrangement and completion of any and all additional trainings and requirements that they might incur. However, cadets do not “go it alone” in a probationary status, and the additional requirements also bring the productive attention of appropriate supporting trainers and staff elements to aid the cadet in their efforts.

Character Development: Academic Character development is taken seriously from an academic perspective and is woven into the 200-week core curriculum requirements delivered by the professional academic faculty. Often framed in terms of “personal and professional qualities,” the character requirements begin with an application of the Honor Concept across the curriculum, demanding that “cadets neither lie, cheat, steal, nor attempt to deceive.” Just as there are prescribed military accountability mechanisms to drive home the seriousness and importance of character, there are attending academic penalties for breaches of conduct prescribed by that concept (U.S. Coast Guard Academy, 2021b). A large majority of cadets never face these consequences. Nevertheless, all cadets are challenged by a 587

Leonard M. Giambra et al.

course with specific content focused on ethics and character development at least four times over the course of their academic career. Coast Guard History is the very first credit-bearing course that cadets are required to complete. It takes place during their pre-freshman indoctrination summer, and has a curriculum designed to support character development. The programmatic vision for the Coast Guard History course is that its instructors, aided by the USCGA library staff, perform a threefold task of delivering an academic credit of U.S. History, delivering a primer in college level research resources and techniques, and most relevantly here, delivering part three of the Core Values introductory training: Devotion to Duty. This training objective is seamlessly woven into the learning objectives of an academic course by grafting-specific USCG leadership competencies focused on the tools of “leading self” (responsibility, aligning values, followership, self-awareness, personal conduct, etc.) and “leading others” (effective communications, team building, respect for others, taking care of people, etc.) onto a close and academically rigorous examination of the actions and conduct of noteworthy leaders in CG history. By combining small group and individual work in examining how specific historical figures leveraged the technical skills and competencies related to the performance of duty, instructors lead students to discover the real-world application of these broadly conceived competencies and students are, in turn, provided an opportunity to examine aspirational objectives for their own character development based on diverse role models from diverse backgrounds, ranks, and operational specialties in the history of the service’s many forerunner entities and agencies (for further details on the CG leadership competencies see U.S. Coast Guard Academy (2022)). Additional courses aimed at character development include at least one Cultural Perspectives course out of a selection of topics, which aims at alignment with the Core Value of Respect through exposing cadets to a rich cultural and social background for studies of U.S. history, literature, and society; a required course in Global Studies that aims at alignment with the Core Value of Respect by looking at commonalities and structures of governance across national and cultural divides; Principles of Criminal Justice aims at alignment with Devotion to Duty by further familiarizing cadets with the legal and statutory aspects of laws relating to personal conduct of an armed forces officer and how they are enforced; and a core course in Moral and Ethical Philosophy that seeks to provide a theoretical background in ethics and a philosophical tool-box to see all of these topics and their everyday social interactions as leaders and citizens through a moral lens. This course is supplemented, in the case of engineering and science majors, with discipline-specific ethics courses in Engineering Ethics, Science Ethics, or Cyber Policy, Compliance, and Ethics. This addition of applied ethics in tandem with Moral Philosophy encourages cadets to see the practical issues facing leaders in their chosen technical field (both civilian and military, alike) as being continuous with a theoretical and practical grasp of theories of value and philosophical methods for making decisions about the right thing to do. Each of these courses hangs in a delicate balance with a tremendously busy undergraduate plan of study with at least 130 semester hours of work, not including physical education and military education requirements. Given the paucity of cadet time, each course must compete to be a worthwhile feature in the cadet’s education. In such an environment, there is a risk that the inclusion of an ethics course (one or more) in each cadet plan of study may be marketed as a type of insurance against the possibility that an individual could be commissioned as an officer without developing a firm grasp of the difference between “right” and “wrong.” In other words, such a course might be seen as an insurance policy against future officer misconduct. But, as ethics educators will recognize, this view is not an accurate assessment of the purpose of such a course. The expectation is that every cadet entering such a course as a third-class (Sophomore) 588

Leaders of Character, the Coast Guard Academy Way

or second-class (Junior) cadet will have a more or less reliable sense of right and wrong already. However, as leaders of a diverse workforce, there is no guarantee that any particular moral grounding will be equally communicatively effective for officers in their leadership roles. Officers require not only the internal capacity to make good moral choices, but the ability to justify them to others and communicate their importance to those who might arrive at their ethical judgments in a different way. And so, a broad educational look at moral theory and practice often gives students the professionally beneficial ability to triangulate and situate a sound moral judgment from several different views or angles. In keeping with their academic content, these courses aim at building understanding of the challenges that might be faced in character development and at developing a moral toolbox that is versatile enough to contain the right tool for such challenges. Course objectives, therefore, include communicating ideas by developing the skills to interrogate and think critically about arguments presented in a philosophical or political discourse, revise them, critique them, and convey clear thinking and decisions about them, understanding the ethically significant aspects of everyday situations, examining competing values at stake within them through a variety of theoretical lenses, coherently defending value judgments about them, and applying a wellexamined personal conception of value and the moral commitments that follow from it. The course focuses not on the “what,” but on the “how” and “why” of presenting arguments and making value-based judgments. To succeed in the course, students do not merely need a set of facts (e.g., that an ethicist did, in fact, argue such and such), but a set of tools that are used to generate and defend self-aware and character-building decisions that will ultimately support the habits of good character. Given these objectives, the course might better be seen as an insurance policy against future leaders who lack self-awareness rather than an insurance policy against ethical errors. But, given the understanding of character development used here thus far, self-awareness in aligning beliefs to values and conduct to beliefs is perhaps one of the most critical elements of character development.

Measuring Character Traits and Defining the Path Forward Over the course of the last six years, there have been improvements to our Leader Development Program through the creation of curricula aligned with the CG’s Leadership Competencies, assessments of the cadets’ individual demonstration of observable and describable leadership behaviors through the performance evaluation reports, and a systemic data-driven process in place for continual improvement. We have also made enhancements to our conduct and honor programs and remediation mechanisms. As our Leader Development Program has evolved, we have continued to assess character on the apex character attribute of integrity using self-report psychometric instruments. One instrument, the Integrity Scale (Schlenker, et al., 2008) measures integrity along a continuum from situationally determined actions to ideologically determined actions. A second instrument measures integrity along a continuum of strength from weak to strong (the VIA, see McGrath chapter in this Handbook). A third measure of integrity occurs not as a self-report instrument but as a selection of a response from a number of possible responses to a critical incident [situation] where each response has been determined to have a different level of integrity, known as a situational judgment test (Cullen & Koch 2012; Giambra, 2015). Finally, a behavioral measure of character is used, specifically the number of times that a cadet violates the Honor code and other serious offenses. These were adopted prior to several of the LDP enhancements discussed early in this chapter. But as extant data, they provide the readiest metric to continue exploring potential indicators of efficacy in our LDP. 589

Leonard M. Giambra et al.

Uncovering reliable and accessible ways to measure the success of a character development program is a perpetual challenge but one that must be met if USCGA aims for its current practices to become best practices in the field of character development. While USCGA has been organically enacting these principles for at least two decades, the relatively recent development of our enhanced systemic LDP provides an opportunity to consider “leading indicator” metrics to ensure rich conditions of a character development learning environment. Simultaneously, some insight from our programmatic self-reflection indicates perhaps the psychometrics we have been using have more limited efficacy to evaluate useful cadet outcomes than we would hope. A description of current efforts to measure and analyze the psychometric and behavioral measures of character development at USCGA has been included as a separate online Appendix to this document. Best efforts to date focus on identifying target competencies or attributes that can be individually measured but that each appear indispensable to the success of the program goals. To that end, institutional research, academic, and cadet developmental staff have jointly identified Fairness, Judgment-Open-Mindedness, Self-Regulation, Social Intelligence, Prudence, Leadership, and Perseverance as key supporting character attributes for the program to track along with the primary indicator of Honesty-Integrity. The psychometric instruments and behavioral measures used to isolate these traits can be employed in a way that covers the full 200-week period of cadet training and, potentially, well beyond. Just as Alexander Hamilton believed the original Revenue Cutter Service officers were onboarded and commissioned, in part, due to their already demonstrated ability to engage the newly independent public from a position of reliably good character, the USCGA admissions process seeks applicants who have good character, thus starting the program from a position of baseline strength. Our measurements could point to a significant improvement from this baseline of character, our most desirable outcome, or to something less. If it is something less, then the patterns established over longitudinal study can inform refinements to either the way (sequencing, emphasis, and pace at which) the program is delivered or to the content that is being delivered. There are two opportunities of note in the effort to continue to enhance these longitudinal metrics. Unlike many institutions, USCGA develops leaders who proceed immediately to guaranteed employment in an organization with standardized rating scales and uniform personnel policies. As a result, USCGA has the ability to not only make an attempt to measure program impacts in developmental phases throughout the 200-week cadet journey, but also to survey the larger CG work force for indicators as to whether the graduates of this program are, in fact, high functioning officers who demonstrate continued professional development toward becoming “leaders of character” in service. And so, efforts have been underway, for some time, to continually refine both sorts of instruments to not just supplement but inform and refine character development efforts. The requirement to provide officers who act with character, both at home in the CG’s robust domestic mission set and abroad, provides strong motivation to continue the high-energy effort to continually improve character development scholarship, methods, and practices. The program presented here requires continual engagement of military, academic and physical education professionals who all, collaboratively, possess this strong motivation to seek to develop cadets to high levels of character within the GOLD framework. We believe that our program has a solid foundation of theory and practice. The solidarity of the core values must remain a central part of the program, and so some aspects of the value theory in use will always be basic to our program as tactics, training tools, and measures adapt to better serve them. As it was 230 years ago, the entering assumption for military service remains the same: that officers of good character are essential to the accomplishment of the missions entrusted to them by the people of the United States. 590

Leaders of Character, the Coast Guard Academy Way

References Cadet Training Branch (2020). Leader development handbooks (series). U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Cox, D., La Caze, M., & Levine, M. (2020). Integrity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (2020 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/integrity/ Cullen, M. J., & Koch, A. (2012). Development of a situational judgment test to measure integrity in coast guard cadets[FR12-020]. Alexandria, Virginia, USA: Human Resources Research Organization. Giambra, L. M. (2015). A manual for the situational action survey. United States Coast Guard Academy. Goulet, L., Jefferson, J., & Szwed, P. (2012). Leadership: Is everybody’s business. T + D, 66, 48–53. Hamilton, A. (1791). Letter of instruction to the commanding officers of the revenue cutters. U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://media.defense.gov/2017/Jul/02/2001772367/-1/-1/0/HAMILTONLETTER.PDF McGrath, R. E. (2019). Technical report: The VIA assessment suite for adults: Development and initial evaluation (rev. ed.). VIA Institute on Character. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press and American Psychological Association. Schlenker, B. R., Weigold, M. F., & Schlenker, K. A. (2008). What makes a hero? The impact of Integrity on admiration and interpersonal judgment. Journal of Personality, 76(2): 323–355. U.S. Coast Guard Academy. (2012). U.S. Coast Guard Academy Leadership Development Program; Superintendent Instruction SUPTINST 1520.1B. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Coast Guard Academy. (2017). Strategic plan 2018–2023. U.S. Coast Guard Academy Planning Office. U.S. Coast Guard Academy. (2019). Regulations of the corps of cadets; Superintendent instruction SUPTINST M5215.2N. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Coast Guard Academy. (2021a). Coast Guard Academy Core Values Remediation Program; Superintendent Instruction SUPTINST 1531.9. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Coast Guard Academy. (2021b). Catalog of courses 2021–2022. U.S. Coast Guard Academy Office of the Registrar. U.S. Coast Guard Academy. (2021c). Commandant’s guidance to promotion year 2022 officer selection boards and panels. U.S. Coast Guard. U.S. Coast Guard Academy. (2022). Leadership Development Framework. COMDTINST 5351.3A. https:// media.defense.gov/2022/Jun/16/2003019575/-1/-1/0/CI_5351_3A.PDF

591

33 BUILDING TRUSTED ARMY PROFESSIONALS Character Development at West Point Jeffrey Peterson, Diane M. Ryan, and Elise Murray Dykhuis

West Point’s mission is “to educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country and prepared for a career of professional excellence and service to the Nation as an officer in the United States Army.” United States Military Academy Mission Statement Every summer, about 1200 young men and women report to the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point to begin a 47-month journey that prepares them for the moral obligations of serving as an Officer in the U.S. Army. They are a diverse group, arriving from every state in America and representing a variety of backgrounds. They bring with them a character shaped by several years of schooling, family life, and cultural influences. Most young people who enter West Point have demonstrated many positive character traits and have a desire to serve the Nation. Most do not yet have the strength of character sufficient for the moral obligations and demands of officership in the U.S. Army. West Point’s mission is to transform these cadets into leaders of character who are prepared for a lifetime of service as a commissioned officer. Most colleges strive to strengthen the character of their students. West Point is no different except that West Point must develop a particular type of character that embraces the Army Ethic and internalizes an officer identity that swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Their character upon graduation must equip them with the trustworthiness to operate within a moral space with enormous authority and responsibility. When commissioning a West Point graduate to serve as an officer, the President of the United States extends “special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abilities” of the new graduate because of the power extended by the commission (Title 5, 1966). The cadet accepts this commission with a public oath swearing that they freely accept the responsibilities of the role and will “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. This transaction between the President and the officer requires a level of trust that can only be met with exceptional character, competence, and commitment. Congress also expects officers to demonstrate strong character as shown in legislation that requires all commanding officers and others in authority to “show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination” (Title 10, 2018). This expectation for character extends beyond individual conduct by establishing an expectation that officers will enforce standards, guard 592

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-36

Building Trusted Army Professionals

against malfeasance, and care for all soldiers. Only a person of strong character can meet these high expectations established by the U.S. Constitution and legislation. In addition to these external requirements for trustworthiness, there are equally important internal requirements for officers to demonstrate good character. First, the consequences of dishonesty and weak character are severe – the loss of human life. Secretary of War Newton D. Baker highlighted the moral and functional imperatives of strong character in 1920 when he stated: Men may be inexact or even untruthful, in ordinary matters, and suffer as a consequence only the disesteem of their associates, or even the inconveniences of unfavorable litigation, but the inexact or untruthful soldier trifles with the lives of his fellow-men, and the honor of his government; and it is, therefore, no matter of idle pride but rather of stern disciplinary necessity that makes West Point require of her students a character of trustworthiness which know no evasions. In the final analysis of the West Point product, character is the most precious component. (Betros, 2012, p. 266) Baker’s statement clearly identifies the importance of good character within an Army organization – poor character risks the loss of lives. The consequences are simply too high to tolerate weak character. In addition, the nature of military service affords officers authority over their subordinates unlike any other job or profession. Backed by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), officers can issue orders that subordinates must obey, or risk being prosecuted. These orders can range from the mundane execution of ordinary tasks to the unenviable order that could lead to death in combat. While no effective leader relies solely on the requirement to obey, the opportunity to abuse this power is obvious. Good character is a guardrail to prevent abuse of such power. Moreover, officers have the authority to grant rewards, assign duties, evaluate performance, recommend promotion, enforce punishments, and provide for the general welfare of their subordinates. Weak character can result in officers who show favoritism for or discriminate against their soldiers who often have little recourse against the injustice imposed by an officer. If a team is to be cohesive, the officer must be trustworthy or there will be seeds of doubt and mistrust throughout the organization. The end result will most likely be an ineffective team that will fail to accomplish their mission. In contrast, a leader who demonstrates strong character is more likely to cultivate the group’s social and task cohesion that enables mission accomplishment in trying circumstances. West Point’s challenge is to ensure that each graduate, no matter what their character was upon arrival, is a commissioned leader of character who can build this necessary internal and external trust. West Point’s current approach to character development has changed significantly over the years. Early approaches of character development were based on a paternalistic, attrition model that focused on ensuring each graduating cadet possessed “personal discipline and moral rectitude” (Betros, 2012, p. 298). Historically, West Point assumed a cadet’s character was fully formed before matriculation. If weak character was exposed by West Point’s rigor, the person either left the Academy by their own volition or they were “silenced” (ostracized) by their peers. In 1954, West Point’s Superintendent, Major General Frederick Irving, provided a clear reminder to the incoming freshmen class by writing, “Remember that this is a test; a test to weed out the weak and strengthen the strong; a test so gauged that only the most determined succeed” (Sorley, 2008, p. 71). Furthermore, there was no belief that character could be strengthened after an ethical failure. “The traditions of West Point have held that the Corps is no place for him who is capable of these things (i.e., honor violations), and that the high standards of integrity for which the institution 593

Jeffrey Peterson, Diane M. Ryan, and Elise Murray Dykhuis

is renowned cannot be maintained if toleration for such is shown. A thief, a liar, and a coward cannot be extenuated in the eyes of the Corps, and it is no part of the function of West Point to become a reformatory of morals” (Sorley, 2008, p. 35). Furthermore, the Academy did not think that attempting to reform cadets who failed to meet academic or character standards was worth the effort. “They (academic and character failures) were viewed as a drag on the faculty’s time and their classmates’ development, and Academy leaders felt obligated to separate them as soon as possible” (Betros, 2012, p. 265). The attritional model and fixed mindset were accepted and enforced – West Point was designed to expose weakness and those who did not meet the standard were immediately separated so resources could be focused on the stronger cadets. Although the consequences of character failures were severe, the determinants of honorable behavior were narrower than today’s expectations for strong character and trustworthy leadership. Rooted in a western culture of individualism and military honor, strong character was limited to honesty, courage, and discipline. Officers were expected to be truthful, courageous in war, and dependable in the accomplishment of their responsibilities (Sorley, 2008). In today’s Army, the requirements for honorable living are much broader, expanding to include such virtues as respect for others and humility (Department of the Army, 2019). In short, the punishments for violating the honor code were severe, but the narrow definition of honorable living reduced the likelihood of a recognized character failure. In contrast, today’s expansive definition of honorable living makes it unlikely for any human being to be perfectly honorable in every dimension or context which underscores the importance of seeking continuous growth and improvement. West Point’s approach to leader development no longer assumes that character is fixed and has endeavored to instill a broader expectation for strong character. The West Point Leader Development System (WPLDS) is an integrated approach that provides individual leader development and leadership development in a culture of character growth that seeks to achieve the outcomes that each graduate will live honorably, lead honorably, and demonstrate excellence (United States Military Academy [USMA], 2018). All activities and programs contribute to leadership and character development in addition to other developmental goals. The WPLDS framework and its underlying theory create an opportunity for integrated leadership and character development throughout the 47-month experience in pursuit of the desired outcomes. This chapter explains what type of character West Point intends to develop, a more detailed history and description of the WPLDS components along with the underlying theory and constructs that support character development. In addition, the chapter addresses the challenges of assessing character, provides some examples of successful character development activities, and discusses how West Point’s approach to character development is evolving to meet the ever-changing demands of leadership.

Becoming Trustworthy: Internalizing the Army Ethic Consistent with the requirements of a profession, the Army Ethic establishes the broad expectations for ethical behavior, generating the aspirational expectations and principles for how a commissioned leader of character should behave and lead. Codified in Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22 Army Profession and Leadership, the Army Ethic is inspired by the motto, “This We’ll Defend,” and sets the expectation that each member of the Army Profession will be an honorable servant of the Nation, an expert warfighter, and a steward of the Army Profession (Department of the Army, 2019). These broad ethical principles are further refined in the Leader Requirements Model (LRM) that provides more granularity and narrowed focus on what the Army expects from officers who lead Army organizations (Department of the Army, 2019). 594

Building Trusted Army Professionals

The Army’s conceptualization of character upholds the American tradition of individualism. Doctrine categorizes character as one of three leader attributes which make up the LRM, along with intellect and presence (Department of the Army, 2019). Together these qualities respectively comprise who a leader is, what they think, and how they behave. This idea complements the longstanding Army leader philosophy put forth over three decades ago known as “Be – Know – Do” (Hesselbein & Shinseki, 2004). Character is defined as the values and identity of the leader with a substantial emphasis on integrity (Department of the Army, 2019). Army doctrine asserts that “A leader’s character consists of their true nature guided by their conscience, which affects their moral attitudes and actions” (Department of the Army, 2019, p. 2-1). This definition infers overlap with intellect and presence from the LRM as it not only encompasses the being of a leader, but also the knowing and doing. Hence it may be more useful to overtly conceptualize character as a foundational element that sets the conditions for all other attributes and competencies. Reflecting on a number of high-profile scandals occurring during the Global War on Terror – most notably beginning with Abu Ghraib – former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey hypothesized that the military had placed far too much emphasis on tactical proficiency and not nearly enough on ethics (Shanker, 2013; Snider, 2016). Similarly, years earlier, Operation Desert Storm Commander General Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. reportedly observed “Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. If you have to be without one, be without the strategy” (Kerr, 2016). These comments beg the question: if a leader lacks sufficient good character, does it really matter how technically or tactically competent they are? We contend it does not. As the oldest operating U.S. service academy and the premier leader development institution in the military, West Point bears responsibility for serving as the exemplar for leadership education that correctly prioritizes character while still ensuring the competence required of the profession of arms. It would be an unacceptable omission to discuss character development at West Point without addressing the importance, limitations, and evolution of the Cadet Honor Code. The West Point Cadet Honor Code, “A Cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do,” is carved in granite on display at the Honor Plaza located in the center of the campus. Like the centrality of its physical location, the Cadet Honor Code has historically been the focal point of cadet character. No West Point artifact is more revered by cadets and graduates and compliance with the code has historically been considered the standard for good character. Despite this reverence, the Cadet Honor Code is not a sufficient standard for what it means to live honorably. A full consideration of honorable living must include virtues beyond those listed in the Cadet Honor Code. Previously, if a cadet violated the code the mandate of separation offered no chance for character development. These limitations sometimes led to outcomes that were contrary to West Point’s purpose. As Betros states, A cadet could be insubordinate, disobedient, lazy, vile, malcontent, and inconsiderate and still graduate. His classmate might harbor none of those vices, but, in a momentary lapse of judgment, tell a lie. Under the protocols of the honor system the latter cadet would be expelled, even if he were genuinely remorseful and had a solid record. Moreover, there was a good chance he would leave with a less than honorable discharge. (Betros, 2012, p. 280) The 1976 cheating scandal was the turning point against the single sanction of separation after violating the honor code. Of the 152 cadets dismissed from the Class of 1977, 105 were offered readmission to West Point. Of those cadets offered readmission, 85 of them eventually graduated with the Class of 1978 (Sorley, 2008). 595

Jeffrey Peterson, Diane M. Ryan, and Elise Murray Dykhuis

Modernizing Leader Development For nearly two centuries, West Point’s preferred method of leader development was known as the 4th Class System. As described above, it was an attrition-based model where intense scrutiny by the three upper classes of cadets was focused on the entering plebes, or “the 4th Class,” as they attempted to meet not only the rigor of academic, military and physical standards, but also myriad daily requirements intended to instill discipline all within a tightly controlled and isolated environment. Designed to weed out the weak sooner than later, the 4th Class System only maintained these rigid standards for the first year of cadet life (Betros, 2012). If a plebe survived until the end of the academic year with no infractions or failures, they would be formally “recognized” as a full-fledged member of the Corps of Cadets and expected to participate in scrutinizing and challenging subsequent plebe classes from that point forward. The 4th Class model assumed that the preponderance of leader development occurred through observation and osmosis. A cadet learned what to do by following the example of successful superiors and what not to do from similar poor examples. Everything else a cadet needed to know to be a successful officer was contained in the academic, military, and physical curricular requirements. Satisfactory completion of these requirements presumed a West Point graduate had proven themself to be a leader of character. Rapid changes in U.S. society and the world order in the latter half of the 20th century, such as the transition to the all-volunteer military, the end of the Cold War, and massive technological advancements prompted West Point leadership to imagine a more effective way of preparing leaders for the complex challenges they were increasingly facing. Observations from the field revealed many junior officers ill-equipped to exercise initiative and make timely decisions because they had been trained in an environment so dependent on following rules and waiting to be told what to do. It was no longer sufficient to only teach cadets what to think, but rather to place greater emphasis on how to think in anticipation of the uncertain future that lay ahead (USMA, 2007). This shift gradually gave rise to the official transition from the attritional 4th Class system to a new “Four Class’’ development system. The wording was subtle, but the cultural change was not. The “Four Class System” is grounded in the notion that character and leadership, much like intellect and physical attributes, can be developed through practical application of theoretical frameworks. From this point on, West Point’s resources developed cadets throughout their entire 47-month experience rather than solely focusing on the 4th Class cadets (Betros, 2012). This new model was implemented in 1990 and named the Cadet Leader Development System (CLDS). CLDS established developmental goals for all classes that were sequential and progressive in nature within the established intellectual, military, and physical domains, aligned with the academic, military, and physical programs, respectively. It also evolved to include moral-ethical, social, and human spirit domains which collectively comprised the character program. All staff and faculty regardless of department were expected to play a role in cadet character development and each character domain was staffed by an Academy committee that established and assessed goals. Following the 1976 cheating scandal, West Point also began to acknowledge the limitations of the Cadet Honor Code and the requirement for a more comprehensive definition of honorable living integrated with CLDS. Two major studies from this incident emphasized the need to appeal to a higher standard of honorable living versus simple compliance to the Cadet Honor Code. With the admission of women to the Academy in 1976 and the growing compositional diversity in the Corps of Cadets, West Point integrated the virtue of respect into the character curriculum and established the Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic (SCPME) in 1998 under the 596

Building Trusted Army Professionals

Commandant of Cadets indicating further institutionalization of the developmental model (Betros, 2012). Responsible for much of the formal curriculum for character integration, SCPME also introduced and oversaw rigorous rehabilitation programs for select cadets found in violation of honor or respect codes, as superintendents increasingly exercised discretion when adjudicating the consequences for violations. For example, rather than immediate separation for an honor code violation, nearly half of cadets who violated the Cadet Honor Code in the four decades following the cheating scandal were granted the opportunity to remain at West Point if they successfully completed additional character development requirements to re-establish themselves as a cadet in good standing (Betros, 2012). By emphasizing additional education and training about honorable living and decreasing the number of automatic separations for an honor violation, West Point continues to show a commitment to character development as part of the leader development system. CLDS existed as the prevailing model of leader development for two decades, eventually being rebranded in 2011 as the WPLDS following an internal review that found CLDS to be a “superb mechanism for explaining what we do at the Academy, but it doesn’t drive strategic resourcing, policy, or strategic-level discussion” (USMA, 2011, p. 4). WPLDS was revised with the intention of providing a more comprehensive means of integrating the domains across all aspects of Academy life. A significant update included articulating developmental outcomes that describe overarching expectations of every West Point graduate. The first version of WPLDS contained ten developmental outcomes which have been refined and simplified with each subsequent version. Today the outcomes are Live Honorably, Lead Honorably, and Demonstrate Excellence. As WPLDS policy and processes were being implemented and improved in the early 2010s, the Academy experienced a routine change in leadership as Superintendent Lieutenant General David Huntoon departed and Lieutenant General Robert D. Caslen, who had previously served as Commandant of Cadets five years earlier, assumed the role. Caslen was arriving fresh from a year-long tour of combat duty in Iraq where he commanded the 25th Infantry Division, leading approximately 22,000 soldiers. Among his many responsibilities as senior commander was dealing with misconduct of officers and senior non-commissioned officers, issuing reprimands, and taking other punitive actions. After several months, Caslen became alarmed by the volume of offenses committed by leaders who should know better and the significant toll these transgressions were having on their respective units in terms of performance and morale (Matthews et al., 2020). He had always believed in the importance of character in leadership, but his experience in Iraq solidified his thinking that West Point needed a more strategic approach to character development. He directed creation of the Character Development Strategy in 2014 and subsequent publication of the “Gold Book,” thus recognizing Character as an official Academy program alongside Academic, Military, and Physical programs whose outcomes and graduation requirements are codified in similar documents.1 Hence, the current three WPLDS outcomes of Live Honorably, Lead Honorably, and Demonstrate Excellence are achieved through the integration of these four programs, each of which align their efforts with three interrelated dimensions: individual leader development, leadership development, and culture of character growth.

The West Point Leader Development System The illustration of the WPLDS Model presented in Figure 33.1 highlights the many ways character is developed within this leader development framework. The Character Program provides experiences that are specifically designed for character development. The Academic, Military, and Physical programs all contribute to character development as they pursue their respective program goals. As each Cadet practices following and leading, they develop character through experiential 597

Jeffrey Peterson, Diane M. Ryan, and Elise Murray Dykhuis

Figure 33.1  The West Point Leader Development System (WPLDS).

learning, feedback, and social-emotional skill development. Finally, character is enhanced by a culture of character growth consisting of role models and positive social norms. Character integration requires that each of these four elements work in a coherent manner, providing the knowledge, agency, skills, and reflection necessary to develop strong character. Each component of WPLDS develops some aspect of character, but none develops every aspect of character. WPLDS only achieves the desired character outcomes when its activities are integrated into a coherent, deliberate, progressive, and holistic character education sequence that incorporates best practices and theoretical models in character education and prevention programs (see Witherington & McCready, this Handbook). Because no single component of the WPLDS model is solely responsible for character development, senior leaders are responsible for ensuring that each activity in their program or directorate provides some element of character development in a manner that contributes to the overall desired outcomes. This degree of integration requires shared understanding across the enterprise, decentralized execution under a commonly understood framework, and accountability throughout the organization. Equally important, integration must also occur within the minds of individual cadets who uniquely benefit from their varied experiences. Done effectively, character integration ensures adherence to best practices in character education by addressing all the components of moral action and character formation. Doing so increases the probability of effectively developing leaders of character. However, this development requires significant leader attention and oversight to sustain this degree of integration across a complex organization and the character development efforts can sometimes fall short.

Resourcing Integration: The Character Integration Advisory Group The Character Integration Advisory Group (CIAG), formally established in August 2021, supports West Point’s mission to develop leaders of character by advising senior leaders on issues related to character development, enabling the integration of character development, and conducting research on the efficacy of character development activities. The CIAG consists of ten faculty members who represent a variety of academic disciplines and work directly for the Superintendent, elevating the importance of character integration to the institutional level. The CIAG was formed in response to the persistent presence of trust-breaking behaviors such as unwanted sexual contact, sexual harassment, racial bias, honor violations, and other dishonorable acts. West Point is not unlike other colleges and universities that struggle with these same types of misdeeds, but the public expectations for cadets are higher and their future leadership 598

Building Trusted Army Professionals

responsibilities emphasize why prevention must be addressed in a more effective and cohesive manner. In addition, not unlike their college-aged peers, cadets struggle with issues related to holistic wellness and social-emotional skills, such as effective interpersonal communication and conflict resolution. Rather than continue with multiple independent prevention programs that could sometimes appear disjointed and redundant, the CIAG was formed to devote full-time effort toward identifying more effective ways of addressing the underlying causes of underdeveloped character, insufficient resiliency, and inadequate interpersonal skills. Specifically, the CIAG was charged with determining how to effectively integrate all character development activities into a holistic and progressive character development experience that simultaneously addressed the root causes of trust breaking behaviors and prepared cadets to build cohesive teams upon graduation. The CIAG faculty are aligned with West Point’s developmental programs where they gain better situational awareness and understanding of how each program contributes to character development. They are also involved in Academy governance so they understand the policies and processes that can directly or indirectly impact character development. Finally, significant effort is allocated to assessment, which presents several challenges. Character assessment at the individual level is itself a developing science and assessing the causal impact of individual character development activities is challenging for myriad reasons (Kristjansson, 2015; Arthur et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2021; see also Lerner & Matthews, this Handbook). The CIAG is charged with developing a portfolio of individual assessments used to measure cadet character growth and ensure our graduates are ready to serve the Nation as leaders of character.

Creating Shared Understanding: West Point’s Character Education Framework For the first time since its founding, West Point has clearly articulated a comprehensive foundation for character development efforts. Drawing deeply from theoretical and scientific literature, the West Point Character Education Framework integrates neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics, psychology, and adult development (see also Heckman et al., this Handbook). First, this section presents a more complete definition of character and what West Point character development efforts are attempting to achieve. Second, the section provides several ways to develop individual cadet character based on the more complete description of character. Finally, the section concludes with some thoughts about expectations for cadet character growth and assessment. The term “character” derives from the ancient Greek work kharakter, meaning to engrave or make a mark (Watts et al., 2021). Over time, the concept of character evolved to refer to a “mark” or “qualities” of a person. Today character refers to “a set of personal traits or dispositions that produce specific moral emotions, inform motivation and guide conduct” (e.g., Berkowitz, 2012; Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, 2017; Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues and Oxford Character Project, 2020; Watts et al., 2021; see also Berkowitz & Bier, this Handbook, Volume II, Chapter 14; Nucci, this Handbook). These character traits or qualities are called virtues which are malleable and educable throughout a person’s life (see Heckman et al., this Handbook). Character, as we define it, is virtue in action. Developing personal virtues helps individuals to act the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons. The ability to determine the appropriate action is sometimes called practical wisdom or phronesis (see Berkowitz, 2012; see also Peterson & Kristjánsson, this Handbook), and it is an executive functioning system that helps a person determine the best choice when virtues conflict in morally complex situations. Acting virtuously is seldom black and white and requires a commitment to lifelong development of practical wisdom. 599

Jeffrey Peterson, Diane M. Ryan, and Elise Murray Dykhuis

This framework pertains to four domains of virtue to guide curriculum, discussions, and other activities designed to develop virtue and, by extension, character. The four domains are moral, intellectual, civic, and performance.

• Moral: “moral virtues can be thought of as the character strengths of a good neighbor… [and]

includes qualities like generosity, charity, and compassion” (Baehr, 2017; see also Nucci, this Handbook; Peterson & Kristjánsson, this Handbook). • Intellectual: Intellectual virtues are defined as “the personal qualities or characteristics of a lifelong learner” (Baehr, 2017, p. 3; see also Kotzee & Baehr, this Handbook). Intellectual character, according to Baehr (2017), requires a love of epistemic goods, from which individual virtues sprout. Therefore, “lifelong learners presumably are not merely those who love learning and knowledge; they are also skilled and intelligent in their pursuit of these ends” (Baehr, 2017, p. 4). • Civic: “civic virtues arise from a concern with certain distinctively civic goods or ends, such as the well-being of one’s community or society. The civically virtuous person respects other people’s property and participates in civic affairs because she cares about—and cares about at least partly for its own sake—the overall well-being of her community” (Baehr, 2017, p. 4); and • Performance: Performance character pertains to “the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dispositions needed to achieve human excellence in performance environments—in school, extracurricular activities, and work” (Davidson, 2004, p. 6). Several theories endorse this view, including centers that disseminate character materials to practitioners, such as the Jubilee Centre (Arthur et al., 2016; see also Arthur, this Handbook), as well as philosophers and virtue ethicists (e.g., Baehr, 2017; Kotzee & Baehr, this Handbook; Peterson & Kristjánsson, this Handbook; Snow, this Handbook, Volume II, Chapter 4). Although there are varied character categories distinguished in the virtues and character literature (e.g., 3 or 6), this four-category model is best suited to highlight the domains particularly important in the USMA context. For example, in three domain models, moral and civic characters are collapsed (e.g., Baehr, 2017; Seider, 2012). But in the case of USMA, civic virtues are worth considering as their own domain because there is a core civic component to the Army Profession as well as the particular importance of working effectively as a team at USMA. Below are virtues that fall in these domains that are most relevant for West Point’s development of a military officer:

• • • •

Moral: honest, respect, integrity, gratitude, humility, compassion, courage Intellectual: curiosity, critical thinking, creativity Civic: empathy, selflessness, loyalty, duty, justice, patriotism Performance: grit, resilience, self-control, discipline

Some virtues build the capacity for other virtues, much like primary colors are needed to create other colors. We consider self-control, empathy, and humility to be foundational to cultivating the full range of virtues. By focusing on these virtues early, cadets are prepared and motivated to cultivate additional virtues or may have already developed them as a byproduct of cultivating the foundational virtues. This framework uses a virtue ethics approach to character, which highlights the importance of practice and habit to cultivate character throughout a lifetime. Virtue ethics recognizes moral complexity that requires a right amount of virtue that is called for in a specific situation. The balance between excess virtue and vice is called the Golden Mean and derives from Aristotle’s 600

Building Trusted Army Professionals

conceptualization of virtues – especially when virtues are in conflict for a particular situation. To habituate true virtues, with the right intention and in the right balance, each virtue requires an ability to not only act in a way that demonstrates the virtues, but also to think and feel in ways that promote virtuous behavior. For an action to be properly virtuous, it must be exhibited “at the right times, about the right things, towards the right people, for the right end, and in the right way” (Aristotle, 1985, p. 44 [1106b29–35]). Compliance out of fear, as was the norm for decades at West Point, is not virtuous behavior. USMA looks to cultivate the following components of virtues so that cadets develop the ability to act virtuously for the right reasons (Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, 2017). These seven components act in concert resulting in a virtuous act. When a cadet fails to act virtuously, they are lacking in one of more of these components. For example, a cadet who is not aware of a situation requiring a virtuous action lacks perception. Even if a cadet exhibits the first six components, they may lack the skill or confidence to practice virtue. The components provide a framework for designing curriculum or character development experiences that build a person’s capacity for virtuous conduct.

• Virtue Perception: cultivating the ability to notice when a situation might require a virtuous response;

• Virtue Knowledge and Understanding: explicit and implicit knowledge about the virtues, how they are defined, and how they are cultivated;

• Virtue Emotion: emotions that are appropriately oriented toward a virtuous response; • Virtue Identity: an identity that is undergirded by and integrated with internalizing the importance of being a virtuous person and/or professional;

• Virtue Motivation: a motivation to react in a virtuous way. This is in part integrated with a virtue identity;

• Virtue Reasoning: the ability to reason through and generate sound judgment about why and how one should react to a situation that might require a virtuous response; and

• Virtue Action and Practice: the ability to behave in a way that aligns with the virtuous re-

sponse required in a situation (Annas, 2011, p. 12; Arthur, 2020; Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, 2017; Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues and Oxford Character Project, 2020; Lamb et al., 2021; Watts et al., 2021; see also Arthur, this Handbook; Brooks et al., this Handbook; Lamb & Townsend, this Handbook).

Although the number of components is debated in the larger character literature (e.g., Narvaez & Rest, 1995 argue for a four-component model consisting of moral sensitivity, moral reasoning, moral motivation, and moral action/synthesis), there is consensus that to habituate virtues, one must consistently practice virtuous thoughts, virtuous feelings, and virtuous actions (Lamb et al., 2021). These seven components also help move character development beyond moral reasoning, which is the most common approach to character development but does not adequately address the underlying development that motivates moral action (Hannah & Sweeney, 2007; Sweeney et al., 2015; see also Sweeney, this Handbook).

Practical Wisdom Although virtues fall into separate domains, they work in tandem to determine the appropriate virtuous act for a specific situation. An individual must be able to discern which virtues are necessary, to what extent, and which virtues might be more of a priority over others in reacting to a 601

Jeffrey Peterson, Diane M. Ryan, and Elise Murray Dykhuis

situation. As such, a vital component of the habituation of character is cultivating the Aristotelian concept of phronesis or practical wisdom. Practical wisdom is an intellectual meta-virtue that binds together and integrates the intellectual, civic, moral, and performance virtues (Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, 2017; Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues and Oxford Character Project, 2020). Practical wisdom is the overall quality of knowing what to do and what not to do when the demands of two or more virtues collide, and to integrate such demands into an acceptable course of action (Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, 2017). Thinking, feeling, and acting virtuously are the results of practical wisdom. West Point, therefore, not only attempts to cultivate the individual virtues, but also cultivates the ability to organize the virtues based on the demands of a particular situation. This practical wisdom is developed by presenting gray situations that require complex virtuous responses. This virtue is especially relevant for future officers who must continuously make “practically wise” decisions under conditions of stress, facing the potential for harsh or life-threatening consequences, and almost always with insufficient information. In terms provided by Army leadership doctrine, leaders must exercise judgment. As members of the Army Profession, officers are routinely expected to exercise practical wisdom and judgment with limited information and often under duress. Developing phronesis in the officer corps is critical for them to properly fulfill the moral requirements of their office. With character more fully defined, the following section provides evidence-based practices that help develop virtues across the four domains. As noted earlier, developing character is a lifelong endeavor, which assumes that character is malleable; that it can (and must) be different and similar for each individual – including the necessary inputs to promote character development for a particular individual (Lerner & Callina, 2015); and that character-related goals must be adjusted over the life span.

The Environment: Culture, Curriculum, and Inspiration Generally, USMA subscribes to the idea that character is caught, taught, and sought (Arthur et al., 2016). Character caught indicates that character is learned through socialization and through watching the actions of those around us. Role models and exemplars play a large part in this system of catching character, which means that each person in a context of character must be committed to displaying the character that is endorsed and held up as an example of excellence (Lamb et al., 2021). Moral exemplars have shown in many studies to impact the moral behavior in young people as well as adults, providing evidence that character indeed is caught, especially when those exemplars are relatable and seen as doing work that is attainable by the individual watching their behavior (Han et al., 2017; Mendonca et al., this Handbook). Character taught assumes that we can learn about character, through both formal classroom settings as well as informal settings. For example, out of a list of seven strategies for character development, Lamb et al. (2021) mention the benefits of dialogue for increasing virtue literacy. Courses that focus on developing one or more of the seven components of virtues, or on the content of specific virtues and character, are useful for promoting character development. In their review of college student development literature, Mayhew and colleagues (2016) note that courses with morally implicit and explicit material significantly impact, for instance, virtue reasoning when compared to those not in such courses. Character sought is a reminder that people actively develop their own character (Lerner & Callina, 2015). USMA provides tools and opportunities for cadets to cultivate their character as they seek out ways to personally demonstrate virtuous excellence. However, if cadets do not pursue those opportunities with the motivation to improve themselves, then culture and teaching will 602

Building Trusted Army Professionals

not have the desired effect. The following capabilities and methods to cultivate virtues fall under one of these components of catching, teaching, or seeking character.

Develop a Growth Mindset and a Sense of Self-Efficacy To effectively pursue their own character development, a cadet needs to believe that character is something subject to change. In other words, they must possess what Dweck (2006) termed growth mindset, and if given the tools, they would be able to change, indicating a sense of selfefficacy. Research has shown that higher levels of growth mindset, both broadly and specifically related to character, are linked to higher self-reported character (Porter & Schumann, 2018) as well as to greater engagement in character-related behavior (Han et al., 2018). Once a growth mindset has been instilled, a cadet is then able to acknowledge the strengths and struggles ubiquitous to the human condition, and recognize opportunities for improvement.

Develop Motivation Once a cadet believes that their character can change and that they personally have the ability to change it, the motivation to develop character needs to be cultivated. Motivation to change something about oneself has been associated with actualized change for other aspects of one’s personality (Hudson & Fraley, 2016), and in theory should extend to character. Althof and Berkowitz (2013) assert that character education can assist in developing motivation to change one’s character (see also Berkowitz & Bier, this Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 5). Finding ways to integrate character with critical aspects of one’s personal and professional identity provides a strong sense of motivation to then develop character, as it helps to affirm identity and thus, purpose (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Nucci, 2017; see also Nucci, this Handbook).

Well-Being Holistic well-being is also an enabler for successful character development. Individuals who feel safe can be vulnerable, acknowledge their weaknesses and pinpoint where their development can occur. In addition, creating an environment of trust and vulnerability also sets the expectation of communal support and accountability. Previous research identified a positive correlation between positive well-being and self-reported character, suggesting that indicators of poor well-being are associated with self-reported lower character (e.g., Dvorsky et al., 2019). Once physical and psychological safety are established, four components of mindfulness: awareness, connection, insight, and purpose can be exercised to promote holistic well-being (Dahl & Davidson, 2019). By cultivating these individual abilities, cadets can become attuned to their needs in a particular moment and identify growth areas. Thus, a successful character education program should also incorporate aspects of developing holistic wellness. This focus is particularly critical in the high-stress environment that most cadets experience at the Academy, and will likely subsequently face in the Army.

Mechanisms and Specific Tools to Cultivate Character Growth Once mindset, motivation, and well-being have been cultivated, a cadet is best positioned to practice the various tools that promote character development. If embedded in a context of character where character is promoted, valued, and facilitated, individuals have the greatest likelihood to 603

Jeffrey Peterson, Diane M. Ryan, and Elise Murray Dykhuis

habituate character holistically. Such tools can be identified in various character education resources (e.g., Berkowitz & Bier, 2005; see also Berkowitz & Bier, this Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 5), but the following are specific strategies to cultivate character for college populations. Along with the aforementioned tactic of engagement with exemplars, the following six tools comprise the Seven Strategies for Character Development (Lamb et al., 2021):

• Reflection on Personal Experience: Taking the time to consider thoughts, feelings, and be-

• •

• •

•

haviors, and consider ways to sustain and improve in the future, as well as derive meaning from those thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Examples: journaling, structured discussions, meditation, “three good things.” Cultivating an Awareness of Situational Variables: Making individuals aware of the heuristics/biases/blinders that make it difficult to notice when virtues are required. Highlighting the agency we have in “selecting our situations.” Dialogue that Increases Virtue Literacy: Discussions that connect individuals to the aspects of virtues and character, both the content as well as the process. Examples: Conversations about the importance of character, discussions of ethical dilemmas, conversations about how to develop character. Moral Reminders: Reduce barriers to habituation by normalizing the new virtuous thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Examples: regular events with a consistent community, nudges. Habituation through Practice: Matching intention with thoughts, feelings, and actions that are virtuous and practicing those connections, in addition to practicing the nuances of virtuous thoughts, feelings, and actions. Examples: Goal-setting and automatizing reactions to certain situations. Relationships of Mutual Accountability: Creating a culture and social expectation that each person upholds the values of the institution and looks out for all others in that institution; having strong shared values and sense of community make it very easy to create a culture of mutual accountability and responsibility.

Establishing a growth mindset, creating motivation, enhancing wellness, and integrating these seven tools into developmental programs enhance the possibility for character growth. These are not limited to those activities solely focused on character, they can be integrated into other activities in the military, physical, and academic programs. Together, the components of the framework create the environment where character is caught, taught, and sought.

Expectations and Assessment Whereas this character education framework provides a theoretically sound basis for developing character, West Point is realistic about character development outcomes and cadet behavior. Cadets are young adults who will make mistakes as they develop into commissioned leaders of character. However, these mistakes can also be the source of tremendous growth, resulting in stronger character. West Point’s goal is not to ensure these young people act perfectly while they are cadets, but to develop them into leaders of character upon commissioning who are prepared to continue growing their character and their leadership ability across the life span. These realities make it difficult to assess character. For example, lapses in judgment can be considered evidence that character development programs are ineffective, or they can be viewed as opportunities for character rehabilitation and growth that often follows setbacks. In West Point’s earlier days, such lapses would result in separation. In the current leader development system, 604

Building Trusted Army Professionals

these failures are more often viewed as developmental opportunities in spite of external pressure to simply separate cadets who fall short of expectations. However, West Point does not yet have sufficient evidence to support a definitive conclusion that the developmental model achieves the desired outcome of strong character as an officer. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of cadets who completed character rehabilitation programs and served honorably, but we have not yet validated that a specific character intervention was the cause of that honorable service. In a resource constrained environment, any additional activity is scrutinized for effective outcomes that justify the marginal investment in cadet and faculty time. Without a clear, measurable effect there is often resistance to add character development activities. Although the desire for evidence is reasonable, this view is problematic for character development efforts. Character development and assessment is an emerging science that does not always provide clean answers for the effectiveness of specific programs on the individual character growth trajectory. West Point is pursuing several means of assessing character outcomes at the individual level and determining which activities are the cause of character growth. But these are difficult endeavors. West Point is currently experimenting with two promising initiatives to (1) provide feedback to cadets, and (2) assess character throughout their West Point experience. The first initiative is a peer rating application that allows cadets to conduct pairwise rankings of their teammates on various aspects of character. Conducted shortly after crucible training events during summer training, cadets use their smartphones to select between two of their teammates on a particular virtue such as honesty, courage, or respect. They are also required to provide comments about their peers’ demonstrated behavior related to the virtue in question. Once completed by all members of the 9-person squad, each cadet receives a summary report that provides an overall ranking relative to their peers and a compilation of comments about their behaviors related to honorable living. These ratings are not used for grades and all feedback is anonymous. The information is provided to each cadet for the sole purpose of development. Collecting character-related data in this manner for the past two summers appears to facilitate development. However, these data do not necessarily explain why cadets behave in specific ways or what programs influenced the character they demonstrated during the field training exercise. The cadets have provided largely positive reviews of the system and faculty have found the information useful for counseling. Perhaps the strongest signal of effectiveness is that various groups of cadets and instructors have requested using this program in other classroom and academic year activities – a clear demand signal that indicates some utility for character development. With additional work, there may be opportunities to connect each cadet’s feedback with their performance file to identify possible trends related to character outcomes. Of course, this information is highly sensitive and requires strict adherence to program evaluation protocols. A second encouraging initiative is the West Point Character Survey. This survey is taken by the entire Corps of Cadets at the beginning and end of every academic year and is tracked at the individual level. The survey is a combination of self-assessment and peer assessment along several dimensions of character. For example, cadets are asked to rate themselves and their peers on virtues such as honesty, respect, empathy, and self-control. Other questions explore cadets’ willingness to intervene when they see a dishonorable act. This survey allows USMA to identify character growth trends over time at the population, class cohort, and individual level. Additionally, this instrument enables assessment of various character development pilot activities by comparing the outcomes of the population to the outcomes of the cadets who participated in the character development activity. Admittedly, the structure is still a work in process and has only been in place for just a few years. However, this survey marks a significant step in the right direction for character assessment. 605

Jeffrey Peterson, Diane M. Ryan, and Elise Murray Dykhuis

Innovating Character Developments Although developing, piloting, and implementing effective character development interventions to scale can be difficult, West Point has established several activities, curricular and cocurricular, that are well received by cadets and show positive impact on character outcomes after several years of assessment. The most successful curricular effort is a required senior cadet capstone course called MX400: Officership. The course integrates experiences from all four developmental programs (character, military, academic, physical) to ensure cadets understand their forthcoming role and responsibility as a commissioned officer. Utilizing small group discussions, book-long case studies, and interactive decision-making exercises, the seminar style course is designed to stretch cadets’ moral decision-making abilities and moral leadership skills. Course assessments show that among other positive outcomes, “MX400 is successful in helping build confidence in our graduates’ professional knowledge, shaping their professional identity, and inspiring them to embrace their roles as commissioned leaders of character” (Arbogast, 2022, p. 39). Two co-curricular events are Leader Challenges and the Inspiration to Serve Cemetery Tour. During Leader Challenges, the juniors and seniors have small group discussions facilitated by staff and faculty about moral dilemmas faced by recent graduates who individually present their respective situation via video recorded interviews. The scenarios are presented using the Case Study method so the small groups have a chance to discuss what they would do at each decision point using the limited information available. Eventually, the final outcome is revealed, and groups compare their own moral decision making to that of the officer in the scenario. These events happen twice a semester and are embraced by the cadets and the faculty who facilitate the discussions. The Inspiration to Serve Cemetery Tour is for sophomores at the end of their fourth semester and on the brink of fully committing (affirmation) to the Army Profession when they start classes as a junior.2 The cadets visit the gravesites of deceased graduates, many who were killed in combat action. When possible, a family member or classmate of the fallen will share inspiring stories about the individual buried there. After visiting several graves, the company tactical officer leads a small-group discussion to evoke reflection on the selfless service and the commitment necessary to serve in the Army Profession. Assessment shows that cadets leave this event more inspired about serving and have a better understanding of the professional demands and sacrifices expected of them before they affirm (Kilner, 2022). Finally, as mentioned earlier, West Point now has a rehabilitation process for specific character lapses related to honor, respect and more recently, conduct violations. A cadet who is found guilty of a serious infraction and not separated from the Academy, is automatically enrolled in the Special Leader Development Program for honor, respect, or misconduct (SLDP-H/R/M). This sixmonth program requires the cadet to make weekly reflective journal entries, conduct a personal assessment of their overall character and commitment to Army Values, write a book review on a topic related to character, and complete a community service project. The cadet is supervised by a West Point faculty member who serves as a developmental coach for one-on-one discussions and personal feedback on the required assignments. These assignments are subsequently reviewed by designated peers, supervisors, and Academy leadership for completeness, quality, and authenticity and failure to successfully complete the process results in separation from West Point. All of these aforementioned programs are successful because they are resourced adequately with time and faculty; they are high-quality, relevant events with direct Army Officer application; and the programs receive the proper institutional emphasis with mandatory attendance, completion requirements and, in the case of MX400, a grade that counts for academic and military standing. 606

Building Trusted Army Professionals

Using the Character Education Framework as the underlying theory for design and implementation, West Point is also piloting new initiatives that incorporate the key elements of an effective intervention discussed earlier (Lamb et al., 2021). With the intent of establishing clear expectations and equipping cadets early for character self-development, both pilot programs are designed for freshmen cadets with the intent to scale to the entire class of about 1400 cadets. One program provides structure for small group discussions integrated with the first summer training, and the other provides a weekly discussionbased seminar that allows cadets to wrestle with issues related to honorable living. The first pilot program is referred to as Squad60 (SQD60). The design enables every squad leader (a cadet with two years of experience) to conduct daily small group discussions with their squad (nine incoming first-year cadets) on topics related to character, professionalism, teamwork, and resilience. The leaders meet with their squads for 60 minutes after each weekday evening meal and discuss how well they applied various virtues during that day’s training, how respectfully they interacted with one another, and how they might do better in the future. The squad leader is equipped with a facilitator guide and participates in a leader training program to learn and practice techniques for facilitating small group discussions. Each incoming cadet is issued a journal that allows them to record written daily reflections on their experience including how they can improve their own character in response to specific situations. This program has been in place for three summers with incremental improvements introduced after each iteration in response to measures of performance and cadet feedback. To date, evaluation has focused on the content of the program and delivery process. Future assessment plans for SQD60 will include measures of effectiveness to determine if the intervention has its desired impact on character and leader development for both incoming cadets and the squad leaders who facilitate the program. The second pilot intervention is the Character Growth Seminar which is similar to many FirstYear Experience seminars at civilian colleges. As with SQD60, the basic structure incorporates small group discussions on topics related to the Army Profession, virtues, social-emotional learning skills, and motivation for character growth. This seminar differs from SQD60 because the discussions are facilitated by faculty (vs. cadet cadre) and the meetings occur weekly over the entire academic year. The pilot faces considerable constraints such as not being able to assign work outside of the allotted discussion time, and there is no grade associated with the seminar. These limitations mean that facilitators face a unique challenge to keep cadets, who are often overwhelmed with other requirements, engaged and interested by making the discussions relevant and rewarding. Initial assessments show some promise for the seminar, but also identify some serious challenges. On the positive side, cadets who take the seminar have better knowledge of the purpose and administration of the Cadet Honor Code. Cadets are also more engaged when the seminar is facilitated by faculty with relevant military experience because it feels like a worthwhile use of time, even if they are not receiving academic credit. Another advantage of this seminar is that it includes many topics related to prevention of harmful behaviors such as sexual harassment, sexual assault, and suicide ideation. The Army requires prevention training on these topics and the seminar provides a systemic and efficient way to integrate these requirements into the cadet routine. There are still several challenges in assessing the seminar’s effectiveness for character development. Although it allows cadets to wrestle with character-related issues and to practice character building skills, USMA has yet to identify a causal relationship between this seminar and desired character outcomes. Some cadets are resentful of the pilot as an additional requirement for them that not all their classmates have. This sense of unfairness evokes cynicism and most likely decreases the positive impact on their character development. However, these concerns will be addressed if the pilot continues and this seminar becomes required of all first-year cadets, most likely providing a grade or transcript credit of some sort. 607

Jeffrey Peterson, Diane M. Ryan, and Elise Murray Dykhuis

Based on continued assessments, these programs will be refined, redirected, or discontinued. West Point will continue to experiment with character development interventions in search of ways to prepare cadets more effectively and efficiently for the moral leadership challenges they will face as commissioned officers. Whatever the final outcome for these specific activities, each one provides an opportunity to learn about what is most effective for character development and provides critical information about how to proceed with more effective ideas. With the CIAG in place and a character education framework established, West Point is building the capacity for continued innovation in search of the best methods of character development.

Ongoing Challenges Character assessment remains the biggest challenge for character development programs. The challenge is multidimensional. There is much to learn about how to develop virtue, about what interventions are effective at developing virtue, and about what instruments best capture the information needed to find causal relationships between the intervention and desired outcomes. The obstacles to effective character assessment are numerous and substantial and include finding valid and reliable instruments (see Lerner & Matthews, this Handbook), understanding the path of character growth, controlling for the multiple variables that affect adult development, and the many biases associated with data collection (Arthur et al., 2017; Kristjansson, 2015; Wright et al., 2021). West Point faces other challenges in our operating environment. The Army is notoriously impatient with assessing the impact of any program that requires additional resources. Unfortunately, character development is not a speedy or linear process and assessing character development programs takes time. Furthermore, even if we were able to quickly assess a person’s current character and the impact of a character development intervention on that person’s character, there is no guarantee that the current assessment will predict future behavior. Last, Army culture is not conducive to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). If a program has potential, most Army leaders will direct it to be applied to the entire population in the interest of expediency. Often the leaders who decide what innovations to implement have transferred to new assignments by the time the analysis of the intervention is complete. Thus, they have little incentive to support an RCT that benefits fewer individuals initially and requires time and patience to realize the intervention’s full impact. This regular personnel turnover also significantly hinders longitudinal studies at the Academy and in the Army because new leaders have a penchant for introducing new initiatives based on their own experiences or the most pressing conduct issue of the moment. Hence, the variability in the “treatment” makes it very difficult to assess impact over time. West Point needs to consider how societal trends will impact the character of future incoming students, so we are prepared to meet them where they are as they begin their journey toward a commission. This need is not a condemnation of current or future generations of young people attending West Point. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that culture and individual experiences shape a person’s character before they become a cadet. Anticipating the nature of these changes can help us better design character development interventions. There are several current influences that West Point should consider. For example, the impact of smartphones and social media has weakened interpersonal communication which is an essential task for an Army officer (Twenge, 2017). Parenting styles that tend to protect children from adversity are leading to less resilience and autonomy (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). Cheating has become more common, perhaps even expected among high school students striving to gain admission to top schools in a high stakes competition (McCabe et al., 2012). The definition of honor is expanding beyond traditional precedent and now includes behaviors that 608

Building Trusted Army Professionals

build cohesion on diverse teams. Unfortunately, the emergence of hostile social discourse normalizes disrespectful language more likely to undermine cohesion than to build cohesive teams (Whitt & Perazzo, 2018). Finally, the emergence of moral relativism and moral freedom increases resistance to an agreed upon collective ethic that provides guidelines for acceptable behavior. Increasingly, individuals are adhering to their own version of ethical behavior and are skeptical of externally established moral norms such as the Army Ethic (Wolfe, 2001). These examples provide a brief synopsis of how some societal trends can present changing requirements and challenges that West Point must consider if it is able to develop and inspire cadets to internalize honorable living and be willing to live by the Army Ethic. West Point also must prepare graduates for the moral-ethical leadership challenges they will face after graduation. The same societal trends that impact cadets impact the future soldiers that graduates will lead. It is not enough to develop their own character; they must also learn how to strengthen another person’s character while leading diverse teams. Recruiting challenges could lead to shortfalls in the NCO corps that will place additional demands on future officers. Increasing mission requirements coupled with reduced resources creates an environment conducive to ethical fading and moral disengagement (Wong & Gerras, 2015). There are also cultural norms in the Army that hamper character development. There is a persistent belief that time spent on building character competes with readiness – a higher priority in the minds of many (Brooks, 2023; Myers, 2023). Rather than viewing character development and combat training as mutually reinforcing, they are often viewed as competing for limited time. An assumption of Army culture is a default to competence because it is perceived as more urgent and easiest to measure.

Conclusions Just as individual character development is a lifelong effort, character development efforts at West Point will continue to evolve over time. West Point cadets will always be shaped by societal norms, and graduates will continually face mission complexity and high expectations for ethical conduct. Requirements for improved character assessment efforts will always be a challenging part of ensuring West Point does, in fact, sufficiently develop each graduate’s character. West Point’s history demonstrates a growing emphasis on the need for exceptional character in the Army Profession. The frameworks for leader and character development are incorporating best practices, academic theory, and professional requirements. This evolution will continue as experts in character development research continue to discover new and better methods for developing virtue. West Point’s obligation is to be part of this intellectual effort and then to incorporate best practices in character development. This action is the only way that West Point can effectively pursue its mission to develop commissioned leaders of character who serve as trusted Army Professionals in service to the nation.

Notes 1 The longstanding Red, Green, and White books correspond with the Academic, Military, and Physical programs, respectively. 2 Before starting their junior year, each cadet “affirms” their decision to continue as a West Point Cadet. This affirmation commits them to the Army Profession for at least the next 10 years of their professional careers. Once a cadet affirms, they become obligated to the Army. If they fail to graduate, in most cases they will be required to reimburse the U.S. government for the cost of their education or serve time as an enlisted soldier for enough time to pay back the obligation.

609

Jeffrey Peterson, Diane M. Ryan, and Elise Murray Dykhuis

References Althof, W., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2013). Character and civic education as a source of moral motivation. In Handbook of moral motivation (pp. 567–583). Brill. Annas, J. (2011). Intelligent virtue. Oxford University Press. Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(6), 1423. Arbogast, M. S. (2022). Building sentinels of trust: MX400, the superintendent’s capstone course on officership. West Point Magazine, Winter 2022, 38–41. Aristotle. (1985). Nicomachean ethics, trans. Irwin, T. Hackett Publishing. Arthur, J., Kristjansson, K., Harrison, T., Sanderse, W., & Wright, D. (2017). Teaching character and virtue in schools. Routledge. Arthur, J. (2020). The formation of character in education: From Aristotle to the 21st century. Routledge. Arthur, J., Kristjánsson, K., Harrison, T., Sanderse, W., & Wright, D. (2016). Teaching character and virtue in schools. Routledge. Baehr, J. (2017). The varieties of character and some implications for character education. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(6), 1153–1161. Berkowitz, M. W. (2012). Moral and character education. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, vol. 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 247–264). American Psychological Association. Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2005). What works in character education: A research-driven guide for educators. https://www.academia.edu/52985883/What_works_in_character_education Betros, L. (2012). Carved from granite: West Point since 1902 (Vol. 138). Texas A&M University Press. Brooks, R. (2023). How the anti-woke campaign against the U.S. military damages national security. War on the Rocks. April 7. https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/how-the-anti-woke-campaign-against-the-u-smilitary-damages-national-security/ Dahl, C. J., & Davidson, R. J. (2019). Mindfulness and the contemplative life: pathways to connection, insight, and purpose. Current opinion in psychology, 28, 60–64. Davidson, M. (2004). Developing performance character and moral character in youth. The Fourth and Fifth Rs: Respect and Responsibility, 10(2), 6. Department of the Army. (2019). ADP 6-22 the army profession and leadership. Army Publishing Directorate. Dvorsky, M. R., Kofler, M. J., Burns, G. L., Luebbe, A. M., Garner, A. A., Jarrett, M. A., Soto, E. F., & Becker & Becker, S. P. (2019). Factor structure and criterion validity of the five Cs model of positive youth development in a multi-university sample of college students. Journal of youth and adolescence, 48, 537–553. Dweck, Carol S. (2006) Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine Books. Han, H., Choi, Y. J., Dawson, K. J., & Jeong, C. (2018). Moral growth mindset is associated with change in voluntary service engagement. PLoS One, 13(8), e0202327. Han, H., Kim, J., Jeong, C., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Attainable and relevant moral exemplars are more effective than extraordinary exemplars in promoting voluntary service engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 283. Hannah, S. T., & Sweeney, P. J. (2007). Frameworks of moral development and the West point experience: Building leaders of character for the army and the nation. In D. M. Snider & L. J. Matthews (Eds.), Forging the Warrior’s character: Moral precepts from the cadet prayer (pp. 127–162). Jerico, LLC. Hesselbein, F., & Shinseki, E. K. (2004). Be, know, do: Leadership the army way. Jossey-Bass Inc. Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2016). Changing for the better? Longitudinal associations between volitional personality change and psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(5), 603–615. Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues. (2017). A framework for character education in schools. University of Birmingham. https://www.jubileecentre.ac.uk/userfiles/jubileecentre/pdf/character-education/Framework%20for%20Character%20Education.pdf Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues and the Oxford Character Project. (2020). Character education in universities: A framework for flourishing. University of Birmingham. Kerr, J. (2016). 5 reasons true leadership is all about character. Inc. Magazine, February 1. https://www.inc. com/james-kerr/leadership-in-a-nutshell.html Kilner, P. (2022). The cadet character education program. West Point Magazine, Winter 2022, 42–44.

610

Building Trusted Army Professionals Kristjansson, K. (2015). Aristotelian character education. Routledge. Lamb, M., Brant, J., & Brooks, E. (2021). How is virtue cultivated? Seven strategies for postgraduate character development. Journal of Character Education, 17(1), 81–108. https://login.ezproxy.library.tufts. edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/how-is-virtue-cultivated-seven-strategies/ docview/2544288913/se-2 Lerner, R. M., & Schmid Callina, K. (2015). The study of character development: Towards tests of a relational developmental systems model. Human Development, 57(6), 322–346. Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin Press. Matthews, M. D., Ryan, D. M., & Lerner, R. M. (2020). Developing military leaders of character. Journal of Character Education, 16(1), 65–75. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college. Johns Hopkins University Press. Myers, M. (2023). Diversity: Necessary for readiness or the bogeyman? Military Times. April 10. https://www. militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/04/10/the-diversity-bogeyman-is-the-us-too-woke-towage-war/ Narvaez, D., & Rest, J. (1995). The four components of acting morally. Moral behavior and moral development: An introduction, 1(1), 385–400. Nucci, L. (2017). Character: A multi-faceted developmental system. Journal of Character Education, 13(1), 1–16. Porter, T., & Schumann, K. (2018). Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Self and Identity, 17(2), 139–162. Seider, S. (2012). Character compass: How powerful school culture can point students toward success. Harvard Education Press. Shanker, T. (2013). Conduct at issue as military officers face a new review. New York Times, 13, 2. Sorley, L. (2008). Honor bright: History and origins of the West Point honor code and system. McGraw Hill. Snider, D. M. (2016). Five myths about our future. The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, 46(3), 7. Sweeney, P. J., Imboden, M. W., & Hannah, S. T. (2015). Building moral strength: Bridging the moral judgment-action gap. New Directions for Student Leadership, 146(Summer), 17–33. Title 5 - Government Employees and Organizations, 5 U.S.C. § 3331. (1966). https://uscode.house.gov/view. xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:3331%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title5section3331)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true Title 10 - Armed Forces, 10 U.S.C.§ 7233. (2018). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:10% 20section:7233%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section7233)&f= treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true#effectivedate-amendment-note Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy–and completely unprepared for adulthood. Atria. United States Military Academy. (2007). Educating future army officers for a changing world. United States Military Academy. United States Military Academy (USMA). (2011). Rapid review of the West Point leader development system. United States Military Academy. United States Military Academy (USMA). (2018). Developing leaders of character: The West point leader development system. United States Military Academy. Watts, P., Fullard, M., & Peterson, A. (2021). Understanding character education: Approaches, applications and issues. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Whitt, J. E., & Perazzo, E. A. (2018). The military as a social experiment: Challenging a trope. The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, 48(2), 3. Wolfe, A. (2001). Moral freedom: The search for virtue in a world of choice. W. W. Norton & Company. Wong, L., & Gerras, S. J. (2015). Lying to ourselves: Dishonesty in the army profession. Strategic Studies Institute and the US Army War College Press. Wright, J. C., Warren, M. T., & Snow, N. E. (2021). Understanding virtue: Theory and measurement. Oxford University Press.

611

34 LEADERSHIP AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AT THE U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY* Jeffrey R. Macris, Joseph J. Thomas, Andrew Ledford, Kevin Mullaney, and Celeste K. Raver An internet search for the terms “U.S. Army, leadership, doctrine” returns a host of official Army doctrine publications, field manuals, and documents that include specific definitions, terms, and usages. This information reflects a well-established and centralized approach to leadership education that ultimately emanates from Washington leaders, the service’s training and doctrine commands, and its service colleges. A similar search for “U.S. Navy,” however, renders a relative dearth of official doctrine. This pattern appears to extend to other western nations as well; the British Army, for example, recently published a comprehensive guide to leadership (British Army, 2022), but the Royal Navy appears to have no such text. From this contrast, one should not construe that “leadership development” plays a less important role in the naval services than the land services, but rather that control over it tends to be less standardized and resides more at lower levels. In this vein, walking through ships in the U.S. Navy fleet today, one sometimes hears of the importance of “deckplate leadership” or “intrusive leadership” or “one-on-one” leadership, informal relationships in which a senior engages in the personal development of his or her subordinates and carefully supervises the follower’s growth and development. This decentralized and unofficial tradition may stem from the nature of naval service itself, where since antiquity crews and their ships have sailed across the seas, often left to themselves to develop their own leaders in their own specific contexts and in their own ways. In this vein, U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) leaders have created their own approach to leadership development, informed by the behavioral sciences and the rich traditions of the sea, but not bound to U.S. Navy-wide leadership development doctrine, of which there is little. The Naval Academy’s four-year leadership program consciously aims to develop its Midshipmen in all three of the domains of learning – cognitive, behavioral, and affective – which we sometimes describe with the monikers “Know – Do – Be.” The Naval Academy approach to leadership and character development rests upon two core ideas: that the unique nature of military service demands that its future officers become individuals of character. And second, that its young leaders * Dr. Jeffrey R. Macris is the Deputy Director of the U.S. Naval Academy’s Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership; Dr. Joseph J. Thomas is the Director of the Stockdale Center; Dr. Andrew Ledford is the Chair of the Leadership, Ethics, and Law Department at the U.S. Naval Academy; Dr. Kevin Mullaney is a Permanent Military Professor in the Leadership, Ethics, and Law Department at the U.S. Naval Academy; Dr. Celeste Raver is the Director of Influencer Development in the Stockdale Center.

612

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-37

Leadership and Character Development at the U.S. Naval Academy

master a handful of leadership “competencies,” skills that anyone can develop over time. In both of these areas, Naval Academy leaders reject the notion that leaders are “born not made;” given the correct tutors and placed in an environment conducive to growth and learning – and which permits juniors to learn and grow from their mistakes – all Midshipmen can emerge as worthy, moral leaders. At the end of their four years in Annapolis, we believe that our graduates have become leaders of character, capable of leading others in demanding naval contexts in defense of the nation’s interests. This chapter explains this process, and how we attempt to provide objective evidence of its success.

The Birth of the U.S. Navy and Its Academy The U.S. attitude toward seapower has always been characterized by the dichotomy between acceptance that the nation’s unique geographic positioning demands a strong standing navy and the realization that maintaining that strong standing navy is an extremely expensive commitment. Although the U.S. Navy was born during the American Revolution and acquitted itself surprisingly well against the world’s largest navy at that time, not long after the end of the war the U.S. Congress moved to demobilize the Continental Navy in order to save money. From 1785 to 1794 the young nation possessed no ability to counter threats from non-state actors (pirates) or from having its commercial ships plundered by European navies. The threat to the American economy in these years was dire until, finally, President George Washington persuaded Congress that it was far more expensive to be without a navy than it was to build and sustain an Atlantic squadron. The Naval Act of 1794 provided for six frigates, each built in different states to stimulate local economies, that went on to score victories in the First Barbary War, the Quasi-War with the French and the War of 1812. Those experiences showed the young nation must possess a first-rate navy if its economy were to thrive. Recognizing the peculiar leadership challenge to maintaining a standing, forward-deployed navy, President John Quincy Adams proposed to Congress that a naval academy be established “for the formation of scientific and accomplished officers.” Yet again, a cost-conscious Congress shelved the expensive proposition for over 20 years. Naval officers would be trained on the job, at sea, in the same cost minimizing manner commercial sailors were trained. It took a crisis of this method to show the dangers of this short-sighted cost saving approach (Cutler, 2015). The brig USS Somers set sail for its initial “shakedown” cruise from the Brooklyn Navy Yard on September 13, 1842. Its crew was made up of a large number of naval apprentices training to become officers and enlisted sailors for the U.S. Navy. Among the naval apprentices on that cruise was Midshipman Phillip Spencer, son of the current Secretary of War. After a suspicious accident and the intercept of a cryptic note suggesting mutiny circulating among the crew two months into the trip, Midshipman Spencer and two of the enlisted trainees were clapped in irons. When other trainees were found with stolen brandy and attempting to obtain weapons, a military court was hastily convened by the captain. The court was made up of four officers and three Midshipmen. When it was found the three conspirators were “guilty of a full and determined intention to commit a mutiny” they were hanged at sea that very day. The American public was shocked that such summary justice could be rendered so quickly aboard a training vessel (Cutler, 2016). The “Somers Affair” was just the crisis then-Secretary of the Navy George Bancroft needed to attain Congressional funding for the establishment of a Naval School. With the purchase of the 10-acre Army post Fort Severn at Annapolis, MD on October 10, 1845 the professionalization of naval leadership training began in earnest. The first class of 50 Midshipmen were provided a curriculum of philosophy and language as well as navigation, mathematics, gunnery, and steam. When the Naval School was renamed the U.S. Naval Academy in 1850, the curriculum was 613

Jeffrey R. Macris et al.

expanded, extended to four years, and balanced with practical training at sea during the summer months. As the nation grew, so too did the Naval Academy. The campus or “Yard” was expanded from the original 10 acres of old Fort Severn to 338 acres, the student body or Brigade of Midshipmen was expanded from 50 to 4,000, and in 1933 Congress authorized the awarding of Bachelor of Science degrees to all graduates (Banning, 1938).

The Modern Naval Academy and Its Emphasis on Leadership, Ethics, and Character The mission of the U.S. Naval Academy is to develop Midshipmen morally, mentally and physically and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor and loyalty in order to graduate leaders who are dedicated to a career of naval service and have potential for future development in mind and character to assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship and government. Over the course of its history the Naval Academy mission statement took several forms but the consistent thread was “To train officers to fight the fleet.” An Objectives Review Board (ORB) was established in 1969 with an “essentially unlimited charter…concerned with major issues of organization, the nature of the curriculum, and requirements to develop a professional naval officer” (USNAINST 5450.3B). The emphasis on the moral, mental, and physical dimensions of Midshipman development was formalized beginning in the early 1970s. Whereas the mental mission was clearly the domain of the Academic Dean and the physical mission was the domain of the Athletic Director (for varsity sports) and Commandant of Midshipman (physical education department, intramural and club sports), responsibility for the moral mission was much more diffuse. Midshipmen themselves had long owned the Honor Concept and were responsible for adjudicating – under supervision – all honor violations such as lying, stealing, or cheating (Currie, 2014). Staff and faculty of the Division of Naval Command and Management and Behavioral Science Department were responsible for leadership and ethics courses. Required courses in leadership, ethics, and law were augmented with elective courses in general psychology and organizational behavior. The oddly titled “Professional Officer and Human Person” course was designed to “ensure the development of the full potential of the Navy’s human resources and the application of that potential toward improving mission effectiveness” to include the philosophical and ethical characteristics of the Navy profession. However, the course met once a week and was delivered with video shown over closed-circuit television. This situation remained until the Chief of Naval Operations issued a policy statement establishing a Professional Development Division which included, among other departments, a Leadership and Law Department. A Management Science Department was reorganized under the Division of Engineering and Weapons. Simultaneously, a new and updated leadership curriculum was born (USNA, 1977). Two seminal events occurred in the 1980s and 1990s that shaped the institution. The first was the establishment of the Leadership Review Committee in April 1986. Soon after that, supporting efforts such as the Midshipman Counseling Center, Alcohol and Drug Education Officer, and Honor Office were established. A holistic view of Midshipman development was underway. However, it took a series of scandals in the early 1990s to ensure the moral mission was emphasized in the formal curriculum. Beginning with an infamous incident of sexual harassment that involved a female Midshipman being handcuffed to a urinal in May of 1990 and culminating in a large-scale cheating incident in an electrical engineering course in December of 1992, the Naval Academy engaged in a comprehensive self-assessment. One notable element was the 1993–1994 “Luce-Bancroft Exchange” which was 614

Leadership and Character Development at the U.S. Naval Academy

designed to better connect the leadership education delivered in Luce Hall to the daily life of a Midshipman experienced in the place they lived, Bancroft Hall. All leadership instructors were assigned a company in Bancroft Hall and for two hours per week, required to weave together the abstract classroom lessons and “the Bancroft Hall routine and regulations” (USNA, 1994). The second notable element was the birth of the formal ethics course that forms the Academy’s moral and character development core to this day. In the immediate wake of the electrical engineering cheating scandal Secretary of the Navy John Dalton commissioned an Honor Review Committee chaired by Ambassador Richard Armitage. The eponymous Armitage Report concluded “the professional development of today’s Midshipman is measured more heavily by academic performance than by internalization of honor, loyalty, integrity, and moral courage” (Armitage, 1997). In June of 1995, the Department of Leadership, Ethics, and Law was born. The report also required that department to “afford every Midshipman one two-hour course per academic year that is directly focused on character development” (Ibid., 1997). Honor…duty…loyalty…character. These words, which form the basis of the Naval Academy’s mission, have as their common thread one irrefutable principle and mandate: the development of character. – The Armitage Report The Center for the Study of Professional Military Ethics was established in February of 1998 to serve as a “Beacon for the Nation.” Chartered “to promote and enhance the ethical development of current and future military leaders through education, research, and reflection,” it worked closely with the Leadership, Ethics, and Law Department to develop realistic curricula and timely case studies. In June of 2006, its mission was expanded and it was renamed the Vice Admiral James B. Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership with the director of the Center also serving on the Academy’s Senior Leadership Team and reporting directly to the Superintendent. Research support of the Navy and Marine Corps as well as other government agencies continued to be a large focus of the Center. Overtime, ethics research was expanded to directly support ethics education of Midshipmen. Other research and education within the Center worked in direct support of the Commandant, an active duty senior U.S. Navy captain or U.S. Marine Corps colonel whose role resembles that of a dean of students at a civilian university. A Leadership Excellence Council was formed in August of 2012 “to coordinate, integrate, and align all leader development efforts both internal and external to the Academy” (USNAINST 5420.38, 2012). The Stockdale Center has been expanded dramatically since its founding to include an Innovation Lab and “Influence the Influencer” program in addition to its originally chartered emphasis on research and dissemination. The Leadership, Ethics, and Law Department, organized under the Leadership Education and Development Division in November of 2009 underwent a period of expansion and professionalization from the early 2000s until 2020. The addition of senior officers and credentialed faculty changed the structure of the department from primarily rotational (2- or 3-year) junior officers to a wider blend of perspectives. There is a general recognition that a mix of fresh fleet perspectives and senior officers and civilian faculty with PhDs and a research agenda is optimal.

Leadership Education and Its Development in the Three Domains of Learning In leadership and character development programs in Annapolis, USNA leaders consciously attempt to educate Midshipmen in all three domains of learning: cognitive, behavioral (sometimes called psychomotor), and affective. The cognitive domain consists of knowledge-based activities, 615

Jeffrey R. Macris et al.

such as studying leadership theories or reading biographies of famous military leaders. Learning in the behavioral or psychomotor domain, on the other hand, involves acquiring physical skills that involve the body, like learning how to use effective hand gestures when speaking in public. Finally, learning in the affective domain involves changing one’s attitudes, thoughts, and emotions. When we try to instill in Midshipmen a sense of the moral obligations of a military officer, for example, we work in the realm of affective learning. These three domains of learning loosely coincide with the words Know, Do, and Be.1 Know, of course, refers to cognitive learning, which often takes place in a classroom. Do represents a physical activity like sailing, in which we try to apply and physically exercise concepts previously introduced in the classroom. Finally, Be represents affective learning, such as developing a student’s sense of leader identity. At its peak, Be represents a person who has habituated virtues and fully internalized them. Some debate the proper sequential order of Know, Do, and Be in leadership and character development. Should we think of cognitive learning (Know), as taking place before practice (Do), which in turn ushers in growth in a student’s affect as a leader (Be)? Figure 34.1 depicts this chain of thought in what might be called the leadership and character “bulls-eye.” Others, on the other hand, argue that learning and development in the three domains of learning take place concurrently not sequentially. Accordingly, a well-planned curriculum aims ultimately for the middle segment of a Venn diagram, where cognitive, behavioral, and affective learning have all taken place, as depicted in Figure 34.2. The middle segment thus reflects the desired outcome. We’ll now turn to an overview of each of these three domains of learning and how the USNA consciously aims to develop leadership and character in its Midshipmen cognitively, behaviorally, and affectively.

Know: The Cognitive Domain of Learning – In the Classroom The cognitive domain of learning, also referred to as the Know element in Know-Do-Be, comprises the knowledge, understanding, analytical ability, beliefs about the self and others, and habits of one’s mind (Brown, 2022). This domain of learning most often occurs in the classroom in which knowledge is passed and analytical ability is honed through study, lecture, classwork, and testing. The cognitive domain provides the basic fundamentals in which the other domains, the Do (behavior) and the Be (affectiveness and sense of self), can be shaped. It is through a deep cognitive

Figure 34.1  Version 1 of the Be, Do, Know concept used within the U.S. Naval Academy

616

Leadership and Character Development at the U.S. Naval Academy

Figure 34.2  Version 2 of the Be, Do, Know concept used within the U.S. Naval Academy

understanding of leadership and character terminology and concepts that one can properly frame behaviors and self-identity. The cognitive domain properly frames or makes sense of the other domains of leader and character development. In the leadership, ethics, and law classrooms of the Naval Academy, cognitive learning is done over four core courses (plus a final semester-long practicum course) required of all students. The NL110 course taken during their first year is focused primarily on individual leader development. The ethics course, NE203, is taken during the sophomore year and examines the ethical component of leader development. The NL310 course taken during the third year comprises leadership development theories and concepts. The NL400 course taken the fourth year delves into the legal and constitutional framework in which Naval leadership and experience exists. Finally, a onecredit leadership practicum course, specialized for the warfare specialty that the future military officer will enter, takes place in the spring semester just prior to graduation.

NL110: “Preparing to Lead” The freshman level leadership course is titled Preparing to Lead. It is the first of two social science courses focused on leadership in the overall four-course cycle. The primary distinction between the two leadership courses is that the freshman level course is focused on self-leadership and preparing leaders as people to inhabit the leadership roles that they will be assigned, whereas the second leadership course, taken in the junior year, focuses on interpersonal and organizational dynamics and the specific leadership skills needed to excel. The content of the freshman leadership course starts with concepts promoting self-awareness and builds to consider skills of self-management and intentionality. With respect to self-awareness, the course establishes a frame of conscious and unconscious cognitive processes derived from the decision-making literature and examines the unconscious/preconscious sources of human perception, thought, and behavior, to include the structure of habits, the role of schemas and mental models in perception thought and behavior, and the patterns of individual differences that are modeled by personality types. Additionally, the course considers the ways that social interactions and socialization shape preconscious mental models through processes such as attachment, social influence, power dynamics, and aggregation into cultures. Building on these concepts of self-awareness, students are 617

Jeffrey R. Macris et al.

introduced to specific skills intended to enable them to exercise greater intentionality, to include practices of reflection, discipline, emotional intelligence, goal setting, and critical thinking. Using these tools of self-awareness and self-management, students should have frameworks to assess and identify areas requiring individual growth and to understand the skills necessary to actively engage in their personal development, a process that should be productively engaged throughout a lifetime. This freshman course next examines various forms of human excellence and virtue and then explores how these concepts contribute to one’s ability to achieve superior followership, peer leadership, and servant leadership. With respect to human excellence, the course explores the nature and processes of resilience, optimal performance and flow, and love. In addition, the course investigates virtues critical to inhabiting leadership roles, to include integrity, loyalty, ownership, and civility. Students then apply these virtues to the roles of follower, peer leader, and servant leader and reinforce these concepts through a distinguished leadership speaker and a targeted case study. Upon completion of the course, students should know the unconscious processes that drive human behavior, understand the skills one can engage to manage their behavior and habits, have a strong conceptualization of several forms of human excellence and virtue, and understand how these attributes can be applied productively to inhabit the various roles necessary in military officership.

NE203: “Ethics and Moral Reasoning for the Naval Leader” During the sophomore or “Youngster” year at the Naval Academy, the ethics course NE203 Ethics for the Junior Officer is taught. The purpose of the course is to “prepare students to fulfill the special moral obligations inherent in their commissions and oaths of office. It is designed to equip students with a deeper appreciation for the moral complexities of officership, a richer understanding of the ethical demands of combat leadership, a basic understanding of classical and contemporary thought in moral philosophy, and a roadmap for putting moral theory to work in the service of practical moral reasoning” (Course Syllabus). Because of its unique structure, NE203 is the most resource-intensive course at the Academy. Each section of this core course is team-taught by a civilian ethicist or moral philosopher and a senior officer (O-5 or O-6), with the philosopher building a theoretical framework for moral decision-making during a Monday session and the officer facilitating fleet case studies to illustrate the theory in the Wednesday and Friday sessions. A significant portion of the course is devoted to Aristotle’s conception of character development, typically referred to as virtue ethics or aretaic philosophy – from the Greek term arete – meaning excellence or fulfillment of purpose. Taught in conjunction with the concept of moral duty (deontology), moral decision-making based on outcomes (teleology), stoicism, just war theory, and other philosophical traditions, virtue ethics help Midshipmen understand the full range of tools available to help them make morally sound decisions. Using the framework of a “Moral Deliberation Roadmap,” the course demonstrates how moral reasoning generally works. In this framework there are four moral factors: 1. Constraints – Do considerations of dignity, respect, rights, or justice require us to act in one way or another? 2. Consequences – What is going to bring about the best outcomes for everyone? 3. Special Obligations – Does anything about the particular situation place one under an obligation that others wouldn’t have in similar circumstances? 4. Character – How would this action affect one’s character? – or – What is the action that an exemplary virtuous person would perform in this situation? 618

Leadership and Character Development at the U.S. Naval Academy

This Moral Deliberation Roadmap not only prompts students to consider the morally salient features of any decision but it also helps to locate the sources of moral disagreement. In this way, it aids in making and communicating moral decisions, a fundamentally important element of good leadership. In the course of exploring the Moral Deliberation Roadmap, the students investigate the roots of Western moral thinking and read selections from ancient sages of Greece and Rome, medieval Christian theologians, Enlightenment thinkers, and contemporary scholars.

NL310: “Leadership: Theory and Application” The junior year core leadership course, Leadership Theory and Application, transitions from teaching concepts pertinent to leader development (the intrapersonal aspects of development), which are the focus for the freshman and sophomore courses, to a concentration on leadership development (the interpersonal aspects of development). To begin to teach the concepts of leadership, the course lays the foundation with a definition of leadership, “Leadership is a social process where a leader or leaders influence individuals, teams, and/or an organization to achieve a shared purpose” (Raver Luning & Van Dam, 2021, p. 4). Equipped with this definition of leadership, Midshipmen learn a framework that could be considered the social process of leadership. Midshipmen are taught that this social process of leadership occurs when leaders, followers, team and organizational dynamics, and the situation converge. After the definition of leadership and initial framework for the process is introduced, the topic shifts to leadership effectiveness. The idea “mission first, people always” captures the spirit of leadership effectiveness. Midshipmen are taught that leadership effectiveness occurs when results (mission first) are properly balanced with retention (people always). Results are the goals, tasks, and missions that must be accomplished as a leader. Retention is a focus on the people within a team or organization. Further, retention centers on developing one’s people, which leads to a more viable team. Throughout the course, leadership effectiveness remains a central theme as students learn new concepts within the leadership process framework and then relate them to specific outcomes. Midshipmen are taught to ask two questions: (1) Results – Did the leader(s) get the job done? (2) Retention – Did the leader(s) take care of their people? Two primary goals accompany this emphasis on leadership effectiveness. One, to help Midshipmen understand the complexities of leadership effectiveness by teaching them that it results from the convergence of the leader(s), followers, team and organizational dynamics, and the situation (the process of leadership). Two, to highlight how effective leadership is not all about accomplishing a mission or caring for one’s team; but rather a careful balance between accomplishing tasks or mission and ensuring one’s team is supported. Once the broad foundation is set for what leadership is and what effective leadership outcomes are, the course begins to tackle specific leadership topics. Individual impacts to leadership effectiveness are discussed, where the focus is on followers and how to develop relationships. The course then transitions into an understanding of collective impacts to leadership effectiveness, such as team behaviors and competencies, and organizational culture and climate. Overall, the course attempts to cognitively develop Midshipmen’s understanding of the complexity of leadership and to generate an understanding of how to lead through this complexity to generate effective leadership.

NL400: “Law for the Junior Officer” The senior year leadership course taken by the Midshipmen at the Naval Academy is “Law for the Junior Officer.” The objective of the course is to take the leadership concepts and theories learned in previous years and to put them into the legal and administrative context that Navy and Marine 619

Jeffrey R. Macris et al.

Corps junior officers will soon find themselves. The course begins with an analysis of the pertinent aspects of the Constitution and oath of office that govern the military operational and international environment. Students learn about the various punitive and non-punitive powers of the Navy and Marine Corps as well as the fundamentals of investigations, administrative, non-judicial procedures. NL400 students also delve into the most common offenses they will see as junior and midlevel officers as well as the intricacies of court martials and the law of the sea. The NL400 course aims to have students think critically, understand what it means to act ethically, and to always uphold the Constitution as excellent leaders of a diverse force. They finish a healthy look at laws of the seas, government ethics, and international law. The course takes the leader development of NL110, the moral reasoning of NE203, and the leadership development of NL310 and provides the constitutional framework for how it all exists within the Navy and Marine Corps. NL400 is taught solely by Navy and Marine Corps Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers. The JAG officers come to the Naval Academy directly from serving legal roles in the fleet and have a large number of relevant fleet experiences to add to the course material. Particular attention is paid to the legal duties junior officers will face immediately upon graduation with their first assignment. The culmination of the course is a scenario-driven discussion led by the JAG instructor along with a leadership instructor that reinforces the character and ethical leadership elements that are often at play in legal dilemmas.

NS43X Junior Officer Practicum Course The leadership and ethics curriculum delivered from the freshman through the senior year is broadly fashioned to support all potential career paths in the Navy and Marine Corps. During their second semester of their senior year, however, after discovering whether they will ultimately become a Navy Surface Warfare Officer, Submariner, Naval Aviator, SEAL, or U.S. Marine Corps Officer (or one of the other smaller warfare specialties), a Midshipman takes a one-credit practicum course that is narrowly domain specific. This course has evolved. After some brief experimentation with a universal leadership “capstone” from 2005 to 2007, the institution decided that there is sufficient differentiation in leadership development needs to tailor curricula to each warfare community. This individualized curriculum has traditionally been delivered by junior officers with the most recent and relevant fleet experience and has served to preview the current operations of the fleet. Although this approach has generally worked well over the years, consideration is underway to use this course to review all of the leadership and ethical material of the previous four years. A newly re-instituted Leadership Excellence Council, made up of senior representatives from across the campus will determine the best balance of general and domain-specific leadership curriculum in the near future. Collectively, these four core leadership courses – NL110, “Preparing to Lead,” NE203, “Ethics and Moral Reasoning for Naval Leaders;” NL310, “Leadership: Theory and Application;” and NL400, “Law for the Junior Officer,” plus their final semester practicum course – provide a cognitive foundation for the Midshipmen to draw upon and apply in their outside-the-classroom activities during their four years at the Naval Academy. We next turn to how we do this, attempting to teach the Midshipmen in the behavioral domain of learning.

Do: The Behavioral Domain of Learning – Applying Leadership Concepts With a cognitive foundation in leadership, ethics, and law developed in their core leadership courses, Midshipmen are encouraged to apply theoretical leadership concepts to a myriad of 620

Leadership and Character Development at the U.S. Naval Academy

outside-the-classroom responsibilities and activities. In Bancroft Hall – the massive dormitory in which all 4,400 Midshipmen in the Brigade live – students are divided into 30 companies of 130–150 people, and further subdivided into platoons, squads, and fire teams. A company officer, usually a Navy lieutenant or Marine captain with 5–10 years of experience, supervises a leadership structure in which more senior Midshipmen lead those more junior. Midshipmen thus receive the opportunity to apply the theories from the classroom in the formal military structure in which they live and work. Toward that end, Midshipmen create and plan training activities, lead those junior to them, counsel subordinates, and track their progress. Furthermore, all Midshipmen must regularly participate in some type of athletic activity, either a varsity team, club sport, or intramurals. Throughout history there has been an enduring connection between sports and military service education. The Naval Academy leadership encourages the development of physically strong students who, as part of a team, fearlessly engage their foes to prevail on the sports field; the analogy to the battlefield is clear. While the Naval Academy fields over two dozen division one NCAA sports teams, the institution’s emphasis on sports extends beyond the desire to show positive win-loss records. As well, it aims to give the Midshipmen an opportunity to practice the offensive, to exhibit a willingness to put one’s personal physical well-being in jeopardy in pursuit of a group end. Engaging in sports also requires Midshipmen to organize themselves and put to use the theoretical leadership concepts learned in the classroom. In this, non-varsity club teams often provide the best training, as they frequently have no professional coaching staff and must self-organize and self-coach themselves. Other extracurricular activities provide similar leadership opportunities for Midshipmen, such as the Gospel Choir, the Scuba Diving Club, or the Masqueraders, USNA’s drama troop. All of these group activities require leadership from a central authority such as a president or coach, an operations manager to manage future events, a travel coordinator, a treasurer, etc. Thus, in Bancroft Hall, on the sports fields, and in other extracurricular activities, Midshipmen receive the opportunity – and eventually are mandated their senior year – to take leadership roles and to put to use the theoretical concepts learned in the classroom. They all must “do,” in other words, what they “know” – an application in the behavioral domain of ideas learned in the cognitive domain.

Experiential Leader Development at the U.S. Naval Academy There exists a hybrid of “Knowing” and “Doing”: experiential learning. Several years ago, the USNA created a new office dedicated to out-of-classroom formal learning experiences, whose leaders coordinate several specific activities designed for “learning by doing.” These activities range from two-day experiences on a “staff ride” to the U.S. National Military Park in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to wilderness courses in the Rocky Mountains with the National Outdoor Leadership School to Language, Regional Expertise and Culture (LREC) immersions in remote locations around the world. The very point of these experiences is to give meaning to the “leadership laboratory” concept long touted as the competitive advantage of federal service academies. As with any laboratory, an intentional weaving of abstract cognitive instruction and practical behavioral application must be accomplished. The Center for Experiential Leader Development (ELD) was designed to do exactly that. The goal of the Center is to design, deliver, and assess the most effective programming possible to ensure Midshipmen learn by doing. Still in a nascent stage, the Center for ELD’s goal is to become a national thought leader on experiential programming. Considerable progress has been made over the past 10 years in weaving together diverse learning opportunities for students. 621

Jeffrey R. Macris et al.

There exists considerable literature on the connection between leadership, learning, and doing. In his classic work on the relationship between education and experience, for example, John Dewey (1938) claimed that intellectual growth and development happens especially well when the learning environment is purposefully designed to be “educative.” The role of experience in character and leadership education and development has long been emphasized (DeRue & Wellman, 2009; Kolb, 1984; Shooter et al., 2010). The learning environment for leader development provided by immersive education programs such as a service academy may well be paradigmatic of the educational experience Dewey had in mind (McKenzie, 2000[v]; Wojcikiewicz & Mural, 2010[vi]). Well-designed immersive character and leader development programs demand that students deal adequately with uncertainty, risk, failure, and interpersonal conflict. These are elements of the experience that make them powerful, and are precisely the elements that must be negotiated by the developing leader and set the conditions for an educational experience (McCall, 2010). It is then a matter of providing the right guidance from experienced guides, coaches, and mentors to help students make meaning of the experience. The best immersive character and leader development programs provide expert-guided reflection and feedback, and hold students accountable for applying the lessons of unfolding experience in future experience (Eich, 2008).

Competency Development and Assessment As the Academy has increased its intentional engagement with the experiential Do portion of leadership development, the need for a targeted set of leader competencies to guide and coordinate these efforts and to provide criteria for programmatic assessment became increasingly apparent. In order to develop this set of competencies, Naval Academy leaders in 2022 reviewed a large range of existing competency frameworks, to include those created by external organizations such as Lominger, KornFerry, and the Center for Creative Leadership, as well as institutionally established frameworks, such as the Naval Academy Strategic Plan 2030. We also took into consideration the performance management systems currently in place both at the Naval Academy and in the wider Navy that defined competencies relevant to each warfare community (surface warfare ships, aviation, submarines, etc.). The many competencies represented in these various frameworks were entered into a single data set and parsed via a content analysis conducted by a group of subject matter experts who sought to both assess the relevance of each competency to the Naval Academy context and to aggregate the competencies by theme. Ultimately four “meta-competencies” emerged: Self-Leadership, Character and Virtue, Interpersonal Skills, and Small Unit Leadership. Each meta-competency has 4–7 embedded constituent-competencies (see Table 34.1). Perhaps not surprisingly, but also not purposefully, this content analysis process resulted in a set of meta-competencies that were well aligned with the Naval Academy’s existing core leadership course sequence. The subject matter experts executing this analysis recognized that no sorting of competencies would be definitive and there are several different reasonable ways to organize the different competency concepts. For each competency, we sought to provide both a succinct, easily understood label as well as an inspirational statement that captured the essence of the competency and contextualized it within the identity of a leader. With the meta-competencies and constituent-competencies thus elaborated, the next task, which is still ongoing in 2022, was to find appropriate ways to productively develop and measure each competency. With respect to competency development, in 2022 we are developing a set of iterative goals for each competency that one could productively pursue en route to competency mastery, a set of reflective prompts to drive self-awareness, a set of experiential 622

Leadership and Character Development at the U.S. Naval Academy Table 34.1  Meta-competencies and constituent-competencies Self-Leadership Self-Awareness: Excellent leaders are self-aware of their internal states and motivations Self-Development: Excellent leaders lead and develop themselves with insight, intention, and consistency Decision Making: Excellent leaders are excellent thinkers and decision makers Individual Talents: Excellent leaders understand and optimize their individual talents Emotional Management: Excellent leaders proactively engage and manage their emotions Optimal Performance: Excellent leaders are resilient and set the conditions for optimal performance Cultural Competence: Excellent leaders effectively integrate themselves within cultures Character, Virtue, and Ethics Prudence: Excellent leaders exemplify good judgment and practical wisdom Justice: Excellent leaders recognize both rights and duties and strive for fairness Fortitude: Excellent leaders have the courage to pursue the good in the face of danger Temperance: Excellent leaders exercise self-control and align their behavior with their values and intentions Interpersonal Skills Social Skill: Excellent leaders are highly socially intelligent and socially competent Building and Maintaining Relationships: Excellent leader establish and maintain high-quality relationships of trust Communication Skills: Excellent leaders communicate effectively Performance Management: Excellent leaders help make other people great through goal setting, feedback, coaching, and mentoring Resolving Conflict and Difference: Excellent leaders capitalize on diversity and manage conflicts Exercising Influence: Excellent leaders effectively influence others Generating Motivation: Excellent leaders use multiple approaches to generate motivation Small Unit Leadership Professional Competence and Presence: Excellent leaders exemplify professional competence Providing Vision and Creating Purpose: Excellent leaders provide vision and direction Implementing, Executing, and Monitoring: Excellent leaders create and sustain the structures necessary for effective function with a bias for action while managing risk Delegating: Great leaders lead through others Building Cohesion and Inclusivity: Excellent leaders lead and manage teams so that the sum is greater than the parts Engaging Culture and Climate: Excellent leaders understand and engage the cultures and climates of their units and manage change

exercises one could pursue to develop the competency, and a broad set of reference material relevant to the competency. In this process, references such as Lominger International’s For Your Improvement (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2009) and Peterson and Seligman’s Character Strengths and Virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) have proved to be excellent resources. With respect to competency measurement, for each competency we are identifying a set of self-report and observer reported validated instruments, preferably ones that are open source and have been used previously in published research. In addition, we are developing plans to include qualitative peer (360 degree) feedback as well as quantitative assessment tools intended for faculty and staff overseeing Midshipmen developmental experiences. Of note, the validated instruments and qualitative peer feedback, in particular, are also useful tools toward competency development. 623

Jeffrey R. Macris et al.

Be: The Affective Domain – Internalizing the Role of a Military Leader Perhaps the most complex aspect of leader and leadership development is the Be portion of development. The Be portion centers on one’s attitudes, beliefs, and actions, also known as the affective domain of learning. Developing someone’s core values and beliefs, however, is a complex process – it moves beyond cognitively learning information and regurgitating it for an exam. It also moves beyond behaving in a particular way. Affective development, in other words, taps into the core being of who an individual is and ultimately is about embedding values into an individual. Krathwohl et al. (1964) identified five stages in affective domain development:

• • • • •

Receiving phenomena – passive awareness of one’s emotions and feelings, responding. Responding to phenomena – receiving information and actively responding to it. Valuing – attaching value to a phenomenon and expressing one’s opinion. Organization – developing a value system. Internalizing values – adopting a value system and behaving consistently according to that value system.

At the Naval Academy we deem the affective development of the Midshipmen as encompassing two sequential tasks: first, leading them to become a person of character, and second, getting them to internalize the values of a professional military officer and to behave consistently in accordance with those values. We aim, in other words, to get Midshipmen to move to the most advanced stage of Krathwohl’s taxonomy of affective development, as stated above. How do we do this? We start by purposefully attempting to shape their character.

The Nature of Character Development The effort to develop character may sound to some like a new and somewhat novel undertaking. Nothing could be further from the truth. The quest to define character and, equally important, to describe the effort to instill good character has challenged great thinkers for millennia. That there are thousands of educational, for-profit, and not-for-profit organizations in the U.S. today, each purporting to offer “character development solutions,” begs a few fundamental questions: What is good character? Is there a proven method to develop good character? What can you realistically do to improve character? For the character educator, it’s important to review some possible answers to these questions, share ideas about the purpose of such work, and explore the value added to schools, communities, and our nation. What is good character? Perhaps the earliest and most popular educator consumed with the questions of character development is Aristotle. The classical Greek philosopher was interested in many subjects – from the nature of good government to the physical sciences to man’s unending quest for meaning. Much of his writing and teaching survives the test of time, but no topic of his concern has survived more intact than his philosophy of proper conduct. Aristotle famously asked “How do we define (and develop) the good in man?” His answer was brilliantly simple: one should practice virtue and avoid vice. Yet even that simple definition requires further explanation. 624

Leadership and Character Development at the U.S. Naval Academy

By “practice” Aristotle meant habituation or doing something continuously so as to make it “second nature.” We are what we do consistently. In this practice we should avoid extremes and take a middle path. By “virtue,” Aristotle referred to those positive traits or qualities that constitute good behavior. Conversely, “vice” are those bad qualities that make us vicious. Aristotle’s virtues included the timeless positive attributes of courage (called andreia by the Greeks), temperance (sōphrosunē), generosity (eleutheriotēs), truthfulness (alētheia), among others. Each virtue should be practiced using a middle path, sometimes referred to as the “Golden Mean.” An example can be found in the practice of the virtue of courage. We become more courageous by consistently doing brave things. The absence of courage, cowardice (deilos), constitutes poor character. So too does an excess of rash confidence (thrasus). We should avoid vice and practice virtue appropriately to improve our character. Other, later philosophers built upon the work of Aristotle or had other methods for defining virtue. The 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote about one’s “duty” and provided prescriptive tools for identifying that duty. The English philosopher John Stuart Mill described the value of “utility” in defining right behavior. Modern philosophers and theorists have also taken up the challenge of defining good character. For example, Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (Covey, 1989) is a modern adaptation of Aristotle using stories and case studies. Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Michigan, respectively, expand on Aristotle’s work and define the strengths of character as wisdom and knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Is there a proven method to develop good character? While there may be no singular, undisputedly effective method, we do know there are many methods that simply do not work. Some ingredients for failure are: Shallow, trendy prescriptions built on mnemonics or “10 easy steps to having great character.” These programs typically ignore the audience and the context of their lives. Delivered by inexperienced hucksters who have never thought deeply about the subject or, worse, appear to lack character themselves. Legalistic, compliance-driven training programs offered as recurring inoculations against bad behavior.

The USNA Character Development Program Character development, thus, represents a critical element of the Naval Academy’s mission – it is specified in the mission statement of the institution “to develop Midshipmen… in mind and character.” The character development program is part of the affective development of the Midshipmen, the Be portion, in other words. The character development program involves several key elements that fall throughout the Midshipmen’s four-year experience. During their first summer, for example, all Midshipmen receive a series of eight-character development training sessions taught by the character development Midshipmen staff with each session lasting around an hour. The character development sessions cover three pillars of the curriculum: “Being warrior tough,” “Being leaders of character,” and “Being servants of the Nation.” In addition to the character development sessions, there is a four-part character speaker series during the Midshipmen’s “plebe” summer that all Midshipmen attend on (1) “If not me, then who,” (2) “Honor,” (3) “Courage,” and (4) “Commitment.” The series is delivered by experts in the fields of each of the topics. During their first year at the Naval Academy, the students also travel 625

Jeffrey R. Macris et al.

to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC for a tour that includes an interactive discussion with moderators on dealing with illegal orders, command climate, the challenges of humanitarian and peacekeeping operations and genocide prevention. As previously discussed, during their sophomore year Midshipmen take their NE203 “Ethics” course, which features a heavy emphasis upon virtue ethics. This course represents one of the key foundational elements of the institution’s “character building” mission, and through a series of introspective assignments, encourages them to reflect upon their own character and how they might improve it. During the final year at the Naval Academy, all seniors attend a Character Capstone seminar that lasts for a full day to discuss complex leadership, ethical, and moral issues in order to prepare them for commissioning as officers in the Navy or Marine Corps. The capstone seminars have groups of up to 48 Midshipmen per group and are led by Naval Academy staff as well as alum mentors that bring fleet experience to the discussions. The students apply an ethical decisionmaking model to a recent scenario from the fleet and discuss the importance of character and why good character is necessary for a commissioned officer. The capstone seminars are a culmination of the character development over the past four years and prepare the Midshipmen for their first day as commissioned officers in front of their sailors or marines.

The Honor Concept The Honor Concept at the USNA is a core tenet of how Midshipmen become leaders of character, and it too falls under the Be portion of affective leadership development. It was conceived in 1953 and despite several small revisions over the years, the core components still remain the same: we do not lie, we do not cheat, and we do not steal. It is the ethical baseline that commits each Midshipman to do that which is right (USNAINST 1610.3M, 2022). The aim of the Honor Concept is not to provide the do’s and don’ts of every situation but rather provide guidelines of ethical behavior that Midshipmen can use to think critically in unforeseen circumstances to act honorably and build trust and confidence with their subordinates, peers, and superiors, especially when no one is watching. The enforcement of the concept is the responsibility of the Midshipmen. They conduct the investigations, organize the honor boards in which the adjudication of charges occur, and fulfill all aspects of the administrative procedures of the honor system. Once the honor board arrives at a verdict, only the final decision of retaining the guilty individual with remediation training or separation from the Naval Academy is made by the officer leadership of the Naval Academy.

Honor Remediation If a Midshipman is found in violation of the Honor Concept and retained, the honor remediation program works to improve the moral reasoning abilities of the Midshipman through weekly mentorship meetings and guidance from a senior staff or faculty member, trained by the honor and character staff. The weekly meetings offer a reflective opportunity to dissect the situation, behaviors, and thinking of the Midshipman, and develop their moral compass for future challenges as both a Midshipman and future Naval and Marine Corps officer. Often this work is done through maintaining a daily journal reflecting on their remediation journey, a character development plan that details the specific personal, academic, athletic, and professional goals over the remediation process (USNAINST 1610.3M, 2022). Additionally, each Midshipman produces a 5–10 page essay that details their remediation experience and the lessons they have learned. This process normally occurs over a 3–5 month period which culminates with a report by the honor remediator in 626

Leadership and Character Development at the U.S. Naval Academy

which a recommendation is made to remove the honor probation, extend the probation, or separate the Midshipman from the Naval Academy. Naval Academy leaders believe that, taken together, all of these elements of the USNA Character Development Program work in concert to create leaders of character. We strive consciously for the affective development of Midshipmen, aiming to move them to the fifth and most advanced level of Krathwohl’s taxonomy of affective learning: “adopting a value system and behaving consistently according to that value system.”

Assessing, Tracking, and Recording Leader and Character Development at USNA In support of the leadership and character development program, Midshipmen have long taken validated psychometric instruments. Over the past decade, we have ensured that any instruments taken by students in support of their leadership courses are administered through the centralized Office of Institutional Research so that this data are retained and available for future assessment efforts; previously, students were often sent to various internet sites to take instruments and no data were captured. Currently, students take several instruments as part of their leadership curriculum, to include the International Personality Item Pool for “Big 5” personality traits and facets (IPIP120: Johnson, 2014), the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised Adult Attachment Questionnaire (ECR-R: Fraley et al., 2000), the Short Grit Scale (GRIT–S: Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), Goal Orientation (VandeWalle, 1997), Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale (Dweck, 1999), Hardiness (DRS-15: Bartone, 2007), and the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC: Connor & Davidson, 2003). These instruments are generally administered and used in leadership classes to help students gain insights about themselves and how they can effectively lead others. The most promising future use of this data may be in finding correlations with relevant performance metrics and developing more informative and relevant feedback to give the students taking the instruments. Despite the wide use of these validated instruments for classwork, comprehensive assessment of leadership education and development at USNA is currently limited. In the cognitive domain, we regularly assess students’ mastery of leadership theory through exams and written assignments such as essays. This assessment provides some feedback on each course’s efficacy in delivering the academic content. As well, the Naval Academy attempts to measure how each student performs in his or her formal duties in Bancroft Hall through “Midshipmen Development Reports” (performance evaluations). These reports are largely student-produced, however, and thus admittedly possess limited value in formally assessing growth in the behavioral domain. Ideally, assessment would provide relevant information about whether the Naval Academy is meeting its mission to develop leaders of character for the military service and the nation. An Academy Effectiveness Board regularly investigates and responds to particular areas of interest and concerns identified by the senior leadership team, but does not maintain a sustained focus in addressing the existential questions of assessing leader and character development. A newly reconstituted Leadership Excellence Council, furthermore, is currently conducting a year-long seminar that is studying other effective assessment tools for the affective development of leaders of character. To overcome these shortcomings, we are working to develop a web-based application to serve as a center of gravity for all leader development efforts at the Naval Academy and to provide a streamlined platform for data collection in order to accelerate individual development, facilitate performance management, and to support institutional assessment. The application, called the Leader Development Hub (LDH), integrates three key features: a student profile that consolidates data from leadership development experiences spanning the entirety of the student’s career, a 627

Jeffrey R. Macris et al.

competency framework that provides both developmental content and assessment resources to be integrated into various leadership development experiences, and an event management framework that enables all faculty and staff to productively engage in leader development in a wide range of student interactions by conveniently providing the resources made available through the competency framework. For the student, the LDH aggregates all developmental artifacts, such as reflections and peer feedback, organized both by the event in which the development occurred and by competency across all developmental events. For the institution, the LDH enables assessment of each event across the full range of competencies (see Table 34.1), treating each event as an intervention and providing data on competency attainment prior to the event, during the event, and after the event. Similarly, competency development over time can be tracked by year group or by any developmental event. This system could quantify the impact of the full spectrum of developmental experiences, from classroom to extracurricular to programmed training.

Conclusions While there exists a relative dearth of Navy-wide official doctrine on the subject of leadership development, USNA leaders in Annapolis nevertheless have created their own approach to leadership development, informed by the behavioral sciences and the rich traditions of the sea. The Naval Academy’s four-year leadership program consciously aims to develop its Midshipmen in all three of the domains of learning – cognitive, behavioral, and affective – which we describe with the monikers “Know - Do - Be.” The Naval Academy’s new Hub system aims to assess and track a Midshipman’s development as a leader in Annapolis, from plebe summer, to their graduation 47 months later. At the end of their four years in Annapolis, we believe that our graduates have become leaders of character, capable of leading others in demanding naval contexts in defense of the nation’s interests.

Note 1 The authors readily and gladly acknowledge the leaders and scholars in the U.S. Army and at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point for their approach to leader development, which features these same terms but in a different order, “Be, Know, Do.”

References Armitage, R. J. (1997). Report of the Honor Review Committee to the Secretary of the Navy on Honor at the United States Naval Academy. Banning, K. (1938). Annapolis Today. Funk & Wagnalls Co. Bartone, P. (2007). Test-retest reliability of the dispositional resilience Scale-15 a brief hardiness scale. Psychological Reports, 101(3), 943–944. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.101.3.943-944 British Army. (2022). Army Leadership Doctrine. https://www.army.mod.uk/media/14177/21-07-267-armyleadership-doctrine-web.pdf Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76–82. Covey, S. (1989). Seven habits of highly effective people. Simon & Schuster. Currie, J. L. (2014). A historical narrative of the United States Naval Academy’s leadership development organization and structure. Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership. Cutler, T. J. (2015). The U.S. Naval Institute on the U.S. Naval Academy: The history. U.S. Naval Institute Press. Cutler, T. J. (2016). The U.S. Naval Institute on the U.S. Naval Academy: The challenges. U.S. Naval Institute Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Collier Books, Macmillan. DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 859–875.

628

Leadership and Character Development at the U.S. Naval Academy Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (GRIT–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166–174. Dweck, C. (1999). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365. Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the five factor model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78–89. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: The affective domain. David McKay Company. Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2009). FYI: For your improvement: A guide for development and coaching, 630. Lominger International. McKenzie, M. D. (2000). How are adventure education program outcomes achieved?: A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(1), 19–28. Office of the Superintendent. (2022, February 7). Brigade Honor Program. (USNAINST 1610.3M). United States Naval Academy. https://www.usna.edu/AdminSupport/Inst/1000-1999/USNAINST_1610.3M_-_ Brigade_Honor_Program.pdf Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press. Raver Luning, C., & Van Dam, T. (2021). Leadership as a Process. Unpublished manuscript. Shooter, W., Paisley, K., & Sibthorp, J. (2010). Trust development in outdoor leadership. Journal of Experiential Education, 33, 189–207. USNAINST 5450.3G-3. (2022, 18 February). Naval Academy Organization and Management Manual. USNAINST 5420.38A. (2022, 27 June). United States Naval Academy Leadership Excellence Council. USNA. (1977). Division of Professional Development Command History, 1976–1977. USNA. (1994). United States Naval Academy Command History 1993–1994. VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995–1015. Wojcikiewicz, S. K., & Mural, Z. B. (2010). A Deweyian framework for youth development in experiential education: Perspectives from sail training and sailing instruction. Journal of Experiential Education, 33, 105–119.

629

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

SECTION IV

Conclusions and Implications

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com

35 CHARACTER VIRTUE, SOCIAL SCIENCE, AND LEADERSHIP Consequences of Ignoring Practice Margaret Beale Spencer

Definitions of character virtue as observed in everyday life as behavioral traditions vary tremendously. The fact is particularly relevant to its developmental sequelae in regard to the impact of education, associated social policies, interpersonal relations and interactive practices, linked academic curricula, and the scaffolding supports for these activities. The situation is evident both within the United States and around the globe. Nonetheless, there appears to be fundamental agreement on some basic principles that undergird the importance of the topic. The scaffolding principles of character virtue scholarship represent a subset of social and emotional learning (SEL) attributes. The subset of SEL promotes specific traits including honesty, compassion, selfdiscipline, and perseverance (Prestwich, 2004). In general, in regard to social science traditions broadly and developmental science research practices specifically, unambiguously, character virtue principles are represented in particular ways. Desirable traits are often investigated and applied to research subjects. Judged evaluatively, the traits function as the focus of scholarly agendas and programs of research. As topics given their “treatment” and “representation” for various groups (e.g., as questions posed, variables selected, data analyses, and their interpretation), efforts contribute to literatures in the training of professionals and interpretation of interpersonal relationships among individuals and behaviors produced by them. Thus, publicly funded, broadly disseminated, societally impactful and providing national direction as policy, practice and evaluation, knowledge production—represented particularly by social science leadership—matters profoundly. It serves as a “cog in the wheel” of influence. Scholarly contributions—as a knowledge base—have implications for perspectives collectively shared as well as interpretations made of individuals’ socio-emotional functioning. This chapter provides an approach to character virtue that highlights and references both the “producers of scholarship” and, as well, those who are represented as “the subjects” of social science efforts. Furthermore, and more to the point—viz character virtue undergirding principles considered on the production end of scholarship—there is frequently (and unfortunately) a failure to apply SEL precipitated traits to scholars’ own individual and collective science traditions as influential scholarship producers and, thus, its leadership. As inferred from the work of Barbara Rogoff and colleagues about America’s knowledge production traditions (Guitierrez & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff et al., 2011), this shortcoming is salient. Influenced by an anthropological perspective and cultural sensitivities, the emphasis of Rogoff and colleagues is an epistemic DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-39

633

Margaret Beale Spencer

contribution that frames “culture as practice.” When functioning professionally as personal and collective leadership shortcomings, under-acknowledged cultural ways of learning and doing social science are impactful; they suggest cultural practices that can act as harmful science traditions. In fact—beginning in 1619 with Blacks’ arrival to Virginia and, thus, representing 20–22 generations of Black-White relational traditions and social structurally relevant variations of human vulnerability—positionality was institutionalized. Framed from a particular theoretical perspective (i.e., the phenomenological variant of ecological system theory, or PVEST, Spencer, 2006, 2008), it is that evident and there have been continuing life course and intergenerationally contributed and structured levels of human vulnerability associated with “difference” (i.e., vulnerability suggests an unevenness or unbalanced risk vs. protective factor presence level). Linked to context variation, vulnerability is seen as an unavoidable human status, thus, suggesting particular interpersonal traditions (Spencer, 1995, 2006, 2008; Spencer et al., 1997, 2006). Described in very specific cultural terms, Rogoff and colleagues (Guitierrez & Rogoff 2003; Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff et al., 2011) frame the situation as one of stable repertoires of practice. Consistent with Prestwich’s (2004) perspective about character virtue, I suggest that the tradition of particular cultural practices may limit the expression of traits promoted as reflecting signaling character virtue. In fact, the opening quote by Editor-in-Chief of Science Journals, T. Holden Thorp (November 18, 2022) notes the 75th anniversary of the transistor and its significant global societal impact. Its creation, as Thorp notes, provided architecture for the computer age; he acknowledges that one might say that William Shockley’s transistor put the silicon in “Silicon Valley.” As a coinventor, William Shockley, along with John Bardeen and Walter Brattain won the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics. Thorp also notes that Shockley spent the latter part of his life promoting a far right and racist agenda. He used his credentials—in areas about ideas far out of his expertise—to promote a racist agenda. Thorp’s (2022) editorial also acknowledged the failure of the journal Science to condemn Shockley, thus, he notes: “The process of science is one of continual revision, but it’s also one that must have a conscience.” Thorp’s editorial concludes with actions to be taken by the journal in the future to accompany any mentions of Shockley. In ending his essay, Thorp provides a simple conclusion to his editorial: “Make no mistake. Shockley was a racist. Shockley was a eugenicist. That’s all.”

Background As self-reflecting interrogations, I suggest a necessary analysis and critique of our own scholarly efforts (i.e., as “cultural practices”) in the conduct of social sciences. Strategies are enacted as individual and collective functioning through thought leaders responsible for producing scholarship applicable for practices supportive and relevant to and benefitting all citizens. Among others, the obligation is particularly relevant to those serving as responsible parties, role models, and assumed unbiased producers of knowledge and practices significant for everyone’s thriving. Prestwich (2004) suggests that honesty and compassion or concern for authenticity are included in SEL as traits serving as undergirding principles of character virtue. The promoted traits are too frequently absent from scholars’ own practices or research traditions and consequent dissemination efforts, which may impact training, everyday practices, and policies. These practices are noticeable shortfalls when researching those considered “other.” In fact— and as I suggested—science traditions and patterned efforts may suggest a culture as practice perspective, as conceptualized by Rogoff and colleagues (Guitierrez & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff et al., 2011). Stated differently, character virtues of “others” have been expressed in social science traditions and scaffolded by—at least in the United States—for several centuries as stable 634

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership

positionality and untoward behavioral mores. It is salient that these uninterrogated traditions (and/ or the condemnation of same) undermine both the process of science and its outcomes (i.e., as suggested by the H. Holden Thorp quotation). Unless other more tenable explanations surface, it is imperative to explore whether character virtue as linked to social science as historically relevant cultural practices contribute to under-interrogated and “dehumanizing as difference” science approaches, which then suggest stable repertoires of practice status (see Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff et al., 2011). The behavioral orientation observed in research represents a particular pattern; for example, it is frequently salient in social class difference-focused research. First, and too often the case for those considered low income, a particular deficit-focused perspective is generally a priori assumed and emphasized for one group (i.e., too often those referenced as “economic disadvantaged”). It is “an assumed given” without a consideration of the presence of myriad assets and strengths, as well. At the same time, for other groups most often assumed as “the norm,” usually defined by “whiteness,” the possession and benefits of long-term supports—precipitating economic advantages, situations of structural inequities, and varied types and sources of social privilege acquired primarily by skin color and difference identifiability—remain invisible. For a behavioral stance and “perception pattern” operationalized and—one might infer—internalized for, perhaps, two dozen generations, a normative coping situation of making what’s “uncomfortable,” thus, instead, “comfortable and invisible” is not difficult to visualize. Equally problematic, interpretations of research findings suggest that individuals are responsible for the heavily and negatively stereotyped status of economic disadvantage. The history of ill-begotten resources and privilege, at the same time—as noted—are ignored; the very few exceptions include the contributions of Luthar and colleagues (Luthar et al., 2013). Although overall criticized longterm as a shortcoming of authentic research efforts, the deeply rooted perspectives I have noted continue to be internalized and utilized by scholarship producers (Allen et al., 1985; Spencer & McLoyd, 1990). The tradition functions as and remains cross-disciplinarily “self- protecting;” accordingly, the viewpoints or perspectives are sustained and impact methodologies scaffolding authentic science intentions. Scholars may infer Thorp (2022) that this pattern involves science functioning minus a conscience. The conceptual shortcomings I have noted hamper the determination of influential and authentic policies. In essence, under-analyzed self-reflection opportunities serve to provide and function as “self- or status-quo protecting” and impactful methodologies. In reality with reference to social science research practice and leadership—if traits of honesty, compassion, self-discipline, and perseverance (re: self-reflection) were SEL relevant (Prestwich, 2004)—linked practices and policy traditions would be apparent. That is, the character of programs of research for training, policy decision implementation, and disseminated interpretations would look different from those currently in-place. A good example of the shortcomings of social science is exemplified by the Brown v. Board of Education Decision 1954…now virtually 70 years old; however, the issue of inequality of educational opportunity remains a continuing and stubborn aspect of 21st-century American life. An excellent example of an inadequate use of a methodology is the short-sighted embracing of ecological perspectives. Acknowledging the micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-levels of the ecology have been embraced by many developmentally oriented social scientists. The seminal ecological systems theorizing (EST) and general context acknowledging contributions of Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979), James Garbarino (1982), Richard M. Lerner (1992), and early ecologyfocused progenitors (i.e., University of Kansas ecological psychologists including Roger Barker, Herbert Wright, and Paul Gump) matter profoundly. Nonetheless, albeit the seminal contribution 635

Margaret Beale Spencer

from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theoretical framing, the role of history or the chronosystem level of the ecology continues to be largely ignored. The fact is no small shortcoming and there are few exceptions to this practice. However, one significant exception, which remains impactful, is Glen Elder’s (1974) publication, Children of the Great Depression. It remains prescient in noting the broad impacts of a life event on, particularly, children’s development. Continuing to publish from 1960s’ insights about the importance of considering structural, social and cultural, contexts’ salience in people’s lives, Elder’s methodological approach to the life course emphasized the role of life history (1974). His life course theoretical contributions and discussions about the “value added” when a life course perspective is integrated in a developmental analysis have generally not taken root as mainstream in the actual conduct of social science generally and developmental science specifically. In essence, a chronosystem emphasis or research designed to acknowledge the role of history for current experience (and its interpretation) is infrequently recognized as to its importance viz policies and practices apropos to the lives of all children and adults. Of course, like Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) scholarly efforts, Glen Elder’s contributions are well referenced but are infrequently actually incorporated into programs of either longitudinal or cross-sectional research and generated policies and practices. The shortcoming and consequently biased traditions that ignore historical realities in the interpretation of outcomes—as well as victim-blaming for unproductive coping outcomes as functional stereotyping—show perseverance. At the same time, parallel realities of privilege for particular segments of society—given specific historical circumstances such as slavery’s benefits throughout virtually two dozen generations to white economic stability and other traditions of oppression and inequities continue—albeit remaining un- or under-specified persist. Undergirding historical events and socially structured inequities fostering hierarchical differences in outcomes—usually associated with race/ethnicity differences—at the same time and as noted, remain invisible. A lack of social cognitive awareness of the nation’s 400-year-old set of economic supporting practices and social traditions—particularly, as suggested, Black enslavement, which consistently disadvantage people of color—does not suggest coincidence. Myriad ecological research contributions and life course perspectives emphasized make a status of unfamiliarity with the conceptual shortcoming an unconvincing explanation. More likely, there remains a failure to acknowledge particular practices representing 20–22 generations of Black-White relational traditions. As well—socially constructed and ignored in regard to the varied history of diverse groups— are the socially fashioned and determined conditions that are created. They are maintained and remain persistent as long-term conditions and psychosocial contributors undergirding American hegemony. Functioning as unacknowledged privileges, these conditions are linked to power and positionality that precipitate, control and function as persistently used policy relevant messaging as well as everyday language framings. In essence, power and positionality advantages function at all levels of human ecology as stereotyping. For example, communicated as news and social media messaging to the masses and, as well, as scholarly publications for training at the professional leadership level, both levels of communication ignore the problem of privilege. Consequently, disseminated messaging functions in opposition to character virtue. Rogoff and colleagues (Guitierrez & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff et al., 2011) would suggest the pattern of representing and talking about difference as a type of cultural style. There are consequences of this style, given the undergirding principles for the subset of SEL that promotes particularly valued traits (i.e., and among others: honesty, compassion, and self-discipline) (Prestwich, 2004). To restate and make clear—it is infrequently publicized that character virtue, which is undergirded by lived principles of SEL, are salient; their patterned 636

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership

absence may suggest a particularly framed social science cultural style (Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff et al., 2011). The editorial quotation previously referenced by Science Journal Editor-in-Chief Thorp is prescient and, as acknowledged, states: “the process of science is one of continued revision, but it’s also one that must have a conscience” (Thorp, 2022, p. 683). The suggested cultural style perspective provided by Rogoff and colleagues (Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff et al., 2011)—given repetitiveness as opposed to revision—is absent of the compassion trait; the style suggests an oppositional perspective to the assumption of science neutrality. Various representations of character virtue provide a focused topic of child and youth development research and training. However, as well, the topic may represent a perilous level of “underdevelopment and under-interrogation” as in research of adults—either individually or collectively as a discipline or field—thus, occupying and impacting at professional level leadership positions. Our conceptual framing of the adult development dilemma and shortcoming is two-fold. Underinterrogated but, nevertheless, created are both a privileging empowered platform and, as well, a flawed identity protection status, which serve to scaffold against self-analysis, at a minimum. The combination may be highly problematic particularly given the impactful responsibilities of scholarship productivity as a critical leadership and evaluative production expectation (i.e., observed both individually as researchers and collectively as a scientific field). The adult “under-development” shortcoming I have described functions collectively to increase everyone’s vulnerability and—intergenerationally transmitted across generations—compromises relationships both within and between groups. Too often it functions in ways that promote maladaptive coping with normative and non-normative stress levels; thus, its habitual character contributes to behavioral traditions as well as to flawed and inauthentic identities (i.e., both individual and at the collective levels). Thus, to use Rogoff and colleagues’ framing, as particular “repertoires of practice,” the tradition promotes a particular uninterrogated cultural style; it may lend itself to stereotyping and, thus, indicates an absence of character virtue scaffolding traits including honesty and compassion when scholarly efforts focus on and/or include marginalized groups. Functional shortcomings evident from social science reports and publications compromise everyone’s thriving. The latter is due to shared contexts of development, learning, and intended knowledge production (i.e., versus the primary deficit thinking and stereotypy for diverse group members); knowledge content is used as policies, training, and practices assumed efficacious for all. One problem appears to be that character virtue undergirding principles have focused narrowly on children and youth (as well as on critiques of highly vulnerable communities traditionally lacking in power). The point emphasized here is that, simultaneously ignored (re: self-reflection and critiques), have been those holding power as well as having, perhaps, “reluctant familiarity” with the history of its “status as power” acquisition and the strategies of perseverance for gaining and maintaining hegemony.

The Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems Theory (PVEST) Suggesting a paradigmatic shift from a Kuhnian perspective, the phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory, known as PVEST (Spencer, 1995, 2006, 2008; Spencer et al., 1997, 2006) provides an opportunity for unpacking the historically relevant social context and developmental research traditions that have implications for consequential policies and practices. The theoretical analysis can elucidate contributions of unacknowledged high vulnerability status (i.e., evident at both the individual and collective levels, given particular significant risks such as unacknowledged hegemonic beliefs), stress reactivity (e.g., supportive and neutralizing contributions of character virtue and leadership skills), and reactive coping adaptations 637

Margaret Beale Spencer

(e.g., maladaptive traditions such as “unreflective” habits). From a PVEST analysis of epistemologies associated with individual and group outcome characteristics, there is likely to be specific benefits. Advances may derive from a better understanding of the potential positive traits potentially forthcoming from adults’ assumed and functional SEL maturity; such maturity can critically serve as a model for and socialization messages about shared humanity status (Spencer & Dowd, in press).

An Introduction to PVEST The background I have discussed suggests that traditions of “blame the victim” communications, practices of “othering” (i.e., those not members of “whiteness communities”), and mindsets suggesting “dehumanization of difference” perspectives—traditions that more often than not emphasized as a problem and critiqued by marginalized social scientists of color—have, in the long term, been ignored. Thus, an acknowledged epistemology, which constitutes a conceptual and theoretical shortcoming of the social sciences, is that variations in the hegemonic and dehumanization traditions have not notably changed. An early resistance effort to the dehumanizing traditions described includes notables such as W. E. B. Du Bois (Hall et al., 2022). For decades and continuing into the 21st century, Du Boisian framed struggles for elucidating social science shortcomings continue. However, into the current 21st century—negative attributes suggestive of the perseverance trait viz hegemonic traditions in regard to those “othered”—remain nonetheless. Reminiscent of “bad habit” persistency (i.e., as problematic social science research and referencing traditions), the practice is troubling. That is, the stable embracing of hegemony observed throughout social science efforts is remorseless, troubling, and generally without untoward consequences for contributors to this cultural practice (Spencer, 2022). In essence—and in light of the patterned and unacknowledged resistance noted (and, thus, missed opportunities for self-reflection and social change)— perseverance, internalization, and evident acceptance of an untoward character virtue (e.g., a functional lack of honesty, compassion, or self-discipline when reporting on the experience of “others”) have remained in place. The “persistent hegemony habit” suggests a flawed and maladaptive behavioral tradition and problematic identity, which continues undaunted, under-acknowledged and normalized as basic research and policy traditions. As suggested by Rogoff and colleagues (Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff et al., 2011), the tradition represents a particular “culture as practice” reality. More challenging and supported by copious social media and messaging networks, 21stcentury American education and governmental leadership exemplars frame policy efforts and interests as representing a democracy of We the People. The noted systems of communication make and control headlines in regard to both the banning of historically accurate school texts (i.e., the explanation is that historical facts make some children uncomfortable) and, as well, the fostering and utilization of curricula that distort social realities. The latter distorting traditions include the dissemination of particular messaging, which suggests that “We the people” references concerning citizenship and opportunity represent authentically shared experiences across individuals and communities (Rice, 2017). Accordingly, a critical message articulated for the current character virtue review—given the habit for social science leadership and programs of developmental science research specifically to ignore the noted undergirding principles as a subset of SEL expressed as particular traits—then, is to address the topic of character virtue assisted by inclusive human development framing (PVEST: Spencer, 1995, 2006, 2008; Spencer et al., 1997, 2006). An authentic, contemporary—but, as well, historical—responsible character virtue topical review requires a particular accompaniment. Also 638

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership

necessary for interrogation is an analysis of the normalization of privilege as a source of resistance to character virtue. Our approach to the problem of privilege is nuanced. Privilege is conceptualized both as an outcome of a flawed identity process and, as well, represents a source of risk contributing to vulnerability level. In fact, we believe that privilege adds to a high vulnerability status and has longterm consequences and is referenced as a situation of identity fragility (Spencer, 2001). For those benefiting from hegemony—experienced both individually and collectively in regard to resistance to traits previously referenced (honesty, compassion, self-discipline, and perseverance)—the framing provides explanation for the high vulnerability status (i.e., as previously noted and framed as ego identity fragility, Spencer, 2001). The characterization represents challenges to an adaptive leadership style “to do no harm” and as a self-serving and identity relevant status response having to do with long-term economic and social benefits; the latter are generally under-acknowledged individual and group flawed identity statuses (e.g., as relevant to and concerning fragility status, Spencer, 2001). The flaw of hegemonic valuing and internalized self-beliefs is based upon a dehumanization of others given race, ethnicity, skin color, immigration status, English as a second language status, and social class factor differences. The shortcoming may be precipitated from a particular source of vulnerability. That is, as suggested by a PVEST analysis, for a flawed and internalized hegemonic self-belief system, vulnerability level relegates particular contributors to that status (Spencer, 2006, 2008). Specifically, inferred risks and assumed challenges may suggest an anxiety about potential retaliation given multiple generations of oppressive conditions imposed on others or, perhaps, the requirements of authentic between group competitive situations or an evolved race-linked minority population status. The latter possibility has the potential to generate uncomfortableness, and may be accompanied and exacerbated by needed attention to humans’ traditional developmental tasks requirements under, perhaps, less advantaged conditions. As speculations, addressing expected and unavoidable developmental tasks (Havighurst, 1953), an evolved racelinked minority population status may be associated with normative and extreme consequent stress situations and potential unproductive adaptations. Considered from a historical perspective as individuals and groups navigate spaces and acknowledge the role and contributions of contextual attributes; as suggested, a full incorporation of an ecological perspective and interrogation of same, matters. For example, the beginning of Blacks’ North American presence is generally acknowledged in Virginia and, as referenced, noted as 1619 (Roper et al., 2021). The under-examination of Black enslavement, of traumatic treatment, and the lack of repentance for same may be associated with individual and collective response to economic stressors (e.g., fear) and maladaptive coping responses to same (i.e., the systematic unacknowledged and unaddressed dehumanization of Black and Brown bodies). As addressed most recently by Spencer and Dowd (in press), lack of self-discipline in the recognition of particular maladaptive responses particularly to economic challenges considered either as a personal or collective leadership style, are important. This importance is especially the case, given the history of published critiques that emphasize conceptual shortcomings—ignoring their existence matters for the victims of economic linked oppression, human sources of it, and representations of same and its persistence. In fact, unaddressed conceptual shortcomings ultimately function as character virtue risks (e.g., minimizing enslavement history, unrepentant violence practices, enacted structural inequalities, and myriad inequities as social traditions, traumatic interpersonal “habits” [e.g., untoward law enforcement officer interactions with Black and Brown bodies], and “othering” representations). All serve to impact continuing contexts of dehumanization for those considered “other.” 639

Margaret Beale Spencer

Without recognition or adequate responses to identified shortcomings, careful scrutinizing suggests troubling results. Problematic character virtue traits may be left generally unidentified, unacknowledged, and show perseverance. For example, traits may function as “context” given the 400 years of Blacks’ presence as slaves, and the parallel 20–22 generations for Whites failed hegemony socialization practice suppression. The patterned traditions as stable repertoires of practice—and those particularly salient and impactful for trauma—continue as long-term inequities in North America especially for all those considered “other” as a function of the intersectionality of race, gender, and social class. Functioning and events at the various ecological levels of the nation’s 20–22 generations of experience with diverse individuals speak to a resistant image with respect to the practice of democratic ideals when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion viz communities of color representing diversity. Compassion-thin, socially constructed, and persistent social conditions of inequality represent the norm; at the same time, individual and collective memory distortions continue as a psychologically “soothing” but maladaptive reactive coping strategy (PVEST: Spencer, 2006, 2008; Spencer et al., 1997, 2006). Virtually 20 generations following Blacks’ 1619 dis-embarkment at Virginia and the launching of violent and traumatic exploitation for the subsequent four centuries (Roper et al., 2021), the sole purpose of the African slave trade – its economic benefit for the nation–was ignored; as well, the securing of White slave owners’ significant economic sustenance was pursued. Thus, remnants of the compassion-less institution of slavery and of the period of reconstruction have demonstrated the consequent trait of perseverance of the dehumanizing mindset viz “non-White” others although the fact continues as “an appearance” vigorously denied. Moreover, as another character trait shortcoming—and with few exceptions (Luthar et al., 2013)—there has been little perseverance shown in acknowledging and interrogating both the up-sides (e.g., economic, health, and safety benefits) and downsides (e.g., psychosocial and mental fragility) of privilege. As noted, Luthar et al. (2013) represent an exception to the case and is framed as the problem of affluence. Additionally, “whiteness studies,” as examined by David R. Roediger (1991), as well as the four-decades impact of the Critical Race Theory (CRT) movement, centrally positioned by Kimberle Crenshaw and other legal scholars provide substantively important descriptive positions (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). They afford helpful analyses of vulnerability variability, especially appreciated and prescient from the PVEST human vulnerability-resiliency perspective. An additional research leadership and self-discipline character virtue trait shortcoming is ignoring the chronosystem because it provides another untoward outcome, which I have noted. The failure to link the chronosystem with contemporary cultural contextual features represents yet another under-addressed historical practice and has ego identity relevance. The virtue trait shortcoming generates falsehoods concerning “the self” (i.e., both personally internalized and collectively manifested [e.g., as bodies of social science research]). Character virtue shortcomings particularly relevant to the traits of compassion and candor are linked to an inability to acknowledge socially constructed context differences, as well as to the incorporation and reinforcement of long-term assumptions of inhumanity for Brown and Black bodies. To name a few, noted character virtue limitations scaffold trainings provided to policing professionals, teachers, agents supporting youth social welfare, public policy determining professionals, and health promoting public servants (i.e., to name a few). Not unexpected, linked policies and their funding are deeply impacted. These inadequacies have implications for research questions posed, assessments of constructs identified, the inferences drawn from data analyses, methods used, and conclusions forwarded. The patterned “culture as practice” has implications for further stereotyping, funding determinations, and the character of “intended supports” (Spencer, 2022; Spencer 640

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership

& Spencer, 2014). As contributors to character virtue, practices have salience for the scholarly character of developmental science traditions specifically, lived mores in and out of the academy, and—as suggested with an acknowledgment of the historical context—adequately designed trainings provided as intended remedies supporting everyone’s human development and thriving. The institution of slavery provided economic robustness to the American democracy but, at the same time, the economic stability it accomplished took place absent of the virtue-relevant trait of compassion and, in fact, occurred due to an unrepentant process of dehumanization (Davis, 1966, 1975, 2014). The circumstance of America’s 20–22 generations of failed adequate reporting of its diversity history—without taking responsibility for this fact in regard to intergenerationally impacting victimization—particularly and vividly taints the character of social science (e.g., both its design, data analytic strategies, interpretation of findings, and requirements of effective supports [Spencer, 2022]). It represents the lack of what actually is required: “science…must have a conscience” (Thorp, 2022, p. 683). Moreover, the shortcoming of ignoring any acknowledgment of its character virtue failures allows and, in fact, reinforces, a tradition to blame victims for social policy inadequacies actually intended as remedies to persistent structured inequities(!). As framed by Rogoff and colleagues, the situation suggests stable repertoires of practice that are, in fact, costly to everyone (Guitierrez & Rogoff, 2003;Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff et al., 2011). As a critical analysis of character virtue as it functions in the social sciences, more broadly, but for developmental science, specifically, I have suggested that use be made of a particular framing. Specifically, the PVEST (Spencer, 2006, 2008) model affords a particular perspective, given its several context and culture sensitive conceptually linked components. Its utilization contributes significant conceptual insights, interpretive advantages, and policy relevant clarity when analyzing and critiquing the actual practices of character virtue as scholarly efforts intended to provide conceptual advantages for policies applicable particularly during childhood and appropriate to all children’s thriving. The following sections provide further depth to the character virtue-relevant topics I have introduced. First, I provide a review of the character virtue topic. Following that, I organize and emphasize themes, which appear to produce levels of high vulnerability to developmental science, conceptualized as morality risks, particularly in the production of scholarship needed in a culturally diverse nation and globe. Themes discussed include habits, collective memory, and distortions thereof or, more specifically, lying. Without question, there are copious cases when these themes are resisted. In the next section, character leadership is discussed as a strategy for promoting shared resilience and thriving. Finally, I discuss particular emphases, and I underscore the salience of missed opportunities that may have fortified against problematic (i.e., morality-thin) “culture as practice” science traditions.

Character Virtues A review of the literature on basic character virtue scholarship suggests a straightforward research orientation without the translational expectation for application although it is ubiquitous to education settings. Except for the efforts of Lawrence Kohlberg (1976, 1984), which attempted crosscultural applications with the unmet goal of demonstrating universality, nonetheless, and overall the body of basic research is, in general, absent of consideration of the challenges encountered when going from “bench to bedside” efforts. Thus, the character of the research and theorizing does not represent foundational and historical themes necessary for an appreciation of the challenges met when making sense of relationships encountered both within and between diverse communities coexisting in late 20th and early 21st centuries. 641

Margaret Beale Spencer

Thomas Lickona, who has written extensively on character development and education, argues that this decline was the result of several forces including cultural relativism, logical positivism, and social pluralism (Lickona, 1993; see also Lickona, this Handbook). He notes that an increasing cultural and religious/secular diversity coupled with a decline in a shared objective standard for moral conduct undermined the basis for traditional character education. It found itself replaced with values-centered education which focused on systematically describing value systems. These approaches emphasized classifying those values rather than making normative judgments, thus leaving the individual free to choose according to their own preferences (see also Fowers et al., this Handbook; Kirschenbaum & Simon, 1973; McGrath, this Handbook; Raths et al., 1978; Simon et al., 1972). These approaches draw upon Kohlberg’s work on moral reasoning (i.e., the three levels of which are pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional) with these conceptual approaches taking precedence over the development of positive concrete character traits (Kohlberg, 1976, 1984). Kohlberg divided these three levels into six stages of moral reasoning including: (1) obedience and punishment, (2) exchange/hedonism, (3) interpersonal concordance, (4) law and order, (5) social contract, and (6) universal ethical principles. Another person who approached the study of morality in this way was Urie Bronfenbrenner who outlined five modes of morality including: (1) self-oriented, (2) authority oriented, (3) peer-authority, (4) collective-oriented, and (5) objectively oriented (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Piaget argued that morality involves acting upon inner principles and rule structures, thus rejecting the idea that there is an external imposed system (Piaget, 1965). Others have borrowed from Lickona’s emphasis on the cognitive, affective, and behavioral model, but go further in incorporating other internal processes. Narvaez and Rest (1995), for example, divided moral development into four categories including: 1. Ethical sensitivity—the perception of moral and social situations, including the ability to consider possible actions and their repercussions in terms of the people involved; 2. Ethical judgment—the consideration of possible alternative actions and the rationale for selecting one or more as best; 3. Ethical motivation—the selection of moral values most relevant in the situation and the commitment to act on that selection; and 4. Ethical action—the ego strength combined with the psychological and social skills necessary to carry out the selected alternative. Berkowitz and Pritchard both characterized moral development as a series of moral qualities within the individual (Berkowitz, 2002; Pritchard, 1988). Berkowitz (2002; Berkowitz, this Handbook) further developed a seven-part “moral anatomy” of a person including: 1. Moral behavior (prosocial, sharing, donating to charity, telling the truth) 2. Moral values (believe in moral goods) 3. Moral emotion (guilt, empathy, compassion) 4. Moral reasoning (about right and wrong) 5. Moral identity (morality as an aspect self-image) 6. Moral personality (enduring tendency to act with honesty, altruism, responsibility) 7. “Metamoral” characteristics meaning they make morality possible even though they are not inherently moral 642

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership

Of course, the challenge to most of the theorizing I have noted has been the penchant to ignore the longstanding tensions and difficulties having to do with race, racism, and hegemony. The internalization of “difference-based” views as school-based practices and models, unfortunately, are framed within the normalization of “otherness” views having to do with race and lacking acknowledgment that “humanity status” is not a given when considering the American history of Black and Brown bodies. The observation of this absence is not lost on youth and communities of color. The under-acknowledged dilemma undermines credibility of the authentic fair-mindedness and honesty of individuals and systems; equally salient, there is a lack of efficacy and insights as defensible explanation of the conundrum noted except that humanity status of diverse others of color remain unacknowledged. There is ongoing debate over the efficacy of character education in part because teachers generally receive little training in how to implement a character education program (Berkowitz, this Handbook; Bier et al., this Handbook; Bulach, 2002; Milson & Mehlig, 2002; Prestwich, 2004). As noted, a significant concern voiced here continues to be the few efforts that acknowledge and integrate the problem of “othering” of human difference by individuals across the spectrum of professional roles. This omission does not exclude those tasked with the responsibility of teaching and modeling in their respective roles (e.g., teachers, administrators, researchers, policy makers) regarding the sought-after values that are of concern. Different approaches have been developed over the years such as Values Classification, where the emphasis is on students clarifying their own values without interference or judgment from teachers (Edgington, 2002). Others have suggested incorporating literature or films into programs to help foster discussions and promote character (Prestwich, 2004; Rudy, 2022). Some research suggests that the effectiveness of interventions can be improved if combined with character virtues and socio-emotional skills (Hatchimonji et al., 2022). As shared at the beginning of this review, however, much of the research failed to move beyond the pathologizing of highly vulnerable populations still adjusting to hundreds of years of enslavement, trauma in its aftermath, and a persistent pattern to ignore the fact. Lickona (1991, 1993, 2013) defined the mission of character education in cognitive, affective, and behavioral terms: as promoting good character which is further defined as “knowing the good, desiring the good, and doing the good” (Lickona, 1991, p. 51); however, the position forwarded in this review is the problem with whom the characterization “good” is associated. As suggested and specified by Lickona, and central to the mission referenced, schools need to work with families in communities to develop effective partnerships. Within the classroom, teachers should act as facilitators in developing the 4th and 5th Rs (respect and responsibility) as well as student skills in conflict resolution and reflecting on moral issues. Additionally, Lickona argues that teachers should act as moral leaders while promoting a democratic classroom that utilizes cooperative learning in fostering care beyond the classroom. Lickona notes that future challenges to these efforts include the role of religion in character formation, moral community leadership, and effective teacher preparation. Once more, the nation’s history of racism and practiced hegemony are infrequently and/or indirectly addressed. The John Templeton Foundation is one organization that has devoted considerable time, money, and energy into the study of character development and its relationship to social and cultural outcomes (Clement et al., this Handbook; Dill & Simpson, this Handbook). They fund many efforts into studying the “universal truths of character development, from childhood through young adulthood and beyond,” and include qualities of character including “awe, creativity, curiosity, diligence, entrepreneurialism, forgiveness, future-mindedness, generosity, gratitude, honesty, humility, joy, love, purpose, reliability, and thrift” (John Templeton Foundation Core Funding Areas Statement; available at https://science.fas.harvard.edu/files/division-of-science/files/ 643

Margaret Beale Spencer

john_templeton_foundation_core_funding_areas.pdf?m=1376682092). One of their projects includes the Williamson College of the Trades program evaluation overseen by Richard Lerner and colleagues (2012–2015). This project aimed to uncover “the role of character development in academic and life achievement, and about how to enhance the educational achievements of American men,” while also operationalizing and evaluating through a longitudinal study, the integration and implementation of the Williamson School’s tripartite model of character, moral, and civic education (Lerner, et al., 2012–2015). The Templeton Foundation has also sponsored an essay series which investigates the relationship between free-market economics and moral character. There has been little empirical work studying the implementation of character education for young adults (Weissbourd, 2009a, 2009b). Lamb et al. (2022) examined a character education program at the college level and found that programs that are structured in a developmental and contextually appropriate fashion can promote the development of several virtues. Weissbourd has been concerned with the way in which moral development in childhood and adulthood is interrelated. He has taken issue with the idea that moral values become deposited and ingrained in childhood and merely persists in adulthood. Others have observed how moral maturity develops later in life, with some pointing out how ideals often do not come into being until late adulthood (Colby & Damon, 1992; Noam, 1996).

Related Research Using a perspective that incorporated gender into the discussion of character development, Carol Gilligan focused on criticizing the theories of Kohlberg (Gilligan, 1977, 1982). Specifically, she took aim at Kohlberg’s tendency to assign women to the third stage (interpersonal concordance) and placing men at the fourth stage (law and order). Gilligan maintained that this model equated variables such as sex, age, and moral dilemma in constructing a monolithic male-centered approach to conceptualizing moral development. She proposed longitudinal studies that would more effectively incorporate those issues into any systematic theory of moral development. A significant facet of Gilligan’s critique of gender is that it fails to acknowledge its intersectionality with socioeconomic class and race, particularly as inferences from research efforts showing race differences, more generally, problematizes the experiences of minority boys without acknowledging the inauthentic representation of history, oppression, and patterns of moral inauthenticity of those responsible for the teaching and modeling mores of fairness and equity in classrooms across the country as well as those responsible for the designing, implementing, and interpreting of social science research, more generally, and developmental psychology more specifically. A special edition of the Peabody Journal of Education was devoted to the study of character education and development. The articles examined character education from the following perspectives: ethical philosophy programming, academic integrity, teacher preparation, sexual ethics, athletics, and cyberspace (Smith, 2013). A sampling of the most noteworthy articles is instructive for the basic premise of this review. Stephens and Wangaard (2013) developed a character education program Achieving with Integrity (AwI) that would take advantage of this opportunity and aim to reduce cheating and promote integrity. The program has several components centering on (1) the “core values” of respect, trust, honesty, responsibility, effort, and learning, (2) master curriculum and instruction, and (3) community and culture. They employed a three-year mixed methods study of its implementation at three high schools in the Northeastern United States. They found two of the three schools were able to effectively implement AwI programs but none of them had a noticeable impact upon the academic integrity of the students. 644

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership

The authors attributed these results to the problems inherent in changing institutional cultures. Important and yet generally absent in efforts was a careful integration of contextual variables that might explain differences in situations of support and challenges that highly vulnerable urban high school students contend with on a daily basis. Because these conceptual and methodological shortcomings continue as major shortcomings of research projects and the interpretations of findings, the patterned and lasting shortcoming may be better understood as a function of what is known about basic habits as opposed to a set of mores or conscious and morally explicit decision-making processes. That is, given the relationships and interdependencies among researchers, teachers, and scholars who provide interpretations for social policy makers, it is appropriate to ask the following: Do habits matter? Is the ease from doing what is comfortable and “known”—and the social acceptance and positive feedback concerning same—an explanation for the consistent shortsightedness in the lack of attention to diversity, equity, and inequality traditions? Is the lack of acknowledgment of “otherness traditions” and inhumane belief in regard to lack of change and inclusivity in programs of research and daily experienced traditions (re: how researchers approach a subject of long-term concern such as character virtue) heavily influenced by unconsciously replicated habits?

Habits: Implications for Character Virtues Research suggests that habits are automatic behaviors; they exist within a process of contextdependent repeating actions in a specific context and in response to cues, stimulus, and impulses with varying degrees of conscious and unconscious effort (Gardner, 2015; Verplanken, 2006). The implied redundancy suggested and salience for “beliefs” is assisted by patterned research traditions previously referenced and research “findings” reported over multiple decades in hundreds of disciplinary-specific professional journals. Referenced content reported may function as assumptions about the ecological and cultural character of experiences as diverse groups navigate contexts under conditions of chronically unequal conditions. At the same time, the “fragility identity themes” previously referenced are ignored; as habits, there are implications for the research questions posed, constructs identified, ecological character assumed, and the interpretation of findings. The fact that individuals are expected to cope successfully with developmental tasks is ignored and made invisible. Functioning as habits and research traditions, accurate portrayals of life course experiences and equal access to protective factors, assets, and supports are often assumed. We have used PVEST as a specific framework for the topic and, thus, add as well that habits are adaptations to stress situations; they may function in real time as a positive reactive adaptation or a negative one as a function of the situation (Spencer, 2006, 2008). From the extant literature, however, in general there is difficulty in establishing a conceptualization that both describes habits as well as offers an explanation for them, thus, making PVEST unusual in nesting habit in its framework with an explanation for its presence and utility in regard to human functioning. As Gardner (2015) points out, the difference in definition often rests on where habit is located in the behavioral process. Some treat habits as a type of involuntary behavior that results from a contextually cued process (Nilsen et al., 2012). For others, habits are rewarded behavior without conscious effort (van’t Riet et al., 2011). Context and environment are important as well, as some researchers treat habits as a tendency toward a particular behavior given a stable context (Ouellette & Wood, 1998) or as an automatic response given associations between repeated actions in stable contexts (Verplanken & Wood, 2006). Of course, when it comes to diverse individuals, context character and aspects and forms of its patterned stability or instability over time are never linked to individuals’ historical experiences. 645

Margaret Beale Spencer

As a powerful strategy for the sciences (i.e., behavioral, social) and the scholarship of the humanities, emergent and ongoing character quality, and historical scaffolding influences (e.g., enslavement, reconstruction, and its patterned social sequelae) continue to be ignored. Also significant, the habitually appearing contemporary traditions that problematize the habits of some individuals and uninterrogated hegemony assumptions about the status of the habits of other people maintain a status of invisibility. Behavioral perspectives have long dominated the discussion of habits and habit formation (Hull, 1943; Skinner, 1938). This focus has traditionally meant that habits are treated as behavior that is learned through frequent performance (Ronis et al., 1989). More recently the idea of “automaticity” has been incorporated into trying to understand how habits are formed (Gardner et al., 2012; Nilsen et al., 2012). Automaticity refers to the ability to carry out tasks without conscious attention to low-level details. Important here is the distinction between habitual behavior and the frequency of behavior, noting that some habits form quickly while others take time to develop; this variation suggests that the mere frequent performance of a behavior should not be classified as a habit and that the frequency of habit might precede or result from automaticity rather than being part of habit itself (Nilsen et al., 2012; Verplanken, 2006). Automaticity perspectives are linked to dual-process models emphasizing intentional/ conscious activities and automatic/impulsive ones (Sladek et al., 2006; Strack & Deutsch, 2004). Wood et al. (2002) found than non-habitual behaviors were more likely to be associated with intense feelings and thoughts than habitual ones and thoughts that were associated with habitual habits did not necessarily concern that particular behavior suggesting the automaticity of behavior (Verplanken, 2006). In sum, habits are formed as repeated behaviors guided by intentional decision making. As the behaviors are repeated consistently in stable and reliable contexts, the control of the behavior/habit becomes less internal and intentional and is increasingly directed more by contextual cues and associations develop automaticity. Habits seem to form in stable and consistent environments over time with minimal thought or consciousness. In unusual and varying contexts, intention and habit can come into conflict (Nilsen et al., 2012). Whereas theoretical orientations have sought to define and conceptualize habits and habit formation, it has not been applied as extensively to research on processes of changing or breaking habits. There are mixed findings about the ability to change habits and the role of willpower and conscious effort in inhibiting behavior (Gardner, 2015). Some researchers have found that there is great difficulty in changing habits without altering context (Nilsen et al., 2012; Wood et al., 2005). PVEST provides a strategy for understanding the role of context as a contributor to vulnerability status, which has specific associations. The framework demonstrates linkages with (1) outcomes as historically relevant associations, (2) stable coping processes (i.e., as positive or negative identifications), and (3) with the contributions of one’s history of reactive coping (i.e., given needed adaptations in response to context-linked stressors requiring adaptations as a function of the presence of supports or challenges). PVEST also provides the theoretical specificity and supports; thus, it aids in an understanding of intersectionality and, as well, it is a significant source of contextually experienced and specific “meanings made” of particular context character. Although it is not possible to provide and integrate intersectionality insights in this chapter, nonetheless, it can be said that the perspective provides contributions to understanding context. Of course, it is also necessary to consider how situations resulting in particular intersectionality experiences may be selectively controlled through use of memory strategies. Thus, there are implications for the use of “habits,” and ability to acknowledge the fact and impact for character virtue. 646

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership

Memory: Collective Memory, Historical Memory, and Politics of Memory Collective and historical memory refer to ways in which groups, collectivities, and nations construct and identify with particular narratives about historical periods or events. Modern interest in the subject can date to the 1960s with the upheaval of global social and political movements, seeking alternative and revisionist histories (Huyssen, 2000). Drawing from Halbwachs (1992), scholars of historical memory assume that memory exists beyond the individual’s autobiographical experience and is linked to social frameworks and relationships extending across generations (Bosch, 2016; Gedi & Elam, 1996). Indeed, Halbwachs (1992) went so far as to suggest that a completely isolated individual could not establish any memory at all; as these are built up, developed, and sustained in relationships with others in one’s social groups (Assmann, 2006). The term collective memory can be elusive and controversial, with definitions and conceptualizations varying enormously. Memory is considered distinct from history but nevertheless overlaps with and can be subsumed by it in many respects (Kansteiner, 2002; Verovšek, 2016). Memories of such diverse topics as self, race, and nation can draw from the same sources and materials as historical narrative and can be subject to the same bias, interpretation, and presentation while competing with and contesting other narratives (Bull & Hansen, 2016). Political and cultural memory are based on the selection and exclusion of memories, ordered and mediated toward a particular end. As Kansteiner (2002, p. 180) notes collective memory is “as much a result of conscious manipulation as unconscious absorption and it is always mediated.” Memory is in a constant state of being discovered, rediscovered, constructed (i.e., produced) and also consumed (Verovšek, 2016). For these reasons, some scholars prefer more individuated terms to better represent specific areas of group memories including cultural, institutional, and social variants (Assmann, 2006; Bosch, 2016; Fentress & Wickham, 1992; Lebow, 2006; Olick & Robbins, 1998). Some scholars have described four forms of memory including (1) mimetic memory (practical knowledge), (2) material memory (objects), (3) communicative memory (language and communication), and (4) cultural memory (meanings) (Assmann, 1992; Olick & Robbins, 1998). As well, Aleida Assmann (2006) argued that to embrace collective memory is to acknowledge a collective identity, and she outlined four additional kinds of memory: individual memory (subjective lived experience), social memory (social, family, generational levied experience), political memory (transgenerational, ideology, policy), and cultural memory, which is specialized and not common knowledge, encompassing forgetting, remembering, and a third category that far exceeds individual’s capacity for memory (i.e., libraries/museums). Other scholars have developed additional sub-categories of memory to further elucidate the origin or ownership of memory, including differences between elites and institutionally endorsed memories versus those originating in grassroots or popular movements (Kansteiner, 2002). Collective memory has its share of critics. Psychologists and neuroscientists have criticized human memory for being unreliable and prone to distortion (Assmann, 2006; Schacter, 1999). In the process of remembering, rediscovering, and reconstructing memory, the problem of false memories emerge (Davis, 2005). These false memories can range from benign and mundane activities to abuse and trauma (Davis & Loftus, 2019). Historians have criticized collective memory scholars because of their perceived anti-individualist/agency perspective owing to the significance of Halbwachs’ (1992) influence on the centrality of the social context for memory. As pointed out, the sheer volume of different terms and subcategories has rendered the field so voluminous and fragmented that dialogue and critical engagement is difficult (Verovšek, 2016). Kansteiner (2002) notes that scholars have not sufficiently conceptualized collective memories in a way that distinguishes them from individual memory, while also ignoring the problem of the audience and the 647

Margaret Beale Spencer

reception of that memory, thus suggesting a greater need for memory scholars to engage with the fields of communication and cultural studies. Gedi and Elam (1996), have suggested abandoning the idea of collective memory in favor of myth. Rejecting the limitations of both viewing collective memory as the aggregation of socially framed individual memories as well as a collective phenomenon, Wang (2008) proposes treating the individual, group, and cultural context as a single unit of analysis allowing for researchers to examine the origin and development of memory at different levels. As Garagozov (2016) points out, a key element of collective memory which distinguishes itself from individual memory is in its ability to preserve the memory of events that some would prefer to forget (Rousso, 1991). Memories are ordered and clarified by narratives about the past and this point is no truer than in the realm of political events (Chamberlain & Thompson, 1998). The politics of memory has been characterized as rhetoric about the past mobilized for political purposes (Boyarin, 1994) or employing remembrance for specific aims (Hoelscher & Alderman, 2004). Memory can here function as a means of creating “tradition” (Hobsbawm & Ranger, 2000), as an instrument of politics (Verovšek, 2016), as a political tool for reshaping understanding the present by omitting shameful events in the past (Rousso, 1991), or as a means for reshaping national pasts for current interests (Lowenthal, 1985). Multiple generations can interpret the same political events differently as mediated by political ideology or partisanship. Verovšek (2016) argues that the politics of memory should be viewed as a communicative concept, emphasizing the contested interpretations of the past by state actors, and how they are crafted and conflict with other narratives and between the formal and the informal public spheres. These contests can take the form of official events such as commemorations (Spillman, 1997), monuments (Olick & Robbins, 1998), and Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (Chirwa, 1997). They can also exist as intergenerational oral storytelling (Tulviste & Wertsch, 1994). Wang (2008) argues that collective memory can function as a therapeutic process via constituents exploring and interpreting traumatic events and experiences and crafting them into shared past memories by way of ceremony, ritual, and narrative. Verovšek (2016, p. 537) cautions that the study of the politics of memory should not be principally concerned with correcting people’s historical misconceptions but, rather, with identifying where they “come from, how they spread, whose interests they serve and how they are deployed.” Given the multiple ways that memory can function to serve the ego in diminishing experienced stress, its role in shaping character traits deserves more research. At both the individual and group levels, the role of SEL and the linked traits of honesty, compassion, self-discipline and perseverance, given the everyday observation of “difference,” makes the character virtue more complex. The expression of character virtue requires analysis as linked with assumptions about humanity given unavoidable identifiability. Issues of intersectionality matter and may have important implications for flawed character virtues and the lack of acknowledgment of these flaws. The latter is particularly relevant when one considers scholarship, which persistently ignores particular themes. As I have suggested, the complicating factors of habit, memory and, as well, the significance of intersectionality afford important perspectives for exploration; memory is especially relevant when analyzed from a theoretical framing that allows for the consideration of stress, adaptive processes, and identity processes. Most certainly, information distortion as in lying suggests a reactive coping strategy abetted by both individual and collective memory processes.

Lying Researchers have found consistently that lying is an ordinary and perhaps unavoidable aspect of life (DePaulo et al., 1996; Feldman, 2009). When considered from a PVEST perspective about character virtues, as applied to the conduct of social science research efforts that refuses to consider the 648

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership

significance of intersectionality perspectives, it is important. There are implications for the character of human vulnerability (e.g., sources of ego-preserving deception as a coping device and its habitual use); accordingly, reflecting on its role for more broad character virtue implications matters. Also critical is the role of lying for the conduct of research given the under-acknowledged importance of intersectionality for scholarship, the role of memory and habits, and its practiced traditions in regard to research interpretation, its dissemination, and its implications for practice and policies. DePaulo et al. (1996) developed a taxonomy of lies that include outright lies (statements contrary to truth), exaggeration (statements that overstate the facts), and subtle (statements that evade or omit the truth). Lies can be about the liar, the target, another person, or another event, although most lies are told about oneself (DePaulo et al., 1996). Self-centered lies are lies told to protect or enhance the liars psychologically, or to protect or promote the liar’s interests while other-oriented lies are told to provide protection or aid to others. Thus, from a PVEST perspective, one might say that the purpose of lying may serve to diminish the stress of truth. Lying has the ability to serve as a maladaptive reactive coping strategy (Spencer, 2006, 2008). Most research on deception and lying focuses on the frequency, motivation, and consequences of the person telling the lies with fewer work examining the impact of those who are lied to or the biases that might shape the perception of lies (Lloyd et al., 2017; Tyler et al., 2006). They found that frequency and quality (exaggeration vs. minimization) of deception was tied to the extent of negative response. The trust and likeability of those who told lies decreased when their deception was perceived as exaggerations. People react negatively to deception and are less satisfied in relationships where lies are frequently present (McCornack & Levine, 1990; Peterson, 1996). Participants also increased their own use of deceptions, in response to the frequency and degree of lies being told (Tyler et al., 2006). Research has consistently found that it is very difficult to consistently identify and detect deception (Bond & DePaulo, 2006; Vrij, 2008). Researchers have found that self-reported “good liars” employ verbal strategies in their deception that require grounding their lies in simply stated truthful information that seems plausible on the surface (Verigin et al., 2019). Research has focused on the accuracy of detecting lies and has ignored biases that might affect perceiving and detecting lies. Lloyd et al. (2017) examined whether race influences a person’s propensity to perceive someone else as being deceptive. Across six studies, they found that White subjects were more likely to demonstrate initial distrust of Black participants but would subsequently judge Black participants as more truthful than White participants. The authors attribute this finding to the participants’ concern for controlling for prejudice. This bias was less evident in those who expressed little concern for controlling for prejudice. The authors note the significance of this finding for situations where short-term decisions are made based on assessments about intentions (e.g., police interactions). Research on gender differences in lying is mixed. Some evidence suggests that women are more likely to lie (Tyler et al., 2006) but these findings should be tempered by an appreciation for the context of the lying. Some work suggests that the gender of the person who is being lied to, and expectations about future interaction, mediates the use of lying (Tyler & Feldman, 2004). These results suggest that men do not lie more than women or vice versa, but that men and women lie in different ways (Feldman et al., 2002; Tyler & Feldman, 2004). These differences are molded by different gender roles and expectations with women traditionally assuming roles of support that warrant a greater need for deception (DePaulo et al., 1996; Tyler & Feldman, 2004). Both men and women seem to lie toward the objective of controlling how the self is perceived (Tyler & Feldman, 2004). Overall, participants told more lies when they wished to be perceived as more amiable or competent and the orientation of the lies varied according to objectives of self-presentation. The subject of lying and its relationship to memory have been explored by a number of authors. 649

Margaret Beale Spencer

Garry et al. (1996) discussed what they called “Imagine inflation,” whereby imagining that something happened increases the likelihood of believing it happened. Polage (2012) suggests that lying can breed further self-deception. Shu et al. (2011) examined the role of cognitive dissonance and lying and found that when people engage in dishonest behavior they will retroactively perform a “motivated forgetting” of moral rules and expectations. The point of this review has been that there are multiple significant factors associated with character virtues, ones particularly salient in regard to the conduct of research, interpretations of findings, and the dissemination of scholarship. The final section provides a discussion of the moral dimension of leadership. Given the technological advancements in the resources available to research, more generally, leadership is more important than ever.

The Moral Dimension of Leadership In recent years, due to scandals in the world of business, entertainment, the military, and politics, there has been a general decline in people’s trust in leadership and the leaders of organizations (Abbatiello & Lindsay, this Handbook; Bandsuch et al., 2008; Callahan, 2004; Giambra et al., this Handbook; Macris et al., this Handbook; Ryan and Peterson, this Handbook; Sweeney, this Handbook; Taylor, 2003, 2008). Linked to this decline in trust are concerns about ethics and moral reasoning and its role in promoting leadership. In response to this situation, scholars have tried to research and conceptualize the relationship between leadership and moral reasoning and decision making. However, given its general lack of intersectionality themes, the success of the effort is questionable, particularly in the social sciences and other areas particularly concerned with translational efforts (i.e., attempts to move science from the “bench to the bedside”). On the one hand, writings on leadership, ethics, and moral development owe an enormous debt to Kohlberg’s (1976) six stages of cognitive moral reasoning development. Leadership styles that appeal to individual’s self-interest would characterize the pre-conventional moral stage (Machiavellianism), whereas those that emphasize interpersonal relationships, cultural expectations, and social networks would align with the conventional moral stage (Graham, 1995). Although there are theory-based notions of servant leadership (Bier et al., this Handbook; Graham, 1995; Greenleaf, 2002 ) that would align with the postconventional moral stage, researchers have found that a majority of adults in industrialized societies never go beyond Kohlberg’s conventional stage of morality (Kohlberg, 1969; Treviño, 1986; Treviño et al., 2014). At this stage, moral decisions are based on external influences, including expectations of authority figures and institutions. This situation suggests that leaders can play a significant role in guiding and influencing moral and ethical decision making of their teams and subordinates in organizations. Brown and Treviño (2006) suggest that there are four major domains of leadership including ethical, transformational, spiritual, and authentic. The “ethical leadership” paradigm draws from social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Brown et al. (2005) defined ethical leadership as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two way communication, reinforcement, and decision making” (p. 120). This “two pillar model” emphasizes that an ethical leader is both a moral person and a moral manager through both action and speech. The Moral Manager, in addition to serving as a model or idealized figure, must also make proactive effort to shape the moral decision making of their organizations and those they serve toward a concern for others using “influenceable” and “accountable” mechanisms. This latter part of their role is crucial and suggests a transactional component to the ethical leadership domain (Brown & Trevino, 2006; Burns, 1978). 650

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership

Transformational leadership refers to the ability for leaders to use their personalities and charisma to inspire and guide their followers toward common tasks and visions (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 2000; Burns, 1978). Whereas the ethical leadership approach emphasizes common standards of behavior and managing followers toward those behaviors, the transformational leadership perspective engages followers intellectually through an altruistic concern for others and intrinsic motivation toward accomplishing the vision. Some scholars have pointed out that, given the reliance on charisma and personality, transformational leaders are not necessarily ethical (Bass, 1985; Brown & Treviño, 2006; Howell & Avolio, 1992). Caldwell et al. (2012) draw on six leadership perspectives to create the foundation of their idea of “transformative leadership,” which they suggest is a highly ethical form of leadership designed to gain and maintain the trust of stakeholders both within an organization and without. Spiritual leadership emphasizes vision, hope, and sense of purpose (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Fry, 2003). Faith also figures prominently with references made to a nonsectarian force of divinity. By establishing the vision, spiritual leaders can bind their followers together through altruism and a sense of care and concern for those with whom they work. Fry (2003) describes spiritual leadership as the ability to holistically, draw together the disparate elements of the workplace including (1) body, (2) mind, (3) heart, and (4) spirit. Authentic leadership is about maintaining a sense of authenticity, self-awareness, and transparency embodied in the Ancient Greek advice to “Know Thyself” (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004). By knowing who they are what they believe, the theorists of authentic leadership suggest that leaders can align their follower’s sense of purpose to an organization or end goal. The legitimacy of the leader is established through their relationships with their followers and their transparency and authenticity. Another component of authentic leadership is the significant role that positive emotions can play. Whereas other theories of leadership focus on cognitive perspectives, authentic leadership suggests the importance of emotional processes (Avolio et al., 2004). Although these leadership styles are helpful, without a framing that allows for understanding the sources of variability, strategies for improvement remain absent.

Discussion and Conclusions The specific premise of my approach to character virtues is that developmental science specifically, but social science more broadly, scaffolds what functions as critical leadership for society. In addition, an underlying focus is that developmental/social science provides a critical function for a shared humanity viewpoint and a goal of providing an inclusive resiliency and thriving perspective. The background literature about character virtues suggested shortcomings and opportunities. The contributions of human habits suggested a role as well as the need for human development framing that would aid explanation as to why human characteristics and a shared status of vulnerability matter, but this framing has been under-represented in programs of research except from a perspective of hegemony. The under-acknowledged perspective assumes humanity status for Whites but takes an “invisibly stated” but dehumanizing set of assumptions made about Black and Brown bodies. Although not provided as a review, I underscored the idea that intersectionality insights aid our understanding about variations in vulnerability given stress status. I have emphasized that little in the literatures on character virtues allows for an integration of collective and individual memory contributions and the maladaptive proclivity of lying. The utilization and framing of PVEST as a device for aiding the interpretations of persistent “self-distorting” research traditions provide a heuristic device. It assists in understanding not just 651

Margaret Beale Spencer

the “what” of particular research traditions with the shortcomings noted; it demonstrates also an explanation of a “culture as practice” perspective and its impact. The PVEST framework aids in generating explanations as to “how” and, thus, the persistency of problematic research traditions. The perspective I have shared is intended to allow reflection upon the many ways—representing the “culture as practice” theme—that social science traditions may represent a failed continual revision opportunity as described in the opening epigram by Thorp (2022). Reinforcing a problematized “culture as practice” tradition, which demonizes those traditionally “othered” for centuries, the quote provides a strong reminder that moral positioning matters. Self-reflection assists the process; as well, meaning making processes aid in understanding observed variability. The epigram also suggests missed opportunities but—with self-reflection, self-revision, and conscience embracing opportunities intended to function and serve as authentically supportive and shared supports to everyone—collective change may indeed, be possible. I have suggested that the incorporation of more inclusive conceptual framings into research represents a vehicle for self-examination and that they should provide a mechanism for less character flawed leadership (i.e., expressed both individually and collectively). The breadth of the review provides new opportunities for creating revised research traditions and for taking responsibility for the shortcomings that have, for quite a long-time, been in place.

References Allen, W. R., Spencer, M. B., & Brookins, G. K. (1985). Synthesis: Black children keep on growing. In M. B. Spencer, G. K. Brookins, & W. R. Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective development of Black children (pp. 301–314). Erlbaum. Assmann, J. (1992). Das kulterelle Gedaechtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung undpolitische Identitaet infruehen Hochkulturen. CH Beck. Assmann, A. (2006). Memory, individual and collective. In R. E. Goodin & C. Tilly (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of contextual political analysis (pp. 210–224). Oxford University Press. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338. Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951–968. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.283 Bandsuch, M., Pate, L., & Thies, J. (2008). Rebuilding stakeholder trust in business: An examination of principle-centered leadership and organizational transparency in corporate governance. Business & Society Review, 113(1), 99–127. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall. Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. (1949). Psychological ecology and the problem of psychosocial development. Child Development, 20, 131–144. https://doi.org/10.2307/1125869 Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. (1954). Midwest and its children: The psychological ecology of an American town. Row, Peterson and Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/10027-000 Barker, R. G., & Gump, P. V. (1964). Big school, small school: High school size and student behavior.Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Basic Books. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire. Mind Garden. Berkowitz, M. (2002). The science of character education. In W. Damon (Ed.), Bringing in a new era in character education (pp. 43–63). Hoover Institute Press. Bond, C., & DePaulo, B. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234.

652

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership Bosch, T. E. (2016). Memory studies, a brief concept paper. Working Paper. MeCoDEM. ISSN 2057-4002 (Unpublished). Boyarin, J. (1994). Space, time and the politics of memory. In J. Boyarin (Ed.), Remapping memory: The politics of TimeSpace (pp. 1–37). University of Minnesota Press. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Bulach, C. R. (2002). Comparison of characteristics for JROTC students versus non-JROTC students. Education, 122(3), 559–563. Bull, A. C., & Hansen, H. L. (2016). On agonistic memory. Memory Studies, 9(4), 390–404. https://doi. org/10.1177/1750698015615935 Caldwell, C., Dixon, R., Floyd, L., Chaudoin, J., Post, J., & Cheokas, G. (2012). Transformative leadership: Achieving unprecedented excellence. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 175–187. Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead. Mariner Books. Chamberlain, M., & Thompson, P. (Eds.). (1998). Narrative and genre. Routledge. Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral commitment. Free Press. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. Davis, D. B. (1966). The problem of slavery in Western culture. Cornell University Press. Davis, D. B. (1975). The problem of slavery in the age of revolution, 1770-1823. Cornell University Press. Davis, D. B. (2014). The problem of slavery in the age of emancipation. Knopf. Davis, J. E. (2005). victim narratives and victim selves: False memory syndrome and the power of accounts. Social Problems, 52(4), 529–548. Davis, D., & Loftus, E. (2019). Recovered memories and false memories. In John R. Geddes, Nancy C. Andreasen, and Guy M. Goodwin (Eds.), New Oxford textbook of psychiatry (pp. 884–894). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198713005.003.0085 DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995. Edgington, W. D. (2002). To promote character education, use literature for children and adolescents [electronic version]. Social Studies, 93(3), 113–117. Elder, G. (1974). Children of the great depression: Social change in life experience. University of Chicago Press. Feldman, R. S. (2009). The liar in your life: The way to truthful relationships. Hatchet. Feldman, R. S., Forrest, J. A., & Happ, B. R. (2002). Self-presentation and verbal deception: Do selfpresenters lie more? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(2), 163–170. Fentress, J., & Wickham, C. (1992). Social memory. Blackwell. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693–727. Garbarino, J. (1982). Children and families in the social environment. Transaction Publishers. Garagozov, R. (2016). Painful collective memory: Measuring collective memory affect in the Karabakh conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22(1), 28–35. Gardner, B. (2015). A review and analysis of the use of ‘habit’ in understanding, predicting and influencing health-related behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 9(3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2 013.876238 Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Lally, P., & de Bruijn, G. J. (2012). The habitual use of the self-report habit index: A reply. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43, 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9317-6 Garry, M., Manning, C. G., Loftus, E. F., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 208–214. https://doi. org/10.3758/BF03212420

653

Margaret Beale Spencer Gedi, N., & Elam, Y. (1996). Collective memory - what is it? History and Memory, 8(1), 30–50. Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481–517. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press. Graham, J. (1995). Leadership, moral development, and citizenship behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857271 Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary ed.). Paulist Press. Guitierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory. The University of Chicago Press. Hall, J., Nichols Lodato, B., & Spencer, M. B. (2022). Du Boisian contributions to phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory: Interrogating thriving efforts and barbed-wire paths to black resiliency. In A. Morris et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of W.E.B. Du Bois (pp. C33.P1–C33.S10, online ed.). Oxford Academic. Retrieved September 9, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190062767.013.33 Hatchimonji, D. R., Vaid, E., Linsky, A. C. V., Nayman, S. J., Yuan, M., MacDonnell, M., & Elias, M. J. (2022). Exploring relations among social-emotional and character development targets: character virtue, social-emotional learning skills, and positive purpose. International Journal of Emotional Education, 14(1), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.56300/EVIP7836 Havighurst, R. J. (1953). Human development and education. McKay. Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (2000). The invention of tradition. Cambridge University Press. Hoelscher, S., & Alderman, D. (2004). Memory and place: Geographies of a critical relationship. Social & Cultural Geography, 5(3), 347–355. Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? The Executive, 6(2), 43–54. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/4165064 Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behaviour: An introduction to behaviour theory. Appleton-Century Crofts. Huyssen, A. (2000). Present pasts: Media, politics, amnesia. Public Culture, 12(1), 21–38. Kansteiner, W. (2002). Finding meaning in memory: A methodological critique of collective memory studies. History and Theory, 41(2), 179–197. Kirschenbaum, H., & Simon, S. (Eds.). (1973). Readings in values clarification. Winston Press. Kohlberg, L. (1969). State and sequence: The cognitive-development approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Rand McNally. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-development approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory and research and social issues (pp. 31–53). Holt, Rienhart, and Winston. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development. Harper & Row. Kohlberg, L., & Turiel, E. (1971). Moral development and moral education. In G. S. Lesser (Ed.), Psychology and educational practice (pp. 410–465). Scott, Foresman & Company. Lamb, M., Dykhuis, E., Mendonça, S., & Jayawickreme, E. (2022). Commencing character: A case study of character development in college. Journal of Moral Education, 51(2), 238–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03057240.2021.1953451 Lebow, R. N. (2006). The memory of politics in postwar Europe. In R. N. Lebow, W. Kansteiner, & C. Fogu (Eds.), The politics of memory in postwar Europe (pp. 1–39). Duke University Press. Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental contextualism, and the further enhancement of theory about puberty and psychosocial development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12(4), 366–388. Lerner, R. M., et al. (2012–2015). Evaluating the Williamson Model: Promoting Character Development and Productive and Engaged Citizenship among Young American Men. http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/ grants/evaluating-the-williamson-model-promoting-character-development-and-productive-a Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character : How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. Bantam Books. Lickona, T. (1993). The return of character education. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 6–11. Lickona, T. (2013). Educating for character in the sexual domain. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2013.775873 Lloyd, E. P., Hugenberg, K., McConnell, A. R., Kunstman, J. W., & Deska, J. C. (2017). Black and white lies: Race-based biases in deception judgments. Psychological Science, 28(8), 1125–1136. https://doi. org/10.1177/0956797617705399

654

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge University Press. Luthar, S. S., Barkin, S. H., & Crossman, E. J. (2013). “I can, therefore I must:” Fragility in the uppermiddle classes. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4. Pt 2), 1529–1549. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0954579413000758 Milson, A. J., & Mehlig, L. M. (2002). Elementary school teachers’ sense of efficacy for character education. Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 47–54. Narvaez, D., & Rest, J. (1995). The four components of acting morally. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral development: An introduction (pp. 385–400). Allyn & Bacon. Nilsen, P., Roback, K., Broström, A., & Ellström, P. (2012). Creatures of habit: Accounting for the role of habit in implementation research on clinical behaviour change. Implementation Science, 7, 53. https://doi. org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-53 Noam, G. G. (1996). Reconceptualizing maturity: The search for deeper meaning. In G. G. Noam & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development and vulnerability in close relationships (pp. 135–172). Lawrence Erlbaum. Olick, J. K., & Robbins, J. (1998). Social memory studies: From “Collective Memory” to the historical sociology of mnemonic practices. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 105–140. Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54 Peterson, C. C. (1996). Deception in intimate relationships. International Journal of Psychology, 31(6), 279–288. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. The Free Press. Polage, D. C. (2012). Fabrication inflation increases as source monitoring ability decreases. Acta Psychologica, 139(2), 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.007 Prestwich, D. L. (2004). Character education in America’s schools. School Community Journal, 14(1), 139–150. Pritchard, I. (1988). Character education: Research prospects and problems. American Journal of Education, 96(4), 469–495. Raths, L., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. (1978). Values and teaching: Working with values in the classroom (2nd ed.). Charles E. Merrill. Rice, C. (2017). Democracy: Stories from the long road to freedom. Grand Central Publishing. Roediger, D. (1991). The wages of whiteness: Race and the making of the American working class. Verso. Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B., González, C. P., Quiacaín, C. C., & Quiacaín, J. C. (Collaborators). (2011). Developing destinies: A Mayan midwife and town. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780195319903.001.0001 Ronis, D. L., Yates, J. F., & Kirscht, J. P. (1989). Attitudes, decisions, and habits as determinants of repeated behaviour. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 213–239). NJ Erlbaum. Roper, C., Silverman, I., Silverstein, J., & Hannah-Jones, N. (Eds.). (2021). The 1619 project: A new origin story. One World. Rousso, H. (1991). The Vichy syndrome: History and memory in France since 1944 (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Harvard University Press. Rudy. (2022). American Films as an educational tool for character development of teenagers. International Research Journal of Science, Technology, Education, and Management, 2(1), 143–151. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.6496839 Schacter, D. (1999). The seven sins of memory. Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54(3), 182–203. Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience: When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211398138 Simon, S., Howe, L., & Kirschenbaum, H. (1972). Values clarification: A handbook of practical strategies for teachers and students. Hart Publishing Co. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts. Sladek, R., Phillips, P. A., & Bond, M. J. (2006). Implementation science: A role for parallel dual processing models of reasoning?. Implementation Science, 1, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-12

655

Margaret Beale Spencer Smith, M. R. (2013). Character education: Introduction, evolution, and current trends. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(2), 139–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2013.775861 Spencer, M. B. (1995). Old issues and new theorizing about African American youth: A phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory. In R. L. Taylor (Ed.), African- American Youth: Their social and economic status in the United States (pp. 37–69). Praeger. Spencer, M. B. (2001). Resiliency and fragility factors associated with the contextual experiences of low resource urban African American male youth and families. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Does it take a village?: Community effects in children, adolescents and families (pp. 51–77). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spencer, M. B. (2006). Phenomenology and ecological systems theory: Development of diverse groups. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 829–893). Wiley Publishers. Spencer, M. B. (2008). Phenomenology and ecological systems theory: Development of diverse groups. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Child and adolescent development: An advanced course (pp. 696–735). Wiley Publishers. Spencer, M. B. (2022). What you ignore, becomes empowered: Social science traditions weaponized to resist resiliency research opportunities. In S. L. Hood, H. T. Frierson, R. K. Hopson, & K. N. Arbuthnot (Eds.), Race and culturally responsive inquiry in education (pp. 63–80). Harvard Education Press. Spencer, M. B., & Dowd, N. E. (expected 2024). Radical brown: Keeping the promise to America’s children. Harvard Education Press. Spencer, M. B., Dupree, D., & Hartmann, T. (1997). A phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST): A self-organization perspective in context. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 817–833. Spencer, M. B., Harpalani, V., Cassidy, E., Jacobs, C., Donde, S., Goss, T. N., Muñoz-Miller, M. M., Charles, N., & Wilson, S. (2006). Understanding vulnerability and resilience from a normative development perspective: Implications for racially and ethnically diverse youth. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology, vol. 1: Theory and method (2nd ed., pp. 627–672). Wiley Publishers. Spencer, M. B., & McLoyd, V. (1990). Special issue (minority child development). Child Development, 61(2), 1142–1148. Spencer, M., & Spencer, T. (2014). Invited commentary: Exploring the promises, intricacies, and challenges to positive youth development. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 43(6), 1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-014-0125-8 Spillman, L. P. (1997). Nation and commemoration: Creating national identities in the United States and Australia. Cambridge University Press. Stephens, J. M., & Wangaard, D. B. (2013). Using the epidemic of academic dishonesty as an opportunity for character education: A three-year mixed methods study (with mixed results). Peabody Journal of Education, 88(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2013.775868 Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247. Taylor, B. (2003). Corporate governance: The crisis, investors’ losses, and the decline in public trust. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(3), 155–163. Thorp, H. H. (2022). Shockley was a racist and eugenicist. Science, 378(6621), 683. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.adf8117 Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person–situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617. Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635–660. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143745 Tulviste, P., & Wertsch, J. V. (1994). Official and unofficial histories: The case of Estonia. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 4, 311–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.4.4.05off Tyler, J. M., & Feldman, R. S. (2004). Truth, lies, and self-presentation: How gender and anticipated future interaction relate to deceptive Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2602–2615. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01994.x Tyler, J. M., Feldman, R. S., & Reichert, A. (2006). The price of deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(1), 69–77.

656

Character Virtue, Social Science, and Leadership van’t Riet, J., Sijtsema, S. J., Dagevos, H., & De Bruijn, G. J. (2011). The importance of habits in eating behaviour. An overview and recommendations for future research. Appetite, 57(3), 585–596. Verigin, B. L., Meijer, E. H., Bogaard, G., & Vrij, A. (2019). Lie prevalence, lie characteristics and strategies of self-reported good liars. PLoS ONE, 14(12), e0225566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225566 Verovšek, P. J. (2016). Collective memory, politics, and the influence of the past: The politics of memory as a research paradigm. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 4, 529–543. Verplanken, B. (2006). Beyond frequency: Habit as mental construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 639–656. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X49122 Verplanken, B., & Wood, W. (2006). Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.25.1.90 Vessels, G. (1998). Character and community development: A school planning and teacher training handbook. Praeger Publishers. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Wang, Q. (2008). On the cultural constitution of collective memory. Memory, 16(3), 305–317. Weissbourd, R. (2009a). Moral adults: Moral children. Retrieved January 28, 2014, from http://www. psychologytoday.com/blog/the-parents-we-mean-be/200911/moral-adults-moral-children Weissbourd, R. (2009b). The parents we mean to be: How well-intentioned adults undermine children’s moral and emotional development. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Wood, W., Quinn, J. M., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Habits in everyday life: Thought, emotion, and action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1281–1297. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1281 Wood, W., Tam, L., & Guerrerowit, M. (2005). Changing circumstances, disrupting habits. Journal of Personal Social Psychology, 88, 918–933.

657

36 PROGRESS, CHALLENGES, AND PROMISE IN UNDERSTANDING, MEASURING, AND EDUCATING CHARACTER Blaine J. Fowers, Lukas F. Novak, Nona C. Kiknadze, and Alex C. Calder We begin this discussion of the difficulties in understanding, measuring, and educating character with humility because we understand, first-hand, how difficult those aims are, and we know that research, measurement, and education are conducted by fallible human beings who often have reasonable and heart-felt disagreements about the topics. Nevertheless, we believe that stocktaking is an extremely important activity for scholars who are interested in developing the best possible approaches to these worthwhile endeavors. We aim to offer our comments in the spirit of researcher fallibility and research challenges rather than from a perfectionistic viewpoint. We will group the understanding, measurement, and education of character under the heading of virtue science because we view all of them as accountable to the best possible empirical picture of the virtues, and we believe that scientific tractability is an extremely important criterion for work in the virtue domain. Nevertheless, space limitations mean that we can only address a subset of important concerns about virtue science. Other authors may legitimately wish to emphasize a different subset of concerns.

A Good Beginning We believe that virtue science is off to a rather good start. It is in the very beginning stages of serious science but important advances have been made, which augurs for significant progress toward giving our understanding of virtue a firm scientific basis. There are three ways we recognize the goodness of this beginning: empirical success, conceptual resources, and recognizing the valueimbued nature of virtue research. There are challenges in each of these three areas as well, but we want to begin by focusing on and appreciating the hard-won successes.

Empirical Success The empirical study of virtues has grown substantially in recent decades, and there are now scores of peer-reviewed, empirical studies of various virtues (Fowers et al., 2021). These studies have demonstrated that virtue constructs can be measured and that the virtue constructs generally 658

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-40

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character

perform in the ways that researchers expected. This research is complicated by the facts that there are many virtues to study and that the scope of any given study is limited, resulting in studies that generally investigate virtues one at a time and in limited ways. Nevertheless, virtues appear to be the kind of scalar traits (measurable and reasonably continuous variables) that admit of quantitative assessment. This scalar quality has the additional advantage of rendering virtues more realistic because one can possess a virtue in degrees rather than seeing virtues in a present/not present dichotomy. Virtue researchers have begun to answer many of the questions raised by the STRIVE-4 Model (Fowers et al., 2024). This model proposes that virtues (Scalar Traits that are Role sensitive, include Situation × Trait Interactions, and are related to important Values that help to constitute Eudaimonia or flourishing), and have four components: behavior, emotion/motivation, cognition, and practical wisdom. Research is also largely consistent with another conceptualization of virtues offered by Wright et al. (2021) that emphasizes that virtues are aspects of personality within the Whole Trait Theory domain. Although the Values in Action (VIA) conceptualization (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) is the most frequently cited framework, research has not confirmed its predicted six-virtue, 24-character strength structure (Azañedo et al., 2014; Brdar & Kashdan, 2010; Casali et al., 2021; Martínez-Martí & Ruch, 2017; McGrath, 2014; see also McGrath, this Handbook). Despite the challenges to this research, there are substantial literatures on the virtues of generosity, kindness, humility, gratitude, forgiveness, and compassion (Fowers et al., 2021). In addition, there are promising studies of emotional experiences that are likely related to virtues, including awe, elevation, and justice sensitivity (Gollwitzer et al., 2009; Lotz et al., 2013; Thomson & Siegel, 2017). Some more complex virtues have been studied, but it is too early to say whether that research has successfully documented the virtues in question (e.g., courage, justice, and practical wisdom). In other words, there has been a good beginning to a science of virtue but there remains a great deal of work to fulfill the early promise of that science. The beginnings of a resolution of two vital issues have also been established. The first is the influence of social desirability and other challenges to respondent veracity. This concern is especially important, given the nearly complete reliance on self-reports of virtues, which are obviously socially desirable characteristics. Yet, study after study suggests that social desirability and other challenges to respondent veracity play negligible roles in self-reported virtues (e.g., Bleidorn & Denissen, 2015; Meindl et al., 2013; Rye et al., 2001). The limited role of challenges to respondent veracity has been amply demonstrated in intensive longitudinal studies, in which respondents are asked to report on their virtuous behavior multiple times per day over a one- to three-week period. In these studies, virtue responses have a near normal distribution rather than the negative skew that the over-reporting of virtues would dictate (Bleidorn & Denissen, 2015; Fowers et al., 2019; Meindl et al., 2013). The second issue is whether virtues can be safely subsumed into existing personality dimensions, such as the Big 5 or the HEXACO frameworks. The evidence for the incremental validity of virtues vis-à-vis personality dimensions has been univocal and positive. In every study of which we are aware, virtues are better predictors of virtue-related constructs or behavior than personality dimensions (Breen et al., 2010; Fowers et al., 2022; McGrath et al., 2017; Morgan et al., 2017). This issue is more complex conceptually, as there are advocates for subsuming virtues into personality (Jayawickreme & Fleeson, 2017; McAdams, 2015; McGrath, 2015; Wright et al., 2021), but there is only conceptual similarity between personality dimensions and virtues as having a trait-like structure that likely share some “social cognitive processes,” although those processes are seldom specified in detail. In our view, the advocates of personality subsumption do not account for important unique elements of virtues, such as their centrally 659

Blaine J. Fowers et al.

moral nature, agency, intentional development, and the necessity of practical wisdom (Fowers et al., 2023). In addition, McAdams’ (2015) Three-Tiered Personality model fits virtues at least as well as Whole Trait Theory (Jayawickreme & Fleeson, 2017), but these options have not been thoroughly analyzed. Therefore, subsuming virtue into personality would be premature at this point and remains an open question that requires more empirical grounding than is currently available.

Conceptual Resources Available to Social Scientists A second reason for optimism is the increasing availability of conceptual resources for empirical researchers and educators. The revival of virtue ethics began in philosophy, widely viewed as beginning with Anscombe’s (1958) pioneering article. Unfortunately for social scientists, the rich conceptual work on virtue in philosophy was either largely inaccessible due to its density and exegetical character or idiosyncratic, as with MacIntyre’s (1981) influential book. More recently, several works by philosophers and social scientists have provided better conceptual frameworks that are accessible for social scientists and educators (Fowers, 2005; Fowers et al., 2021; Kristjánsson, 2018, 2020; Snow, 2010; Wright et al., 2021; see also Peterson & Kristjánsson, this Handbook). These and other works have taken difficult philosophical views and translated them into terms that are useful for social scientists, and they have made it possible to deepen the often atheoretical approach many social scientists take (Fowers et al., 2021). This atheoretical approach was led by Peterson and Seligman (2004), who openly despaired of providing a theoretical basis for their work. The good news is that social scientists and educators no longer need to rely on the meager theoretical resources available within their disciplines and can instead draw on or collaborate with philosophers. An even more valuable set of sources for conceptual enrichment has emerged in the many collaborations between philosophers and social scientists wherein these teams seek to integrate the best conceptual analysis with cutting edge social science. A prominent example has been provided by Wright et al. (2021), a team of two psychologists (Wright and Warren) and one philosopher (Snow). Their book sets out a framework for assessing and investigating virtues in a deeply theoretically informed way. Snow has also engaged in other interdisciplinary projects that similarly add theoretical depth to social scientists’ empirical efforts to understand virtues (Snow, 2015; Snow & Narvaez, 2019). Similarly, work by another philosopher/social science team has offered the STRIVE-4 Model of virtues (Fowers et al., 2021; Fowers et al., 2024) and how to study realistic (as compared to perfectionistic) virtues (Cokelet & Fowers, 2019). The work of the Jubilee Centre has also involved extensive interdisciplinary research (e.g., Darnell et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2015; see also Arthur, this Handbook). There are, of course, many other interdisciplinary teams that are advancing the combination of conceptual and empirical analyses. This interdisciplinary collaboration is a very important development because, in the best cases, social scientists can focus on the empirical work at which they excel and philosophers can focus on the conceptual work in which they excel, all the while integrating the two.

Value-Imbued Virtue Research One of the obstacles to getting virtue science untracked has been the longstanding insistence in psychology and some other social sciences that a fact/value dichotomy must be upheld. This insistence has been a rarely defended dictum in many social sciences, but there has been widespread 660

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character

push-back against it in philosophy (Putnam, 2004; Searle, 1964; Taylor, 1985), psychology (Brinkmann, 2011; Fowers, 2005, Fowers et al., 2024; Richardson et al., 1999), sociology (Gorski, 2013; Michalski, 2022), and other social sciences. The proponents of the fact/value dichotomy have voiced virtually no response, with the exception of a single paper (Kendler, 2002). As a result, the preponderance of argument suggests that facts and values are intertwined in ways that separating them is likely to obscure far more than it reveals. This issue has been thoroughly discussed in the literature and until a convincing argument is made that the dichotomy should be upheld, we believe that virtue researchers can rightfully abandon it and treat virtues as the moral concerns that they are.

Interdisciplinarity We touched on the interdisciplinary efforts currently underway in the study of virtue. This focus marks excellent and hard-won progress, but, in this section, we focus more on the challenges and difficulties of interdisciplinary research on virtue and offer some suggestions about how to thrive in an interdisciplinary team. We will also discuss the ways we think the social scientific readers of this Handbook can benefit from collaboration with philosophers and the realistic version of virtues that has emerged from this kind of collaboration.

Challenges of Interdisciplinarity In our experience, many administrators and policy makers give lip service to the value of interdisciplinarity. It has been unusual for these leaders to provide sufficient resources and structures to foster collaboration across disciplines. This situation leaves would-be interdisciplinary scholars largely to forge their own paths forward. In some ways, this need makes sense because every collaboration is unique and makes unique demands on the collaborators. Yet, administrative support and funding are key resources for all research, especially interdisciplinary scholarship. Establishing a working relationship among specific individuals from specific disciplines is the second challenge of interdisciplinary work. Its structure and process depend on the specific scholars, the specific topic, the specific setting, and the specific goals of the collaboration. So, even with the availability of some administrative support and frameworks or principles of interdisciplinarity, a lot of the work to develop a team simply must be done on the ground by the team members. The third major obstacle is that virtually every scholar is trained in a particular discipline, with its vocabulary, guiding concerns, and methods, all of which makes interdisciplinary conversation difficult. Various disciplinary desiderata (e.g., experimentation, abstraction in conceptual analysis, and quantification) suggest that there are correct topics for study and correct ways to investigate them. More dauntingly, the lengthy scholarly training and socialization tends to engender a loyalty to a specific discipline and its way of organizing and normalizing research topics. Interdisciplinary work requires one to at least question those norms, if not violate them outright. The reason for this stance is that every discipline has its norms and procedures, and they are frequently incompatible with one another. Interdisciplinarity is exciting partly because it opens doors that are invisible within any given discipline, including the conceptual enrichment of philosophy, the empirical tools of psychology, the cultural richness of anthropology, and so on. Yet, diversity of thought highlights another challenge because open-mindedness about such things requires highly trained, experienced investigators to admit extensive ignorance about what scholars in other disciplines know. This admission requires participants to cultivate an intellectual humility that allows them to learn and collaborate but may cut against the grain of the pursuit of prestige. 661

Blaine J. Fowers et al.

One characteristic that can assist with this process is for investigators to be open-minded regarding the best ways to study a topic. A second thing that can help is the development of overarching goals that incorporate the expertise of all the disciplines present. This kind of synergy can provide stronger impetus to overcome parochial disciplinary expectations. This discussion brings us to the fourth challenge, which includes two parts. The first part is that the kind of vulnerability necessary to open-mindedly question one’s own discipline and entertain the views of another discipline can be taken advantage of by other team members for their own gain. Interdisciplinarity requires trust that one’s open mindedness will not be exploited. Reasonable trust takes time to develop and making that time is the second part of this challenge. Rushing interdisciplinary work results in shallow cross-disciplinary understandings and an increased risk of trust violation. Investigators need time and space to develop open-mindedness, trust, and mutual understanding. This space can be provided by supportive administrators, grant funding, and by the investigators themselves, but it is vital that everyone involved understands that interdisciplinary work starts more slowly than work relying only on one discipline. This challenge means that trust and patience are important characteristics for interdisciplinary scholars. An important fifth challenge is the presence of multiple, powerful disciplinary defenders that can impose career-ending sanctions on those who do not follow the canons of the discipline. Given the disciplinary structure of universities and science, these defenders are inevitable and valuable. We do not suggest that it is possible or desirable to eliminate disciplinary defenders, only to limit their power. As stated elsewhere, “For better or for worse, the prestige of a department or school may hinge largely on the researchers’ prominence within a specific discipline, which can influence the unit to insist on within-discipline specialization” (Fowers & Cokelet, 2019, p. 47). Yet, their efforts to enforce disciplinary purity in departments and publications are inimical to interdisciplinary scholarship, which inescapably violates disciplinary norms. These defenders have roles as officers of disciplinary organizations, editors and reviewers of journals, department chairpersons, tenure and review committee members, and peers. There are some congenial environments for interdisciplinary work, but there are many places where interdisciplinarity will only be possible through explicit, formal changes in existing structures. Therefore, if scholars want to provide more than lip service to interdisciplinarity, reward structures, space, and funding need to be made available to foster it. Young scholars recognize these risks and if support is not available, they will understandably shy away from work that will impede their career success. Therefore, administrative efforts are needed to support interdisciplinary research and courage is a necessary characteristic of interdisciplinary scholars. As we have noted, a number of interdisciplinary teams have been successful in developing what Snow and Narvaez (2019) termed “deep integration” specifically in the domain of studying virtues. These examples indicates that interdisciplinary work is possible, meaning that administrative structures and investigator strengths can be developed to support it. Moreover, these collaborations have been phenomenally productive and illuminating. Continuing this trend appears both promising and possible.

How Can Philosophers Help Social Scientists? Because we believe most readers of this book will be social scientists or educators, we think the best way to build on this discussion of interdisciplinarity is to describe how philosophers can be uniquely valuable in the empirical and practical work in social science and education. A fairly obvious way that philosophers can assist empirical researchers and educators is by pressing for better definitions and theory. Social scientists and educators often see it as sufficient to cite a series of studies arranged in a narrative that renders their current efforts intelligible and perhaps 662

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character

necessary. Unfortunately, this approach is often an ad hoc narrative that is insufficiently theoretically grounded and gives rise to non-cumulative and unsystematic knowledge. It is one of the ways that psychology and philosophy can be fruitfully complementary. Given that philosophers are trained in careful conceptualizations, they can fruitfully assist social scientists and educators to attend more closely to multiple conceptual claims and avoid making unduly contested claims. Philosophical contributions can also help to illuminate distinctions and arguments that may be opaque to social scientists and educators. One excellent example of how this can work is found in developmental science, wherein the theoretical concept of development takes center stage and is the organizing concept of a great deal of research (Lerner, 2018). Attending to philosophical issues can help empirical researchers and educators to familiarize themselves with key positions that philosophers have taken related to virtue. Of course, we are not suggesting that empirical researchers or educators can or should become philosophers or just try to mimic philosophers. Instead, we recommend that empirical researchers learn about the important philosophical positions on virtue, so that they can describe them knowledgeably rather than fumbling around them unwittingly or making blind assertions about contested positions. Fowers and colleagues (2024) suggested three forms of philosophical questions, with an appropriate response to each. First, there are very abstract philosophical questions and these need not concern empirical researchers. One example is Driver’s (2001) thought experiment regarding a non-existent species, the Mutors. This thought experiment is part of her attempt to make virtue theory generalizable to all possible scenarios, even beyond humans. Social scientists’ exclusive interest in this world suggests that universalizing questions such as this do not have a place in empirical research. Second, philosophers debate many aspects of virtue and these debates generally center on conceptual questions (e.g., Is there a unity of virtues? What is human nature?). To the extent that philosophical questions are conceptual, they cannot be answered through empirical research but many empirical researchers will find it necessary to take a position on these issues. Therefore, empirical researchers can simply note the debate and explicitly adopt a position on the question, without attempting a philosophical resolution to the debate. This approach simply flags the researcher’s knowledge and avoids ignorantly forging ahead in a contested area. Third, there are philosophical questions that lend themselves to empirical investigation. We recommend that empirical researchers attempt to transform these questions into research questions that they can potentially answer (Fowers et al., 2024). The answers to such questions can shed light on philosophical debates. There are many philosophical questions that can be framed in testable form. For example, Doris (2002) and Harman (2009) concluded their examination of social psychology experiments on situational influence on behavior with the notion that virtue and character have very little role to play in behavior. This view has led to significant philosophical debate about how to interpret those experiments and many philosophers have advanced conceptual arguments against Doris and Harman’s positions. This philosophical debate can be complemented by empirical studies that directly test whether there is room for the influence of character on behavior. This empirical examination of such debates is discussed at length by Fowers and colleagues (2021, 2024) and Wright and colleagues (2021). Some research already confirms the idea that virtues are very relevant to behavior (e.g., Fowers et al., 2022; Lefevor et al., 2017), and this empirical knowledge is helpful to both philosophers and empirical researchers. This hypothetical approach has two great advantages. First, one can retain and demonstrate an open mind about unanswered questions in virtue science. There are many hypotheses that have already been amply confirmed (e.g., that virtue is measurable). Many other hypotheses remain to be tested. Second, in our view, a hypothetical approach is an excellent way for philosophers, empirical researchers, and educators to collaborate. The conceptual capacity of philosophers can 663

Blaine J. Fowers et al.

be teamed with empirical researchers’ capacities to translate questions into empirically tractable terms and educators’ on-the-ground knowledge and access to learners. This teamwork can maintain a focus on the actual behavior of observable humans in educational settings. Because many virtue scholars and educators see themselves as neo-Aristotelians of one stripe or another, it is important to add that this hypothetical approach would have been enthusiastically endorsed by Aristotle (1999) and many neo-Aristotelian virtue scholars have also endorsed it (e.g., Flanagan, 1991; Fowers, 2005; Kristjánsson, 2020; Wright et al., 2021). These scholars agree that a worthwhile theory of virtue must be answerable to data. Quantifying virtues is an important move in this direction but qualitative methods can also add greatly to scholarly understanding of virtue.

Realistic Virtues Flanagan (1991), a philosopher, was an important initiator of the collaboration of philosophers and psychologists when he argued that philosophers must present their moral theories in a psychologically realistic manner. This eminently reasonable suggestion (particularly from a psychological viewpoint) has been adopted by many philosophers in multiple ways. Most encouraging has been the deep interest many philosophers have demonstrated in psychological research, and, as we noted, many are collaborating actively with empirical researchers and educators. Generally speaking, philosophers seem to have taken the lead on interdisciplinarity, with empirical researchers and educators somewhat slower to recognize the value of collaborating with philosophers. This reluctance is rapidly changing, however, with many researchers and educators recognizing the conceptual insufficiency of their approaches and seeking assistance from philosophers. One encouraging development following Flanagan’s (1991) work is that many philosophers have developed psychologically realistic accounts of virtues. One widely discussed example is Doris’ (2002) critique of virtue. He relied on a broad reading of the social psychology literature to claim that virtue had little role to play in behavior. Although we disagree with Doris based on both philosophical arguments (e.g., Kristjánsson, 2013; Snow, 2010; see also Snow, this Handbook, Volume II, Chapter 17) and empirical evidence (Lefevor et al., 2017), his work exemplifies a philosopher who took psychological realism seriously. Ultimately, this realism led Doris to claim that virtues were unrealistic; we see this view as being due to his excessively demanding concept of virtue, one that could not be satisfied by humans. In contrast, James Arthur (2020; see also Arthur, this Handbook) and Kristjánsson (2013, 2016, 2018, 2020; see also Peterson & Kristjánsson, this Handbook) have led an effort in realistic virtue education at the Jubilee Centre at the University of Birmingham. As an educator (Arthur) and a philosopher (Kristjánsson), these scholars have guided the Centre (with its staff of philosophers, social scientists, and educators) productively for many years. One of the best examples of their productivity is a conceptually well-defined and empirically focused study of the virtue of gratitude (Morgan et al., 2017). Morgan et al. presented a rich conceptual account of gratitude as a virtue and created a multicomponent assessment strategy, which empirically demonstrated the importance of the four components they identified. This group has also studied realistic virtues of friendship (Walker et al., 2015), online virtues (Morgan & Fowers, 2022), and practical wisdom (Darnell et al., 2019, 2022).

Toward a Cohesive Science of Virtue There are a set of concerns about how the science of virtue is developing that we discuss briefly in this section. These concerns have been addressed more thoroughly elsewhere (Fowers et al., 2021, 2024; Wright et al., 2021), but we believe they should at least be mentioned in a chapter about the 664

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character

challenges of virtue science. These issues include the need for improvements in the conceptualization, investigation, measurement, and contextualization of virtues.

Conceptualizations of Virtue One of the most pressing concerns about contemporary virtue research and education is that it has lacked sufficient conceptual sophistication, although there have been some recent efforts to remedy that (Fowers et al., 2021, 2024; Wright et al., 2021). The majority of virtue investigations and character education efforts are notably atheoretical, often with little more conceptual depth than the use of terms such as virtue and character. We do not think that a full rehearsal of these issues is necessary, but we will use the STRIVE-4 Model as an example of the kinds of conceptual issues that should be clarified in high-quality research and education. The STRIVE-4 Model takes a hypothetical approach to how it specifies virtues. It suggests that virtues are scalar concepts, and the scalar nature of virtues has significant empirical support. Virtues also seem to be trait-like, which is also frequently assumed (but see Nucci, this Handbook); yet, it has been rare for scholars to specify what they mean by a trait and how virtues are distinguishable from personality dimensions. The model also suggests that virtues are modified by the roles people have and that virtues interact with situations. These specifications clarify that virtues are unlikely to be expressed continuously and without variation. Conceptualizing virtues as variable in their manifestations seems to be is an indispensable nuance for realistic virtues. The model also suggests that virtues are guided by the actor’s values and are conducive to eudaimonia (a flourishing life). Finally, the model hypothesizes that virtues consist of four elements: behavior, emotion/motivation, cognition, and practical wisdom. It is rare for virtue researchers or educators to provide this kind of specification, much less to test the specifications, but this increased sophistication is an area of necessary growth for virtue science. We wish to stress that all the propositions of the STRIVE-4 Model are hypothetical, meaning that they can be disconfirmed through empirical research. For an example of investigators who provided a well-articulated conceptual model of a virtue, see Morgan et al. (2017).

Virtue Study Designs By far the most common study design for virtue research is a single timepoint, self-report survey (Fowers et al., 2021). We have learned a great deal about virtue with this design, especially about its scalar and measurable nature, but this approach is insufficient for a mature virtue science. We discuss alternatives to self-report methods in the next subsection because it is important to complement our knowledge of virtue with non-self-report assessments. It is also necessary to gather longitudinal information, especially for understanding virtue development and how virtue expression varies with context. There are two general types of longitudinal research. The more familiar type is a panel design, wherein researchers assess respondents multiple times over several months or years. A somewhat lesser known, but equally valuable approach, is to assess individuals multiple times per day or week over several weeks, which is known as intensive longitudinal research (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013; Hamaker et al., 2018). Both types of longitudinal research allow an understanding of virtue as it is expressed over time, which includes the ability to examine within-person stability and variation as well as between-person variability. Both within- and between-persons data are necessary for concluding that a characteristic is trait-like (Fowers et al., 2021). 665

Blaine J. Fowers et al.

Two key forms of research are also necessary to increase our confidence about educating virtues. Observational studies are needed to examine how virtues are taught and to better understand students’ experiences in character education. With a broad definition of character education, a meta-analysis (Brown et al., 2023) assessed 214 character education studies with a total of 307,512 participants. All studies included K-12 students and had a control group. They found “a small but significant effect” suggesting that character education was beneficial. They identified two important modifiers in that shorter-termed interventions had more positive effects than longer-termed interventions and programs that included mentors were more effective than programs without mentors.

Complementing Self-Reports of Virtue Along with improvements in conceptualization and study design, it is also important to expand assessment of virtues beyond self-report. Researchers have learned a great deal from self-report measurement, but it is necessary to incorporate other forms of measurement as well. For example, a few studies have examined romantic partner reports of an individual’s virtue (Hawkins et al., 2007; Novak et al., 2018; Park et al., 2019; Reis et al., 2017; VeldoraleBrogan et al., 2010, 2012). These other-reports have corroborated self-reports, sometimes with incremental validity beyond self-reports vis-à-vis well-being and relationship satisfaction. This information augments researchers’ confidence in the virtues that have been studied in this way. Performance measures are another way to examine virtues, wherein the research participant completes tasks and experts’ responses or trained observers’ ratings are used as performance criteria. That is, respondents select responses that embody virtuous actions to some extent. The drawbacks of performance assessment are that it tends to be complex, time-intensive, and relatively expensive. Yet, virtues that have been successfully studied with performance measures would have much stronger construct validity. Another way to increase confidence in the existence and presence of virtues is by relating selfreported virtues to observed behavior. The most common form of observed behavior is research participants’ actions in laboratory-based economic games, such as a dictator game or a public goods game. Several studies have related the moral affective characteristic of justice sensitivity to economic game activity (e.g., Gollwitzer et al., 2009; Lotz et al., 2013). The virtues of fairness and kindness have also been positively related to economic game activity (Fowers et al., 2022; Lefevor & Fowers, 2016). More research on virtues and observed behavior is needed, especially regarding virtues that have not been studied in this way.

Virtues and Flourishing It remains puzzling how frequently virtues and flourishing (eudaimonia) are studied separately, as if the two were not expected to be related. Indeed, there are even some virtue theorists and moral philosophers who have questioned this relation (e.g., Haybron, 2007; Hooker, 1996; Tessman, 2002). This relation is one of the key domains of contention among philosophers that can be formulated in hypothetical terms and examined empirically. The conceptual connection between virtue and flourishing can be tested by examining the extent to which various virtues are positively related to measures of flourishing. A positive relationship between virtues and assessments of well-being has been found in several studies, but the measures of well-being have typically been positive affect or life satisfaction rather than flourishing (Aknin et al., 666

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character

2013; Bleidorn & Denissen, 2015; Dunn et al., 2008; Morgan et al., 2017; Park et al., 2017). Although hedonic measures (e.g., positive affect and life satisfaction) are generally related to assessments of flourishing (Fredrickson et al., 2013; Giuntoli et al., 2021; Thorsteinsen & Vittersø, 2020), the two are generally seen as distinct (Fowers et al., 2021; Haybron, 2013). There has been very limited research on the virtue-flourishing relationship, with the exception of Wood and his colleagues (2009), who measured eudaimonic well-being with self-reports of psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989). Therefore, there is a good deal of work to do to assess this relationship, which is central to neo-Aristotelian understandings of virtue. As we detail in the last section of this chapter, the investigation of the virtue-flourishing link is accompanied by several challenges. We will now discuss two significant issues that are less frequently raised about virtue research. The first is the degree to which virtues are expressions of culture, a topic that has also been neglected. This neglect is especially problematic because virtually all virtue research has been conducted in the United States and Europe, leaving virtue researchers open to the criticism that this research is ethnocentric. The second is the challenges associated with the investigation of the virtues-flourishing link.

Virtue and Culture As interest in the study of virtue and character strengths grows across multiple disciplines, so too does the importance of developing useful and valid instruments to accurately assess these constructs. Although there have been several attempts to create a universal theory of virtue, these attempts have met with mixed success (Cawley et al., 2000; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Scholars in this field postulate universal frameworks for virtues with claims of global validity, without fully examining the context of these assertions. The study of virtue has important theoretical implications for well-being, as Aristotelian eudaimonic theories regard virtues as the character strengths that are necessary for human beings to flourish (Brewer, 2009; Fowers, 2012). Research on virtue and character strengths have found that they are positively related to different domains of individual and societal well-being (e.g., Park et al., 2004; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Wagner et al., 2021). Henrich et al.’s (2010) seminal paper draws awareness to the concerning trend in psychology to generalize findings from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) samples and to assume their universality on a worldwide scale, and the literature on virtue (at least in positive psychology) has followed this well-worn path (Hendriks et al., 2019). Interdisciplinary scholars have noted that virtue research appears to be guided by Western normative assumptions about what virtue entails (Kinghorn, 2017; Snyder et al., 2020). Although attempts have been made to integrate various cultural traditions into the study of virtue, the majority of the research to date has largely been based on WEIRD samples and have been created by WEIRD scholars, thereby reflecting the norms and the values of the societies from which they are drawn. Evaluating a system by the standards of another system ignores important realities and differing value systems and incorrectly makes the assumptions that all humans live, experience, and value their lives in identical ways. Some scholars go as far as to argue against any form of universalism, stating that standards of virtue are inherently tied to a specific moral context and prioritize a specific vision of social order, meaning classifications of virtue can never fully transcend the particular political communities from which those virtues were drawn (e.g., Kinghorn, 2017). Researchers in this field are urged to examine their own positionality and the assumptions and ideologies that are incorporated into their measures. By calling attention to this problem in the 667

Blaine J. Fowers et al.

literature, we hope to facilitate the integration of more culturally nuanced approaches to virtue assessment and intervention. To gain a more complete picture of character virtues across cultures, we must first investigate the limitations of universal claims of virtue measures and examine what it means to include cultural variation in virtue theory and measurement. Culture plays a critical role in the development of values, norms, and attitudes (Fan, 2000). Cultural values that are central in one context may not be emphasized in others, and by extension, virtues that enable individuals to live well in a specific context may not be relevant in others. In addition, even if cultures share similar values, such as valuing respect, the display of the virtue may look very different according to the behavioral norms and values espoused in each culture. For example, the value placed on respect in Chinese culture may be strongly influenced by Confucian values that emphasize filial piety, whereas respect for and obedience to one’s parents in Western cultures is less explicitly emphasized (e.g., Lu & Xie, 2021; Power et al., 1989). Similarly, cross-cultural research reveals differences in the very definitions of situations defined as “moral” and “immoral,” with Westerners using immoral to connote primarily harmful actions and Chinese using the term to connote primarily uncivilized actions (Dranseika et al., 2018). Research on moral dilemmas and associated virtues in various cultures reveals that while similar virtues can be relevant and understandable in different cultural contexts, the manifestation of these virtues in each cultural setting can vary based on overarching cultural norms such as collectivism or individualism (Chopik et al., 2017; Snarey, 1985). Although much of the cross-cultural virtue research has focused on East Asian populations and their greater emphasis on the collective, we note that this focus is not representative of the full spectrum of how virtue is experienced and understood around the world. More work is needed to expand the scope of the literature to include research on virtue in other ethnic and racial communities. Hofstede’s (2001) conceptualizations of individualism and collectivism are useful for understanding some very general cultural differences but to rely solely on this distinction is an oversimplification, as various cultures and the communities within them cannot be dichotomized or even fitted into a one-dimensional spectrum. Despite these limitations, we will utilize this distinction to provide several examples of how some cultural differences influence conceptualizations of virtue. For example, in a study of adolescent virtue in the United States, the United Kingdom, North Macedonia, Mexico, and Taiwan, researchers found that youth from the more collectively oriented cultures of Taiwan and Mexico placed a greater emphasis on contributing to the collective good rather than individual relationships in a hypothetical dilemma involving a breach of honesty in an academic setting (Thoma et al., 2019). In addition, interpretations of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) in collectively oriented cultures have found a novel grouping of “interpersonal strengths” that typically includes virtues of fairness, teamwork, leadership, forgiveness, kindness, and modesty (Brdar & Kashdan, 2010; Littman-Ovadia & Lavy, 2012; McGrath, 2014; Ruch et al., 2010). Attempts to portray culture as a static, generalized set of value orientations or behaviors will naturally misrepresent it. Given that our social world is constantly in flux and that individuals are constantly adapting to these changes, culture must be seen as a dynamic process, created by groups of individuals who share particular life circumstances and histories. Thus, culture is best viewed as an ongoing, dialectical process between the individual and the group (Hong et al., 2000). This conceptualization does not lend itself easily to measurement, however, and it is an important one to keep in mind when making claims about “culture” as a static and fixed entity. The definition of culture as a shared set of values depicts people as recipients of culture from a generalized “society” with little recognition of the individual’s role in negotiating his or her cultural world (Garro, 2000). People can both adapt to and reject cultural elements through social processes such 668

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character

as acculturation, assimilation, and migration, and a viable definition of culture acknowledges the agency of individuals in establishing their own social worlds. Peterson and Seligman (2004) conducted one of the most widely cited studies of virtue with their VIA Framework and the VIA-IS scale, which was designed to measure 24-character strengths that fall under the six overarching virtues of courage, justice, humanity, temperance, transcendence, and wisdom. Other virtue frameworks, such as the Virtues Scale (Cawley et al., 2000), a 140-item self-report measure of the four factors of empathy, order, resourcefulness, and serenity are less commonly utilized outside of Western settings and as such will not be reviewed here. The authors of the VIA-IS define character strengths as relatively universal, trait-like, and morally valued dispositions in life that can lead to optimal psychological outcomes (Park et al., 2006; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Park and colleagues (2006) conducted a comparative study of over 100,000 respondents in all 50 U.S. states and 54 nations around the world, all of whom had completed the VIA survey online and concluded there was little variation in the rank order of strengths valued around the world. Since then, the VIA-IS has been widely used to measure positive character attributes in various international populations (Biswas-Diener, 2006; Linley et al., 2007; Peterson et al., 2007). We will review the VIA-IS in detail to highlight some core weaknesses inherent in using a universalist approach to capturing virtue (McGrath, 2015). Although this framework has some value for conceptualizing and labeling core qualities of virtue across cultures, it falls short of true cultural inclusiveness for reasons we delineate below. The VIA-IS remains one of the most used self-report instruments for the measurement of character in adults 18 and over (McGrath, 2019). However, the VIA-IS has been criticized for its psychometric inconsistencies, and its posited six-factor structure has been shown to vary drastically even within the American context in which it was derived, much less a multi-cultural one (Diez et al., 2022). Traditional factor analyses used to analyze the structure of these psychological strengths have yielded vastly different solutions, seldom confirming the original structure of six virtues as proposed by the original model, and most studies using the VIA-IS in different cultural contexts have found three, four, or five different factors rather than the originally hypothesized sixfactor structure (Azañedo et al., 2014; Brdar & Kashdan, 2010; Casali et al., 2021; Khumalo et al., 2008; Martínez-Martí & Ruch, 2017; McGrath, 2014; Shryack et al., 2010). Moreover, the empirically derived factors do not tend to align with the VIA model. As such, the VIA-IS is perhaps best understood as an interesting but not definitive attempt to define virtue nomenclature rather than a set structure describing universal virtues. The VIA was a significant project created over a multi-year period involving input from a multidisciplinary group of scholars. This collaboration gave rise to the VIA Classification published by Peterson and Seligman (2004). Researchers on this project made commendable attempts to incorporate cultural diversity in their selection of virtues, reviewing key moral texts from eight cultural traditions: Confucianism and Taoism in China; Buddhism and Hinduism in South Asia; and Athenian philosophy, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the West (Dahlsgaard et al., 2005). Scholars also examined primarily Western popular literature and media for other virtues to include from lists created by other influential figures and groups like Charlemagne (Einhard, 2008), Benjamin Franklin (1815), William Bennett (1993), Sir John Templeton (1997), the Boy Scouts of America, and the Girl Guides of Canada (Niemiec, 2013; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Although this project is commendable for including a review of cultural traditions of virtue in the major religious traditions around the world, it falls short in several ways. First, the authors only draw from one text from each religious tradition under study, therefore limiting the diversity within religious perspectives that may fall under a specific tradition. For example, for Hinduism, the authors chose to utilize the virtues outlined in the Bhagavadgita 669

Blaine J. Fowers et al.

(Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhup ada, 1990) as they believed that it “reflected the most crucial aspects of the tradition under study” rather than the virtue list articulated in the traditional Hindu text of the Yoga sutra (Patañjali, 1979). The latter text outlines one of the most widely cited virtue collections in Hindu philosophy, the Yamas and Niyamas, which have been very influential in modern yoga philosophy and thought (Bhide et al., 2021). Another example is the longstanding, central debates about the development of virtue in Confucianism (Angle & Tiwald, 2017) that do not emerge in the publications on the VIA. The problem lies in the scope of the VIA’s attempts. Although attempting a review of world literature is commendable, taking such a high-level, source-limited approach distinctly limits the nuance and complexity of each moral tradition that the investigators tried to incorporate within their measure. The second weakness of this approach is the author’s criteria of universality for virtues to be included on the “master list” of the core virtues identified in the VIA. Salient virtues that were identified in one cultural tradition, but not in others, such as “li” in Confucian philosophy, which translates to etiquette or observance of the rites of ceremonial behavior, were not included in the master list of virtues due to their absence in other traditions (Cleary, 1992; Haberman, 1998). The VIA-IS has been criticized for this limitation and researchers have identified several culturespecific character attributes that were excluded from this model (e.g., Bornstein, 2017). Whereas universal approaches to virtue have an obvious attraction in attempting to make sense of common values, this very universalism makes it difficult to include virtues that may have strong cultural relevance for only some of communities. In its attempts at universality, the VIA-IS therefore sacrifices cultural validity. The third weakness of the VIA-IS is the allowances the authors make toward interpreting and stretching virtues to fit their perceived universal model. Virtues fall under different names in different cultures, and it is often a matter of debate as to whether these different cultural usages refer to the same virtue. In addition, definitions and expressions of virtue can vary drastically as a function of their cultural context. The authors highlight this limitation when discussing the virtue of courage, which is explicitly named in several of the virtue texts of Abrahamic religions. In these cases, courage is often portrayed in terms of physical valor and bravery. However, in other contexts, such as the East Asian religions and philosophical frameworks of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, courage is not explicitly named (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). This omission does not necessarily indicate that this virtue is not valued in these traditions but instead suggests that interpretations of courage or bravery are conceptualized and expressed differently. Therefore, a question item that measures courage on the VIA-IS such as “I have taken frequent stands in the face of strong opposition” (Q12), may capture a Western conceptualization of this virtue and fall short of accurately representing this virtue in an East Asian cultural context. Peterson and Seligman (2004) also make liberal interpretations of their core virtue of transcendence, which is described as the belief that there is a higher meaning or purpose to life. They state this virtue is “rarely nominated explicitly” but nonetheless “infuses each tradition” and “seems taken for granted.” Although the importance of meaning in life is well-established in contemporary Western psychology (e.g., Steger & Kashdan, 2013), claims that are based on such loosely described sociohistorical conceptions must be regarded as tentative at best. There are many issues with the VIA virtues of wisdom and humility (Kristjánsson et al., 2021). For one, these virtues are salient in the Chinese philosophical tradition (Yu & Xie, 2021), but the theoretical definitions of these virtues in the VIA and Chinese systems differ dramatically, and the VIA-IS items have been critiqued by Chinese scholars for inadequately capturing the culturespecific meanings of virtues in Chinese culture (Duan et al., 2012; Yu & Xie, 2021). 670

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character

To make this critique more concrete, Duan and colleagues (2012) conducted a study investigating the virtue structure of a translated Chinese VIA-IS model with a Chinese sample. The researchers found that over half of the items measuring character strengths (144 out of 240) lacked cultural validity and were therefore removed to create a 96-item Chinese Virtues Questionnaire (CVQ-96) with a unique three-factor structure of interpersonal, vitality, and cautiousness. These cross-cultural efforts reveal the problems with a universally oriented approach to virtue measurement and underscore the importance of building culturally informed and comprehensive tools that include relevant and endorsed qualities in a given cultural context. We suggest that these cultural variations and disagreements are endemic in virtue discourse but they have only recently gained widespread traction among Western virtue scholars. Moreover, cultural questions will not disappear. One option, of course, is to simply double-down on universalist conceptions of virtue, but few believe that this is a viable approach. As we have argued, the attempt to simply translate virtue measures developed in WEIRD societies into other languages fails the test of cultural validity and yields very limited benefits. In contrast, virtue scholars could take a “bottom-up” approach that is grounded in specific cultural traditions. The danger here is that there are a very large number of cultural traditions and such an approach could lead to a virtual Babel of virtue conceptions that have little in common. The two horns of this dilemma are, therefore, to persist with universalistic, but culturally invalid virtue conceptions or develop a very large number of poorly related but culturally valid approaches. We are inclined to offer a more modest alternative of pursuing a dialectical approach in which universalistic virtue conceptions are tested against cultural differences and “bottom-up” approaches are compared with existing measures to assess their generality across cultures. This idea is an aspirational suggestion, as this dialectical approach has not been implemented, to our knowledge. In contrast, there are already several culturally based virtue frameworks and measures, particularly in China, that can help to get a dialectical approach started. We briefly review these now. Yu and Xie (2021) created the Chinese Moral Character Questionnaire (CMCQ), a taxonomy of Chinese virtues that draws upon historical Chinese philosophy, and these virtues remain relevant in contemporary Chinese culture. Yu and Xie (2021) reviewed other work on culture-specific Chinese virtue such as the Confucian Ethics Scale (CES; Park et al., 2005), the modified ethical climate scale to measure personal perceptions of ethical thoughts (Lin & Ho, 2009), the Filial Behaviour Scale (FBS; Chen et al., 2007), and the Virtue Adjectives Rating Scale (Mu, 2007). Yu and Xie (2021) supplemented these findings with their own review of Chinese religious, philosophical, and historic texts to delineate seven core Chinese virtues of Ren (benevolence), Yi (righteousness), Li (propriety), Zhi (wisdom), Xin/Zhong (trustworthiness and loyalty), Qian (humility), and Xiao (filial piety), a list that looks markedly different than the VIA-IS model. Of course, this list is not the final word on Chinese moral character attributes, nor have these scholars conducted the second half of the dialectic we described in the previous paragraph, but it represents an important step forward in psychologists’ attempts to capture and assess cultural virtues from an emic perspective. These findings underscore the need to expand the existing paradigms of virtues to include concepts that are relevant to how individuals conceptualize moral actions in their respective societies. Rather than asserting an unjustified universal classification of virtue, scholars and educators need to pay attention to the contexts that define virtuous actions. An in-depth review and understanding of historical cultural norms, values, and traditions is necessary to guide the dialectical approach we intimated and hopefully speak to the lived experience of individuals around the world. In terms of methods, this work would involve a shift from the reliance on universal, WEIRD scales that are developed primarily through psychometric methods toward approaches that incorporate 671

Blaine J. Fowers et al.

a qualitative, contextual approach based in methods such as ethnography and grounded theory in order to incorporate the voices of individuals and communities from diverse contexts. Going forward, we believe that it is necessary to explicitly contextualize the conceptual, measurement, and educational work on virtue to clarify its cultural sources and limitations. It is too early to know how “bottom-up” or dialectical approaches can help us forge a more culturally valid framework for virtue, but it is clear that the time for persisting in poorly justified universalist approaches must come to an end.

Challenges in Linking Flourishing and Virtue This section illustrates a dilemma in virtue science that arises from the suggestion we made above to investigate the links between virtues and flourishing. We highlight two possible relationships between virtues and flourishing. On one account, virtues are tightly related to flourishing, but then, we argue, they inherit substantial complexity from the flourishing construct. In contrast, a loose relationship between virtues and flourishing, we argue, seriously undermines the value of the construct of virtues. We conclude by discussing the implications of these accounts for virtue science. It seems to us that any study of virtues presupposes a schematic based on better and worse modes of living, because virtues are best seen as modes of acting, thinking, or feeling that are, in a critical sense, more desirable than their alternatives (Fowers et al., 2021; Wright et al., 2021). From this perspective, a discussion of virtues seems incomplete without a discussion of what it means to live well, although some have demurred about this link because it is contested (Wright et al., 2021). It is practically a truism that human beings want to live well (Fowers, 2015). Some modes of living are immediately apparent as (usually) better than others; to be fed is (usually) preferable to being not fed; to be healthy is (usually) preferable to being sick; and to be loved is (usually) preferable to being ignored. The desirability of these modes of living can be inferred through the ample literatures documenting our shared pursuit of these desirable states of affairs. The superlative (albeit imperfect) case of good living, which appears to be concretely realizable, can be called flourishing (Fowers, 2012). Many difficulties emerge from this characterization of flourishing. For example, it is reasonable to be concerned about the extent to which an individual’s preferences modify the form of their flourishing life, and it is necessary to appreciate the powerful influence that one’s environment can have in either promoting or preventing flourishing, especially apparent in the concept of moral luck (Nussbaum, 1986). Temporarily setting aside considerations of environment, genetics, and other ‘non-controllable’ factors, many neo-Aristotelians hypothesize a specific set of characteristics of individuals that are conducive to flourishing, and we call these characteristics virtues (e.g., Fowers, 2012; Kristjánsson, 2015; Snow, 2010). This interpretation of virtues, let us call it virtues as conducing to flourishing (VCF), is not the only interpretation available. However, it offers certain merits. Most importantly, it directly connects virtues to an intelligible personal “good” rather than a more abstract good (e.g., Martin, 2007). This approach rescues virtues from their unfortunate role as persuasive tools for whoever would like to dominate others by telling them how to live (see Carr, 2000, for a discussion of values education as social control). Let us call that use of the virtue-concept virtues as commands (VAC). When virtues are commands, “educators,” however well-intentioned, seek to mold others into their image through the external imposition of a moral order. Problems naturally emerge when those deemed unvirtuous by such “educators,” be they homosexual, tax-evading, or indolent, do not agree 672

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character

with the “educator” as to the worth of the virtues or goods in question. One has only to think of the “educational systems” in politically tyrannical societies to appreciate the potential horrors of VAC. Despite the drawbacks of VAC, as we enumerate some of the challenges of VCF, the desirability of VAC will increase to the point where it becomes clear why some virtue scholars (e.g., Wright et al., 2021) seem to have opted for VAC, if only by default, despite its authoritarian consequences. Of course, these scholars do not advocate this authoritarian approach, but we see it as an alltoo-likely outcome of a lack of connection between virtue and flourishing. In contrast to VAC, VCF locates the good of virtues within individuals and societal modes of living. VAC does this by rendering abstract goods as concretely anchored in particular human beings and their good living. However, this advantage brings with it a concomitant cost. If we see the aim of virtues as flourishing, the concept of virtues must admit of at least as much variation as is extant in the concept of flourishing. That is, if virtues hinge fundamentally on flourishing, then any challenges scholars might confront in the study of flourishing will almost certainly rebound into their study of virtues. To take a first, rather serious example, consider the elementary ontological challenge facing a flourishing researcher today, the question of what flourishing is (Alexandrova, 2017; Hone et al., 2014; Sharma-Brymer & Sharma, 2020). Neo-Aristotelians think that flourishing is a multidimensional construct with both objective and subjective components and with features both species-general and individually specific (e.g., see Escoto, 2013; Huppert & So, 2013; VanderWeele, 2017). If we restrict our attention to those features of flourishing that are specific to individuals, we arrive at a proliferation of virtues. If individuals flourish in specific, rather individuated ways, it is possible that there are relatively stable individual characteristics whose virtuousness depends on how they fit in an individual’s life. The former claim is relatively uncontroversial – that flourishing involves components which are individually or at least culturally variable (Wȩziak-Białowolska et al., 2019). The latter claim is much more provocative because virtues are often discussed as if they possessed an abstract generality which unproblematically incorporates individual variation, perhaps due to the popularity of Aristotle’s famous, species-general account. Consider the individual characteristic of humility. In Culture A, humility is a celebrated and encouraged mode by which the individual relates to the broader public (Sinha, 2012). In Culture B, the expressions of humility deemed virtuous in Culture A can be seen as a failure to inhabit a stance of a valued personal power (D’Errico, 2019). In the first case, humility is touted as a positive mode of relating to others, and in the second case, deprecated as a negative mode of relating to oneself. Given VCF, if flourishing varies between individuals, then the structure of virtues will also vary between individuals. Therefore, a virtue researcher must overcome a challenging task: to measure a construct (like the virtue of pride or humility) in a population where the manifestation of that construct varies from individual to individual. Such measurement is rendered extremely difficult, because to accurately measure the virtue of pride (or humility) across a pool of participants would require measuring sufficient characteristics in each of the participants’ lives to determine which degree of pride is warranted (virtuous) for them as individuals within their cultural configuration. Some of these measurement challenges have already been documented elsewhere (Wright et al., 2021). The problem of variation in virtues becomes more pronounced when we tighten our scope from cultural configurations to differences in individuals’ life situations and social roles. Consider two similar individuals, one employed as an IRS agent, and another employed as a psychotherapist. There are doubtless many virtues which fit equally for these individuals: each would likely benefit from courage in situations where they feel afraid (Pury & Lopez, 2010). Yet, upon close 673

Blaine J. Fowers et al.

inspection, excellence in their work would seem to require, at times, conflicting characteristics. The genuinely warm openness of the successful psychotherapist, itself conducive to one form of flourishing and a manifestation of a motivation toward one version of the good, might undermine the work of the IRS agent, by diminishing their capacity to appropriately initiate audits. Reflection reveals that adult life is rife with these role differences, especially across work roles, where different characteristics are required of different people (see Høiland & Klemsdal, 2022, for a discussion of various work roles). But individuals may also require differing but relatively stable traits in the various roles of their individual lives, such as a person who is an adult, a parent, a friend, a supervisor, a church member, and so on. If we accept that excellence in each of these activities represents components of good living, then we must accept that life situations as labile as work or other social roles can play a sizable part in whether specific stable characteristics of individuals are virtuous (or not). Such complexity reveals an essential fact about almost all virtues. Virtues, in part due to their natural connection to flourishing, are context dependent. Whether a certain extent of personal pride, or courage, or warmth will tend toward flourishing in an individual when manifested as a characteristic will depend on features of that individual’s cultural configuration, life situation, and social role. This complexity stems from variations in flourishing, and is accordingly built-in, from a VCF perspective. One cannot accept the VCF interpretation of virtues without also accepting this complexity. This complexity has been discussed with reference to the provocative and controversial virtue of phronesis (e.g., Kristjánsson et al., 2021; see also Peterson & Kristjánsson, this Handbook). A fascinating and open question emerges from these considerations: how sensitive is the virtuousness of a characteristic to context? Answers will no doubt vary depending on the characteristic and context in question. One avenue for dealing with this variability is to think in terms of Wittgensteinian “family resemblances” among differing manifestations of a virtue. Many challenges seem to be human problems, shared by almost all, and the characteristics conducing to wellness with respect to those problems will likely share such a family resemblance across individuals and cultural configurations (e.g., fear, caution, and the virtue of courage, Pury & Lopez, 2010). This relative stability of manifestation will allow a more stable description of the virtuous characteristic in question, and, ultimately, will allow discussion of a stable virtue. Compassion appears to have similar stability, but this potential avenue requires more investigation. To take a second challenge, which emerges from a careful consideration of the relationship between flourishing and virtues, we can examine the elementary epistemic challenge facing a flourishing researcher today: how do we determine if an individual is flourishing? One way to determine if an individual is flourishing is to ask them if they are flourishing. However, many individuals, despite wanting to live a good life, do not have a reasoned concept for that good life readily available. This situation might be because possession of a reasoned concept of the good life is often not necessary to live a good life. When these individuals are asked whether they are living well, they might respond based on their current mood or perhaps based on their recent luck. Either of these responses would not track what most scholars mean by flourishing. Similarly, when asked about whether one expresses a virtue such as honesty, the individual may recall several instances of honesty, but neglect to focus on the fact that the individual is less than honest frequently. It is often the case, in the human sciences, that researchers and practitioners track a construct within an individual in which that individual does not track themselves. A doctor can measure a patient’s systolic blood pressure without that individual ever having an awareness of such a thing, and a psychiatrist can ask targeted questions during a structured interview to assess a patient’s 674

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character

anxiety, without the psychiatrist or patient using that word. Flourishing might sometimes be such a construct – individuals may view flourishing as a moment-to-moment experience, with dramatic variation in their moods and experiences over time, but their general mode of living would not appear to be flourishing (perhaps partly because of the wide fluctuations in well-being). In this case, individuals may have a mistaken view of flourishing that will mean that they cannot respond accurately to the investigator’s questions. VanderWeele (2022) has addressed a similar scenario for a respondent’s misperception. If an individual fails to track the extent to which they are living well or acting virtuously, then they will not always be reliable reporters of whether certain characteristics amount to flourishing or virtue. In such cases, virtue may still be evident as a feature of an individual’s life that may only be accessible through observation rather than neatly accessible through self-report. The corollary of this stubborn resistance to measurement is that a researcher will be hard pressed to know whether a given characteristic is virtuous in an individual’s life situation without extensive observation, first to recognize the nature and structure of the flourishing in question, and second to appreciate the connection between virtue characteristics and that individual’s pathways to flourishing. Put more succinctly, it can be difficult to know immediately whether a given tendency is virtuous. Kristjánsson and colleagues (2021) discussed the significance of individual variation for virtues as well. The notion that an individual might imprecisely track or even fail to track their flourishing or virtues raises challenges for scholars. Such a result feels intuitively wrong. One might want to think that an individual themselves ought to be the sole author of such an intimate fact of their life. We raise this question to point out that this intuition about the centrality of self-evaluation rests on an understanding of flourishing and virtue that privileges their subjective psychological components. As a state of the whole organism, certain features of flourishing and virtue are rightly seen as subjective and depend profoundly upon the preferences and values of the individual whose flourishing is of interest. If that subjective element is unlikely to be accessible, however, a flourishing researcher must develop non-subjective measures of flourishing and virtue that are sufficiently elastic to accommodate the ample individual variation in how they present. In any case, we think such non-subjective indicators of virtue and flourishing are inherently important to develop because virtue and flourishing are never entirely subjective phenomena, but non-subjective measures become essential where self-report is questionable. These complexities confront the virtue researcher as global human phenomena, but they are felicitously absent for an individual with a roughly stable life in a roughly stable community with roughly stable mores. In this case, what is virtuous will be learned over time and crystallized into common wisdom, but these features are frequently non-translatable across cultural contexts or even dramatically different individual lives. Instead, individuals become local experts of what conduces to flourishing (or does not) in their particular context, and this expertise permits quick judgments about competing modes of living. Such local expertise has been consistently celebrated across various emic approaches to cultural phenomena (Hansen & Heu, 2020). To this point, then, we have highlighted only two challenges that emerge from a tight connection between virtues and flourishing. As mentioned before, the virtue-flourishing connection is not universally asserted or hypothesized but it appears to be a better choice than VAC. Moreover, VCF has its uses in concretizing the good to which virtues are oriented. Accepting this connection entails accepting the bewildering complexity of virtues “in the field.” The VCF view and its ramifications also offer information for those considering future virtues research. As mentioned above, there are likely to be stable virtues that are conducive to flourishing in roughly the same 675

Blaine J. Fowers et al.

way across various life situations and cultural configurations. This stability leads to homogeneity in the presentation of the virtue, which allows for measurement and detailed description. Such stability would likely root itself in certain human problems that appear in similar ways and thus allow for consistent remedy. An enumeration of some of these virtues, a description of the problems they solve, and empirical support for their stability would go a long way toward advancing both flourishing and virtue research by establishing a point of uniformity amidst a sea of individual variation and reinforcing the sometimes challenged conviction that progress can be made in this area.

Conclusions We began this chapter with a recognition of the intellectual humility and the fallibility that are unavoidable in virtue science. We are also compelled to conclude the chapter with the same sensibilities. On one hand, there has been enormous progress in virtue science in the past two decades. It has gone from a virtually silent domain to one that is vibrant and demonstrating significant success. On the other hand, there are some seriously daunting challenges ahead to move toward what could be seen widely as a mature science of virtue. We remain cautiously optimistic, however, because we have been impressed by the innovative talent and sheer elbow grease of many scholars of virtue. Virtue science has made impressive progress in showing that many virtues can be measured as scalar characteristics, which is a necessary beginning point for quantitative science. Unfortunately, there have been only a few researchers who have ventured beyond single timepoint self-report research. We detailed the limitations of this research approach and suggested some alternative methods that can enhance our knowledge and the credibility of virtue concepts. We also recognized the progress that has been made in rendering virtue concepts and theories in a manner that social scientists can readily use. We cautioned that it is important for virtue scholars to employ psychologically realistic concepts of virtue and to avoid perfectionistic renderings. In the last two sections of this chapter, we discussed two challenges to virtue science in detail: addressing the universality/cultural relativity of virtues and the virtue-flourishing link. Those two challenges have received less attention than the methods challenges but they are both important. In addition, we described two choices for addressing each challenge and outlined some of the likely consequences of each choice. We favor a gradual and dialectical approach to both challenges but other scholars may differ on this point. It seems necessary to us to abandon the relatively unreflective universalism characteristic of most research on virtue. The alternative is not yet fully clear but exploration of possible alternatives seems necessary. Similarly, we hypothesize that there is an indispensable linkage between virtues and flourishing, but we explored the difficult consequences of accepting that linkage. If the consensus among scholars does resolve to accepting a virtueflourishing link, that will be just the beginning of working out the nature of that connection. If, on the other hand, scholars want to deny the virtue-flourishing link, they must explain how their approach avoids the authoritarian trap that seems to follow from promoting virtues as desirable characteristics in themselves. We can be heartened by the substantial progress in virtue science in the last two decades in two ways. First, obviously, it is heartening to know that virtues can be meaningfully measured. Second, and less obviously, the multiple challenges to virtue science only arise once one is convinced that virtue science is possible and measurement success contributes greatly to that confidence. In other words, without the success that virtue researchers have had so far, all the other challenges we have discussed in this chapter would simply be moot. Therefore, we believe it is time to celebrate the successes of virtue science and, at the same time, to soberly work on the challenges that success has delivered to us. 676

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character

References Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., & Biswas-Diner, A.-J. (2013). Prosocial spending and wellbeing: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 635–652. Alexandrova, A. (2017). A philosophy for the science of well-being. Oxford University Press. Angle, S. C., & Tiwald, J. (2017). Neo-Confucianism: A philosophical introduction. Polity. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy, Philosophy, 33, 1–19. Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics. (M. Ostwald, trans.) Prentice Hall. Arthur, J. (2020). The formation of character in education: From Aristotle to the 21st century. Routledge. Azañedo, C. M., Fernández-Abascal, E. G., & Barraca, J. (2014). Character strengths in Spain: Validation of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) in a Spanish sample. Clínica y Salud, 25(2), 123–130. Bennett, W. (1993). The book of virtues: A treasury of great moral stories. Simon & Schuster. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhup ada, A.C. (1990). Bhagavad-Gita. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Bhide, S. R., Bhargav, H., Gangadhar, B. N., & Desai, G. (2021). Exploring the therapeutic potential of yoga philosophy: A perspective on the need for yoga-based counselling program (YBCP) in common mental disorders. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 45(4), 420–429. Biswas-Diener, R. (2006). From the equator to the North Pole: A study of character strengths. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 293–310. Bleidorn, W., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2015). Virtues in action – the new look of character traits. British Journal of Psychology, 104, 700–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12117 Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford. Bornstein, M. H. (2017). The specificity principle in acculturation science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 3–45. Brdar, I., & Kashdan, T. B. (2010). Character strengths and well-being in Croatia: An empirical investigation of structure and correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 151–154. Breen, W. E., Kashdan, T. B., Lenser, M. L., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Gratitude and forgiveness: Convergence and divergence on self-report and informant ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 932–937. Brewer, T. (2009). The retrieval of ethics. Oxford University Press. Brinkmann, S. (2011). Psychology as a moral science: Perspectives on normativity. Springer. Brown, M., McGrath, R. E., Bier, M. C., Johnson, K., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2023). A comprehensive metaanalysis of character education. Journal of Moral Education. 52(2), 119–138. Carr, D. (2000). Moral formation, cultural attachment or social control: What’s the point of values education? Educational Theory, 50(1), 49. Casali, N., Feraco, T., Ghisi, M., & Meneghetti, C. (2021). “Andrà tutto bene”: Associations between character strengths, psychological distress and self-efficacy during COVID-19 lockdown. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(5), 2255–2274. Cawley, M. J., III, Martin, J. E., & Johnson, J. A. (2000). A virtues approach to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 997–1013. Chen, S. X., Bond, M. H., & Tang, D. (2007). Decomposing filial piety into filial attitudes and filial enactments. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10(4), 213–223. Chopik, W. J., O’Brien, E., & Konrath, S. H. (2017). Differences in empathic concern and perspective taking across 63 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(1), 23–38. Cleary, T. (Ed.). (1992). The essential Confucius: The heart of Confucius’ teachings in authentic I ching order: A compendium of ethical wisdom. Castle. Cokelet, B., & Fowers, B. J. (2019). Realistic virtues and how to study them: Introducing the STRIVE-4 Model. Journal of Moral Education, 48, 7–26. Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human strengths across culture and history. Review of General Psychology, 9(3), 203–213. Darnell, C., Gulliford, L., Kristjánsson, K., & Panos, P. (2019). Phronesis and the knowledge–action gap in moral psychology and moral education: A new synthesis? Human Development, 62(3), 101–129. Darnell, C., Fowers, B. J., & Kristjánsson, K. (2022). A multi-function approach to assessing Aristotelian phronesis (practical wisdom). Personality and Individual Differences, 196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2022.111684

677

Blaine J. Fowers et al. D’Errico, F. (2019). ‘Too humble and sad’: The effect of humility and emotional display when a politician talks about a moral issue. Social Science Information, 58(4), 660–680. Diez, G., Roca, P., Nieto, I., McGrath, R. E., & Vázquez, C. (2023). The network structure of the VIA-120 inventory of strengths: An analysis of 1,255,248 respondents, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(6), 827–840, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2022.2109205 Doris, J. M. (2002). Lack of character: Personality and moral behavior. Cambridge University Press. Dranseika, V., Berniūnas, R., & Silius, V. (2018). Immorality and Bu Daode, unculturedness and Bu Wenming. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 2(1), 71–84. Driver, J. (2001). Uneasy virtue. Cambridge University Press. Duan, W., Ho, S. M., Yu, B., Tang, X., Zhang, Y., Li, T., & Yuen, T. (2012). Factor structure of the Chinese virtues questionnaire. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(6), 680–688. Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687–1688. Einhard. (2008). Two lives of Charlemagne. (D. Ganz, Trans.). Penguin. Escoto, C. A. (2013). The philosophy, theory, and science of human flourishing. PsycCritiques, 58(37). Fan, Y. (2000). A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management, 7(5), 3–10. Flanagan, O. (1991). Varieties of moral personality: Ethics and psychological realism. Harvard University Press. Fowers, B. J. (2005). Virtue and psychology: Pursuing excellence in ordinary practices. APA Books. Fowers, B. J. (2012). An Aristotelian framework for the human good. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 32, 10–23. Fowers, B. J. (2015). The evolution of ethics: Human sociality and the emergence of ethical mindedness. Palgrave/McMillan. Fowers, B. J., Carroll, J. S., Leonhardt, N. D., & Cokelet, B. (2021). The emerging science of virtue. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(1), 118–147. Fowers, B. J., & Cokelet, B. (2019). The virtues of interdisciplinary research: Psychological and philosophical inquiry into self, motivation, and virtue. In N. Snow & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Self, motivation, and virtue: New findings from philosophy and the human sciences (pp. 43–61). Routledge. Fowers, B. J., Cokelet, B., & Leonhardt, N. D. (2024). Toward a science of virtue. Cambridge University Press. Fowers, B. J., Lane, A. A., Lang, S. F., Cioffi, K., Anderson, A. R., & Cokelet, B. (2022). Does trait interpersonal fairness moderate situational influence on fairness behavior? Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111615 Fowers, B. J., Lang, S. F., Anderson, A. R., Lane, A. A., Cioffi, K., & Cokelet, B. (2019). An experience sampling study of trait justice and kindness [Unpublished manuscript]. Fowers, B. J., Novak, L. F., Kiknadze, N. C., & Selim, M. (2023) Is the concept of personality capacious enough to incorporate virtues? Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1232637. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2023.1232637 Franklin, B. (1815). The life of Dr. Benjamin Franklin. Harper & Brothers. Fredrickson, B. L., Grewen, K. M., Coffey, K. A., Algoe, S. B., Firestine, A. M., Arevalo, J. G., & Cole, S. W. (2013). A functional genomic perspective on human well-being. PNAS, 110(33), 13684–13689. Garro, L. C. (2000). Remembering what one knows and the construction of the past: A comparison of cultural consensus theory and cultural schema theory. Ethos, 28(3), 275–319. Giuntoli, L., Condini, F., Ceccarini, F., Huta, V., & Vidotto, G. (2021). The different roles of hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities in predicting functioning and well-being experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 22(4), 1657–1671. Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Pfeiffer, A., & Ensenbach, C. (2009). Why and when justice sensitivity leads to pro- and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 999–1005. Gorski, P. S. (2013). Beyond the fact/value distinction: Ethical naturalism and the social sciences. Society, 50(6), 543–553. Haberman, D. L. (1998). Confucianism: The way of the sages. In L. Stevenson & D. L. Haberman (Eds.), Ten theories of human nature (3rd ed., pp. 25–44). Oxford University Press. Hamaker, E. L., Asparouhov, T., Brose, A., Schmiedek, F., & Methén, B. (2018). At the frontiers of modeling intensive longitudinal data: Dynamic structural equation models for the affective measurements from the COGITO study. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(6), 820–841. Hansen, N., & Heu, L. (2020). All human, yet different: An emic-etic approach to cross-cultural replication in social psychology. Social Psychology, 51(6), 361.

678

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character Harman, G. (2009). Skepticism about character traits. Journal of Ethics, 13, 235–242. Hawkins, A. J., Fowers, B. J., Carroll, J. S., & Yang, C. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring marital virtues. In S. Hofferth & L. Casper (Eds.), Handbook of measurement issues in family research (pp. 67–83). Erlbaum. Haybron, D. (2007). Well-being and virtue. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 2(2), 1–28. Haybron, D. M. (2013). Happiness: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. Hendriks, T., Warren, M. A., Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Hassankhan, A., Graafsma, T., Bohlmeijer, E., & de Jong, J. (2019). How WEIRD are positive psychology interventions? A bibliometric analysis of randomized controlled trials on the science of well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(4), 489–501. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications. Høiland, G. C. L., & Klemsdal, L. (2022). Organizing professional work and services through institutional complexity – how institutional logics and differences in organizational roles matter. Human Relations, 75(2), 240–272. Hone, L. C., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. M., & Duncan, S. (2014). Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 4(1). Hong, Y.-y, Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-y, & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720. Hooker, B. (1996). Does moral virtue constitute a benefit to the agent? In R. Crisp (Ed.), How should one live?(pp. 141–156). Oxford University Press. Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837–861. Jayawickreme, E., & Fleeson, W. (2017). Does whole trait theory work for the virtues? In W. Sinnott-Armstrong & C. B. Miller (Eds.), Moral psychology: Virtue and character (Vol. 5, pp. 75–103). MIT Press. Kendler, H. H. (2002). Psychology and ethics: Interactions and conflicts. Philosophical Psychology, 15, 489–508. Khumalo, I. P., Wissing, M. P., & Temane, Q. M. (2008). Exploring the validity of the values-in-action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS) in an African context. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 18(1), 133–142. Kinghorn, W. (2017). The politics of virtue: An Aristotelian-Thomistic engagement with the VIA classification of character strengths. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(5), 436–446. Kristjánsson, K. (2013). Virtues and vices in positive psychology: A philosophical critique. Cambridge University Press. Kristjánsson, K. (2015). Aristotelian character education. Routledge. Kristjánsson, K. (2016). Aristotle, emotions, and education. Routledge. Kristjánsson, K. (2018). Virtue from the perspective of psychology. In N. Snow (Ed.), Oxford handbook of virtue (pp. 546–569). Oxford University Press. Kristjánsson, K. (2020). Flourishing as the aim of education: A neo-Aristotelian view. Routledge. Kristjánsson, K., Fowers, B., Darnell, C., & Pollard, D. (2021). Phronesis (practical wisdom) as a type of contextual integrative thinking. Review of General Psychology, 25(3), 239–257. Lefevor, G. T., & Fowers, B. J. (2016). Traits, situational factors, and their interactions as explanations of helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 159–163. Lefevor, G. T., Fowers, B. J., Ahn, S., Lang, S. F., & Cohen, L. M. (2017). To what degree do situational influences explain spontaneous helping behaviour? A meta-analysis. European Review of Social Psychology, 28, 227–256. Lerner, R. M. (2018). Concepts and theories of human development (4th ed.). Routledge. Lin, L.-H., & Ho, Y.-L. (2009). Confucian dynamism, culture and ethical changes in Chinese societies – a comparative study of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 2402–2417. Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2007). Character strengths in the United Kingdom: The VIA inventory of strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(2), 341–351. Littman-Ovadia, H., & Lavy, S. (2012). Character strengths in Israel: Hebrew adaptation of the VIA inventory of strengths. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 41–50.

679

Blaine J. Fowers et al. Lotz, S., Schlösser, T., Cain, D. M., & Fetchenhaur, D. (2013). The (in)stability of social preferences: Using justice sensitivity to predict when altruism collapses. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 141–148. Lu, L., & Xie, D. (2021). Measuring virtues in Chinese culture: Development of a Chinese moral character questionnaire. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16(1), 51–69. MacIntyre, A. C. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press. Martin, M. W. (2007). Happiness and virtue in positive psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(1), 89–103. Martínez-Martí, M. L., & Ruch, W. (2017). Character strengths predict resilience over and above positive affect, self-efficacy, optimism, social support, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(2), 110–119. McAdams, D. P. (2015). Psychological science and the Nicomachean Ethics: Virtuous actors, agents, and authors. In N. E. Snow (Ed.), Cultivating virtue: Perspectives from philosophy, theology, and psychology (pp. 307–336). Oxford University Press. McGrath, R. E. (2014). Scale- and item-level factor analysis of the VIA inventory of strengths. Assessment, 21, 4–14. McGrath, R. E. (2015). Integrating psychological and cultural perspectives on virtue: The hierarchical structure of character strengths. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 406–424. McGrath, R. E. (2019). The VIA assessment suite for adults: Development and initial evaluation (revised ed.). VIA Institute on Character. McGrath, R. E., Hall-Simmonds, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2017). Are measures of character and personality distinct? Evidence from observed-score and true-score analyses. Assessment, 27, 117–135. Meindl, P., Jayawickreme, E., Furr, R. M., & Fleeson, W. (2013). A foundation beam for studying morality from a personological point of view: Are individual differences in moral behaviors and thoughts consistent? Journal of Research in Personality, 59, 81–92. Michalski, J. (2022). The sociological determinants of scientific bias. Journal of Moral Education, 51(1), 47–60. Morgan, B., & Fowers, B. J. (2022). Empathy and authenticity online: The roles of moral identity, moral disengagement and parenting style. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 183–202. Morgan, B., Gulliford, L., & Kristjánsson, K. (2017). A new approach to measuring moral virtues: The multicomponent gratitude measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 179–189. Mu, S. (2007). The development of virtues adjective rating scale and its applied study [Doctoral Dissertation]. Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai. Niemiec, R. M. (2013). VIA character strengths: Research and practice (the first 10 years). In Well-being and cultures (pp. 11–29). Springer. Novak, J. R., Smith, H. M., Larson, J. H., & Crane, D. R. (2018). Commitment, forgiveness, and relationship self-regulation: An actor partner interdependence model of relationship virtues and relationship effort in couple relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(2), 353–365. Nussbaum, M. C. (1986). The fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. Cambridge University Press. Patañjali. (1979) The yoga-sutra of Patanjali: A new translation with commentary (G. Feuerstein, Trans.). Dawson Publications. Park, S. Q., Kahnt, T., Dogan, A., Strang, S., Fehr, E., & Tobler, P. N. (2017). A neural link between generosity and happiness. Nature Communications, 8, 15964. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15964 Park, H., Rehg, M. T., & Lee, D. (2005). The influence of Confucian ethics and collectivism on whistleblowing intentions: A study of South Korean public employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 387–403. Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603–619. Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 118–129. Park, Y., Impett, E. A., MacDonald, G., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2019). Saying “thank you”: Partners’ expressions of gratitude protect relationship satisfaction and commitment from the harmful effects of attachment insecurity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(4), 773–806. Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beermann, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2007). Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 149–156.

680

Progress, Challenges, and Promise in Understanding Character Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. APA Books. Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education. Columbia University Press. Pury, C. L., & Lopez, S. J. (2010). The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue. APA Books. Putnam, H. (2004). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Harvard University Press. Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (2017). Compassionate acts and everyday emotional well-being among newlyweds. Emotion, 17(4), 751–763. Richardson, F. C., Fowers, B. J., & Guignon, C. (1999). Re-envisioning psychology: Moral dimensions of theory and practice. Jossey-Bass. Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010). Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS): Adaptation and validation of the German version and the development of a peer rating form. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 138–149. Rye, M. S., Loiacono, D. M., Folck, C. D., Olszewski, B. T., Heim, T. A., & Madia, B. P. (2001). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two forgiveness scales. Current Psychology, 20, 260–277. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. Searle, J. (1964). How to derive “ought” from “is”. The Philosophical Review, 73, 43–58. Sharma-Brymer, V., & Brymer, E. (2020). Flourishing and eudaimonic well-being. Good Health and WellBeing, 205–214. Shryack, J., Steger, M. F., Krueger, R. F., & Kallie, C. S. (2010). The structure of virtue: An empirical investigation of the dimensionality of the virtues in action inventory of strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 714–719. Sinha, G. A. (2012). Modernizing the virtue of humility. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90(2), 259–274. Snarey, J. R. (1985). Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical review of Kohlbergian research. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 202–232. Snow, N. E. (2010). Virtue as social intelligence: An empirically grounded theory. Routledge. Snow, N. E. (2015). Notes toward an empirical psychology of virtue: Exploring the personality scaffolding of virtue. In Peters, J. (Ed.), Aristotelian ethics in contemporary perspective (pp. 130–144). Routledge. Snow, N., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.). (2019). Self, motivation, and virtue: New findings from philosophy and the human sciences. Routledge. Snyder, C. R., Lopez, S. J., Edwards, L. M., & Marques, S. C. (Eds.). (2020). The Oxford handbook of positive psychology, (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (2013). The unbearable lightness of meaning: Well-being and unstable meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(2), 103–115. Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophy and the human sciences: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press. Templeton, J. M. (1997). Worldwide laws of life. Templeton Foundation Press. Tessman, L. (2002). Do the wicked flourish? Virtue ethics and unjust social privilege. American Philosophical Association Newsletter, 1(2), 59–63. Thoma, S. J., Walker, D. I., Chen, Y.-H., Frichand, A., Moulin-Stożek, D., & Kristjánsson, K. (2019). Adolescents’ application of the virtues across five cultural contexts.  Developmental Psychology, 55(10), 2181–2192. Thomson, A. L., & Siegel, J. T. (2017). Elevation: A review of scholarship on a moral and other-praising emotion. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 628–638. Thorsteinsen, K., & Vittersø, J. (2020). Now you see it, now you don’t: Solid and subtle differences between hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(4), 519–530. VanderWeele, T. J. (2017). On the promotion of human flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(31), 8148–8156. VanderWeele, T. J. (2022). The importance, opportunities, and challenges of empirically assessing character for the promotion of flourishing. Journal of Education, 202(2), 170–180. Veldorale-Brogan, A., Bradford, K., & Vail, A. (2010). Marital virtues and their relationship to individual functioning, communication, and relationship adjustment. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 281–293. Veldorale-Brogan, A., Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., & DeWall, C. N. (2012). The virtue of problemsolving: Perceived partner virtues as predictors of problem-solving efficacy. Personal Relationships, 20, 511–523.

681

Blaine J. Fowers et al. Wagner, L., Pindeus, L., & Ruch, W. (2021). Character strengths in the life domains of work, education, leisure, and relationships and their associations with flourishing. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 597534. Walker, D. I., Curren, R., & Jones, C. (2015). Good friendships among children: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 46, 286–308. Wȩziak-Białowolska, D., McNeely, E., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2019). Human flourishing in cross cultural settings. Evidence from the United States, China, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and Mexico. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1269. Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., & Maltby, J. (2009). Gratitude predicts psychological well-being above the big five facets. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 443–447. Wright, J., Warren, M., & Snow, N. (2021). Understanding virtue: Theory and measurement. Oxford University Press. Yu, L., & Xie, D. (2021). Measuring virtues in Chinese culture: Development of a Chinese moral character questionnaire. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16(1), 51–69.

682

37 CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT* Then, Now, and Next Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews

The foundational assumption of the Multidisciplinary Handbook of Character Development is that if and how character develops has been and continues to be of concern within different scholarly fields, theological traditions, professions, and sectors of government and civil society. This assumption has been supported across the two volumes and more than 60 chapters of the Multidisciplinary Handbook of Character Development. In addition, at least two generalizations about the development of character seem strongly in evidence. First, whether the focus of a chapter is on scholarship within a specific discipline, on a specific instance of character (e.g., forgiveness, generosity, gratitude, or humility), or on the ongoing work of community-based organizations, university centers, philanthropic institutions, or the four U.S. military academies, there is global and growing interest in character development and in its bases and implications for application for human development, individual and societal well-being, and civil society. Second, this interest in character development is coupled with important differences in philosophical and theoretical models regarding, and definitions of, constructs pertinent to character and its development, methodologies for studying character development (encompassing measurements, research and program evaluation designs, and data analysis techniques), and in the applications of knowledge of character development to individuals, organizations, communities, and policies. We believe that evidence of a third generalization exists, but we will defer discussing this point until the Conclusions section of this chapter. However, in regard to the first two generalizations, it is not surprising that variation in models and methods exist in an active area of human endeavor, academic discourse, and applications to programs and policies. Indeed, the fact that commonality in interest in character development is evident across disciplines, organizations, topics of substantive scholarship, and instances of application and, as well, that there is specificity in the manifestation of this interest is not surprising. A foundational principle of human development is that, in some respects, there are facets of human development that are common to all such people (nomothetic attributes), that are present in some but not all people (differential attributes), and that are unique for a specific individual (idiographic attributes) (e.g., Allport, 1937; Emmerich, 1968; Kluckhohn & Murray, 1953; Lerner, * The writing of this chapter was supported in part by grants from the Templeton World Charity Foundation, the National 4-H Council, and Compassion International.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003252450-41

683

Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews

2018). Nomothetic, differential, and idiographic attributes are present in all living, open, holistic, and dynamic systems (e.g., Ford & Lerner, 1992; von Bertalanffy, 1968) and, as such, character development, which of course is part of the living, open, and dynamic system we label a human, has such attributes as well. In both philosophical discussions pertinent to the concept of development (e.g., Kaplan, 1983; Kuhn, 1962, 1970; Nagel, 1957; Pepper, 1942; see also Peterson & Kristjánsson, this Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 13) and biological, social, and behavioral science theories about different levels of organization within the bioecology of human development (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Ford & Lerner, 1992; Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Overton, 2015; Overton & Reese, 1981; von Bertalanffy, 1933), processes at levels of organization both more molecular and more molar than the individual possess nomothetic, differential, and idiographic attributes. For example, families, societies, and cultures possess all three categories of attributes (Lerner, 2018; Raeff, 2016). As such, and as a possible baseline for future integrative multidisciplinary discussions of character development, we use the ideas of the nomothetic, differential, and idiographic facets of all human development as a metaphor for understanding the state-of-the-art of scholarship and application in the field of character development. We discuss features of the field of character development about which there exist:

• General consensus (i.e., features that the contributors to this Handbook believe apply to all

people, e.g., that there is a positive relation between the possession of character and behaviors that contributes to society; e.g., Hyun et al., this Handbook); • Different sets of ideas about the development of character (e.g., all character attributes have a moral valence versus character attributes are structured as orthogonal factors; see Berkowitz & Bier, Volume I, Chapter 5, this Handbook and Nucci, this Handbook, versus McGrath, this Handbook, respectively); and • Ideas about character development that are, if not specific to single investigators, nevertheless appropriate to regard as either niche views (a characterization of these ideas in a perhaps somewhat negative light) or as cutting-edge ideas (a characterization that perhaps casts these ideas in perhaps too positive a light). There is another way in which the use of the nomothetic, differential, and idiographic metaphor may illuminate both the present and potential future direction of scholarship and application pertinent to character development. Using the ideas about paradigms and paradigm shifts as a lens for employing this metaphor (Kuhn, 1962, 1970), it may be useful to regard the nomothetic ideas that are associated with character development as representative of the set of concepts defining normal scholarly understanding about the nature of character development. In turn, the differential ideas involved in this scholarly domain, although still existing within normal scholarship, constitute points of intellectual controversy. Finally, idiographic ideas may be seen as outlying ideas, positioned at the edge of normal scholarly understanding. As well, it may be that idiographic ideas are approaches to scholarship that are likely to be linked to scholarly methods that fall outside the range of normal scholarship and, as such, that will generate anomalous ideas or empirical evidence that clash with approaches or evidence within the parameters of normal scholarship. If so, it may be that these anomalies will accumulate sufficiently to provide the foundation for a paradigm shift. When we turn to what, at this writing, may be ideas falling into the category of idiographic approaches to the generation and application of character development scholarship, we will return to the possibility that such scholarship may constitute at least the hint of such a shift. We will focus on the role of person-specific pathways of character 684

Character Development

development and their potential importance for innovations in the description, explanation, and optimization of character development and character education. We believe that, for readers trying to synthesize the breadth and depth of the historically diverse set of perspectives involved in this Handbook, it may be heuristic for understanding the field of character development to have this tripartite approach to discussing areas of convergence, divergence, and the still-to-be-determined fate at this writing of ideas about the idiographic facets of the developmental processes involved in character development. Accordingly, we will provide some examples of the nomothetic, differential, and idiographic attributes of the field of character development knowledge generation and its application at the time of this writing. These three domains of the literature discussed across the two volumes of the Handbook will be reviewed and then considered in regard to how, together, they may be addressed empirically in either research or in the evaluation of formal or informal efforts (practices, policies, or programs) that have the goal of promoting positive instances of character in individual lives. The chapter concludes with a perspective about the future development of the multidisciplinary study of character development.

Nomothetic Facets of the Field of Character Development It may seem obvious that a conclusion that may be drawn from reading virtually any chapter in the Handbook is that character develops. However, before this Handbook provided its audience of readers with a broad sample of chapters derived from different disciplines (from philosophy and theology through the biological and social/behavioral sciences to economics and medicine) and fields of application (e.g., K–12 and college/university education, youth programs, leadership studies, organizational studies, and military training), a legitimate issue to raise was whether character was a developmental phenomenon. Within the professional memory of both editors of this Handbook, several areas of scholarship followed ideas associated with mechanistic world views (e.g., Overton & Reese, 1973; Pepper, 1942; Reese & Overton, 1970), conceptions marked by reductionism (of either the biological/ genetic or behaviorist instantiations), essentialism, and – based on logical positivism – a rejection of theoretical constructs as gratuitous metaphysical inventions. Within these reductionist conceptions, character, or any other facet of individual development had the attributes associated with the concept of a trait. Traditionally, within psychological or educational science, a trait is an attribute of the individual that is (purportedly) fixed in structure and function by genetic inheritance – of a specific (but never explicitly identified; Lerner, 2018) gene or set of genes that, as such, was (asserted to be) unavailable for modification through any environmental stimulation (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1980; McCrae et al., 2000; cf. Moore, this Handbook).1 In essence, then, genetic reductionists contend that character has the same origin (i.e., genes received at conception) and functional features (specifically, the capacity to be expressed without influence, moderation, or coaction with situations, contexts, experiences, or education) as eye color. Although there is no evidence that any authors contributing to the Handbook would support such a view, at this writing there are still some authors who claim that the genes a person receives at conception constitute a blueprint for the person’s future life (e.g., Plomin, 2018). There is another instance of general agreement found across all the chapters of the Handbook, one that derives from the rejection of reductionism (which is either implicit or explicit in different chapters, e.g., Banati et al.; Bornstein; Bronk; Buckingham et al.; Damon; Dykhuis; Fowers et al.; Heckman et al.; Hyun et al.; Malti & Colasante; McBride, et al.; Moore; Moshman; Nucci; Pool et al., Volume II, Chapter 6; Pool et al., Volume II, Chapter 15; Ryan et al.; Tirrell; Seaton & White; Sim et al.; Sternberg; Spencer; Urban et al.; Ettekal et al.; and Witherington & McCready, all this 685

Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews

Handbook). The scholars contributing to the Handbook agree that character develops through a process that involves mutually influential relations between an individual and the specific contexts (situations, experiences, training, or education) encountered across the life span. Although as noted in the next section, there is variation in the specifications provided about this coaction between individual and context, there is consensus that, whatever the developmental process is that is involved in character, it must involve the integration of the impacts of the person on the setting and the impacts of the setting on the person. This broad agreement may be instantiated as just the description of the influences on character development or in the formulation of specific models of character development.

Differential Facets of the Field of Character Development At this writing, there exists only a few examples of appeals to genetic reductionism as a basis of character or of character-related constructs (e.g., Belsky, 2014; Dawkins, 1976; Harden, 2021; Plomin, 2018) and no evidence of behaviorist reductionism (e.g., as found in Skinner, 1971). As evident across the chapters in this Handbook, contemporary scholarship and applications in character education programs focus on person and context relations as the basis of character development. Nevertheless, not all of these endeavors involve tests, or the application, of findings from theory-predicated research about how individual and context do or can be constructed to come together in positive instantiations of character development. Indeed, there are some lines of scholarship that, although interested in person-context relations in character development, draw on approaches to character that are explicitly either nondevelopmental (e.g., the Values in Action survey based on the Peterson & Seligman, 2004) or that approach character development with an incomplete conception of the diversity of pathways to positive character development in human development (e.g., see discussions about these approaches by Berkowitz & Bier, Volume I, Chapter 5; Fowers et al.; Heckman et al.; Moshman; Murry et al.; Seaton & White; Spencer; Sternberg; all this Handbook). In addition, as we have explained, the idea that person and context are both necessary bases of character development is in effect a matter of stare decisis within this field of scholarship and application; however, the field divides in regard to how this relation is conceptualized (e.g., see Nucci; Moore; and Witherington & McCready, all this Handbook). As discussed in these chapters, in past and some present approaches to conceptualizing individual-context relations, the two components are treated as substantively separate variables that come together through a relation characterized as an interaction, and interaction is used here in a manner isomorphic with the statistical meaning of this relation. In turn, and especially across the past two decades (at this writing), the connection between person and context is conceptualized as a relation within a dynamic system (i.e., a relation that is mutually influential2), wherein individual and context are both a product and a producer of the other; in the literature of developmental science, this relation is typically represented as individual ⇔ context. It is useful to discuss in some additional detail this concept of individual and context in relation to character development. This dynamic-systems concept is both a basis for our subsequent discussion of idiographic facets of character development and, as such, a possible harbinger of a paradigm shift in this scholarly field (cf. Lerner et al., 2022, in press).

Dynamic, Relational Developmental Systems-Based Models Across the past two decades, discussions of the concept of development regarding levels of organization such as molecular genetics and cell biology (e.g., Cole, 2014; Moore, 2015; Slavich 686

Character Development

& Cole, 2013; Woese, 2004); evolutionary biology (e.g., Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2015; Witherington & Lickliter, 2016); human cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development (e.g., Cantor et al., 2021; Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Lerner, 2018; Mascolo & Bidell, 2020; Mascolo & Fischer, 2015; Overton, 2008, 2015); and culture (e.g., Raeff, 2016; Rogoff, 1998, 2003, 2011) have been embedded in ideas associated with dynamic, relational developmental systems (RDS) metatheory (e.g., Overton, 2015). A metatheory is a theory about theories or, more specifically, an ontological specification of the concepts that must be included in any theory associated with a specific metatheory. For example, in dynamic, RDS metatheory, theories must specify that dynamic coactions among variables, at all levels of organization within the bioecology of human development, exist across time and place. In addition, a metatheory indicates what concepts cannot be associated with it. For example, a structurally or functionally meaningful construct that is not related to or moderated in its action by other constructs within the dynamic, relational system cannot exist in models derived from RDS metatheory. A concrete example of this point can be found in regard to the concept of a gene. Within a mechanistic metatheory (e.g., as sociobiology, behavioral genetics, or evolutionary psychology), a biological construct such as a gene or a set of genes may be used to account for energizing and directing the function of the machine or, in the characterization used by Dawkins (1976) of a human, the Lumbering Robot. In this account, reduction to the specific gene or specific set of genes located within the robot could explain its behavior and, critically, the direction it takes to reproduce itself in future robots (e.g., Bjorklund & Ellis, 2005; Buss, 2009; Plomin, 2018). In turn, within a metamodel that emphasized that dynamic coactions among constructs within the systems comprising an individual, a gene is no more or no less a part of the system than any other construct existing in the system (e.g., Moore, this Handbook). Within such a metamodel, a gene or a set of genes functions only through moderation by other facets of the system. As such, to understand the structure and function of the system, reductionism is eschewed as counterfactual and, as a result, dynamic relations within the coacting system must be studied. This example provides a transition to a focus on the specific features of RDS metatheory, especially as they pertain to character development (see Lerner et al., in press, for an extended discussion of the link between RDS metatheory and character development). As explained by Overton (2015; see also Cantor et al., 2021), RDS-based models of human development suggest that the developmental processes involved in the ontogeny of attributes of character build on two fundamental features of all dynamic, RDS-based models of development: embodiment and holism.

Embodiment Overton (2015) explained that, within approaches to human development informed by ideas associated with RDS metatheory, human development is embodied by the physiological and morphological features of humans (e.g., neurobiology, genetics/epigenetics, and hormones), by the coactions of psychological processes (e.g., involving cognitions, affect, and behaviors) with this first instance of embodiment, and by the coaction of social and cultural processes with these first two instances of embodiment (see also Raeff, 2016). Embodiment, then, depicts the ongoing coaction between these systems and levels of organization, both internal and external to the person, and conveys the inter-penetrating and bidirectional nature of experience at every level of the development of a human being (Cantor et al., 2021; Immordino-Yang & Yang, 2017; Schneirla, 1957; see also Heckman et al., this Handbook). The work of Marshall et al. (2021) illustrates Overton’s (2015) tripartite conception of embodiment and, in doing so, addresses the question of how a 687

Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews

dynamic system can construct itself, that is, possess the attribute of autopoiesis involved in the processes of a living, open, and dynamic system: living things actively self-maintain themselves through the constant regeneration of the conditions that are necessary to sustain their material existence (Marshall et al., 2021, p. 3) … [and thus reflect] “constitutive autonomy… in contrast to behavioral autonomy, where the identity of the system is imposed externally by an operator or observer”. (Marshall et al., 2021, p. 4) Witherington (2014, p. 27; see also Witherington & McCready, this Handbook) makes a similar point in noting that the tripartite conception of embodiment enables each person to act: “as its own cause, organizing and producing itself such that it causes and results from itself. In this way, living systems constitute natural ends or purposes.” Thus, a fully integrated developmental science would require theory-predicated and empirically systematic interrogation and, ultimately, the fusion of the three domains of embodiment. As well, the dynamic coaction of the processes within the human developmental system creates features of human ontology (e.g., agency, autopoiesis, and relative plasticity) because they are parts of the embodied dynamic, relational developmental system (Marshall et al., 2021; Overton, 2008, 2015).

Holism As implied by the concept of embodiment, human life and development involve multiple domains of structure and function that coact in the holistically integrated dynamic, relational developmental system. The concept of holism means that the “parts of the whole” (the embodied domains) of an individual: do not combine through an additive process. Instead, the combination may be better understood as a multiplicative process: When the parts combine, they produce, in combination, attributes of a novel whole that do not exist in the parts in isolation. What makes living systems unique is that they change systematically, through mutually-influential individual ⇔ context relations, into new, increasingly adaptive and complex forms. (Cantor et al., 2021, p. 23) As such, the developmental process of humans: (a) dynamically links each individual and the individual’s context in autopoietic and thus mutually influential coactions and, in adaptive instances, in mutually beneficial coactions and (b) dynamically integrates any facet of human development with other physical and physiological processes, cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes, and social and cultural processes involved in each person’s developmental pathway (Lerner & Lerner, 2019). Positive character development is of course part of this dynamically coacting developmental system. The place of the character system within the self-system is exemplified by Nucci (2019; this Handbook), whose model of character development is also an exemplar of the RDS-based conception of the design principle of holism. Character development is only one facet of an integrated developmental process, a process that (a) dynamically links the character development process with other cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes integrated in each person’s developmental pathway 688

Character Development

and (b) dynamically links individual and context in autopoietic and thus mutually influential manners and, in adaptive instances, in mutually beneficial coactions (Nucci, 2017; this Handbook). Nucci’s model of character development not only emphasizes holism in regard to integrative, within-the-individual facets of structure and function. The holism in his model emphasizes as well integrative facets of structure and function that exist in mutually beneficial ways between the individual and the context within which the individual lives and develops. One instance of such mutually beneficial individual ⇔ context relations involves the presence of individual ⇔ individual relationships in the development of character.

Developmentally Nurturant Relationships To educate a person in mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society. Attributed to President Theodore Roosevelt An embodied approach to holism suggests that any facet of the individual person involves mutually influential coactions within the person and between the person and the context. In ideal circumstances, these inner and outer coactions will be mutually beneficial. Moreover, because of plasticity (Lerner, 1984, 2018), it is reasonable to contend that benevolent and nurturant relationships accompanying each person in their journey across the life span can create mutually beneficial coactions for the person and for his or her world (e.g., Birkel et al., 1989; Cantor et al., 2021). Because of embeddedness, developmentally nurturant relationships can then be the key resource for applications of RDS-based concepts to promote positive human development in general and positive instances of character in particular. Such accompaniment has not only theoretical resonance but, as well, is an outcome of the biological (physical and physiological) embodiment of human life. The absence of mutuality between one person and another can hinder healthy and positive development, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in comparative animal research (e.g., Harlow & Zimmermann, 1959; Scott, 1962) and in studies of human development across the life span, from infancy (e.g., Ourth & Brown, 1961; Spitz, 1945, 1946) to adulthood and old age (e.g., Antonucci et al., 2001; Ingersoll-Dayton et al., 1997; Slavich & Cole, 2013; Tomaka et al., 2006). However, as emphasized by Cantor (e.g., Cantor & Osher, 2021; Cantor et al., 2021), the presence of negative social relations, or even trauma, in an early period of life is not destiny. Because of the relative plasticity of human development, providing mutually beneficial relationships, that is, accompaniment, which involves developmentally nurturant relationships, can enhance health and positive development, again both among animals (e.g., Harlow & Suomi, 1971; Suomi & Harlow, 1972) and across the human life span (e.g., Antonucci et al., 2001; Ingersoll-Dayton et al., 1997; Lerner, 1984). In essence, then, a consideration of the role of developmentally nurturant relationships in the development of positive character returns our discussion full circle to pointing to the other RDSbased concepts of embodiment and holism. Developmentally nurturant relationships between individuals impact all levels of the person and the ecology of human development and do so across time and place. That is, the relationships that nurture an individual along a path of positive character development and that result in the person becoming a competent moral agent will vary for each person as they traverse the life periods and settings that constitute their life course. That is, each person – even identical twins – will have a unique set of relationships and experiences in different places at different times in life. As Rose (2016) has characterized this feature of human development, each person walks the road less traveled. In essence, then, this life-span variation creates between-people differences in withinperson changes (Baltes et al., 1977; Molenaar, 2004), and this intraindividual variation may be 689

Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews

meaningful. It may create person-specific, idiographic, facets of positive character development. This possibility leads us to discuss idiographic features of the field of character development and, not coincidentally, to a small but growing focus among character development researchers on focusing on person-specific facets of character development while, at the same time, not negating the importance of studying nomothetic and differential facets of character development. The interest in understanding person-specific features of an individual’s character development may not reflect fully the defining features of a Kuhnian paradigm shift, for instance, wherein findings that are anomalous in the enactment of normal science within a dominant paradigm can be usefully accommodated within an ascendent paradigm. Nevertheless, taking person-specific character development as substantively important does represent a disruption of the hegemony in extant nomothetic and differential features of the field of character development.

Idiographic Facets of the Field of Character Development As is the case with all substantive foci in scholarship about human development, the study of character development involves describing, explaining, and optimizing systematic and successive changes in the structure, function, and adaptive significance of an individual’s character attributes across time and place. In short, the study of character development is the study of within-person changes. As we have explained, some of these changes can reflect nomothetic facets of character development, others may reflect group differential facets of character development, and still others may reflect facets of character development that are specific to a particular individual. Nevertheless, the point here is that, whenever a researcher wishes to study developmental changes in character, data must be collected from an individual across time.3 However, whereas individuals are always measured in the study of character development, there are differences among researchers in how the data from an individual are used. Traditionally, in the study of development data at each time of measurement are grouped for reasons of statistical power and generalizability across people and, as such, character is represented as time-specific averages for the group. Depending on the question addressed in a specific study of character development, these averages are interpreted as nomothetic or differential information and, when the averages across time of measurement are considered, the resulting time-ordered mean trajectories are interpreted as representing nomothetic or differential pathways of character development. In short, the collection of data about within-the-person changes in scores from the measurement of character are used only to provide the power needed to draw inferences about whether the findings reflect generalizable information about nomothetic or differential facets of character development. However, it is essential here to recognize such generalizations are about average scores for a specific variable pertinent to character development; such averages provide no information whatsoever about the pathway of character development for that variable within any person whose scores contribute to the group average. The appropriate question to raise here, then, is whether average scores across times of measurement are appropriate representations of changes in character within an individual. Increasing over the first quarter of the 21st century, developmental scientists studying character and, as well, other related characteristics (e.g., potential moderators of character development such as grit [Erbe et al., this Handbook; Raver & Ledford, this Handbook] or self-regulation [Napolitano et al., this Handbook]), have addressed this question. In almost all cases, the answer has been “No” (e.g., Cantor et al., 2021; Hamaker et al., 2018; Lerner, 2018, 2021; Molenaar & Nesselroade, 2012, 2014, 2015; Ram et al., 2005, 2014; Rose, 2016). 690

Character Development

A useful reference point for the emergence of an emphasis on the importance of focus on the individual qua individual in pursuing a holistic and integrated understanding of character development is a 2004 article authored by Peter C. M. Molenaar, “A Manifesto on Psychology as Idiographic Science: Bringing the Person Back Into Scientific Psychology, This Time Forever.” Molenaar (2004, p. 202) noted that “Attention in psychological research is almost exclusively restricted to variation between individuals (interindividual variation), to the neglect of timedependent variation within a single participant’s time series (intraindividual variation).” Indeed, writing more than a decade later, Hamaker et al. (2018, p. 820) observed that, when their intensive longitudinal research focused on within-person change begun (at about the time that Molenaar published his Manifesto), “gathering intensive longitudinal data was not only cumbersome, but it was also considered unnecessary by many, because short-term, within-person fluctuations were assumed to reflect mere noise… [and not] the meaningfulness of short-term, within-person fluctuations.” Similarly, McNeish and Hamaker (2020) explained that: Developmental process data… typically feature a few measurement occasions that are widely spaced over the observations window (often months or years apart). The primary focus is questions about the means of the outcome variable over the course of the observation window… how much do the means change from the first to the last measurement occasion?… These models tend to take a nomothetic approach in describing the overall mean across people…Moreover, when covariates are added to the model, the predominant focus is variables that affect the shape of the growth curve… Plainly stated, covariates for developmental process commonly explain between-person variability (factors that lead to differently shaped growth curves) but less commonly explain within-person variability (deviation around the growth curve). (pp. 611–612) In essence, then, to understand holistically and integratively the developmental processes of character development, the study of an individual’s repeated scores across time (i.e., the study of within-person, intraindividual change) must be combined with the study of variation in averages (nomothetic or differential changes). Moreover, and as we have noted is documented by the several chapters in this Handbook that explicitly or implicitly use ideas linked to RDS metatheory, holistic and dynamically integrated understanding of individual pathways of character development must focus on individual ⇔ context relations. Indeed, the necessity of understanding coactions with the specific setting or context of the individual in order to understand the course of the person’s character development is formally specified through Equations (4.1)–(4.5) in the Heckman et al. chapter in this Handbook. In short, this Handbook has provided rich and important support for the Molenaar (2004) Manifesto call for the idiographic study of the process of development in general and, more particularly, for the importance of adding to the field a focus on the ways in which specific, dynamic individual ⇔ context relations are a foundational part of the character developmental process. This focus on the necessity of understanding dynamic individual ⇔ context specificity has been elevated by the scholarship of Marc Bornstein (2017, 2019; this Handbook) to the status of a foundational principle of RDS-based models of human development. The Specificity Principle presented by Bornstein (2017, 2019; see also Lerner & Bornstein, 2021) depicts the dimensions of biological, psychological, behavioral, relationship, and contextual individuality that must be understood and appreciated to provide a complete account of human development and, as well, to maximize the chances that applications of human development 691

Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews

theory-based research equitably promote positive outcomes for every individual. Indeed, without recognition of specificity in models and measurement of human development (e.g., Molenaar, 2004; Rose, 2016), and in evidence-based policies and programs derived from such developmental scholarship, neither authentic equity nor social justice can be derived as contributions from developmental science (Cantor & Osher, 2021; Lerner et al., in press). Rooted in the concepts associated with dynamic, RDS metatheory (Bornstein, 2019; Overton, 2015), Bornstein’s Specificity Principle explains that human development always involves specific outcomes in specific individuals occurring in specific places at specific times in specific ways. As defined by Lerner and Bornstein (2021, p. 2): the Specificity Principle has five main terms: setting, person, time, process, and outcome. The Specificity Principle states that processes of development involve mutually influential (dynamic) relations between specific individuals and their specific contexts, represented as individual ⇔ context relations. Thus, the Specificity Principle embraces whole-individual development (Cantor et al., 2021) and the uniqueness of each individual’s development. The Specificity Principle is a heuristic not an analytic means. In consequence, there is no statistical test of the Specificity Principle. Rather, the Specificity Principle is meant to guide investigators in the design, report, and interpretation of research. Of course, the specificity of individual context relations does not negate facets of developmental processes that can be generalized across groups (i.e., differential group processes) and, as well, facets of developmental processes that are nomothetic (that are shared by all humans) (Allport, 1937, 1962; Emmerich, 1968). Nevertheless, the ubiquitous specificity of individual ⇔ context relations over the course of the human life span means that, to comprehensively and holistically understand character development of human behavior across the life span, scholars need to identify the idiographic, differential, and nomothetic dimensions of a target process (e.g., Cantor et al., 2021; Lerner, 2018; Molenaar, 2004; Molenaar & Nesselroade, 2015; Rose, 2016). Overton (2014) acknowledged that persisting difficulty existed in countering reductionists’ criticism by advocates of dynamic, RDS-based developmental models, He wrote that proponents of RDS-based models did not have sufficient methodological means to demonstrate that the models they forwarded could be rigorously and convincingly empirically interrogated. However, and as implied by the researchers using the Molenaar Manifesto and the Bornstein Specificity Principle as the frame for their studies of character development, the presence of precisely such methodological tools has been burgeoning. It is useful to briefly discuss them.

Implications for Research and Evaluation Methodology In the enactment of good science, the methods selected for use in an empirical investigation should align with the questions being asked by the researcher. Indeed, methodologists studying human development have asserted that theory is the primary tool of developmental methodology (e.g., Collins, 2006). In other words, theory-predicated questions should guide the choice of methods (measures, designs, and data analyses) used in developmental research. Both the concept of development per se and, as well, concepts of development associated with dynamic, RDS-based models of character development have implications for the questions asked in research and, in turn, for the methods used to address the questions. Accordingly, there are two major sets of methodological issues that exist in regard to conducting developmental research about character development. The first set arises in all developmental 692

Character Development

research. The second set arises in regard to the complexity of human development when approached by research framed by RDS-based models (e.g., Lerner et al., in press; Nucci, 2019, this Handbook; Witherington & McCready, this Handbook).

General Developmental Research Issues We have already noted that another settled issue – stare decisis – in the study of character development is that only research designs involving repeated measurement of one or more individuals can provide data about within-person change. Cross-sectional or time-lag designs (Baltes et al., 1977) only provide data about interindividual differences within specific times of measurement and these differences may or may not be due to developmental change. For instance, interindividual differences may reflect birth cohort differences and/or inadequately matched age groups (Baltes et al., 1977; Lerner, 2018). No data about intraindividual change can be derived from the point-in-time measurements gathered in cross-sectional or time-lag studies and, at least since the classic papers by Schaie (1965) and Schaie and Strother (1968), the ensuing 50+ years of developmental science research has repeatedly demonstrated that developmental trajectories derived from cross-sectional research do not align with developmental trajectories derived from longitudinal research. Simply, then, cross-sectional (or time lag) designs cannot provide data illuminating the course of character development across the life span. The absence of usefulness of cross-sectional research for describing, explaining, or optimizing positive character development is complicated by measurement issues that, although inherent in cross-sectional designs, also arise in problems of measurement in longitudinal data sets. Researchers who study character using nomothetic or differential approaches could claim that a measure of an individual’s character indexed by the individual’s point-in-time responses to a survey (e.g., the Values in Action Inventory; e.g., McGrath, this Handbook) provide an across-time and across-context profile of the individual’s character attributes (or “traits,” e.g., McCrae et al., 2000). However, from an approach to measurement using idiographic analysis, especially when coupled with an RDS-based model of character development (e.g., Lerner et al., 2022, in press), each person has a developmental range of competency that is moderated by time and place, and no group average score can adequately represent the breadth of strengths or potential for change of an individual. We have pointed to the role that RDS-based research may play in addressing these issues. We turn now to a discussion that expands on these points.

RDS-Based Research Issues The ideas we have discussed for creating dynamic, RDS-based theoretical models of positive character development – embodiment, holism, developmentally nurturant relationships, and specificity – also provide guidelines for methods that seek illuminate features of character development.

Embodiment Much of the data collected about positive character attributes solely involve surveys, a methodology that has well-known measurement problems (e.g., response bias, social desirability-based responses) in regard to establishing validity and reliability (Card, 2017; Clifton, 2020; Rioux & Little, 2020; Wright et al., 2021). In addition, few survey measures of character have established 693

Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews

measurement invariance across age, gender, ethnicity and, in particular, in regard to international generalizability, across nations and cultures (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016; Tirrell et al., 2019). Furthermore, as explained by Nucci (2017, 2019, this Handbook), character is a multifaceted and dynamic developmental system and, as such, a narrow approach to measurement could not validly capture this complexity. Accordingly, measurement models should include programmatic measurement of all three domains of variables comprising the embodied nature of character development processes, including robust interrogation of the embodied character system within the self-system processes of which it is a part. On the one hand, there has not been systematic assessment across the life span of the coaction between morphological and physiological processes with the specific manifestations of positive character within self-system processes. For example, are there specific times in the life span when character education programs with proven effectiveness in promoting gratitude, forgiveness, or generosity may best reduce stress-related levels of cortisol and, in turn, increase oxytocin levels? On the other hand, and although there is considerable evidence about the link between sociocultural context and character development (e.g., Lerner et al., 2021a, 2021b), these links have rarely been extended to include coactions with the morphological and physiological dimension of embodied positive character development processes. The result of these omissions is an impoverished understanding of the whole of holism.

Holism Much of the research literature on the development of positive character reports work about one or at most a few character attributes. As well, many programs that undertake evaluations of their work focus on one or only a few character attributes (e.g., see Lerner et al., 2021a, 2021b, for discussions). As implied in our discussion of the methodological implications of embodiment, the absence of a holistic approach to all levels of organization constituting human life is complicated when only a limited assessment of constructs representing each level is included in a measurement model. One basic tenet of statistical analysis is that when a main effect of a variable is embedded in a higher-order statistical interaction, interpretation of main effects is eschewed in deference to interpretations of the interaction effect. The joint ontological implication of embodiment and holism is that each human life is a result of a complex coaction among many variables within and across levels of integration, including, as we have emphasized, individual ⇔ context coactions (e.g., see Heckman et al., this Handbook). To understand the embodied and holistic role of positive character in the development of this complex system is a necessary, but admittedly daunting, challenge for developmental science. Of course, issues of feasibility, time, and financial resources limit the measurement model of any single study. Therefore, in order to design and implement research that can holistically measure individuals across time and place, a combined implication of embodiment and holism is that researchers must pursue a research program, perhaps ones that involve cross-laboratory efforts and are part of a collaborative national and international network. At this writing, there are signs that support for such a program of scholarship in the study of character development is being considered as a target of funding by some private foundations. The Templeton World Charity Foundation’s Global Innovations in Character Development is a case in point (Dill & Simpson, this Handbook). Such integrative and programmatic funding will be more likely to appear prudent among funders if research about the embodied and holistic character development system can be coupled with compelling evidence that, consistent with RDS-based ideas about the specificity of human development, the study of the specific complex and dynamic 694

Character Development

developmental course of individuals can be studied in the wholeness of their individuality (Lerner et al., 2022, in press).

Developmentally Nurturant Relationships An open and dynamic system can be changed for the better or for the worse. The dynamic developmental system of a person manifesting positive character is the same sort of system of a person manifesting negative character. What, then, accounts for these interindividual differences? We believe that the critical difference between the person who becomes an example of positive character and the menace to society that Theodore Roosevelt pointed to (in the epigram we noted earlier in the chapter) is something that developmental scientists have studied quite extensively: the socialization history of the person and, more, specifically the formal and informal educational experiences a person has across the life span. Whereas this point may seem obvious to the readership of this chapter, it nevertheless has methodological implications that will enhance understanding of the developmental bases of positive character. Although it is likely that, except for a few resolute genetic reductionists, that is, those writers who believe that the genes inherited at birth are a blueprint for all later development (e.g., Plomin, 2018), most developmental scientists would agree that the formal and informal educational experiences that are part of a person’s socialization shape the moral valence of a person’s character. However, there has been far too few investigations of the processes that enables precise delineation of the specific educational formal and informal experiences, and of the coactions among them, that are needed to promote specific features of character development among specific youth. Interrogating the conditions across life that eventuate in specific features of an individual’s character attributes results, then, to framing empirical questions through the use of the Bornstein Specificity Principle.

Specificity of Individual ⇔ Context Relations Bornstein’s (2017, 2019) Specificity Principle involves programmatic character development research that addresses a complex, multi-part question aimed at generating the evidence needed for precise knowledge of the bases of positive character development. An example of the set of questions that may derive by framing research through use of this principle involves asking:

• What specific attributes of positive character; • For a person of what specific demographic or status characteristics (e.g., age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, SES, etc.);

• Experiencing what specific formal or informal socialization (or education) experiences; • In what specific setting (e.g., family, school classroom, out-of-school-time setting, professional • • • • •

training, and religious training); Of what intensity, duration, and engagement level; In what specific community, society, and culture; At what specific time in the life span; At what specific time in history; and Will result in what manifestations of positive character and morally purposed specific features of positive community and civic engagement and contributions?

Research about positive character development must build into it change- and context-sensitive measures suitable for use in addressing such a set of questions. Character development research 695

Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews

programs guided by such questions will enable holistic understanding of how each person can have a life span marked by mutually beneficial coactions between the self and a civil society. As already noted, enormous methodological innovations have been made in the person-specific study of human development. These innovations have not ignored or attempted to explain away through ontological reductionism, the complexity of person-specific development. Quite to the contrary, the methodologists leading the way in person-specific measurement and data analysis have fully embraced such complexity (e.g., Hamaker et al., 2018; Mascolo & Bidell, 2020; Molenaar, 2004; Molenaar et al., 2014; Nesselroade & Molenaar, 2010; Ram et al., 2005, 2014; Rose, 2016). For instance, in discussing how a dynamic approach to structural equation modeling (i.e., DSEM; McNeish & Hamaker, 2020) can provide evidence of meaningful person-specific pathways of development and, as well, enable comparison of these within-person changes with the average pathway of change for the group within which individuals are embedded, Hamaker et al. (2018, p. 820) explain that: one of the most valuable properties of intensive longitudinal data is that they provide a unique opportunity to study processes within-person as they unfold over time… To investigate the underlying dynamics of intensive longitudinal data, researchers have been borrowing techniques from other disciplines—like econometrics, physics, and engineering—where they have a long history of studying processes over time using time series analysis and dynamic systems theory. A common characteristic of these techniques is their focus on the way a preceding state of the system (e.g., person or dyad) gives rise to the subsequent state. This allows for a unique perspective on processes… and extends our more conventional approaches to intensive longitudinal data, which tend to focus on concurrent relationships between variables, rather than their dynamic interplay over time. Studies by Yu et al. (e.g., 2020, 2021, 2022a, 2022b) have used DSEM to study the dynamics of attributes of positive character (e.g., empathy). Of course, this very brief reference to ways in which dynamic systems methods can illuminate the structure and function of person-specific relations with context – and at levels of organization that reflect the breadth of the embodied, developing person – is far from exhaustive. There are many other methods for assessing the complexity of dynamic individual ⇔ context that exist and others continue to be created (e.g., Brinberg et al., 2022; Hollenstein, 2007; Mongin et al., 2022). However, it is certainly beyond the scope of this chapter to provide tutorials about these dynamic methods. Our purpose, then, is only to point to the fact that methods to address the complexity of the embodied, holistic, and dynamic, relational development system exist and, if past is prelude, will continue to burgeon in subsequent decades.

Toward Future Scholarship about Character Development It is not surprising that research and evaluation research and attendant methods derived from dynamic, RDS-based ideas will repurpose existing measures, designs, and data analysis procedures and, as well, will be associated with growth in methodological innovations aimed at enhancing the research and evaluation tools interested in integrating nomothetic, differential, and idiographic variation in each individual’s character development across life. Indeed, empowered through such methods to embrace the complex dynamics of human development, the research tools available to scholars will enable them to eschew the distortions of human development associated with flawed and often counterfactual reductionist versions of the bases and features of character development. 696

Character Development

In turn, methodological approaches to character development brought to the fore of scholars’ attention may provide the impetus for creative means to use dynamic and relational concepts associated with RDS metatheory to provide the field with the heretofore unavailable capacity to substantially enhance the veridical understanding of each person’s life course of character development in the wholeness of its individuality (Bornstein, 2019; Cantor et al., 2021; Molenaar, 2004; Rose, 2016). Scholarship framed by RDS-based questions will not erase the importance of understanding the nomothetic and differential facets of individuals’ character development across life. To the contrary, it will integratively supplement such knowledge, by creating a means to understand the dynamics of developmental processes being in part systematic changes that make all humans alike, that make some humans more like one group than another group, and that make each human unique. Indeed, as illuminated across the chapters in this Handbook, cutting-edge scholarship about character development identifies the fundamental importance of such development for human flourishing in manners that may place all people on a pathway reflecting both their individual thriving and that enable them to contribute in morally just ways to the thriving of others, to civil society, and to social justice (e.g., see Dabdoud et al., this Handbook; Hyun et al., this Handbook). That philosophy, science, and practice also combine to promote in every person a greater capacity to find a specific path to follow in instantiating such mutually beneficial individual ⇔ context relations bodes well for using future character development research and education as a resource in making the promotion of positive character development a vital contributor to national and international instantiations of civil society and social justice. This future prospect of such an advance in the contributions of character development scholarship leads us to some final comments.

Conclusions At the beginning of this chapter, we noted that we would reserve for its concluding section a discussion of the evidence of a third generalization about the multidisciplinary study of character development that may be derived from reviewing the chapters present in this Handbook. Readers of the chapters across the two volumes of this Handbook will find that it is clear that the field enjoys the presence of different philosophical, scientific, and applied approach to describing, explaining, and optimizing character development across the life span and around the globe. We believe such diversity of perspectives reflects the vibrancy of the study of chapter development and, in particular, the breadth of creativity present in scholarship at this moment in history. A key generalization about this diversity of basic and applied scholarly activity is that it has largely been made possible by the vision and philanthropic contributions of the John Templeton Foundations: The John Templeton Foundation (JTF), the Templeton Religion Trust (TRT), and the Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF). By our count, the scholarship and the scholars associated with about 60% of all chapters have been supported in whole or in part by grants from JTF, TRT, or TWCF (see Dill & Simpson, this Handbook). Of course, there are many other philanthropic entities that have supported character development or character-development-related research (see Clement et al., this Handbook). However, even if chapter authors were not supported by grants from the three Templeton Foundations, the literature they cited included work conducted by funding from one or more of the Templeton Foundations. Therefore, by this criterion, our reading is that every chapter in the Handbook was influenced either directly or indirectly by scholarship catalyzed by the philanthropic vision and substantive interests of the Templeton Foundations. There are at least two important points to make about the future of the field derived from the fact that the Templeton philanthropies have substantially shaped the contemporary development 697

Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews

of scholarship about character development. First, this influence has been directed to promoting scholarship that is multidisciplinary and diverse in orientation and objectives. The goal of the Foundations’ philanthropy has been to catalyze addressing “big questions” of scholarship about character development; funding was not directed to finding either specific answers or supporting specific points of view. The intent of this funding was to create a field of basic and applied and scholarship that was rigorous and meaningful in addressing fundamental questions about character development, and this strategy helped produce the diversity of perspectives, studies, methods, and substantive foci found in this Handbook. Active, diverse, and rigorous inquiry and application and not specific answers were the goals and, from the pages in this Handbook, it appears that the goals have been met. Second, whereas the influence of Templeton funding is broad and deep, as illustrated by the chapters in the Handbook, we believe that, because about 40% of the chapters in the Handbook were not associated with funding from the Templeton philanthropies, there appears to be an indicator of the sustainability of scholarly interest in character development. Neither governmental nor private sources of funding can be expected to be sufficient over the course of time to maintain the vitality of a field of basic and applied interest. Certainly, there is no evidence that the resources of one entity can sustain a field of scholarship across generations. As such, although the appearance of this Handbook represents only a point-in-time perspective about the status of the field, the magnitude of the sources of support for character development scholarship may be a harbinger of a (welcomed and needed) growth in the diversity of support for character development scholarship and application. We certainly hope that this interpretation of the future resources for character development scholarship is correct. The fundamental significance of character development for individual thriving and for the well-being of social institutions, morally just civil society, and social justice will remain constant across time and place. Therefore, our aspiration is that future editions of a handbook about character development will document the growth in diverse sources of funding for basic and applied scholarship about character development and, as well, should demonstrate the vibrancy and health of multidisciplinary scholarship and application that results from such support. The present Handbook documents that, at the close of the first-quarter of the 21st century, the state-of-the-field is robustly diverse and productive. Yet, this state must be maintained to continue to serve the new challenges to the mutually influential thriving of morally just individuals and their contribution to a flourishing social world that supports freedom, liberty, and justice of all people, and their health and the health of the planet that provides our home.

Notes 1 There is no evidence, in any chapter in this Handbook, that authors believe that this genetic reductionist use of the term trait applies to character. Therefore, when scholars who believe that character is a phenomenon that involves developmental processes refer to character “traits,” it is, at best, confusing to readers or, at worst, useful as evidence by reductionists that character is genetically prescribed in an individual’s genotype. Because of this situation, Lerner and Overton (2017) recommended that the term “trait” not be used in discussions of the concept of development. A non-theoretically loaded term, such as attribute, characteristic, component, or facet, would be more appropriate. 2 To visualize this relation, visualize the relation between the two hands in M. C. Escher’s (1948) famous lithograph “Drawing Hands.” 3 Change cannot be measured from one time of measurement and, as well, if only two times of measurement exist, it is difficult to discriminate between changes that are systematic and successive from change due only to regression to the mean. As such, most developmental studies set three times of measurement as a minimum number of repeated measures (Nesselroade et al., 1980).

698

Character Development

References Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Holt. Allport, G. W. (1962). The general and the unique in psychological science. Journal of Personality, 30(3), 405–422. Antonucci, T. C., Lansford, J. E., & Akiyama, H. (2001). Impact of positive and negative aspects of marital relationships and friendships on well-being of older adults. Applied Developmental Science, 5(2), 68–75. Baltes, P. B., Reese, H. W., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1977). Life-span developmental psychology: Introduction to research methods. Brooks/Cole. Belsky, J. (2014, November 30). The downside of resilience. New York Times, Sunday Review, p. SR4. Birkel, R., Lerner, R. M., & Smyer, M. A. (1989). Applied developmental psychology as an implementation of a life-span view of human development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 425–445. Bjorklund, D. F., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Evolutionary psychology and child development: An emerging synthesis. In B. J. Ellis & D. F. Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development (pp. 3–18). Guilford. Bornstein, M. H. (2017). The specificity principle in acculturation science. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 12(1), 3–45. Bornstein, M. H. (2019). Fostering optimal development and averting detrimental development: Prescriptions, proscriptions, and specificity. Applied Developmental Science, 23(4), 340–345. Brinberg, M., Ram, N., Conroy, D. E., Pincus, A. L., & Gerstorf, D. (2022). Dyadic analysis and the reciprocal one-with-many model: Extending the study of interpersonal processes with intensive longitudinal data. Psychological Methods, 27(1), 65–81. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Wiley. Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 359–366. Cantor, P., & Osher, D. (2021). The future of the science of learning and development: Whole-child development, learning, and thriving in an era of collective adversity, disruptive change, and increasing inequality. In P. Cantor & D. Osher (Eds.), The science of learning and development: Enhancing the lives of all young people (pp. 233–254). Routledge. Cantor, P., Lerner, R. M., Pittman, K., Chase, P. A., & Gomperts, N. (2021). Whole-child development, learning, and thriving: A dynamic systems approach. Cambridge University Press. Card, N. A. (2017). Methodological issues in measuring the development of character. Journal of Character Education, 13(2), 29–45. Clifton, J. D. W. (2020). Managing validity versus reliability trade-offs in scale-building decisions. Psychological Methods, 25(3), 259–270. Cole, S. W. (2014). Human social genomics. PLOS Genetics, 10(8), 1–7. Collins, L.M. (2006). Analysis of longitudinal data: The integration of theoretical model, temporal design, and statistical model. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 505–528. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 65–102). Academic Press. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford University. Emmerich, W. (1968). Personality development and concepts of structure. Child Development, 39(3), 671–690. Escher, M. C. (1948). Drawing hands (lithograph). National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, United States. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.54237.html Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action and thought. In R. M. Lerner, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Theoretical models of human development. Volume 1 of handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 313–399). Wiley. Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Sage. Hamaker, E. L., Asparouhov, T., Brose, A., Schmiedek, F., & Methén, B. (2018). At the frontiers of modeling intensive longitudinal data: Dynamic structural equation models for the affective measurements from the COGITO study. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(6), 820–841.

699

Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews Harden, K. P. (2021). The genetic lottery: Why DNA matters for social equality. Princeton University Press. Harlow, H. F., & Suomi, S. J. (1971). Social recovery by isolation-reared monkeys. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, 68(7), 1534–1538. Harlow, H. F., & Zimmermann, R. R. (1959). Affectional response in the infant monkey. Science, 130, 421–432. Hollenstein, T. (2007). State space grids: Analyzing dynamics across development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(4), 384–396. Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Yang, X.-F. (2017). Cultural differences in the neural correlates of social–emotional feelings: An interdisciplinary, developmental perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 34–40. Ingersoll-Dayton, B., David Morgan, D., & Antonucci, T. (1997). The effects of positive and negative social exchanges on aging adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 52(4), S190–S199. Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT Press. Kaplan, B. (1983). A trio of trials. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Developmental psychology: Historical and philosophical perspectives (pp. 185–228). Erlbaum. Kluckhohn, C., & Murray, H. A. (1953). Personality formation: The determinants. In C. Kluckhohn, H. A. Murray, & D. M. Schneider (Eds.), Personality in nature, society, and culture (2nd ed., pp. 53–69). Alfred A. Knopf. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Lerner, R. M. (1984). On the nature of human plasticity. Cambridge University Press. Lerner, R. M. (2018). Concepts and theories of human development (4th ed.). Routledge. Lerner, R. M. (2021). Individuals as producers of their development: The dynamics of person ⇔ context coactions. Routledge. Lerner, R. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2021). Contributions of the specificity principle to theory, research, and application in the study of human development: A view of the issues. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101294 Lerner, R. M., Bornstein, M. H., & Jervis, P. (2022). The development of positive attributes of character: On the embodiment of specificity, holism, and self-system processes. Human Development, 66(1), 34–37. Lerner, R. M., Dowling, E. M., & Abbasi-Asl, R. (in press). The development of positive character: A relational developmental systems perspective. In L. Nucci, T. Krettenauer, & W. C. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook for moral and character education (3rd ed.). Routledge. Lerner, R. M., Jervis, P., & Bornstein, M. H. (2021a). Enhancing the international study of positive youth development: Process, specificity, and the sample case of character virtues. Journal of Youth Development, 16(2–3), 402–422. Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (2019). An idiographic approach to adolescent research: Theory, method, and application. In L. B. Hendry & M. Kloep (Eds.), Reframing adolescent research (pp. 25–38). Routledge. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Murry, V. M., Smith, E. P., Bowers, E. P., Geldhof, G. J., & Buckingham, M. H. (2021b). Positive youth development in 2020: Theory, research, programs, and the promotion of social justice. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(4), 1114–1134. Lerner, R. M., & Overton, W. F. (2017). Reduction to absurdity: Why epigenetics invalidates all models involving genetic reduction. Human Development, 60(2–3), 107–123. Marshall, P. J., Houser, T. M., & Weiss, S. M. (2021). The shared origins of embodiment and development. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 15, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2021.726403 Mascolo, M. F., & Bidell, T. R. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of integrative developmental psychology: Festschrift for Kurt W. Fischer. Routledge. Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (2015). Dynamic development of thinking, feeling, and acting. In W. F. Overton, P. C. Molenaar, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Theory and method. Volume 1 of the handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., pp. 113–161). Wiley. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebícková, M., Avia, M. D., Sanz, J., SánchezBernardos, M. L., Kusdil, M. E., Woodfield, R., Saunders, P. R., & Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186. McNeish, D., & Hamaker, E. L. (2020). A primer on two-level dynamic structural equation models for intensive longitudinal data in Mplus. Psychological Methods, 25(5), 610–635.

700

Character Development Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 2(4), 201–218. Molenaar, P. C. M., Lerner, R. M., & Newell, K. (Eds.) (2014). Handbook of developmental systems theory and methodology. Guilford. Molenaar, P. C. M., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2012). Merging the idiographic filter with dynamic factor analysis to model process. Applied Developmental Science, 16, 210–219. Molenaar, P. C. M., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2014). New trends in the inductive use of relation developmental systems theory: Ergodicity, nonstationarity, and heterogeneity. In P. C. Molenaar, R. M. Lerner, & K. M. Newell (Eds.), Handbook of developmental systems and methodology (pp. 442–462). Guilford Press. Molenaar, P. C. M., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2015). Systems methods for developmental research. In R. M. Lerner, W. F. Overton, & P. C. M. Molenaar (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Theory and method (7th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 652–682). Wiley. Mongin, D., Uribe, A., Cullati, S., & Courvoisier, D. S. (2022). A tutorial on ordinary differential equations in behavioral science: What does physics teach us? Psychological Methods. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ met0000517 Moore, D. S. (2015). The developing genome: An introduction to behavioral epigenetics. Oxford University Press. Nagel, E. (1957). Determinism in development. In D. B. Harris (Ed.), The concept of development (pp. 15– 24). University of Minnesota Press. Nesselroade, J. R., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2010). Emphasizing intraindividual variability in the study of development over the life span. In W. F. Overton & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of life-span development. Vol. 1: Cognition, biology, methods (pp. 30–54). Wiley. Nesselroade, J. R., Stigler, S. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1980). Regression toward the mean and the study of change. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 622–637. Noble, D. (2015). Evolution beyond neo-Darwinism: A new conceptual framework. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 218, 7–13. Nucci, L. (2017). Character: A multi-faceted developmental system. Journal of Character Education, 13(1), 1–16. Nucci, L. (2019). Character: A developmental system. Child Developmental Perspectives, 13(2), 73–78. Ourth, L., & Brown, K. B. (1961). Inadequate mothering and disturbance in the neonatal period. Child Development, 32(2), 287–295. Overton, W. F. (2008). Embodiment from a relational perspective. In W. F. Overton, U. Mueller, & J. L. Newman (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on embodiment and consciousness (pp. 1–18). Routledge. Overton, W. F. (2014). Relational developmental systems and developmental science: A focus on methodology. In P. C. M. Molenaar, R. M. Lerner, & K. Newell (Eds.), Handbook of developmental systems theory and methodology (pp. 19–65). Guilford Press. Overton, W. F. (2015). Process and relational developmental systems. In R. M. Lerner, W. F. Overton, & P. C. M. Molenaar (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Theory and method (7th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 9–62). Wiley. Overton, W. F., & Reese, H. W. (1973). Models of development: Methodological implications. In J. R. Nesselroade & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Methodological issues (pp. 65–86). Academic Press. Overton, W., & Reese, H. (1981). Conceptual prerequisites for an understanding of stability-change and continuity-discontinuity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 4, 99–123. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. University of California Press. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character virtues and virtues: A handbook and classification. American Psychological Association. Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press and Allen Lane. Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. Raeff, C. (2016). Exploring the dynamics of human development: An integrative approach. Oxford University Press. Ram, N., Chow, S.-M., Bowles, R. P., Wang, L., Grimm, K., Fujita, F., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2005). Examining interindividual differences in cyclicity of pleasant and unpleasant affects using spectral analysis and item response modeling. Psychometrika, 70(4), 773–790.

701

Richard M. Lerner and Michael D. Matthews Ram, N., Conroy, D. E., Pincus, A. L., Lorek, A., Rebar, A., Roche, M. J., Coccia, M., Morack, J., Feldman, J., & Gerstorf, D. (2014). Examining the interplay of processes across multiple time-scales: Illustration with the intraindividual study of affect, health, and interpersonal behavior (iSAHIB). Research in Human Development, 11(2), 142–160. Reese, H. W., & Overton, W. F. (1970). Models of development and theories of development. In L. R. Goulet & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Life span developmental psychology: Research and theory (pp. 115–145). Academic. Rioux, C., & Little, T. D. (2020). Underused methods in developmental science to inform policy and practice. Child Development Perspectives, 14(2), 97–103. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, & R. S. Siegler (Volume Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2: Cognition, perception, and language (5th ed., pp. 679–744). Wiley. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (2011). Developing destinies. Oxford University Press. Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness. Harper-Collins Publishers. Schaie, K. W. (1965). A general model for the study of developmental problems. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 92–107. Schaie, K. W., & Strother, C. R. (1968). A cross-sequential study of age changes in cognitive behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 671–680. Schneirla, T. C. (1957). The concept of development in comparative psychology. In D. B. Harris (Ed.), The concept of development: An issue in the study of human behavior (pp. 78–108). University of Minnesota Press. Scott, J. P. (1962). Critical periods in behavioral development. Science, 138(3544), 949–958. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Knopf. Slavich, G. M., & Cole, S. W. (2013). The emerging field of human social genomics. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 331–348. Spitz, R. (1945). Hospitalism, an inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1, 53–74. Spitz, R. (1946). Hospitalism, a follow-up report. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 2, 113–117. Suomi, S. J., & Harlow, H. F. (1972). Social rehabilitation of isolate-reared monkeys. Developmental Psychology, 6(3), 487–496. Tirrell, J. M., Geldhof, G. J., King, P. E., Dowling, E. M., Sim, A. T. R., Williams, K., Iraheta, G., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2019). Measuring spirituality, hope, and thriving among Salvadoran youth: Initial findings from the compassion international study of positive youth development. Child Youth Care Forum, 48(2), 241–268. Tomaka, J., Thompson, S., & Palacios, R. (2006). The relation of social isolation, loneliness, and social support to disease outcome among the elderly. Journal of Aging and Health, 18(3). von Bertalanffy, L. (1933). Modern theories of development. Oxford University Press. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. Braziller. Witherington, D. C. (2014). Self-organization and explanatory pluralism: avoiding the snares of reductionism in developmental science. Research in Human Development, 11, 22–36. Witherington, D. C., & Lickliter, R. (2016). Integrating development and evolution in psychological science: Evolutionary developmental psychology, developmental systems, and explanatory pluralism. Human Development, 59, 200–234. Woese, C. R. (2004). A new biology for a new century. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 68(2), 173–186. Wright, J. C., Warren, M. T., & Snow, N. W. (2021). Understanding virtue: Theory and measurement. Oxford University Press. Yu, D., Yang, P. J., Geldhof, G. J., Tyler, C. P., Gansert, P. K., Chase, P. A., & Lerner, R. M. (2020). Exploring idiographic approaches to children’s executive function performance: An intensive longitudinal study. Journal for Person-Oriented Research, 6(2), 73–87. Yu, D., Yang, P.-J., Michaelson, L., Geldhof, G. J., Chase, P. A., Gansert, P. K., Osher, D. M., Berg, J. K., Tyler, C. P., Goncalves, C., Park, Y., Boyd-Brown, M. J., Cade, W., Theokas, C., Cantor, P., & Lerner, R. M. (2021). Understanding child executive functioning through use of the Bornstein Specificity Principle. Journal of Applied Developmental Science, 73, 101240.

702

Character Development Yu, D., Geldhof, G. J., Buckingham, M. H., Goncalves, C., Yang, P.-J., Michaelson, L. E., Berg, J., Ni, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2022a). “Today, I cared about how a classmate felt”: Fluctuations in empathy are linked to daily mood in adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appdev.2021.101386 Yu, D., Goncalves, C., Yang, P.-J., Geldhof, G. J., Michaelson, L., Ni, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2022b). Does prior night’s sleep impact next day’s executive functioning? It depends on an individual’s average sleep quality. Journal for Person-Oriented Research, 8(1), 10–23.

703

AFTERWORD

This multi-faceted, far-reaching Handbook succeeds on many fronts. It captures the classic concerns of character that sages have examined for centuries and the vibrant contemporary work that scholars are producing at this moment. In this way, the Handbook’s contributions are both timeless and timely. The collection is also broadly conceived, representing the range of scholarly disciplines that explore character and the major professional contexts where character is played out. Accordingly, this Handbook is unique in its sweeping coverage. It has no near equivalent as a resource for anyone wishing to review the present state of knowledge about this most crucial dimension of human life. Among its many achievements, the Handbook puts to rest longstanding doubts about the place of character as a proper subject of focus in a number of key endeavors. Throughout history, conversations about character have been welcomed in some areas but not others. On the positive side, ever since Heraclitus declared that “character is destiny” (sometime around 500 BC), it has been widely agreed that character is a subject of concern in personal development. By extension, over the years most people have concurred that character is critical in interpersonal relationships. Yet in other important domains, many people have considered discussions of character to be extraneous, distracting, and even misleading for their domain’s chief missions. The problem, of course, is that discussions of character draw us into judgments based on values. Even more problematic, these may often be moral values. It is one thing to employ moral values with respect to judgments of personal and interpersonal behavior: as I noted, people have done this for millennia, as a matter of course. But when moral values are introduced in scientific discussions, educational practices, or professional decisions, storms of controversy may be stirred up. Such high-level endeavors aspire to be value-free as much as possible – hence their aversion to character as a subject of concern. But such an aversion actually can restrict the capacity of such endeavors to accomplish their missions. In the field of psychological science, for example, we learn from this Handbook that Gordon Allport intentionally excluded character from his analyses of personality, no doubt because he saw character as value-laden and thus subjective in nature. Allport was among the great founders of psychological science. His pioneering work led the way to some of the most insightful studies of personality that the field has produced. One can only imagine how much more powerful his work (and that of others in his wake) might have been had he not placed this exclusion 704

Afterword

on his research. In the field of education, countless efforts to bring character education into the classroom have been stalled or deterred by an almost reflexive distrust of anything that smacks of values – even when the values in question are as non-controversial as honesty, respectfulness, and compassion.. The contents of this Handbook are the best answer I know to such misplaced concerns. In the chapters from the social-science disciplines of economics, sociology, and psychology, we see rigorous analyses that take the subject of character head-on, conveying groundbreaking insights into the nature and dynamics of character formation. These analyses stand as demonstrations that the social-sciences can include the “subjective” study of human values without sacrificing their scientific integrity; and indeed that social-science inquiry must include such study if it is to represent what is most important in human affairs. Similarly, the Handbook’s chapters on educational practice, as well as those on conduct in leading professions such as the military and philanthropic foundations, demonstrate that the subject of character not only can be treated in a judicious manner, but that character itself is an unavoidable concern of these professions. For a truly balanced professional approach, character cannot be neglected. Imagine a school, for example, that actually did try to stay out of the character business, refraining from promoting virtues such as honesty and respect. Even if the school survived the chaos that would ensue, could we expect that the character of its students wouldn’t be adversely affected by the message such an exercise in moral abdication would impart? Character education, in the phrase of one early writing on the matter, “comes with the territory.” As I read the stirring writings in this Handbook from the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard academies, it seems clear that the same is true in military education and, most certainly, in the conduct of military operations. In the Handbook’s chapters on the philanthropy profession, focusing on the decades-long commitment of the John Templeton Foundation to the study and promotion of 19 key character virtues, we can see the large and enduring legacy that a strategic philanthropic focus on the subject of character can create. Notable too are the research and policy centers established at U.S. and UK universities to focus on the study and practice of character development; as well as character-focused centers in hospitals and youth-serving agencies around the world. The sheer number noted in the Handbook is astonishing. The nine centers closely described in this Handbook have impressive histories of accomplishment. They have made the study of character available to their universities’ graduate and undergraduate students in ways that would have been unimaginable in the absence of these centers. None of the centers is likely to last forever – that is the way with university centers – but they have made lasting marks on the shape of the field, on students they have reached, and on the societies whose education and youth-serving policies they have influenced. And they will provide inspiring example for future centers and institutes that will advance the study of character beyond the frontiers of what is known today. The rich accounts of how these nine ground-breaking centers were built, the obstacles (sometimes daunting) they have faced, the opportunities they seized, how they were able to marshal resources necessary for their missions, and what they were able to accomplish, will guide future efforts to pursue the mission of character formation in other times and places. With all the substantial accomplishments documented in this Handbook, it is nevertheless the case that we are closer to the beginning than to the end of the road toward reliable character formation in human behavior. The contributions in these volumes signal progress, but our world has far to go, and it will not be an easy quest. The difficult conditions of human life that test character, and the powerful impulses of human nature that counter it, are well-known and documented in places 705

Afterword

in and beyond the present Handbook. Successfully promoting character development will require new and compelling solutions to such inevitable age-old tensions. Toward this end, it may be helpful for those of us in the character development vocation to look close to home. As I noted, the pursuit of character always entails judgments, often of a moral kind. This is as it should be. But it is necessary to ask: Who should be the subject when we make such judgments? Casting judgment on the behavior of others may be tempting, but it is generally pointless. It is not realistic to think we can change someone else’s behavior by pointing out that person’s character flaws. Criticizing another person’s character also risks a presumptuousness that may forego the benefits of that most crucial moral virtue, humility. This isa misstep many religious traditions warn us against (as in the admonition from the JudeoChristian tradition, “Judge not, that you be not judged.”). In actuality, every character shortcoming that we may notice in the world is almost certainly present in our own institutions and social circles, whether they be academic, business, military, or other human groups. When we look close to home for the character flaws that need correcting and the character strengths that need building, we stand on firm ground as scientists, educators, and professionals. It is from such firm ground that we are best able to make well-directed and useful contributions to this nascent field. William Damon, Ph.D. Director, Center on Adolescence Professor of Education Senior Fellow, the Hoover Institution Stanford University Stanford, CA

706

INDEX

Note: Page references in italics denote figures, in bold tables and with “n” endnotes. 4-H Study of PYD: Reconnection and Replication 304–305 7 Cs model of resilience 117–122, 118–119 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (Covey) 625 “25-75 rule” 48

affiliative opportunists 200 African Americans: conflicting values 12; culture 11; perspectives of character development 11, 17; valued character traits 11; see also Black youth African slave trade 640 agency 17, 74–75, 436; theorists 76 Albright, Madeleine 376, 382 Allman, Kate 383 Allport, Gordon 147, 477, 483, 704 All We Can Save: Truth, Courage, and Solutions for the Climate Crisis (Johnson and Wilkinson) 381 Althof, W. 603 American Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP) 543 American Bar Association (ABA) 379 American identity 362–363 American Identity Renewed Conference 362 American Joint Jewish Distribution Committee (JDC) 446, 459–460 American Revolution 613 analytic philosophy 75 Ananthi Al Ramiah 383 Anchan, D. M. 13, 16 Anderson, M. 262 Anestis, M. D. 42 Anger, S. 395 anhedonia 42 Anscombe, Elizabeth 328 Anscombe, G. E. M. 660 antiracism: positive youth development 238–241; reconceptualizing PYD research in context of 241–249

Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (JPAL) 454 Aboud, F. E. 486 Abu Ghraib prison 595 academic achievement: consistency of interest 33; and grit 32–35; interventions 34–35; moderators 34; perseverance of effort 33 academic character development 587–589 academic silos 322–323 Accord Network 454 accountability system 186 ACT 32–33, 390 active resistors 201 Adams, John Quincy 613 adaptability 49, 391, 397, 399–400, 418, 471; described 399; MindVue’s conceptualization of 400 adaptive calibration 9, 243 adaptive intelligence 208 addiction 122, 127, 180, 323 adolescence: American identity in 362–363; civic development in 362–363; civic purpose in 362–363 adolescent character development 423–439 Adolescent Circles approach 430–431 adult culture: collaborative 567; IVALB’s 567; thoughtful and supportive 568–569 adultification 9

707

Index antiracist Positive Youth Development (AR-PYD) 238–240, 249; cultural variables 246; social positional variables 247 Antoni, C. H. 57, 58 Applied Developmental Science 362 Applied Developmental Science Institute (ADSI) 299 Aquinas, St. Thomas 70, 71, 497 Arab Spring 427 Arantes, Valeria 365 Araújo, Ulises 365 Aristotelian virtue ethics 260–261 Aristotle 91, 497, 550, 566, 600, 618, 624–625, 664 Armitage, Richard 615 Army Ethic: becoming trustworthy 594–595; internalizing 594–595 Arthur 471 Arthur, James 544, 664 Arthur Interactive Media Study (AIMS) 303 The Arts of Leading: Perspectives from the Humanities and Liberal Arts 385 Aspen Declaration 10–13 Assmann, Aleida 647 Association for Character Education (ACE) 270–271 Athenian philosophy 669 Atkinson, F. 37 Atlacat Battalion 227 Atlantic Philanthropies 543 authentic leadership 651 authentic modeling 567–568 authoritarianism 204–205 authoritative parenting 123 automaticity 646 Avey, J. B. 393 Aviv, I. 94

Bergstrom, Craig 298 Bergstrom, Gary 298 Bergstrom, Joan Margosian 298 Berkowitz, M. W. 3, 262, 275, 277, 425, 426, 547, 603, 642 Berlin Aging Study 142 Bernardy, V. 57, 58 Bicultural Competence Skills program 506 Bier, Mindy 277, 279–281, 426 Big Brothers Big Sisters of America 504 Bilewicz, M. 16 bioecological systems model 450–451 biopsychosocial characteristics 91 Blackwell, C. K. 94 Blackwell, L. S. 44 Black youth: character development 6; obedience 9–10; racial socialization 6; risk engagement 22; sociohistorical context of character development for 8–10; see also African Americans Bleakley, A. 477 Bleidorn, W. 395 Blöser, C. 70, 72–73, 77 Blyth, D. A. 451 Bok, Derek 326 Bond, B. J. 483–485 Booker, Cory 379 Boren, David 316, 319 Bornstein, M. H. 96, 97, 514, 691–692, 695 bounded group-communities 242 Bovens, Luc 75–76 Bowin, R. B. 62 Bowlby, J. 98 Boy Scouts of America 4, 669, 512 Boy Scouts of America Building Evidence in Scouting Together (BSA BEST) Study 348–350 Bradford, Gwen 168 Brant, Jonathan 373 Brattain, Walter 634 Bredemeier, Brenda 276 Brenninkmeijer, Stephen 259 Brewer, M. B. 194 Brief Inventory of Thriving 384 British School system 544, 548n6 Brockliss, Laurence 326 Bronfenbrenner, U. 450, 635–636 Bronk, Kendall Cotton 357, 358 Brooks, David 374, 382 Brooks, Edward 373 Brooks-Gunn, J. 117, 452 Brown, M. E. 650 Brown, Mitch 278 Bruner, Jerome 76 Bryan, G. 454 Bryant, Jacquie 560

Baehr, Jason 565 Baker, Newton D. 593 balanced parenting 123 Banas, J. A. 483, 484, 486 Bancroft, George 613 Banks, James 362 Bardeen, John 634 Barker, Roger 635 Beck, Aaron 406 Behavioral, Emotional, and Social Skills Inventory (BESSI) 150, 151, 152 behavioral domain of learning 620–623 Bell-Robinson, V. 47 Bender, A. 395 benevolence 551, 556 Bennett, William 669 Benninga, Jacques 362 Benson, P. L. 93, 356 Berger, J. 445

708

Index Buchanan, Pat 196–197 Buckley, Chris 99, 100 Buddha, Gautama 166 Buddhism 180, 669, 670 “Build and Support Your Teen’s Strengths” 291–292 Building Blocks for Learning (BBFL) model 305 Building Character through a Game-based Solution to a Community Challenge (Youth ReadyEvoke) 343 Building Equitable Learning Environments Network (BELE Network) 528 Burnette, J. L. 44 Burns, James 330 Burroughs, Bradley 377, 378 Bush, George W. 105, 524 Byrne, Liam 259

Center for Character and Leadership Development (CCLD), USAFA 572–580; history of 572–574; integration across institution 577– 578; leader of character (LoC) framework 574–579, 575; recent successes 579 Center for Child Well-Being 94 Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), Tufts University 434 Center for Parent and Teen Communication (CPTC): “Build and Support Your Teen’s Strengths” 291–292; cultural narrative about adolescence 287–288; dissemination efforts 292–293; future 294–295; launching 289–292; overview 286–287; parenting practices in communities of color 293– 294; planning 288–289; translation and dissemination 290–291 Center for the Study of Professional Military Ethics 615 “Channels of Hope” approach 455 character 93; caught, taught, and sought 602– 603; conceptualizing 138–139; and conscientiousness 147–149; contemporary factors leading to breakdown in 204–207; defined 3, 138–139, 424–426, 497–500, 522–523; and emotions 181–182; and leadership development 329–334, 330; measurement/development within organizations 390–419; and Naval Academy 614–615; psychological characteristics 138; PYD as developmental process 496–497; related conceptualizations 497–498; and resilience 121; and SEB skills 153–154; and self-regulation 140; and SOC model 143; studied 497–500; in UK business 335–336; YD programs’ capacities to promote 511–513 CharacterCounts! 4, 10 character development (CD) 3, 495–500, 522, 683–698; academic 587–589; assessing/ tracking/recording 627–628; attributes 302; basic research 528–529; Campaign for Forgiveness Research 541; case studies of 7–20; challenges 513–515, 529–530; character attributes and program participation 505–513; and children’s media 469–473; context 6–7; culturally inclusive 6–7; culturally sensitive 22–23; defining character 522–523; developing resources 528; developing strategy for promoting 543–547; developmentally nurturant relationships 689–690; differential facets of 686–690; dynamic/relational developmental systems-based models 686–690; early investments in 538–541;

Cadet Honor Accountability 585 cadet probations 587 cadet remediation programs 586 Caldwell, C. 651 Calhoun, C. 77 Callina, K. S. 139, 515, 516 Calvert, S. L. 485 Cameron, L. 484 Campaign for Forgiveness Research 541, 548n8 Canning, E. A. 45 Carey, George 447 caring-compassion 240 caring/respectful relationships 568–569 Carnegie Corporation 355 Carr, David 329 Carter, N. T. 58 case studies: cultural orientation 10–13; family-based preventive interventions 17; multilevel system level/character development 13–16; sociohistorical context of character development for Black youth 8–10 Casey, B. J. 96 Caslen, R. L. Jr. 177, 178 Caslen, Robert D. 597 Catalano, R. 452 categorization 224 Catholic Relief Services (CRS) 446, 460 Čehajić-Clancy, S. 16 Center for Character and Citizenship (CCC) 274– 283; dissemination 282; history 275–277; overview 274–275; pre-professional and professional development 278–281; program evaluation 281; What Works in Character Education 277–278; Youth Empowerment in Action! 281–282 Center for Character and Citizenship, University of Missouri, St. Louis 498

709

Index embodiment 687–688; evaluations 527; expanding work in 542–543; forming networks 527–528; future scholarship about 696–697; general operating support for programs 526; Global Innovations in Character Development 546–547; historical context 523–525; historical overview 4–6; holism 688–689; Honor Roll 539–541; at IARYD 300–309; idiographic facets of 690–692; impact of cultural orientation 10–13; innovation 526–527; Jubilee Centre for Character and Values 544–545; language and politics 529–530; Laws of Life essay contest 538–539; looking forward 531; measurement 530; methods/ measures, and IDAs 436–438; military 583–587; mission-oriented programming related to 506, 511; multilevel system level influences on 13–16; nature of 624–625; nomothetic facets of 685–686; and personality 146–147; philanthropic approaches to 525–529; project-based support for programs 526–527; Purpose Prize 542–543; relational approach to 139; scaling 527, 530; strategic priorities in 545– 546; strengthening systems 527–528; and Templeton philanthropies 537–538; through family-based preventive interventions 17; at USNA 627–628; in youth programs 494–516; youth programs as contexts for 500–505 Character Development in Adolescence Project (CDAP) 360–361 character development programs/programming: defining 424–426; in LMICs 428–436; NPX Point Avenue leadership camps as 553; theory-informed framework to IDA investment in 428–436 character development work: challenges of 513– 515; challenges to program design 513– 515; challenges to program evaluation 515 Character Educating Matching Grant Program (Arizona) 524 character education 3, 16, 326–329, 522; True North School approach to 553–556; in Vietnam 551–552; Vietnam as a setting to study 550–551; West Point 599–601 Character Education Evaluation Handbook for Schools 270 character growth 603–604 Character Integration Advisory Group (CIAG) 598–601 Character Lab 288, 361, 383, 523, 528 Character Matters (Lickona) 5 character programming and research: federal funding 523–524; funding sources of

523–525; private philanthropy 525; state funding 524–525 character-promotive parenting 20–22, 21 character-related competencies 470 character risk model (CRM): environmental risks 180–183; intrapersonal risks 178–180; overview 177–178, 178; social/ organizational risks 183–189 character strengths 523, 529, 552, 554–557 Character Strengths Inventory for Early Childhood (CSI-EC) 94 The Character Teaching Inventory 270 Character Through Community funding competition 525, 546 character virtues 90, 633–652; acquisition of 91; defined 92; developmental origins of 92; emergence/expression/development of 105–106; and habits 645–646; maternal education 103–105; mature 93–94; mothers 102–103; nature/nuture 101–102; parenting 98–101; practical and clinical implications 106–108; relational approach 138; sources of 98–105; in young children 91, 94–98; see also virtue(s) Character & Virtues: 10 years of the Jubilee Centre (Thompson) 544 ChatGPT 555 Chavez, Hugo 196 Chen, X. 96 Chenoweth, Kristin 376 Chignell, Andrew 75, 79–80 Chik, K. 474 Children Now 476 Children of the Great Depression (Elder) 636 Children’s Hospital Of Philadelphia (CHOP) Center to Promote Adolescent Well-Being 345 children’s media: and development 477–486; within family context 470–471; flipping narrative in study of 468–469; parent/ caregiver preferences for diverse content 475–476; within peer context 472; potentials/limitations of media 472–473; representation/inclusion in 473–477; within school context 471–472; stereotypical media representation/underrepresentation 474–475; youth perspectives 476–477 child rights-based education 429 Chinese Moral Character Questionnaire (CMCQ) 671 Chinese Virtues Questionnaire (CVQ-96) 671 Christenfeld, N. J. 47 Christianity 446, 450, 537, 669 The Christian Mission 446 Christian psychology 453 Christian schools 4–5 Christopher, J. 10–11, 23

710

Index The Chronicle of Higher Education 541 Churchill, Eric 560 CI study of PYD 305–307; qualitative research in 307; quantitative research in 306–307 Citizenship Education Clearinghouse (CECH) 275 civic development in adolescence 362–363 civic disengagement 362 civic engagement 434–436 civic purpose in adolescence 362–363 Civic Purpose Project (CPP) 363 civic virtues 600 Claremont Purpose Scale 384 Cleverdon, Julia 266 Clinton, Bill 523 cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) 406–407; MindVue’s application of principles of 407; and Stoicism 407 cognitive domain of learning in classroom 616–620 cognitive reframing 126 coherence 147, 150, 154, 260 cohesion 56, 63, 187, 609; social 430, 433, 438 cohesive science of virtue 664–667 Colby, Anne 356, 363, 366 Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) 469, 497 collaborative reasoning 221–223 collective effervescence 172 collective failure: followers, types of 200–201; origins of 194–200; and schooling 207–209; toxic leaders (see toxic leaders) collective memory 647–648 collective rationality 219–221 collectivism 11, 505, 668 Colleges That Encourage Character Development 539–540 Collins, J. 62, 63 commitment 194–195 Common Sense (Paine) 90 communities of color, and parenting practices 293–294 community-based participatory research principles (CBPR) 293 community-based programs 503 community-building 431–434 community empowerment programs 434–436 Compassion International (CI) 446, 455–458; established in 460; MERL team 456–457; PYD partnership 457–458 compensation, and SOC 142 compensatory primary control strategies 144 compensatory secondary control strategies 144 competence 93, 239; and resilience 120 competency development and assessment 622–623, 623 complementing self-reports of virtue 666 compromise 188–189

conceptualizations of virtue 665 confidence 93, 239; and resilience 120–121 conflicting values 11–13 Confucian Ethics Scale 671 Confucianism 551, 556, 669–670 Confucian Virtues 497 connectedness 435 connections 93; antiracist 239–240; personal 121; and resilience 121 conscientiousness 34–36, 140, 145–150, 394–395, 399; and character 147–149; foundational aspects of 145–146 consistency of interest 33 contact theory 483 contextually informed theorizing 247–249 Continental philosophy 70 contribution, and resilience 121–122 control: primary 144; and resilience 122 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 427, 429 cooperation skills 150 coping: addressing/avoiding problem 127; building resilient body 128; and emotions 128–129; evaluating and reframing stressor 126–127; giving back 129; healthy 122; patterns 15; positive 120; and resilience 122; with stress to build resilience 125–129; styles and example behaviors 126; unhealthy 122 Copleston, Edward 326 Cormier, D. L. 38, 406 corporate model 319–320 The Cosby Show 480 Covey, Stephen 625 COVID-19 pandemic 41, 45, 58, 104, 153, 294, 316–318, 337, 366, 369, 377, 394, 406, 418, 430, 433, 471, 524, 531; and Idaho 89–90; misinformation on Internet 205; online excursus during 332 co-viewing 470 Creating Cultures of Thinking (Ritchhart) 566 Credé, M. 33, 40 Crenshaw, Kimberle 640 critical consciousness 514 critical race theory 231 Critical Race Theory (CRT) movement 529, 640 Critique of Pure Reason (Kant) 72 Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi 355–357 Cub Scout Character and Merit Project (CAMP) 303 Cultivating Virtue in the University (Brant) 328, 385 Cultivating Virtues for Leadership (CViL) 279–280 cultivation theory 478–479 culturally inclusive character development 6–7 culturally informed theorizing: about character 243–244; about PYD 243–244

711

Index cultural racism 238 cultural variables: AR-PYD 246; PYD/character research 245–246 culture: African Americans 11; dominant 11–13; organizational ( see organizational culture); in UK business 335–336; values, norms, and attitudes 668; and virtue 667–672; weak 184 Curşeu, P. L. 220

Dewey, John 73, 567–568, 622 Diamond, Sandy 282 dichotomization 214, 224–225 dimensional approach 58 Dionne, E. J. 382 Discovering the Laws of Life (Templeton) 539 dissemination: Center for Character and Citizenship 282; Center for Parent and Teen Communication 290–293 dominant culture 11–13 Doris, J. M. 663, 664 Doron, E. 471 Dowd, N. E. 639 “Drawing Hands” (Escher) 698n2 drench hypothesis 479–480 Driver, J. 663 Drucker, P. F. 60 Duan, W. 671 DuBois, Gwendolyn 374 Du Bois, W. E. B. 638 Duckworth, A. L. 30–33, 36, 45–46, 47, 48, 56, 57, 61, 62–63, 530 Duckworth, Angela 382 Dugan, R. 393 Duke Lacrosse incident 238 Dunning-Kruger effect 404 Dweck, C. S. 43, 44, 45, 46, 61–62, 603 dynamic/relational developmental systems-based models 686–690 dynamic structural equation modeling (DSEM) 306

Dahlsgaard, K. 93 The Daily Word 537, 539 Dalton, John 615 Dalton, Jon C. 540 Damon, William 262, 355–358, 363, 366 Danner, M. 226–227 Darabont, Frank 77 dark triad 179 Datu, J. A. D. 40 Dauber, D. 58, 59, 63 David, M. E. 60 Davidson, B. 393 Dawkins, R. 687 Day, J. P. 75 Deci, E. L. 40 decision-making: and emotions 180–181; and environmental risks 181–183; Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) 181 De Cordier, B. 448 Deep in Thought (Baehr) 565–566 default mode network (DMN) 13–15 dehumanization 214, 225, 638 DelBanco, Andrew 362 deliberative democracy 215, 217–218 democracy 214–215; deliberative 215, 217–218; epistemic deliberative 218; liberal 217; in small groups 219–223; virtues of 216–219 democratic character: promoting the development of 231; virtues in 214 demographic variables, PYD/character research 244–245 Dempsey, Martin 595 denial 214, 225–226; in El Salvador 227–228; in United States 228–229 Denison, D. R. 60, 63 DePaulo, B. M. 649 Desmidt, S. 60 despair 71 developmental dual process theories 215–216, 229–231 developmentally nurturant relationships 689–690, 695 developmental research: character development 696–697; general issues 693; RDS-based research issues 693–696 de Waal, A. 58

early adolescence: character development in 360– 361; purpose in 360–361 early investments in character development 538–541 Eccles, J. S. 117, 236, 452, 504 Eclipse Day 586–587 Educating Character Initiative 382 education: child rights-based 429; human rights 429; leadership 615–628; non-cognitive skills 392–393; rights-based 429–431 egocentrism 202 Ekskäret Foundation 334 Elam, Y. 648 El-Banna, Hany 460 Elder, Glen 636 elective selection 142 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 523 Ellithorpe, M. E. 477 El Mozote, El Salvador: denial in 227–228; la matanza 226–227 elpis 82n8; see also hope Elshtain, Jean Bethke 315 embodiment: character development 687–688; RDS-based research 693–694

712

Index Emmons, Robert 542 emotional development and children’s media 469–473 emotional resilience skills 151 emotions: and character 181–182; and coping 128–129; and decision-making 180–181 empathy 47; components of 96; and toddlers 96–97 Encore Project 361 Enders, Thomas 228–229 entrepreneurial purpose in young adults 360 environmental racism 238 environmental risks 180–183; and character 181–183; and decision-making 181–183; to emotions 180–183; protection from 183 epistemic deliberative democracy 218 Escher, M. C. 698n2 ethical action 642 ethical judgment 642 ethical motivation 642 ethical sensitivity 642 ethics: Aristotelian virtue ethics 260–261; and Naval Academy 614–615 etiology of non-cognitive skills 395–396 Euben, Peter 328 Evaluating CoPs [Communities of Practice] as a Vehicle for Implementing the Principled Innovation Framework 345–346 Evaluating STEM Scouts: The Design of a Comprehensive Evaluation Plan and Feasibility Study 351–352 Evangelical Alliance Relief Fund Committee 460 Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 524 Every Woman Every Child Global Strategy 435 exemplars: challenges in utilizing 174–175; idealized vs. realistic 169–173; identity and relevance in 171–173; kinds of 167–174; value of 165–167, 173–174 experiential leader development at Naval Academy 621–622 extracurricular activities (ECAs) 502–503

agencies 447–448; social and economic development 445–446; strengths of 448–449; as trusted institutions 448; weaknesses of 449–450 fallacy: invulnerability 202; omnipotence 202; omniscience 202; sunk-cost 202 family-based preventive interventions 17 Family Purpose Study 364 Fantz, R. L. 96 Faulkner, W. J. 6–7 fear 71; Hume on 72 fearful opportunists 200 federal funding 523–524 Feigenson, L. 96 Fetzer Institute 364, 542 “fight or flight” stress response system 128 Filial Behaviour Scale (FBS) 671 Fillmore, Charles 537, 539 Fillmore, Myrtle 537 financially motivated opportunists 200 First Barbary War 613 fixed mindset 43 Flanagan, O. 664 FLOTSAM mechanisms 195 flourishing: challenges in linking virtue and 672–676; virtues and 666–667 Floyd, George 475 Flynn effect 109 F. M. Kirby Foundation 386n1 focus theory of hope 79–80 Food for the Poor 446, 460 foolishness: cognitive fallacies 202–203; and toxic leaders 202–203 Foot, Philippa 328 four-year Honor training program 583–585 A Framework for Character Education in Schools 269 FrameWorks Institute 286 Franklin, Benjamin 669 Fred Rogers Center 472–473 Freebody, K. 262 Freedman, Marc 543 Freire, Paulo 514 Freud, Sigmund 98, 107, 229 Fridays for Future movement 428 Friedman, H. S. 394 Friedman, Thomas 376 Fryberg, S. A. 475, 482

The Fabric of Character: A Wise Giver’s Guide to Supporting Social and Moral Renewal (Snyder) 371 Facebook 430 faith-based organizations (FBOs): -based PYD programs 452–453; with a common language 449; coordination and isolation 450; defined 445–446; in early 20th century 459–461; with local, national, and international networks 449; model cooperation 449; as partners in social/ economic development 448–450; as partners in youth development 450–453; proselytization 449–450; rise of 459–461; and secular international development

Gallogly, James 318, 319–320 Garagozov, R. 648 Garbarino, James 635 Gardner, Howard 262, 355, 357, 645 Garry, M. 650 Gates Foundation 454 Gedi, N. 648

713

Index Geil, M. 220, 221 Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence 433 gender-based violence (GBV) 430 General Educational Development (GED) program 390 Geneva Global 525 Gerbner, G. 478–479 Ginsburg, K. R. 117–119, 126 Girl Guides of Canada 669 Gittell, J. H. 61 Giving USA 2022 report 446 Gladwell, Malcolm 376 Global Financial Crash (2008) 337 Global Innovations in Character Development (GICD) initiative 437, 543, 546–547 Global Leadership Initiative (GLI) 331–333 global leadership research 336–337 Global Leadership Summer School (GLSS) 332–333 Global Partnerships for Advancing Character Program Evaluation––Character Platform Phase 1 343–344 Global War on Terror 595 Goldsberry, Reneé Elise 376, 382 Gollwitzer, P. M. 35 good character: defined 3; Westernized definitions/ attributes 5 good leadership 335–336 GoodWork Project (GWP) 355, 357–358 GoodWork: When Excellence and Ethics Meet (Gardner) 357 Gootman, J. A. 117, 452, 504 Gove, Michael 266 Graves, S. B. 474 Greater Good in Action 2.0: Making the Science of Character Virtue More Practical, Engaging, and Impactful 344–345 Great Flu pandemic of 1918–1920 88 Green, Judith 73 Greenberg, B. S. 479–480 grit 399, 405; and academic achievement 32–35; and Cadet Basic Training 31–32; defined 393; Duckworth on 30–31; and growth mindset 43–47; and mental health 39–42; and outcomes 31; research 33–34; scale 32, 48–49; sport/physical performance 35–39; as static trait 49 Grit (Dweck) 43 Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (Duckworth) 31 Gross, J. J. 63 group attractiveness 188 group polarization 206–207 groupthink 203–204 growth mindset 398, 603; defined 61; and grit 43–47; influencing mindsets 44–45; organizational 61–62

Guernsey, L. 472 The Guide to Officer and Leadership Development (GOLD) philosophy 582, 590 Guinness, Os 362 Gump, Paul 635 Gupta, Sanjay 376 habits: handicapped 108; implications for character virtues 645–646; intellectual 566–567; long-term 122; virtuous 369 habituation through practice 604 Hahn, Carole 362 Haidt, Jonathan 166 Haimovitz, K. 45 Halbwachs, M. 647 Haldane, John 262 Hall, Evans 318 Hall, John 259 Hamaker, E. L. 691 Hamburg, David 355 Hamer, S. 264 Hamilton, Alexander 583, 590 Hamlen, K. R. 474 Hamlet, Harry 582 Han, H. 13, 16, 170, 173 Handsman, E. 523 Hằng, N. V. T. 552 Han-Pile, B. 77 hardiness 36, 394, 397, 400 “hard skills” 432 Harman, G. 663 Harper, Kyle 314 Harrell, S. P. 237 Harrison, K. 474, 478–479 Harroz, Joseph, Jr. 318–319 Harvey, D. 62 Harwood, J. 483 Haslam, Bill 382 Hatch, M. J. 58 Hatch, Nathan O. 370 health and wellness 394–395 Heckman, J. 390, 492 hedonic well-being 40 Heinz dilemma 89 Henrich, J. 667 Heraclitus 704 Hermann, Bob 540 Hess, Diana 362 Hess, Frederick 362 Hill, Kent 259 Hinduism 180, 669 Hirsh-Pasek, K. 473 historical memory 647–648 Hitler, Adolph 196 Hofstede, G. 668 Holden, G. W. 483

714

Index holism: character development 688–689; RDSbased research 694–695 holistic well-being 603 Holocaust 223 Honor Concept 626 honor remediation program 626–627 Honor Roll for Character-Building Colleges (Honor Roll) 539–541 hope 400; contemporary analytic philosophers on 75–80; Hume on 72; importance of 69; Nietzsche on 69; as passion 71–72; philosophical history of 70–73; substantial 76–77; temporal dimension of 70; Western tradition on 69 Horton, D. 484 Hosmer, Bradley C. 573 House, A. 264 Howard, J. M. 395 “How the Cow Went Under the Ground” (Faulkner) 6–7 human rights education 429 The Humble Approach: Scientists Discover God (Templeton) 547 Hume, David 71–72 Hunt, Tristram 269 Hunter, James Davison 262 Huntoon, David 597 Hwang, Daniel G. 553 Hwang, M. H. 35 Hwang, Samuel 553

innovation: character development 526–527; skills 151 Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) 454 inside critics 201 Instagram 430 Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development (IARYD) 297–309; authorship team 299–300, 300; beliefs/ mission/vision 298; character development at 300–309; current and upcoming projects 303–309; history of 298–299; overview 297; at present 299 Institute for Research on Unlimited Love (IRUL) 542 Institute for Research on Youth Thriving and Evaluation (RYTE Institute) 291, 308; history 342; mission 341; overview 341; projects, examples of 342–352; vision 342 Institute for the Study of Human Flourishing (ISHF) 314–324 institutional racism 238 integration: across institution 577–578; resourcing 598–601 Integrative Model for the Study of Stress in Black American Families 20 integrity 400 intellectual virtues 559–571, 600; authentic modeling 567–568; opportunities to practice 566–567 Intellectual Virtues Academy of Long Beach (IVALB) 559–571; adult culture 567, 568–569; caring and respectful relationships 568–569; challenges and lessons learned 569–571; character-based mission 569; model, mission, and vision 561–565; overview 559–561; in practice 564–565; understanding the virtues 565–568 interdisciplinarity: challenges of 661–662; philosophers helping social scientists 662–664; realistic virtues 664 internalized racism 237–238 internal locus of control 400 internally displaced persons (IDPs) 449 international development agencies (IDAs) 439n1; and adolescent character development 423–439; and children/young people 426–428; defining character 424–426; defining character development programs 424–426; investment in CD programming in LMICs 428–436; methods/measures of CD with implications for 436–438; overview 423–424; secular 447–448 international faith-based organizations 444–461; advancing theory and evidence in 453–455; Compassion International 455–458; in

I Am Not My Brother’s Keeper 376 “iatrogenic effects” 453 Idaho: and COVID-19 pandemic 89–90 IDA investment: applying theory-informed framework to 428–436; in character development programming in LMICs 428–436; in children and young people 426–428 idealized exemplars 169–173 Idea of a University (Newman) 326 identity: development 231; importance of exemplars in 171–173; moral 6 idiographic facets of character development 690–692 “Imagine inflation” 650 Imbesi, K. J. 474 The Importance of Teaching 265 Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 523 inclusion in children’s media 473–477 incrementalism 188 individual grit: defined 56; Duckworth on 56 individualism 505, 594–595, 668 individual self-knowledge 434 Ingram, R. 395 ingratiators 200

715

Index early 20th century 459–461; faith-based organizations defined 445–446; large-scale 446–448; as partners in youth development 450–453; rise of large-scale 446–448; and social/economic development 448–450 International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) 454 International Partnership on Religion and Sustainable Development 447 Internet: ease of publication 205–206; social media 206; surveillance 206; and toxicity 205–206 interrelated structural approach 58 intrapersonal risks 178–180; addiction 180; dark triad 179; defined 178; formal religions 180 intrinsic motivation 399 investment: in FBOs by secular IDAs 447–448; in spiritual prosperity 547 invulnerability fallacy 202 Islam 669 Islamic Relief 446, 460–461 Islamic Relief Worldwide 461 isomorphic contexts 147 Izard, C. E. 96

statements 268–272; University of Birmingham School 265–266 Judaism 669 Jukanovic, Milo 268 Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption (Stevenson) 381 Kaepernick, Colin 10 Kamins, M. L. 43 Kansteiner, W. 647 Kant, Immanuel 72, 625 Karpowitz, C. E. 219 Kaur, Valarie 382 Kautz, T. 393 Keefer, Matthew 275 Kelly, D. R. 36 Kern, M. L. 394 Kern Family Foundation 375, 379, 386n1, 525, 528 Kern National Network for Caring and Character in Medicine (KNN) 528 key opinion leaders (KOLs) 292–293 Kierkegaard, Søren 73 King, Martin Luther, Jr. 10, 94, 392, 451 Kiss, Elizabeth 328 Knobloch, S. 477 Knoester, C. 37 Know element in Know-Do-Be 616, 616–620, 617 knowledge production 633 Kohlberg, Lawrence 641, 642, 650 Kong Qiu 550 Konner, M. 102 Koopman, Colin 73 Krathwohl, D. R. 624 Kristjánsson, Kristján 261 Kumar, S. 455 Kwon, H. W. 40

Jablow, M. M. 117–119 James, William 73 Janis, Irving 203–204 Jennings, N. 469 job hoppers 320–321 Johnson, A. E. 381 Johnson, C. R. 474 Johnson, Keith 278 Johnson, Michelle D. 574 Johnston, Amy 280 Johnston, D. W. 394 John Templeton Foundation (JTF) 356, 360, 386n1, 522, 525, 528–529, 535, 537–541, 542–543, 544–546, 548n6, 559, 643, 697 joiners 200–201 Joint Learning Initiative on Faith (JLIF) 454 joint media engagement (JME) 470 Journal of Character and Leadership Development (JCLD) 578 Journal of Character Education 282 The Journal of Moral Education 315 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Duckworth) 30 Journal of Research in Character Education 276 Jubilee Centre for Character and Values (Jubilee Centre for Character & Virtues) 308–309, 497, 522, 543, 544–545; consultations 268–272; founding philosophy 260–261; international influences 267–268; origins 259–260; publications 268–272; and Royal Family 266–267; scope and reach 262–265; staff selection 261–262;

labor market outcomes 393 Lam, K. K. L. 33 la matanza 226–227 Lamb, Michael 370, 373–374, 386n2, 644 language: character development 529–530; and politics 529–530 large-scale international FBOs 446–448 Larkin, P. 37–38 Larson, R. W. 513 Latin American “dirty wars” 224 Laughlin, P. R. 220 Laws of Life essay contest 538–539 Layard, Richard 262 Lazarus, Richard 83n25 leader development 581–582; assessing, tracking, and recording 627–628; modernizing 596–604; United States Coast Guard Academy (USCGA) 581–582; USMA, West Point 596–604; at USNA 627–628

716

Index Leader Development Hub (LDH) 627–628 leader of character (LoC) framework 574–579, 575 leadership 633–652; authentic 651; development 329–334, 330, 615–628; education 615–628; good 335–336; moral dimension of 650–651; and Naval Academy 614–615; spiritual 651; transformational 651; in UK business 335–336 Leadership Academy in Character Education (LACE) 276, 279, 281 Leadership and Character Ambassadors Program 375 Leadership and Character Discussion Groups 375–376 Leadership and Character Scholars Program 375 Leading Character Education in Schools 272 learning: behavioral domain of 620–623; in classroom 616–620; cognitive domain of 616–620; modules for growth and development 409–417 LearningWell magazine 371 Leavitt, P. A. 474 Ledford, A. 58 Lee, T. H. 57, 62–63 Leffert, N. 451 legal segregation 9 Lemish, D. 474 Lemkin, Raphael 223 Lerner, Richard M. 20, 93, 117, 138, 282, 298–299, 302, 356, 360, 425, 512, 515, 516, 635, 644, 692, 698n1 Leslie, A. R. 11–12 liberal democracy 217 Lickona, Thomas 5, 642–643 Life Skills Training program 506 life-span developmental psychology (LSDP) 140; Motivational Theory of Life-Span Development 143–145; Selection, Optimization, and Compensation model 141, 142–143; and self-regulation 141–145 lighthouse parenting 123 Lilly Endowment, Inc. 371, 379, 386n1 Lincoln, Abraham 216 Little, R. R. 117 Liu, Eric 362 Lloyd, E. P. 649 Locke, John 110 locus of control 400 Logan, Jasmine 375 Lopez, S. J. 397 loss-based selection 142 Love, Bettina L. 6 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) 424, 428–436, 438, 455 Luthar, S. S. 635, 640 lying 648–650

Machiavellian personality 178–179 MacIntyre, A. C. 660 MacLeod, Mary 259 Maddi, S. R. 394 Mahhfood, Ferdinand 460 Makani youth empowerment program 433–434 “Make America Great Again” 197 Making Thinking Visible (Ritchhart) 566 “A Manifesto on Psychology as Idiographic Science: Bringing the Person Back Into Scientific Psychology, This Time Forever” (Molenaar) 691 Mann, Horace 4, 392 Mares, M.-L. 476, 481–482, 485 Mariano, Jennifer Menon 357, 358, 365–366 Marsh, Barnaby 260 Martin, Adrienne 73, 77–78 Martin, J. 37 Martins, N. 474, 478–479 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 325 Masten, A. S. 116 maternal education 103–105 Matsuba, Kyle 276 Matthews, M. D. 47–48, 177, 178 mature character virtues 93–94 McAdam, Dan 366 McClain, A. K. 476 McClain, Z. B. R. 119 McCormick, M. S. 77, 83n26 McDonnell, Sanford N. 275, 277, 279 McGeer, Victoria 75–76 McGrath, R. E. 93, 278 McGuffey, William Holmes 4 McNeish, D. 691 media: within a family context 470–471; within a peer context 472; potentials and limitations of 472–473; within a school context 471–472 medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) 13–15 Mehta, J. 47 Meirav, A. 77, 83n27 Mellon Foundation 361 memes 197–200 memory: collective 647–648; historical 647–648; politics of 647–648 Mendelberg, T. 219 mental contrasting 74 mental health: defined 40; and grit 39–42; subjective well-being (SWB) 40–41; suicidal ideation 42 mental imaging 75 Mesler, R. M. 45 metatheory: defined 301; RDS 301–302 Midgley, Mary 328 Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) 181 military leader: character development 583–587; internalizing role of 624–627

717

Index military training 36 Mill, John Stuart 625 Miller, Christian 328 Milona, M. 75, 78–79 Mindset × Context model 45 mindsets: lessons learned from measuring 402–417; measuring team and organizational 401 Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Dweck) 43 MindVue 397; application of CBT principles 407; development and validation of MindVue Profile 401; directions following the video for 414; “Drive” 397; follow-up directions in MindVue module 412; growth dashboard 418; interactive activity 411, 412, 413, 415; learning modules for growth and development 409–417; MindVue Profile 397–400; module on time management 411; modules to cultivate non-cognitive skills 409; non-cognitive measurement/ development impacting lives 396–401; reflective video and reflective thinking 413; reinforcement of importance of activity 410; reports utilized to foster skills 408; “Resilience” 397; strategies for development 406–409; synthesized model of non-cognitive factors 396–397; time management module 410, 414, 416, 417; “Willpower” 397 MindVue Profile 397–400; adaptability 399–400; conscientiousness 399; dashboard showing aggregate/team results on 402; description of skills measured on 398; development and validation of 401; grit 399; growth mindset 398; hardiness 400; hope 400; integrity 400; internal locus of control 400; intrinsic motivation 399; lessons learned from measuring mindsets 402–417; self-awareness 398; self-control 399; selfdiscipline 399; self-efficacy 398–399; team and organizational mindsets 401 Minuchin, P. 96 Mischel, W. 100 Mishra, A. K. 60, 63 mission-oriented programming 506, 511 MMDC project 305 moderators 34 Molenaar, Peter C. M. 691 Monin, B. 170, 171–172 Monterrosa Barrios, Domingo 227–228 Montiel, Danielle 560 The Moral Advantage (Damon) 357 moral agency 148 moral cognition 148 moral dimension of leadership 650–651 moral education 16

moral enactment 148 moral identity 6 moral relevance 6 moral reminders 604 Moral Saints (Wolf) 169 moral virtues 600 Moran, Rachel 362 Moran, Seana 359, 366 Morgan, Nicky 266, 269 Morris, P. A. 450 Moshman, D. 220, 221, 226 mothers, and character virtues 102–103 Mothers Against Drunk Driving 103 motivation: intrinsic 399; USMA 603 Motivational Theory of Life-Span Development (MTD) 143–145; core concepts of 144; use of 144–145 Mueller, C. M. 43 Muenks, K. 45 Murdoch, Iris 328 Murphy, M. C. 61–62 Musher-Eizenman, D. R. 484 Mussolini, Benito 196 Musumari, P. M. 394 mutual accountability 604 Myers, David 541 myside bias 202 Nam, J. K. 35 narcissism 178 narrative, and children’s media 468–469 Narvaez, Darcia 315, 662 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) 504 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 34 National Study of Learning Mindsets 44 A Nation at Risk 105 nation-building programs 431–434 nature/nuture: character virtues 101–102; specificity principle 101; transaction principle 101–102 Naval Act of 1794 613 Navarro, Virginia 275 negation of intimacy 194 Nelson, M. 10–11, 23 Nelson, T. 10–11, 23 NeuroQuery 13 NeuroSynth 13 Newman, John Henry 326 New Thought movement 537 Nichomachean Ethics (Aristotle) 91, 497, 566 Nietzsche, Friedrich 69, 73 No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 524 nomothetic facets of character development 685–686 non-cognitive factors: synthesized model of 396–397; various terms used to describe 392

718

Index 329–334, 330; cultivating virtue 326–329; Global Leadership Initiative (GLI) 331–333; partner programmes 333–334; SDGs 334 Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy 219

non-cognitive measurement/development: application of 396–401; to positively impact lives 396–401 non-cognitive skills: challenges in naming 391–392; education 392–393; etiology of 395–396; health and wellness 394–395; importance of 392–395; labor market outcomes 393; MindVue modules to cultivate 409; questions for future research 419; reassessing to track growth over time 417–419; rise of 391–392; workplace 393 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 433–434, 445, 447, 455 Norman, Jesse 261 Norman Public School (NPS) 316–317 Nothnagle, E. A. 37 NPX Point Avenue Programs in Hanoi, Vietnam 550–557; approach to character education in Vietnam 553–557; leadership camps as character development programs 553; lesson learned from 556–557 Nucci, L. 688, 694 Nye, William 266–267

Paine, Tom 90 Palmer, P. 568 parasocial contact hypothesis 484–486 parental scaffolding 76 parent/caregiver preferences for diverse content 475–476 parenting/parenthood 108; balanced 123; and character virtues 98–101; cognitions 100; practices, communities of color 293–294; reinforcing pro-development messages 124–125; rejecting negative messages 124–125; responsibilities 100; role in building resilience 122–125; role modeling 125; setting boundaries, monitoring, and discipline 123–124 Park, D. 46 Park, N. 94 Park, Rebecca 383 Partnerships for Advancing Character Program Evaluation (PACE Project) 346–348 Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project 523 Partnerships in Character Education Program (PCEP) program 276 passion 194; hope as 71–72 passive resistors 201 Patel, Eboo 382 Pathways for African American Success (PAAS) 17–18; character-promotive parenting 20–22, 21; effectiveness trial 19–20; eHealth condition 18–19, 21–22; small group-based condition 19; and youth character development 20–22, 21 Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 94–95 Peabody Journal of Education 644 peacebuilding 431–434 PeacePlayers 433 people development system 185 People Weekly 541 performance management system 185 Performing Character: From Stage to Page (Phelps & Costanza) 377, 385 perseverance of effort 33 personal experience 604 personality: and character development 146–147; foundational aspects of 145–146 personality psychology perspective: conscientiousness 145–146, 147–149; personality 145–147; self-regulation from 145–149

obedience to authority 202–203 Oettingen, Gabriele 74 Of Good Character (Arthur) 259 omnipotence fallacy 202 omniscience fallacy 202 Operation Desert Storm 595 opportunists 200 optimization, and SOC 142 Orban, Victor 196 organizational culture 57; categories 58; dimensional approach 58; interrelated structural approach 58; model 60; typological approach 58 organizational grit: conceptualizing 59–63; conceptual model of 63–64, 64; as cultural phenomenon 56–65; culture perspectives 58–59; current understanding of 57–58; defined 57; organizational leaders 62–63; organizational members 62; organizational mission 59–60; organizational resilience 61 organizational growth mindset 61–62 organizational members 62 organizational resilience 61 organizations: challenges in naming skills 391–392; character measurement/development within 390–419; and non-cognitive skills 391–392 Ortiz, M. 483 outcome framing 523 Overton, W. F. 687, 692, 698n1 Oxford Character Project (OCP) 325–338; character and leadership development

719

Index Persson, A. 484 Peterson, C. 94, 178–179, 523, 625, 660, 669, 670 Pettit, Philip 75, 76–77, 82n24 Phelps, Ann 374, 375, 377 phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST) 236, 637–641 philanthropic approaches to character development 522–531 philosophers 662–664 phronesis 147 Piaget, J. 642 Pierce, Bob 460 Pierce, Charles Sanders 70, 73 Pierrakos, Olga 375 Pinckney, H. P. 451 Pinker, Steven 193 planning and learning systems 186 plasticity 301 Polage, D. C. 650 politics: character development 529–530; and language 529–530; of memory 647–648 poor command climate 187–188; dysfunctional chain of command 187–188; toxic/weak leadership 187–188 Porras, J. I. 62, 63 Positive Coaching Alliance 504 positive school behaviors 393 positive social science 108 positive youth development (PYD) 249, 355; antiracism 238–241; considerations for character 496–497; defined 236; as developmental process 496–497; programs 423, 452–453; theoretical models 236 Post, Stephen 542 posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) 13–15 Poteat, William Louis 370 Powell, Colin 382 power-motivated opportunists 200 The Power of Ideals (Damon and Colby) 363 practical wisdom 601–602 pragmatism 70, 73–75 pre-intentional hope 70 Prestwich, D. L. 634 pretenders 201 primary control 144 Primed Institute in Character Education (PICE) 280 PRIMED model 498, 499, 547 Prince Charles 266–267 principled moral change 148, 149 Principles of Psychology (James) 95 Pritchard, I. 642 private philanthropy 525 process variables 248 Proctor, William 547n1 Program for Leadership and Character 371–372, 386n2; “Commencing Character” 373–375

programmatic theories of change (TOCs) 505–506 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 44 promotion system 185 PsychInfo 541 psychological well-being (PWB) 40 psychopathic personality 179 Purpose Prize 542–543 Purvis, Beth 382 Putin, Vladimir 196 Quaglia Institute for School Voice and Aspirations 364 Quasi-War with the French 613 Queen Elizabeth 544 QUESTion Project 364 race: critical race theory 231; teaching, in U.S. schools 231–233 racial prejudice 237 racism 237–238; cultural 238; environmental 238; institutional 238; internalized 237–238; reconceptualizing PYD research in context of 241–249; structural 238; vicarious 238 Ramasubramanian, S. 475 Rana, M. 476 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 436, 454, 608 Ratcliffe, Matthew 70 Raver Luning, C. 58, 61, 62, 63 RDS-based research 693–696; context relations 695–696; developmentally nurturant relationships 695; embodiment 693–694; holism 694–695; specificity of individual 695–696 REACH Forgiveness 548n8 Reagan, Ronald 228 realistic exemplars 169–173 realistic virtues 664 recruiting and selection systems 186–187 Reeves, Richard 260 Regni, John F. 573 Relational Developmental Systems (RDS) metatheory 183, 236, 499, 687, 692, 697; conception of human development 300– 301; metatheory 301–302 relevance, importance of exemplars in 171–173 Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (Kant) 73 Renouvier, Charles 4 representation in children’s media 473–477 resilience 116–132, 436, 452, 514, 554, 607–608, 618; 7 Cs model of 117–122, 118–119; choice phrases for building 130; coping with stress to build 125–129; defined 116; language of 129–131; lectures backfire 131; mindset 131; parents’ role

720

Index Science Journal 637 Science of Learning and Development (SoLD) 305 Scott, Raven 377–378 Screen Time (Guernsey) 472 S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation 525 secondary control 144 secular international development agencies 447–448 Selby, E. A. 42 Selection, Optimization, and Compensation (SOC) model 141, 142–143; and character 143; research support for 142–143 selective primary control strategies 144 selective secondary control strategies 144 Self, Virtue, and Motivation: Innovative Interdisciplinary Research 315 “Self, Motivation, and Virtue (SMV) Project” 314–316 “Self, Virtue, and Public Life” Project (SVPL) 305 self-awareness 398 self-centered lies 649 self-control 148, 399 self-discipline 399 self-efficacy 393, 398–399, 603 self-management skills 150, 153; operational definitions of 152 self-regulation: and character 140; conceptualizing 139; defined 137; and life-span developmental psychology 141–145; modes of 137; from personality psychology perspective 145–149; and SEB skills 149–154 self-reports of virtue 666 Seligman, M. E. P. 30, 178–179, 356, 523, 625, 660, 669, 670 Shade, Patrick 73, 74 Shamah, Devora 364 Sharma, P. 41 The Shawshank Redemption 77, 80 Sherblom, Stephen 275 Shields, D. L. 38, 276 Shockley, William 634 Shoji, M. 396 Shoshani, A. 94 Shu, L. L. 650 Shure, N. 395 Sigman, M. D. 97 Silveria, Jay B. 574 Sim, Z. L. 96 Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic (SCPME) 596–597 Simpkins, S. D. 504 situational variables 604 Skinner, B. F. 98 sleep deprivation 182 sleep-deprived individuals 128

in building 122–125; power of caring in building 132 resourcing integration 598–601 reward and recognition system 186 Rhodes, A. 195 Rice, Condoleezza 382 “Rice Christians” 450 Richards, J. E. 96 Richards, M. L. 485 Richard Wohl, R. 484 Riches for the Mind and Spirit (Templeton) 539 righteousness 551 rights-based education 429–431 Ritchhart, Ron 566 Robinson, K. M. 475 Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors 526 Roediger, David R. 640 Rogoff, Barbara 633, 634, 636–638 Rokke, Ervin J. 573 role modeling 125 Roosevelt, Theodore 689 Rorty, Richard 73, 74 Rosenberg, S. W. 218 Roth, J. L. 117, 452 Rubenstein, Y. 390 Ruch, W. 93 Rumbold, J. 39 Rutland, A. 484 Ryan, K. 5 Ryan, R. M. 40 Ryazanov, A. A. 47 Ryff, Carol 366n1 Sachs, J. 454 Sackett, David 458–459 Saïd Business School (SBS) 333 saliency strategy 3 Salvation Army 446 Sarzosa, M. 393 scaling, character development 527, 530 Schaefer, H. S. 36 Schaie, K. W. 693 Schanzenbach, D. W. 393 Scharrer, E. 475 Schein, E. 58 Schiappa, E. 484 Schindler, Oskar 166 Schmitz, Charles 275 Schnitzlein, D. D. 395 schooling: adaptive intelligence 208; and collective failure 207–209; transformational creativity 208–209; wisdom 209 Schopenhauer, Arthur 73 Schur, Michael 376 Schwarzkopf, Norman, Jr. 595

721

Index Smetana, J. G. 124 Smith, Kathleen Shea 315 Snow, N. 662 Snyder, Anne 371, 374, 382, 531 Snyder, C. R. 75, 397 social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) skills 141; and character 153–154; overview 150–152; and self-regulation 149–154 social, emotional, and character development (SECD): and media within a family context 470–471; and media within a peer context 472; and media within a school context 471–472; potentials and limitations of 472–473 Social and Character Development (SACD) project 281 “social cognitive processes” 659 Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) 481–482 Social Darwinism 194 social development: and children’s media 469–473; FBOs as partners in 448–450 social-emotional learning (SEL) scholarship 497–498 social engagement skills 150 social environment 184 socialization 100 social justice 429–431 social/organizational risks 183–189; accountability system 186; people development system 185; performance management system 185; planning and learning systems 186; poor command climate 187–188; promotion system 185; recruiting and selection systems 186–187; reward and recognition system 186; social threats 188–189; weak culture 184 social positional variables: AR-PYD 247; PYD/ character research 246–247 social science 633–652 social science cultural style 637 social scientists: conceptual resources available to 660; philosophers helping 662–664 social threats 188–189; compromise 188–189; group attractiveness 188; incrementalism 188 socio-cultural contexts 15 Socrates 550 “soft skills” 432 Some Thoughts Concerning Education (Locke) 110 Soylu, F. 13, 16 Spanish Flu pandemic 88 SpeakUp! 291 Specificity Principle 101, 514, 691–692, 695 spectators/audience 201 Spencer, M. B. 362, 639 Spencer, Phillip 613

Spinoza, Baruch 71–72 spiritual leadership 651 spiritual prosperity 547 sport/physical performance: athlete performance 37–38; grit 35–39; military training 36; participation opportunities 36–37 Stahl, A. E. 96 Stahl, T. 70, 72–73, 77 Stanford Center on Adolescence (CoA): additional research projects 363–364; American identity in adolescence 362–363; civic development 362–363; civic purpose 362–363; early adolescence 360–361; Encore years 361; entrepreneurial purpose in young adults 360; family purpose 364; GoodWork Project 357–358; international reach through scholars and collaboration 365; legacy of CoA graduates 365–366; moral exemplars 363; overview 355–356; purpose development in practice 361, 363–364; reaching beyond 364–366; research programs at 356–361; vision and mission of 356; youth purpose development 358; Youth Purpose Project 358–360 Stanford Epicenter 360 state funding 524–525 STEM disciplines 321–322 stemification 321–322 Stephens, J. M. 644 stereotypes 476–477 stereotypical media representation/ underrepresentation 474–475 Sternberg, R. J. 97, 194 Stevenson, Bryan 376, 381 Stillman, S. 396, 403 Stimely, Kathleen 382 Stitzlein, S. M. 73, 74 strategic priorities in character development 2014 to 2024 545–546 stress/anxiety 182 STRIVE-4 Model 659–660, 665 Strong African American Families (SAAF) program 17–18 Strother, C. R. 693 structural equation model (SEM) 20–21, 21 structural racism 238 structural variables 247–248 Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo 362 subjective well-being (SWB) 40–41 substance abuse 182–183 substantial hope 76–77 suicidal ideation 42 Sullivan, William 362 Summa Theologiae (Aquinas) 497 Summer Institute in Character Education (SICE) 280

722

Index Sumner, W. G. 194 sunk-cost fallacy 202 sustainable development goals (SDGs) 428 Sutcliffe, K. M. 61, 63 synthesized model of non-cognitive factors 396–397 Syrian war 460

toxic/weak leadership 187–188 traditionalism 149 transaction principle 101–102 Transcendentalism 537 transformational creativity 208–209 transformational leadership 651 true believers 200 True North School: academics 554–555; approach to character education 553–556; student life 555–556 Trump, Donald 196–197, 199, 203, 204 trusted army professionals 592–609 trustworthiness 551 truth 218, 232–233 Truth Commission 229 Tukachinsky, R. 474 turncoats 201 Twitter 430 typological approach 58, 138

Tajfel, H. 194 Taliban 103 Taoism 669, 670 “teach grit” 405 team grit 57–58 Tear Fund 446 technology intervention assistants (TIAs) 18–19 Templeton, Jack 539 Templeton, Sir John 90, 92, 260, 266–267, 535, 536–537, 669 Templeton, Vella Handly 536 Templeton Growth Fund 536 The Templeton Guide: Colleges That Encourage Character Development 539 Templeton philanthropies 537–547 The Templeton Plan: 21 Steps to Personal Success and Real Happiness 537 Templeton Religion Trust (TRT) 535, 537–538, 543, 697 The Templeton Touch (Proctor) 547n1 Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF) 305, 325, 437, 535, 537, 538, 543, 546–547, 697; Global Innovations in Character Development 694 Teracomix 555 Terry, J. D. 453 Thanda 307–308 theories of change (TOCs) 505–506, 513, 525 theory of action 525 theory of invisibility 482–483 This I Believe 315 Thompson, Aidan 544 Thorp, T. Holden 634–635, 652 Three-Tiered Personality model 660 Thunburg, Greta 428 tikkun olam 283 TikTok 468 time pressures 183 Tippett, Krista 382 Tirrell, Jonathan 282 Tirri, Kirsi 365 Toner, E. 93 Townsend, Kenneth 370, 374, 379–380 Townsend, S. S. M. 482 toxic leaders: memes 197–200; reasons people follow 201–204; and target audience 196–197; types of followers 200–201 toxic stress 116

UK business: character in 335–336; culture in 335–336; leadership in 335–336; and surveys 335 unconditional love 123 Ungar, M. 500 UNICEF 432, 435, 447–448; Adolescent Development and Participation (ADAP) section 430, 432; Adolescentes en Movimiento por sus Derechos Initiative 430; Adolescent Kit for Expression and Innovation (the “Kit”) 430–431; global adolescent development strategy 434; humanitarian programs 430; Peacebuilding Competency Framework 432 UNICEF Jordan 433–434 Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 593 United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) 449 United Nations (UN): Convention on the Rights of the Child 429, 448; First World Youth Assembly 427; International Year of Youth 427; Sustainable Development Goals 334, 445, 457; Universal Declaration of Human Rights 429; World Programme of Action for Youth 427 United States (US): brief history of youth programs in 501–502; Department of Education 391, 524; Environmental Protection Agency 381 United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) 572–580 United States Coast Guard Academy (USCGA) 581–590; Cadet Honor Accountability 585; cadet probations 587; cadet remediation programs 586; Coast Guard History 588; Eclipse Day 586–587;

723

Index four-year Honor training program 583–585; Guide for Officer Leadership and Development 586; leader development 581–582; measuring character traits 589–590; path forward, defining 589–590; USCGA character education and training 582–589; Wetmore Ethics Forum 586–587 United States Military Academy (USMA) 139, 592–609; Army Ethic, internalizing 594–595; becoming trustworthy 594–595; caught, taught, and sought 602–603; character education framework 599–601; Character Growth Seminar 607; Character Integration Advisory Group (CIAG) 598–601; culture/curriculum/inspiration 602–603; expectations and assessment 604–605; growth mindset 603; holistic well-being 603; innovating character developments 606–608; Inspiration to Serve Cemetery Tour 606; Leader Challenges 606; mechanisms cultivate character growth 603–604; modernizing leader development 596–604; motivation 603; MX400: Officership 606; ongoing challenges 608–609; practical wisdom 601–602; resourcing integration 598–601; sense of self-efficacy 603; Squad60 (SQD60) 607; WPLDS 597–598, 598 Unity School of Christianity (Unity) 537, 539 University of Birmingham School 265–266 University of Oxford 325–327 unrealistic optimism 202 unreflective silent followers 201 UN Security Council 431 UN Women 435 UN Youth Strategy 429 upward contrast 174 Urban, J. B. 527 Urban, Jennifer Brown 341 Urzúa, S. 393 US Agency for International Development (USAID) 425, 435, 438, 454, 455; Youth in Development Policy report 437; YouthPower Learning 437 USCGA character education and training: character development: academic 587–589; character development: military 583–587; introduction and history 582–583 USCGA military training program: Cadet Honor Accountability 585; cadet probations 587; cadet remediation programs 586; Eclipse Day 586–587; four-year Honor training program 583–585; Wetmore Ethics Forum 586–587

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC 626 US National Academies of Science 106 U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) 612–628; affective domain 624–627; behavioral domain of learning 620–623; birth of 613–614; Character Capstone seminar 626; Character Development Program 625–626; cognitive domain of learning in classroom 616–620; competency development and assessment 622–623, 623; experiential leader development at 621–622; Honor Concept 626; honor remediation program 626–627; Know element in Know-Do-Be 616, 616–620, 617; Law for the Junior Officer course 619–620; leader and character development 627–628; leadership education/development 615–628; and leadership/ethics/character 614–615; Leadership Theory and Application course 619; “Luce-Bancroft Exchange” 614–615; military leader 624–627; Moral Deliberation Roadmap 618–619; NE203 Ethics for the Junior Officer ethics course 618–619; NS43X Junior Officer Practicum Course 620; Objectives Review Board (ORB) 614; overview 612–613; Preparing to Lead course 617–618 USS Somers 613 value-imbued virtue research 660–661 values-in-action (VIA) 93; classification model 94, 138; typological model of character 138 Values in Action (VIA) 659 VanderWeele 675 Van Doren, N. 41 van Eerde, W. 35 Velamuri, M. 396, 403 Verducci, Susan 357, 366 VIA-IS scale 669–670 vicarious contact 483–484 vicarious racism 238 victimization 194, 198 Vietnam: character education in 551–552; NPX Point Avenue approach to character education 553–557; as setting to study character education 550–551 violent extremism 429 virtue(s): challenges in linking flourishing and 672–676; character (see character virtues); cohesive science of 664–667; complementing self-reports of 666; conceptualizations of 665; and culture 667–672; of democracy 216–219; in democratic character 214; and flourishing 666–667; mature character 93–94;

724

Index Oxford Character Project 326–329; understanding 565–568 Virtue Adjectives Rating Scale 671 virtue framing 522–523 virtue literacy 329, 385, 602, 604 virtue research 660–661 virtues as commands (VAC) 672–673, 675 virtues as conducing to flourishing (VCF) 672–675 virtue science: empirical success 658–660; and social scientists 660; value-imbued virtue research 660–661 virtue study designs 665–666 Vittrup, B. 483 Vogus, T. J. 61, 63 Voices of the Poor (World Bank) 447 Vygotsky, L. S. 109

West Point Leader Development System (WPLDS) 594, 597–598, 598 West Virginia v. Barnette 217 Wetmore Ethics Forum 586–587 What is Character: Virtue Ethics in Education 271 What Works in Character Education (WWCE) 276, 277–278 White, A. 474 Whiting, Elizabeth 381 Whitman, Walt 74 Whole Trait Theory 660 Wieber, F. 35 Wilkinson, K. K. 381 Williams, L. S. 60 Williams, Martin 338 Windows Into Schools, Teaching Character Education: What Works? 270 wisdom 93, 138, 165–166, 209, 337, 378, 381, 523, 551 Wisdom From World Religions: Pathways Toward Heaven on Earth (Templeton) 536, 537, 539 Witherington, D. C. 688 Wolf, Susan 169 Wolfensohn, James 447 Wood, W. 646 workplace, and non-cognitive skills 393 World Bank 435, 447; Voices of the Poor 447 World Conference of Youth Ministers in Lisbon, Portugal 427 World Faiths Development Dialogue 447 World Health Organization (WHO) 40, 435 World Vision 455, 460 World Vision International 446 World War I (WWI) 459 World War II (WWII) 223, 459–460 Worthington, Everett 541, 546, 548n8 Wright, Herbert 635, 659 Writing From the Heart 536 Wydick, B. 454

Wagner, L. 93 Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 386n1; academic courses 373–375; assessment 384; co-curricular programming 375–378; conversation about leadership and character 381–383; courses and programing 373–378, 379–381; cross-disciplinary engagement 381; culture, capacity, and commitment 370–371; Face to Face Speaker Forum 376; Graduate School of Arts and Sciences 381; interpreting evidence 384; overview 369–370; planning 383–384; Program for Leadership and Character 385, 386n1; research and assessment 383–385; responsive action 384–385; School of Business 379; School of Divinity 380–381; School of Law 379–380; School of Medicine 380; vision and approach 371–373 Walker, D. I. 513 Walker, Margaret 75–76 Wallace, George 196 Wall Street Journal 104 Walton, G. M. 45 Wang, Q. 648 Wangaard, D. B. 644 Ward, V. 264 War of 1812 613 Wartella, E. 469 Washington, George 613 weak culture 184 Wechsler, David 390 WEIRD scales 671 WEIRD societies 671 well-being 603 Wente, Susan R. 370 West, Cornel 73, 74, 376 western philosophy 81n3 West Point Character Survey 605

Xie, D. 671 Xu, F. 96 Yeager, D. S. 44, 45, 530 Young Entrepreneurs Study (YES) 360 Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) 446, 450, 501 Young Women’s Christian Organization (YWCA) 446, 450 Youniss, James 362, 452 Yousafzai, Malala 428 Youth, Peace and Security: A Programming Handbook 433 Youth Advisory Board (YAB) 289 youth civic development 362–363

725

Index Youth Civic Development and Education conference 362 youth civic engagement 434–435 youth development (YD) programs 500–501; capacities to promote character 511–513; with character development goals 507–510; FBOs as partners in 450–453 Youth Empowerment in Action! (YEA!) 276, 281–282 youth of color: character development 6; racial socialization 6 YouthPower Learning (USAID) 437 youth programs: brief history, in United States 501–502; capacities to promote character 511–513; challenges to program design 513–515; challenges to program evaluation 515; character attributes and participation 505–513; character development in 494–516; considering various aspects of 502–504; as contexts for development 500–505; general

approaches to programming 504–505; mission-oriented programming 506, 511 youth purpose development 358 Youth Purpose Interview 358 Youth Purpose Project (YPP) 357; Phase 1 358–359; Phase 2 359–360 Youth Purpose Research Awards 364–365 Youth Purpose Research funding 364–365 youth-serving organizations (YSOs) 494, 506, 511, 514 Yu, L. 671 Zagzebski, Linda 166–168, 315 Zarrett, N. 512 Zha Blong, X. 12 Zhang, J. 41, 45, 46 Zhao, Y. 46 Zhou, M. 33 zone of proximal development 109

726