RUNNING HEAD: Structure and Development of Character 1 Examining Character Structure and Function across Childhood and Adolescence

Character strengths are an integral component of positive youth development that can promote flourishing. Developmental principles posit constructs become increasingly complex with age, yet this process has not been examined with character. Using a socioeconomically and ethnically diverse sample of 2,467 youth ages 9-19, bifactor models were estimated across elementary, middle, and high school-age groups to examine age differences in character structure and function. With successive age, a greater number of specific character strength factors were identified, suggesting character structure becomes more differentiated across adolescence. Results linking character bifactor models to indicators of positive functioning also supported differentiation in character function across ages. Findings point to the need for theoretical and empirical considerations of character structure and function across development. STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHARACTER 3 Examining Character Structure and Function across Childhood and Adolescence Character can be broadly defined as a composition of multiple strengths that motivate individuals to act in accordance with virtues (Berkowitz, 2012; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). As such, character is theorized to be a precursor to well-being and community contributions (Lerner, 2004; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). A fundamental obstacle in character research is the lack of understanding of how character develops and how to best account for its multidimensional nature (McGrath & Walker, 2016). Research that is grounded in developmental theory and examines age differences in character across developmental periods is urgently needed to inform theory and practice related to character development. Our study draws on relational developmental systems (RDS) theory and the orthogenetic principle, which posits that constructs proceed from a global state to become increasingly differentiated with age (Werner, 1957). Using a large crosssectional sample, we tested the hypothesis that character structure and functions become more complex and differentiated with age by (a) examining age differences in character structures across elementary, middle, and high school-age groups, and (b) testing whether character functions, i.e., links from character strengths to indicators of positive functioning, become more differentiated with age. Bifactor models offer a unique and rigorous way to capture the multidimensional nature of character and its relations with positive functioning across ages. Conceptualizing Character Articulating specific strengths that comprise the meta-construct of character is an issue that produces some agreement and considerable variability in existing scholarship (Lickona & Davidson, 2005; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seider, 2012). There is considerable heterogeneity in the number of dimensions and the specific strengths indicative of character. Although debates are ongoing regarding the conceptual distinctions among various dimensions of character STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHARACTER 4 strengths, existing taxonomies articulate a mature structure of character strengths. Previous work has given little consideration to when and how specific dimensions of character develop. To the extent that character development is a dynamic process evidencing change in structure and function over time, specific conceptualizations may not capture character structure across childhood and adolescence. An exploratory approach to character structure may be especially useful for examining character structure developmentally. One useful heuristic involves conceptualizing different types of character strengths along interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions (e.g. McGrath & Walker, 2016; Park, Tsukayama, Goodwin, Patrick, & Duckworth, 2016). Interpersonal strengths represent a broad range of capacities that enable youth to positively interact with other individuals, groups, and communities (Baehr, 2017; Peterson & Seligman, 2004) whereas intrapersonal strengths have been theorized to reflect accountability and performance aspects of character and emphasize youth’s own potential in the future (Baehr, 2017; Lickona & Davidson, 2005). Interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions of character capturing meaningful differences in character strengths while still being broad enough to allow an exploratory approach to character structure, which is important for capturing age differences. In selecting character strengths for this study, we drew from a diverse set of frameworks to reflect a balance of interpersonal and intrapersonal strengths relevant to civic engagement and positive youth development (Baehr, 2017; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seider, 2012), given the study’s broader focus on these topics. Interpersonal strengths of leadership, teamwork, respect, and gratitude were included in the study as these strengths promote prosocial behaviors (Froh, Bono, & Emmons, 2010), volunteering (Scales, Benson, Leffert, & Blyth, 2000), and political behaviors (Christens & Dolan, 2011) and are commonly associated with a number of indicators of positive development STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHARACTER 5 including self-efficacy (Weber, Ruch, Littman-Ovadia, Lavy, & Gai, 2013), well-being (Park & Peterson, 2006a), and academic achievement (Froh et al., 2010). Five intrapersonal strengths– future orientation, optimism, perseverance, thrift, and responsibility – were also included in the current study. These intrapersonal strengths are positively associated with indicators of positive youth development including academic performance (Park et al., 2016), self-efficacy (Ruch et al., 2013), and self-regulation (Schmid, Phelps, & Lerner, 2011). Intrapersonal strengths may also enable youth to positively contribute to their contexts, as these strengths allow youth to understand and strategically plan civic actions that benefit society (Metzger et al., 2016). Given theory and some empirical work on each of these strengths at various ages, the strengths included in the current study are believed to be qualities youth are capable of understanding and displaying (e.g. Park & Peterson, 2006a; Weber et al., 2013). Leadership, teamwork, gratitude, perseverance, future orientation, and optimism have been reliably assessed in youth as young as ten (Park & Peterson, 2006a; Weber et al., 2013), and Q-sort methodology has suggested that youth are capable of understanding these strengths (Metzger et al., 2016). Although there are fewer established measures or empirical studies of respect, thrift, and responsibility, these strengths are commonly included in character education programs designed for elementary through high school ages (e.g., Boy Scouts of America, 2017). As a final word on the selection of character strengths, it is implausible, if not impossible, to comprehensively assess the development of all character strengths within any single study. Although intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions are commonly found in the literature and guided our choices about specific character strengths, we acknowledge that not all strengths fit squarely into intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions, and some scholars prefer other models such as moral and performance dimensions (e.g. Baehr, 2017; Seider, 2012). STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHARACTER 6 Character Development Relational developmental systems (RDS) theory provides a useful lens through which to study character development (Lerner & Callina, 2014). RDS theory posits that development results from interactive, relational processes between individuals and their contexts that unfold over time, and individuals are seen as “inherently active, self-creating, self-organizing, and selfregulating, relatively plastic, nonlinear complex adaptive systems” (Overton, 2015, p. 39). Given the adaptive and plastic nature of individual development, constructs may change in complex ways across development. Indeed, in articulating expectations for developmental differences in character, RDS emphasizes the structure and function of a construct is capable of developmental change (Overton, 2015). Moreover, according to the orthogenetic principle, which is consistent with RDS, differentiation and hierarchic integration are assumed to characterize development (Werner, 1957). In this study, we tested one aspect of the orthogenetic principle stating that development proceeds from a state of globality and lack of differentiation to become increasingly specific and differentiated over time (Werner, 1957). Applied to character, structure refers to the organization of individual character strengths into a higher-order pattern, i.e., how items factor together into latent factors or dimensions of character. A plausible hypothesis is that the structure of character begins as a global “g” factor defined generally by positive character strengths and becomes more refined into a specific multidimensional set of character strengths with age (Lerner & Callina, 2014; Wang et al., 2015). Function refers to the ways that character strengths affect other domains of life, such as enabling positive contributions to oneself, others, and one’s contexts. Functions of character are assumed to be dynamic from a RDS perspective; meaning that the way character strengths are associated with indicators of positive development may change with age (Lerner & Callina, 2014). STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHARACTER 7 Character strengths may be more uniformly and globally associated with positive outcomes early in development, but particular strengths may become more strongly associated with distinct outcomes during adolescence. Similar to expectations with structure, we tested the idea that character functions may become increasingly specific with age. Examining age differences in the structure and function of character has valuable implications for developmental theory and for the ways in which character is conceptualized, modeled, and measured in future rese