摘要：Objectives. To examine sexual-orientation differences in positive youth development, and how bullying victimization mediated these differences in a sample of adolescents. Methods. In 2007 to 2008, positive youth development was measured in 1870 adolescents from US schools and after-school programs in 45 states by using the validated Five Cs model of competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring/compassion. Sexual-minority youths (6.8%) reported having same- or both-gender sexual attractions. Nonattracted youths (4.2%) reported having no sexual attractions. Results. Compared with sexual-minority youths, heterosexual and nonattracted youths had lower odds of being a victim of bullying. Heterosexual and nonattracted youths also had higher average scores in competence, confidence, and connection, but these associations between sexual orientation and positive youth development scores were partly attributable to lack of bullying victimization. Conclusions. Designing, implementing, and evaluating interventions that reduce bullying can give sexual-minority youths access to several building blocks of health and well-being. Healthy adolescent development has been an important public health issue for decades, and is currently being given renewed and spirited attention by many national organizations. For example, the American Public Health Association, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Office of Adolescent Health, and several other organizations launched a national awareness campaign entitled “Think, Act, Grow” at the American Public Health Association’s Annual Meeting in 2014. 1 The primary mission of this campaign is to promote adolescent health and healthy youth development. 1 In general, campaigns and programs such as “Think, Act, Grow” are built upon a contemporary conceptual framework—positive youth development. Theoretically, the positive youth development perspective stresses that youths have—and require—universally relevant and culturally specific skills, relationships, and characteristics that assist them in achieving optimal development and health. 2 This perspective encourages researchers and practitioners to focus on growing healthy adolescents in a holistic manner, instead of targeting a single aspect of their lives (e.g., mental health). Generally, the positive youth development perspective also emphasizes a portion of the World Health Organization’s definition of health that is rarely examined—“health is not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” 3 (p1) Central components of the positive youth development perspective include creating and sustaining a strong developmental foundation, and providing youths with opportunities to thrive. Empirically, one way that positive youth development has been measured is with the Five Cs model, which emphasizes competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring/compassion as the building blocks of youths’ livelihood and well-being. 2 In this model, competence is defined as having a positive view of one’s actions in social, academic, cognitive, and vocational arenas. 2 Confidence is an aspect of mental health defined as an internal sense of overall positive self-worth, self-efficacy, and global self-regard, as opposed to domain-specific beliefs. 2 Connection includes supportive and positive bonds with peers, family, school, and community. 2 Character is defined as having respect for societal and cultural rules, as well as having a sense of morality and integrity. Caring/compassion is defined as a sense of sympathy and empathy for others. 2 Higher levels of the Five Cs are associated positively with contributions to society and negatively with myriad health risk behaviors, including cigarette smoking, alcohol use, and early sexual initiation. 2,4,5 Previous studies have found that sexual-minority youths report worse mental health, lower academic achievement, and less adult support than their heterosexual peers. 6–9 Because these are each facets of the Five Cs, it is likely that sexual-minority youths experience lower positive youth development than heterosexuals, which may help explain the numerous health disparities experienced by sexual-minority youths. 10 However, to our knowledge, no study has holistically examined sexual-orientation differences in positive youth development with a validated measure such as the Five Cs model. Importantly, the positive youth development perspective is founded on the theory of Developmental Contextualism, 11 which emphasizes the relationships between individuals and their environments. This theory states that healthy development is fostered by supportive environments and positive interactions with people in youths’ social networks. Substantiating this theory are multiple intervention studies that have evaluated how positive youth development programs focused on creating supportive environments reduce youths’ risks for negative health outcomes, including substance use and sexual and reproductive health risks. 12,13 On the other hand, Developmental Contextualism suggests that unsupportive environments and harmful relationships may hinder positive youth development. For example, violence and victimization have negative impacts on self-esteem and social and academic competencies. 8,14–16 Sexual-minority youths, in particular, have a heightened vulnerability to experiences of violence, including bullying victimization, compared with their heterosexual peers. 14,17,18 Previous studies have shown that the large sexual-orientation disparity in victimization mediates sexual-orientation disparities in academic achievement and aspects of mental health. 8,19 Thus, sexual-orientation disparities in bullying victimization may be a driver of any sexual-orientation differences in positive youth development. The purpose of this study was to examine 2 primary research questions. First, are there sexual-orientation differences in positive youth development when measured with the Five Cs model? Second, does bullying victimization explain sexual-orientation differences in positive youth development? We used data from a sample of adolescents to investigate these research questions.
