Community Involvement and Reduced Risk Behavior Engagement Among African American Adolescents

Abstract

Studies have indicated disproportionate health risks among African American adolescents. Given these estimates, research has focused on the prevention of health risk behaviors among this population. Using a strengths-based approach, the current study explored associations between community involvement and African American youths’ health risk behaviors. Additionally, this investigation examined youths’ empowerment beliefs as a mediator of this association. Participants in this study were 1,452 African American youth (M = 14.41; SD = 1.14; 59% female) residing in a large Midwestern city. Results indicated that community involvement was not directly associated with adolescent health risk behaviors. However, empowerment beliefs mediated the association between community youth involvement and adolescent sexual risk behaviors. Findings suggest the importance of identifying mechanisms that better illuminate the link between community involvement and African American adolescents’ health risk behaviors.

Keywords

community involvement empowerment risk behavior African American adolescent

Recent studies have reported disproportionate health risks among African American adolescents. Specifically, studies have shown that African American adolescents are at an increased risk for contracting HIV, with African American youth between the ages of 13 and 24 representing 57% of new cases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014). Also, investigations have indicated that African American adolescents report greater sexual risk behaviors, including earlier sexual initiation and greater number of lifetime sexual partners (Bachanas et al., 2002; Center for Disease Control, 2012; DiClemente et al., 2008; Faryna & Morales, 2000; Kogan et al., 2010). Studies have shown that increased sexual risk behaviors may adversely influence well-being in adolescence and young adulthood (Sandfort, Orr, Hirsh, & Santelli, 2007; Udell, Donenberg, & Emerson, 2011).

Along with sexual health risks, engagement in substance use among adolescents has been a focus of the literature. Findings have consistently revealed that African American adolescents, in comparison to their White American counterparts, are less likely to report smoking within the last 30 days (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012; Flory et al., 2006; Wallace et al., 2009). Additionally, studies examining alcohol use have demonstrated that African American adolescents are less likely to report ever drinking alcohol or having a drink within the last 30 days (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009; Wallace et al., 2003). Recent investigations, however, have noted increased marijuana use rates among this population Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2006; cf. Brown, Flory, Lynam, Leukefeld, & Clayton, 2004). Although substance use rates have been traditionally lower among this population, research has indicated that African Americans have an elevated risk of experiencing negative social consequences associated with substance use (Brown et al., 2004; Sharma, & Atri, 2006; Wallace, 1999; Wallace & Muroff, 2002). Moreover, studies have indicated that substance use, likely through diminished decision-making abilities, increases likelihood of engaging in sexual risk behaviors (e.g., unprotected sexual activity; Elkington, Bauermeister, & Zimmerman, 2010).

Reducing Risk by Promoting Strengths: Exploring the Link Between Community Involvement and Reduced Risk Behavior Engagement

To reduce the likelihood of youth engagement in risk behaviors, several frameworks have articulated the critical importance of understanding factors and processes that promote positive youth development (Benson, et al., 2006; Damon, 2004; Guerra & Bradshaw, 2008; Larson, 2000; Lerner & Benson, 2003). In comparison to more deficit-based approaches, strengths-based frameworks posit that optimal development is comprised of an array of factors, including one’s own competence (e.g., core indicators of mental, physical, and emotional health), supportive/caring relationships with others, positive self-views, and character strengths (Lerner, 2005). The extent to which youth are involved and engaged within their communities has received specific attention (e.g., Balsano, 2005; Cheng, Siu, & Leung, 2006; Lerner & Benson, 2003; Watts & Flanagan, 2007). Further, community involvement, which is largely influenced by ecological assets, has been suggested as a necessary component of healthy functioning and an important marker of a successful transition to adulthood (Balsano, 2005; Flanagan & Levine, 2010; Paul & Lefkovitz, 2006). Although several definitions have been articulated in the literature, community involvement can entail participation in a range of activities (e.g., participation in community organizations, volunteerism, school extracurricular activities, social causes, political activism; Lerner, von Eye, Lewin-Bizan, & Bowers, 2010; Watts & Flanagan, 2007). Studies have identified linkages between community involvement and reduced risk behavior engagement in youth and populations (e.g., Doss et al., 2007; Gavin, Catalano, & Markham, 2010; Greenwald, Pearson, Beery, & Cheadle, 2006; Jelicíc et al., 2007; McMahon, Singh, Garner, & Benhorin, 2004; O’Donnell et al., 2002; Quane & Rankin, 2006; Ramirez-Valles, 2002; Vesely et al., 2004; Wong, Zimmerman, & Parker, 2010). Potentially underlying this association is that youth who are actively engaged and involved will have more positive self-views as well as greater belonging to their communities (e.g., Brooks, Magnusson, Spencer, & Morgan, 2012). Additionally, these experiences may impact well-being and engagement in adulthood (McGee, Williams, Howden-Chapman, Martin, & Kawachi, 2006).

Empowerment Beliefs: A Potential Mediator?

Despite indications that community involvement is associated directly with risk behavior engagement, studies have suggested the importance of exploring mechanisms that may further illuminate this relationship (Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003; cf. Obradovic & Masten, 2007). In particular, studies have focused on the role of empowerment, including the capacity of individuals to become engaged in and work toward improving the quality of their lives and communities (Brookings & Bolton, 2000; Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010; N. A. Peterson & Reid, 2003; Rappaport, 1987). To date, several scholars have contributed to the conceptualization and measurement of empowerment (e.g., Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Gutierrez, 1990; D. Peterson, Minkler, Vásquez, & Baden, 2006; Rappaport, 1987; Wallerstein, 1992; Wallerstein & Bernstein, 1988; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988; Zimmerman, 2000). This work has demonstrated that empowerment is a process that can occur at multiple levels (e.g., interpersonal, intrapersonal, community, organizational levels) and can encompass several domains. Empowerment at the individual level has been broadly conceptualized to include an individual’s awareness about resources and factors that hinder or enhance one’s effort to achieve and fulfill goals (Zimmerman, 1995; Zimmerman, Israel, Schulz, & Checkoway, 1992). Research has suggested that active engagement in one’s community is influenced by and can influence empowerment (Speer, 2000; Zimmerman, 1995; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Studies have demonstrated similar associations with adolescent populations (Holden, Crankshaw, Nimsch, Hinnant, & Hund, 2004; McMahon et al., 2004). Much of this work has posited that empowerment fosters the idea that individuals can initiate change in their community as well as increase self-efficacy and personal control (Kamo, Carlson, Brennan, & Earls, 2008; Muñoz-Laboy et al., 2008).

Additionally, studies have suggested that one’s sense of empowerment can have implications for their health-related outcomes (Holden et al., 2004; Reininger et al., 2005; Zimmerman, Ramirez-Valles, & Maton, 1999). For instance, Holden and colleagues suggested that empowerment beliefs influence substance use behaviors (Holden et al., 2004; Holden, Evans, Hinnant, & Messeri, 2005). Among the few studies examining empowerment among African American youth, Zimmerman and colleagues (1999) found that sociopolitical control was associated with greater psychological well-being among African American male adolescents. Also, Ma and colleagues (2008) found that African American adolescents’ perceptions of their leadership abilities were associated with fewer sexual risk behaviors. Given evidence that empowerment beliefs have implications for youths’ health-related behaviors and outcomes, it has the potential to be an important mediator in the relationship between community involvement and African American adolescents’ risk behavior engagement. Still, few studies have explored whether empowerment-related beliefs mediate the relationship between community involvement and health-risk behaviors, particularly among a sample of African American youth.

Study Goals and Hypotheses

The identification of ecological assets is particularly beneficial to the prevention of risk behaviors. Of particular importance is explicating the mechanisms through which community involvement may prevent youths’ engagement in risk behaviors. The current investigation explores the association between community involvement and African American adolescents’ health risk behaviors. We predict that community involvement will be associated with engagement in fewer risk behaviors. Given assertions that there are important mechanisms underlying the relationship between community involvement and risk behavior engagement (e.g., Ramirez-Valles, 2002), an additional goal of this investigation is to explore the mediating role of African American youths’ empowerment beliefs. We expect that empowerment beliefs will mediate the relationship between youth community involvement and health risk behaviors. Involved youth will report greater empowerment beliefs and in turn, these beliefs will be associated with engagement in fewer risk behaviors (e.g., substance use; sexual risk behaviors).

Method

Participants

Data were collected from five communities participating in a Pregnancy Prevention program in a large, Midwestern city in the United States. Recruitment locale, which was chosen due to elevated pregnancy rates, included schools and community centers in suburban and urban settings. At the time of data collection, the median household income ranged from $17,750 to $38,500 across all recruitment locations. Recruitment county percentages of African Americans ranged from 8.3% to 62.1%. Only baseline data are utilized in the current investigation. Given the investigation’s focus on examining within-group processes, only African American adolescents (N = 1,452) were included. Percentages of recruited African American participants ranged from 43.4% to 95.8% across recruitment communities. Youth ranged in age from 12 to 18 years (M = 14.41; SD = 1.14). All included participants were currently enrolled in school. Approximately 59% of the sample was female. Twenty-nine percent of adolescents resided in a two-parent household. The average grade point average (self-reported) was 3.65 out of 5.00 (1 = mostly failing grades; 5 = mostly A’s).

Study Procedure

After receiving institutional review board approval, the authors identified and contacted target schools and local community centers regarding their interest in participating in the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. Among participating school and community sites, the research team trained a qualified school or agency staff member as the site evaluation coordinator. Training of the site evaluation coordinator (SEC) involved detailed protocols for collecting study data. In particular, SECs were given detailed procedures for maintaining data integrity and issues of confidentiality before data collection began. Procedures were in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s ethical guidelines. A member of the research team and the SEC distributed consent forms prior to data collection. Across sites, the average consent form return rate was approximately 60%. The SEC attended the first program session to assist the program facilitator with collecting evaluation information. For teens who returned a positive consent form, the first session included completion of the pretest evaluation data. During this time, participants who did not return the consent form or who returned negative consent forms engaged in a nonrelated activity. Surveys took approximately 30–45 minutes to complete. Before participation, a member of the research team read a description of the study as well as the protocol for maintaining their confidentiality (e.g., assigning students ID numbers). At each recruitment site, the SEC and additional members of the research staff were present during survey administration to answer any additional questions related to the data collection or survey administration procedure. Youth and staff were not compensated for participating in the prevention program.

Measures

Community Involvement

Community involvement was composed of items measuring three domains: (1) school group participation, (2) community group participation, and (3) participation in community projects. Participants were asked to respond to the following questions using a 3-point scale (0 = none; 2 = two or more): (1) “How many community organizations/groups have you participated in?” and (2) “How many school groups do you belong to?” Also, participants were asked to respond to the following question: “Have you ever participated in a community project?” (1 = no; 2 = yes).

Empowerment Beliefs

The empowerment beliefs scale assessed adolescents’ perceptions of community control, a conceptualized dimension of empowerment. Items, which were adapted from Israel, Checkoway, Schulz, & Zimmerman (1994), included: (1) “It is up to me to try and change the things I do not like about my community.” (2) “I have a lot to offer the people who live in my community.” (3) “It is my job to help others who are less fortunate.” Items were evaluated using a Likert-type scale (1 = completely false; 4 = completely true). Cronbach’s alpha was .68.

Adolescent Risk Behaviors

Substance use was composed of items measuring alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use: (1) “In the past week, how often have you smoked cigarettes?” (0 = none; 4 = one pack or more a day); (2) “Have you ever used alcohol?” (1 = no; 2 = yes); (3) “In the past month, how often have you drank alcohol (e.g., beer, liquor)?” (1 = none; 3 = once a week or more); and (4) “Have you ever used marijuana?” (1 = no; 2 = yes). Reliability for these items was .72.

Sexual risk was assessed with two items (α = .66): (1) “Have you ever had sexual intercourse?” (1 = no; 2 = yes); and (2) “How many sexual partners have you had?” (0 = none; 3 = 5 or more partners). Sum scores were created for each risk behavior domain (e.g., substance use; sexual risk) with higher scores indicating greater risk behavior engagement.

Demographic Variables

Several sociodemographic variables were included as control variables in the analyses. Specifically, given that previous studies have demonstrated associations between extraneous factors and the variables of interest (Kegler, Young, Marshall, Bui, & Rodine, 2005; Oman, Vesely, Kegler, McLeroy & Aspy, 2003; Resnick et al., 1997), this investigation controlled for recruitment county, adolescent age, self-reported grades, family structure (single vs. two-parent household), and gender.

Data Analytic Strategy

A path model using Mplus was utilized to accomplish the study goals (Version 7.0; Muthén & Muthén, 2012). Mplus uses full information maximum likelihood, which does not delete cases with missing data and thus minimizes biased parameter estimates (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). The χ² test statistic was utilized to help determine the fit of the hypothesized model. Also, the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used to verify the model fit. The CFI is a measure that compares a baseline model to a theoretical model in which hypothesized paths are estimated. This index ranges from 0 to 1, where a value greater than .95 indicates adequate fit (Bentler, 1990). RMSEA values are better conceived as an index of badness of fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Models with a RMSEA value less than .05 indicates adequate model fit (Bentler, 1990).

To test our mediation hypotheses, we employed an indirect effects model using bootstrapping methods. Recent research suggests that the commonly used method introduced by Baron and Kenny (1986) for testing mediation lacks statistical power relative to other alternatives (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West & Sheets, 2002). Based upon recommendations by Shrout and Bolger (2002), we employed bootstrapping methods to estimate the direct and indirect paths because it provides a more accurate estimation of Type I error rates and has greater power in detecting indirect effects. A bootstrap sample of 5000 was used in the current investigation to produce bias-corrected confidence intervals. With the bootstrapped procedure, if the confidence interval does not contain zero, one can conclude that there is significant mediation present. Additional work has demonstrated the accuracy of the bootstrapping procedure in detecting mediation (MacKinnon, 2008; Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

Results

Bivariate Relationships

Pearson correlations were conducted to explore initial relationships among core study variables. As shown in Table 1, community engaged youth reported more positive empowerment beliefs. Specifically, youth participation in a community project (r = .19), community group (r = .15), and school involvement (r = .16) were associated with greater empowerment beliefs. Also, adolescents with greater participation in community groups and organizations were less likely to report having had sexual intercourse (r = –.08), fewer sexual partners (r = –.06), lifetime alcohol use (r = –.05), cigarette use in the past week (r = –.13), and lifetime marijuana use (r = –.06). School group involvement was associated with fewer sexual partners (r = –.07), less past week cigarette use (r = –.13), and a lower likelihood of lifetime marijuana use (r= –.08). Contrary to expectations, youth participation in a community project was associated with a greater likelihood of lifetime alcohol use (r = .07). Additionally, higher levels of empowerment were associated with fewer sexual risk behaviors including likelihood of not having had sexual intercourse (r = –.08) and fewer sexual partners (r = –.11). There was also an association between empowerment and substance use such that less past month alcohol use (r = –.06) and reduced likelihood of lifetime marijuana use (r = –.07) were correlated with higher levels of empowerment. Health risk behaviors were positively correlated with one another. In particular, likelihood of having had sexual intercourse was associated with lifetime alcohol use (r = .23), past month alcohol use (r = .28), cigarette use in the past week (r = .22), and lifetime marijuana use (r = .32). Similarly, number of sexual partners was associated with cigarette use in last week (r = .18), lifetime alcohol use (r = .21), past month alcohol use (r = .24), and lifetime marijuana use (r = .33). Also, lifetime alcohol use was positively associated with past month alcohol use (r = .54) and lifetime marijuana use (r = .41). Adolescents who reported greater cigarette use in the past week also were more likely to report lifetime marijuana use (r = .35) and past month (r = .46) and lifetime alcohol use (r = .27). Past month alcohol use was positively associated with lifetime marijuana use (r = .42). School group participation was positively associated with both community group organization (r = .36) and community project participation (r = .22). Youth who reported participating in a community project also were likely to report participating in a community group organization (r = .29).

Table 1.
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations of Study Variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. County 1.00

2. Age^a –.10* 1.00

3. Gender^a –.03 –.04 1.00

4. Family structure_a –.07* –.01 .02 1.00

5. GPA^a .02 –.15* –.11* .07 1.00

6. Community group .05‡ –.09 .00 .09 .12* 1.00

7. School group partic. .02 –.05* .04 .08 .20* .36* 1.00

8. Community project .00 .01 –.04 .04 .15* .29* .22*** 1.00

9. Empowerment beliefs –.01 .00 –.06* .06* .16* .15* .16* .19* 1.00

10. Had sex –.06* .32* .30* –.06* –.23* –.07 –.04 –.02 –.08* 1.00

11. Number of sex partners –.02 .37* .14* –.06* –.20*** –.06* –.07 –.02 –.11* .67* 1.00

12. Ciger. use in last week –.01 .15* –.02 –.06* –.19* –.13* –.13* .00 –.05 .23* .18* 1.00

13. Lifetime alcohol use .02 .17* –.10*** –.05‡ –.06* –.05* .03 .07* –.01 .22* .21* .27* 1.00

14. Past month alcohol use .02 .16* –.05 –.06* –.17*** –.03 –.03 .02 –.06* .28* .24* .46* .54* 1.00

15. Lifetime marijuana use –.01 .16*** .05* –.03 –.16*** –.06* –.08* .02 –.07* .32* .33* .35* .41* .42*** 1.00

Mean _ 14.82 _ _ 3.65 1.79 2.03 1.41 2.56 1.41 0.99 1.17 1.42 1.29 I.20

SD _ 1.53 _ _ 0.99 0.77 0.86 0.49 0.79 0.49 1.19 0.51 0.49 0.63 0.40

Range _ 12.00-18.00 _ _ 1.00-5.00 1.00-3.00 1.00-3.00 1.00-2.00 1.00-4.00 1.00-2.00 0.00-3.00 1.00-4.00 1.00-2.00 1.00-3.00 1.00-2.00

Note: Note: Gender was coded 1 = female and 2 = male. Family structure was coded 1 = Single parent household; 2 = Two-parent household. GPA (grade point average) was coded 1 = Mostly failing grades; 5 = Mostly A’s. Community and school group participation were coded 1 = none; 2 = one; 3 = two or more. Community project participation was coded 1 = no; 2 = yes. Number of sexual partners was coded 0 = none; 3 = five or more partners. Had sex, lifetime alcohol use, and lifetime marijuana use were coded 1 = no and 2 = yes. Cigarette use in past week was coded 1 = none; 4 = one pack or more a day. Past month alcohol use was coded 1 = none; 3 = once a week or more.

a
study covariate

*
p< .05. p< .01. p< .001.

Frequencies: Community Involvement and Adolescent Risk Behaviors

Forty-three percent of youth reported not participating in any community organizations, 36% participated in one community organization, and 21% reported participating in two or more community organizations. Additionally, 36% of youth were not involved in any school-related activities, 28% of youth reported participating in one school-related activity, and 36% of youth indicated participating in two or more school-related activities. Forty-two percent of adolescents reported participating in a community project.

With respect to health risk behaviors, 60% reported lifetime alcohol use (e.g., using alcohol at least once in their lifetime). Of youth reporting lifetime alcohol use, approximately 82% of youth reported not drinking alcohol in the past month. Ten percent reported drinking alcohol once in the past month and 8% of indicated drinking alcohol once a week or more in the past month. Sixty-one percent of youth did not report cigarette use in the past week. However, approximately 28% of youth reported cigarettes less than daily in the past week, 4% of youth reported using one to five cigarettes per day in the last week, and 7% of youth reported using one-half pack per day or more in the past week. Twenty percent of youth reported using marijuana at least once during their lifetime. Fifty-five percent of adolescents were sexually inactive. Thirty-one percent of youth reported one to two partners and 13% reported three to four partners. Approximately 12% of youth reported five or more sexual partners.

Relationships Among Community Involvement, Empowerment Beliefs, and Adolescent Risk Behaviors

This investigation explored the relationship between community involvement and adolescent risk behaviors. Additionally, this investigation estimated empowerment beliefs as a mediator of this association. Adolescent age, recruitment site, self-reported grades, and gender were included as model covariates. The hypothesized model fit the data adequately, χ²(93, N = 1452) = 410.60; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .047. Analyses revealed that community involvement was associated with family structure (β = .27, p < .001), recruitment site (β = .06, p = .05) and self-reported grades (β = –.29, p < .001). Both substance use and sexual risk behaviors were associated with age (β = .15, p < .01; β = .29, p < .001), family structure (β = –.15; β = –.16, p < .05), gender (β = –.14, p < .04; β = .54, p < .001), and grades (β = .17; β = .17, p < .01). Empowerment beliefs were unrelated to model covariates.

Community involvement was not associated with adolescent risk behaviors: substance use (β = .01, ns;* CI: –0.12, 0.11); sexual risk behaviors (β = .00, ns; CI: –0.17, 0.14). However, adolescent substance use and sexual risk behaviors were directly and positively associated (β = .46; p < .001; CI: 0.22, 0.33). The model accounted for 10% and 33% of the variance in substance use and sexual risk behaviors, respectively. For visual ease, only the standardized coefficients and corresponding confidence intervals are represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Path model using bootstrapping methods. Numbers in brackets represent 95% confidence intervals. Sample size = 1452; χ²(df = 93) = 410.60; p < .05; CFI = .97; RMSEA =.047. Dotted lines indicate nonsignificant paths.

Indirect Effect of Empowerment Beliefs

There was a significant indirect effect of empowerment beliefs on the association between community involvement and sexual risk behaviors (β = –.07; p < .05; CI: –0.5, –.02). Community involvement was associated with more positive empowerment beliefs (β = .35, p < .001; CI: 0.19, 0.40). Empowerment beliefs were associated with fewer sexual risk behaviors (β = –.11, p < .001; CI: –0.41, –0.07). There was no association between empowerment beliefs and substance use (β = –.08, ns; CI: –0.24, 0.00). The mediator, empowerment beliefs, accounted for an additional 16% of the total effect. Thus, our results indicate that empowerment beliefs mediated the relationship between community group involvement and African American adolescents’ sexual risk behaviors. However, there was not a significant indirect effect with respect to adolescents’ substance use behaviors (β = –.03, ns; CI: –.09, .00).

Discussion

The focus on the prevention of health risk behaviors among African American adolescents has been propelled by estimates that African Americans are disproportionally affected by negative consequences associated with engagement in these behaviors (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012; Wallace, 1999). Our study explored indirect and direct associations with African American youths’ risk behaviors. Specifically, the current investigation explored the association between community involvement and African American adolescents’ risk behavior engagement. In addition to exploring direct relationships, we examined empowerment beliefs as a mediator between community involvement and youth risk behaviors. Key study findings are discussed below.

Direct Effects: Community Involvement and Youth Risk Behavior Engagement

Rooted in strength-based theories of youth development (Balsano, 2005; Benson et al., 2006; Lerner, 2005), we hypothesized that community involvement would be negatively associated with youth risk behaviors. To date, studies have noted a link between community involvement among African American youth and reduced risk behavior engagement (Carswell, 2007; Grunbaum et al., 2002; McMahon et al., 2004; Rhodes, Reddy, & Grossman, 2003). After adjusting for demographic factors, however, our model revealed that community involvement was not directly associated with sexual and substance use risk behaviors. It should be noted that, at the bivariate level, our investigation found relationships between community involvement indicators and risk behaviors. In fact, youths’ participation in a community group was strongly associated with all risk behavior indicators. There were fewer associations with the other two community involvement domains (school group participation; community project participation) and risk behavior outcomes. It is possible that the measurement of community involvement could have impacted our findings. For instance, at the bivariate level, community or school group participation was associated more strongly with youth risk behaviors in comparison with youth who participated in a community project. With this in mind, factors such as length of participation (ongoing vs. one-time), quality of experience, and initiation (self vs. other) may be important considerations (e.g., Holden et al., 2004; Wong, Zimmerman, & Parker, 2010). Given that previous work has demonstrated the importance of taking into account multiple dimensions of community involvement and participation (e.g., Ma et al., 2008; Wong, Zimmerman, & Parker, 2010), additional studies are needed to explore how these additional aspects of community involvement may influence youths’ empowerment beliefs and risk behavior engagement.

Recent research suggests that a direct relationship between predictor and outcome variables is not a necessary requirement for testing mediation (Fairchild & MacKinnon, 2009). Thus, the identification of indirect pathways may shed important light on underlying mechanisms. The current investigation provides some evidence for the mediating role of youths’ empowerment beliefs. Individual-level empowerment beliefs may be particularly relevant for youth risk behavior given its focus on one’s sense of personal control and potential social influence. Existing studies have demonstrated similar associations (McMahon et al., 2004; Zimmerman, Ramirez-Valles, & Maton, 1999). McMahon and colleagues (2004) found that community involvement, though not directly related to African American adolescents’ well-being, was associated with greater empowerment. Further, Holden et al. (2004) suggest that community participation is critical in the development of empowerment beliefs. Still, very few studies have tested empirically whether empowerment beliefs mediate the relationship between youth community involvement and risk behavior engagement. An important contribution of this investigation was to empirically examine whether empowerment beliefs mediated the relationship between youth community involvement and risk behavior engagement. In particular, our investigation indicated that African American youth with greater community involvement reported greater empowerment beliefs and, in turn, were less likely to report being sexually active.

Youth who are engaged in their communities may have a greater sense of social and personal control. In turn, this increased sense of personal control and self-efficacy might encourage youth’s decision-making regarding risk behavior engagement. Multiple studies have emphasized the promotive role of self-efficacy (Balsano, 2005). However, empowerment, although similar to self-efficacy, is distinct in that it emphasizes personal goals and entails individuals’ perception of their ability to facilitate change in their communities (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010). Thus, experiences garnered while engaging within the community can contribute to the enhancement of individuals’ beliefs in their ability to make change within their communities.

Additionally, given that adolescence is accompanied by newfound cognitive and social abilities, youths’ integration of self-views within the larger social structure could serve an important role in the facilitation of identity development (Watts & Flanagan, 2007; Yates & Youniss, 1996). Thus, community involvement can have implications for adolescents’ self-views. Importantly, this process has implications for African American adolescents’ engagement in health risk behaviors. Previous research has suggested the potential health benefits of empowerment (Holden et al., 2004; Jerdén, Burell, Stenlund, & Weinehall, 2008; Wallerstein, 1993). Although they did not directly examine empowerment and individual substance use behaviors, Peterson and Reid (2003) demonstrated an association between empowerment and substance use prevention activities (e.g., discussions about preventing substance use among friends and family) among a diverse sample of urban adults. Our study complements these existing studies by suggesting a potential pathway through which community involvement influences youth risk behaviors.

Although we found support that empowerment beliefs mediated the association between community involvement and youth risk behaviors, this relationship was not observed for substance use behaviors. These findings might suggest the differential impact of both community involvement and empowerment beliefs on adolescents’ substance use behaviors. Given lower rates of substance use among African American youth, sociocontextual factors may be important moderators. For instance, neighborhood factors may be an important factor in elucidating the association among community involvement, empowerment beliefs, and substance use. Studies have demonstrated that residing in underresourced, high-risk neighborhoods is an important consideration for both community involvement and youths’ engagement in substance use (Burlew, Feaster, Brecht, & Hubbard, 2009; Lambert, Brown, Phillips, & Ialongo, 2004). Also, studies have suggested that family and peer factors are particularly relevant for African American youths’ substance use behaviors (e.g., Elkington, Bauermeister, & Zimmerman, 2011). Although community involvement and empowerment beliefs were not associated with substance use behaviors, our findings have implications as substance use has been found to increase likelihood of sexual risk behaviors (Hedden, Whitaker, Thomsen, Severtson, & Latimer, 2011).

The current investigation examined how community involvement is associated indirectly and directly with youth risk behaviors. However, an important consideration is also elucidating factors contributing to community involvement. It is important to assert that all youth do not have the same access and opportunity to engage in this manner (Watts & Flanagan, 2007). For instance, youth who have supportive and caring social networks may have a greater likelihood of participation in a range of community involvement activities (Duke, Skay, Pettingell, & Borowsky, 2009; Pearce & Larson, 2006). Similarly, neighborhood, community, and school factors (e.g., underresourced neighborhoods and schools) may play an important role in youths’ involvement in community activities (Urban, Lewin-Bizan, & Lerner, 2009). Research has noted that these issues may be more salient in ethnic minority populations (Fredricks & Simpkins, 2012). Thus, additional considerations are the factors preceding African American adolescents’ community involvement as well as their empowerment beliefs.

Study Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the contributions of this investigation, there are some limitations worth noting. First, our study utilized a cross-sectional design. Thus, we are not able to make causal conclusions regarding the explored relationships. Relatedly, a potential critique of this investigation is the inability to establish temporal order of the explored relationships. Although our findings suggest that community involvement leads to increased empowerment beliefs, it is possible that youth with greater empowerment beliefs may be more likely to engage within their communities. Future studies should employ longitudinal methodologies to examine how community involvement relates to long-term risk behavior engagement. Still, our study provides initial support for the mediating role of empowerment beliefs. Although youth reported information regarding community involvement and risk behavior engagement, the self-report nature of this investigation provides insight into African American youths’ own empowerment beliefs and their risk behaviors. Studies that incorporate additional informants (e.g., parents) may provide additional insight into the examined relationships. Also, future research should take into account additional dimensions of community involvement and empowerment levels (e.g., interactional empowerment). Finally, given the gender-related differences in health risk behaviors, prospective studies should explore whether the examined relationships vary by gender.

Study Strengths and Implications

Nonetheless, there are some important strengths of this investigation. First, given indications that there are greater health consequences for African American youth who engage in health risk behaviors (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009; Wallace, 1999; Weden & Zabin, 2005), our study takes a much-needed within-group approach and suggests potential pathways to risk reduction among this population. Further, despite the cross-sectional nature of the study design, we were able to identify youths’ empowerment beliefs as an important mechanism guiding the association between community involvement and African American adolescents’ health risk behaviors. Notably, this study suggests that community involvement has the potential to empower youth and ultimately reduce their engagement in risk behaviors. This investigation also contributes to larger discussions in the literature regarding the importance of accessible community-focused activities for youth. An additional strength of this study is its potential programmatic and policy implications for the use of strength-based approaches in preventing risk behavior engagement among African American adolescents.

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1.	County	1.00
2.	Age^a	–.10*	1.00
3.	Gender^a	–.03	–.04	1.00
4.	Family structure_a	–.07*	–.01	.02	1.00
5.	GPA^a	.02	–.15***	–.11***	.07**	1.00
6.	Community group	.05‡	–.09**	.00	.09**	.12***	1.00
7.	School group partic.	.02	–.05***	.04	.08**	.20***	.36***	1.00
8.	Community project	.00	.01	–.04	.04	.15***	.29***	.22***	1.00
9.	Empowerment beliefs	–.01	.00	–.06*	.06*	.16***	.15***	.16***	.19***	1.00
10.	Had sex	–.06*	.32***	.30***	–.06*	–.23***	–.07**	–.04	–.02	–.08*	1.00
11.	Number of sex partners	–.02	.37***	.14***	–.06*	–.20***	–.06*	–.07**	–.02	–.11***	.67***	1.00
12.	Ciger. use in last week	–.01	.15***	–.02	–.06*	–.19***	–.13***	–.13***	.00	–.05	.23***	.18***	1.00
13.	Lifetime alcohol use	.02	.17***	–.10***	–.05‡	–.06*	–.05*	.03	.07*	–.01	.22***	.21***	.27***	1.00
14.	Past month alcohol use	.02	.16***	–.05	–.06*	–.17***	–.03	–.03	.02	–.06*	.28***	.24***	.46***	.54***	1.00
15.	Lifetime marijuana use	–.01	.16***	.05*	–.03	–.16***	–.06*	–.08*	.02	–.07*	.32***	.33***	.35***	.41***	.42***	1.00
	Mean	_	14.82	_	_	3.65	1.79	2.03	1.41	2.56	1.41	0.99	1.17	1.42	1.29	I.20
	SD	_	1.53	_	_	0.99	0.77	0.86	0.49	0.79	0.49	1.19	0.51	0.49	0.63	0.40
	Range	_	12.00-18.00	_	_	1.00-5.00	1.00-3.00	1.00-3.00	1.00-2.00	1.00-4.00	1.00-2.00	0.00-3.00	1.00-4.00	1.00-2.00	1.00-3.00	1.00-2.00

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bachanas

P. J.

Morris

M. K.

Lewis-Gess

J. K.

Sarett-Cuasay

E. J.

Flores

A. L.

Sirl

K. S.

Sawyer

M. K.

(2002). Psychological adjustment, substance use, HIV knowledge, and risky sexual behavior in at-risk minority females: Developmental differences during adolescence. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 373-384.

Balsano

A. B.

(2005). Youth civic engagement in the United States: Understanding and addressing the impact of social impediments on positive youth and community development. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 188-201.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Benson

Scales

Hamilton

Sesma

Jr. (2006). Positive youth development so far: Core hypotheses and their implications for policy and practice. Search Institute Insights & Evidence, 3, 1-13.

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Brown

J. S.

Hamilton

S. F.

(2008). Bridging positive youth development and mental health services for youth with serious behavior problems. Child and Youth Care Forum, 37, 209-226.

Brady

Fullerton

A. S.

MorenCross

(2009). Putting poverty in political context: A multi-level analysis of adult poverty across 18 affluent western democracies. Social Forces, 88, 271-300.

Brookings

J. B.

Bolton

(2000). Confirmatory factor analysis of a measure of intrapersonal empowerment. Rehabilitation Psychology, 45, 292-298.

Brooks

F. M.

Magnusson

Spencer

Morgan

(2012). Adolescent multiple risk behaviour: An asset approach to the role of family, school and community. Journal of Public Health, 34(Suppl 1), i48-i56.

10.

Brown

T. L.

Flory

Lynam

D. R.

Leukefeld

Clayton

R. R.

(2004). Comparing the developmental trajectories of marijuana use of African American and Caucasian adolescents: Patterns, antecedents, and consequences. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 12, 47-56. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.12.1.47

11.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

12.

Burlew

Feaster

Brecht

Hubbard

(2009). Research with ethnic minorities: Valid analysis in clinical trials. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 36, 25-43.

13.

Carswell

S. B.

(2007). Delinquency among African American youth: Parental attachment, socioeconomic status, and peer relationships. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

14.

Catalano

R. F.

Berglund

M. L.

Ryan

J. A.

Lonczak

H. S.

Hawkins

J. D.

(2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 98-124.

15.

Cattaneo

L. B.

Chapman

A. R.

(2010). The process of empowerment: A model for use in research and practice. American Psychologist, 65, 646-659.

16.

Centers for Disease Control. (2014). Fact Sheet: HIV among African Americans.

17.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States. MMWR;61(No. SS-4).

18.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2008. Atlanta, GA.

19.

Chavis

D. M.

Wandersman

(1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55-82.

20.

Cheng

H. H.

Siu

A. H.

Leung

M. M.

(2006). Prosocial involvement as a positive youth development construct: Conceptual bases and implications for curriculum development. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine And Health, 18 (3), 393-400. doi:10.1515/IJAMH.2006.18.3.393

21.

Damon

(2004). What is positive youth development? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 591, 13-24.

22.

Denault

Poulin

(2009). Intensity and breadth of participation in organized activities during the adolescent years: Multiple associations with youth outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1199-1213.

23.

DiClemente

Wingood

Crosby

Salazar

Rose

McDermot

Caliendo

(2008). Prevalence, correlates, and efficacy of selective avoidance as a sexually transmitted disease prevention strategy among African American adolescent females. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 162, 60-65.

24.

Doss

J. R.

Vesely

S. K.

Oman

R. F.

Aspy

C. B.

Tolma

Rodine

Marshall

(2007). A matched case-control study: Investigating the relationship between youth assets and sexual intercourse among 13- to 14-year-olds. Child: Care, Health and Development, 33, 40-44.

25.

Duke

N. N.

Skay

C. L.

Pettingell

S. L.

Borowsky

I. W.

(2009). From adolescent connections to social capital: Predictors of civic engagement in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 161-168.

26.

Eccles

J. S.

Barber

B. L.

Stone

Hunt

(2003), Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865–868.

27.

Elkington

K. S.

Bauermeister

J. A.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2011). Do parents and peers matter? A prospective socio-ecological examination of substance use and sexual risk among African American youth. Journal of Adolescence, 34(5), 1035-1047.doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.11.004

28.

Elkington

K. S.

Bauermeister

J. A.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2010). Psychological distress, substance use, and HIV/STI risk behaviors among youth. Journal of youth and adolescence, 39(5), 514-527.

29.

Enders

C. K.

Bandalos

D. L.

(2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430-457.

30.

Fairchild

A. J.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2009). A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention Science, 10(2), 87-99. doi:10.1007/s11121-008-0109-6

31.

Flanagan

Levine

(2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20, 159-179.

32.

Flory

Brown

Lynam

Miller

Leukefeld

Clayton

(2006). Developmental patterns of African American and Caucasian adolescents’ alcohol use. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 740-746.

33.

Fredricks

J. A.

Simpkins

S. D.

(2012). Promoting positive youth development through organized after-school activities: Taking a closer look at participation of ethnic minority youth. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 280-287.doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00206.x

34.

Gavin

L. E.

Catalano

R. F.

Markham

C. M.

(2010). Positive youth development as a strategy to promote adolescent sexual and reproductive health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(3, Suppl), S1-S6. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.12.017

35.

Greenwald

H. P.

Pearson

Beery

Cheadle

(2006). Youth development, community engagement and reducing risk behavior. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 3-25.

36.

Grunbaum

J. A.

Kann

Kinchen

S. A.

Williams

Ross

J. G.

Lowry

Kolbe

(2002). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51(SS04), 1-62.

37.

Guerra

N. G.

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2008). Linking the prevention of problem behaviors and positive youth development: Core competencies for positive youth development and risk prevention. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2008, 1–17.

38.

Gutierrez

L. M.

(1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35, 149-153.

39.

Hedden

S. L.

Whitaker

Thomsen

Severtson

S. G.

Latimer

(2011). Latent patterns of risk behavior in urban African American middle school students in Baltimore city. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse. 20, 34-47.

40.

Holden

D. J.

Crankshaw

Nimsch

Hinnant

L. W.

Hund

(2004). Quantifying the impact of participation in local tobacco control groups on the psychological empowerment of involved youth. Health Education & Behavior, 31, 615-628.

41.

Holden

D. J.

Evans

W. D.

Hinnant

L. W.

Messeri

(2005). Modeling psychological empowerment among youth involved in local tobacco control efforts. Health Education and Behavior, 32, 264-278.

42.

Israel

B. A.

Checkoway

Schulz

Zimmerman

(1994). Health education and community empowerment: Conceptualizing and measuring perceptions of individual, organizational, and community control. Health Education Quarterly, 21(2), 149-170. doi:10.1177/109019819402100203

43.

Jelicíc

Bobek

Phelps

E. D.

Lerner

J. V.

Lerner

R. M.

(2007). Using positive youth development to predict contribution and risk behaviors in early adolescence: Findings from the first two waves of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 263-273.

44.

Jerdén

Burell

Stenlund

Weinehall

(2008). Empowerment: A key to a better understanding of adolescent health? International Journal of Child and Adolescent Health, 1, 61–68.

45.

Johnston

L. D.

O’Malley

P. M.

Bachman

J. G.

(1997). National survey results on drug use from the Monitoring the Future study, 1975-1995, Volume I: Secondary school students (NIH Publication No. 97-4139) and Volume II: College students and young adults (NIH Publication No. 97-4140). Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

46.

Kamo

Carlson

Brennan

Earls

(2008). Young citizens as health agents: Use of drama in promoting community efficacy for HIV/AIDS. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 201-204.

47.

Kegler

Young

Marshall

Bui

Rodine

(2005). Positive youth development linked with prevention in a Vietnamese-American community: Successes, challenges, and lessons learned. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 69-79.

48.

Kogan

S. M.

Brody

G. H.

Chen

DiClemente

(2011). Self-regulatory problems mediate the association of contextual stressors and unprotected intercourse among rural, African American, young adult men. Journal of Health Psychology, 16, 50-57.

49.

Lambert

S. F.

Brown

T. L.

Phillips

C. M.

Ialongo

N. S.

(2004). The Relationship Between Perceptions of Neighborhood Characteristics and Substance Use Among Urban African American Adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34(3-4), 205-218. doi:10.1007/s10464-004-7415-3

50.

Larson

(2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55, No.1, 170-183.

51.

Lerner

R. M.

(2005). Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. White paper prepared for the Workshop on the Science of Adolescent Health and Development, National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies of Science.

52.

Lerner

R. M.

Benson

P. L.

(2003). Developmental assets and asset-building communities: Implications for research, policy, and practice. New York, NY: Kluwer.

53.

Lerner

R. M.

von Eye

Lerner

J. V.

Lewin-Bizan

Bowers

E. P.

(2010). Special issue introduction: The meaning and measurement of thriving: A view of the issues. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 707-719. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9531-8

54.

Kibler

J. L.

Dollar

K. M.

Sly

Samuels

Benford

Wiley

(2008). The relationship of character strengths to sexual behaviors and related risks among African American adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(4), 319-327. doi:10.1080/10705500802365573

55.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

56.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Hoffman

J. M.

West

S. G.

Sheets

(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.

57.

McGee

Williams

Howden-Chapman

Martin

Kawachi

(2006). Participation in clubs and groups from childhood to adolescence and its effects on attachment and self-esteem. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.01.003

58.

McMahon

S. D.

Singh

J. A.

Garner

L. S.

Benhorin

(2004). Taking advantage of opportunities: Community involvement, well-being, and urban youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 262-265.

59.

Muñoz-Laboy

Castellanos

D. H.

Haliburton

C. S.

Vasquez del Aguila

Weinstein

H. J.

Parker

R. G.

(2008). Condom use and hip hop culture: The case of urban young men in New York City, American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1081-1085.

60.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2010). Mplus user’s guide (5th Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

61.

Obradovic

Masten

A. S.

(2007). Developmental antecedents of young adult civic engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 11, 2-19.

62.

O’Donnell

Stueve

O’Donnell

Duran

San Doval

Wilson

R. F.

Pleck

J. H.

(2002). Long-term reductions in sexual initiation and sexual activity among urban middle schoolers in the reach for health service learning program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 93-100.

63.

Oman

Vesely

Kegler

McLeroy

Aspy

(2003). A youth development approach to profiling sexual abstinence. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(Suppl), s80–s93.

64.

Paul

Lefkovitz

(2006). Engaging youth: A how-to guide for creating opportunities for young people to participate, lead and succeed. Youth Development Network, Sierra Health Foundation. Available at http://www.sierrahealth.org/assets/files/reach/engaging_youth_report.pdf

65.

Pearce

N. J.

Larson

K. W.

(2006). How teens become engaged in youth development programs: The process of motivational change in a civic activism organization. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 121–131.

66.

Peterson

Minkler

Vásquez

V. B.

Baden

A. C.

(2006). Community-based participatory research as a tool for policy change: A case study of the Southern California Environmental Justice Collaborative. Review of Policy Research, 23, 339–353.

67.

Peterson

N. A.

Reid

R. J.

(2003). Path to psychological empowerment in an urban community: Sense of community and citizen participation in substance abuse prevention activities. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 25–38.

68.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

69.

Quane

J. M.

Rankin

B. H.

(2006). Does it pay to participate? Neighborhood-based organizations and the social development of urban adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 1229-1250.

70.

Ramirez-Valles

(2002). The protective effects of community involvement for HIV risk behavior: A conceptual framework. Health Education Research, 17, 389-403.

71.

Rappaport

(1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention. Toward a theory of community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121–147.

72.

Reininger

B. M.

Evans

A. E.

Griffin

S. F.

Sanderson

Vincent

M. L.

Valois

R. F.

Parra-Medina

(2005). Predicting adolescent risk behaviors based on an ecological framework and assets. American Journal of Health Behavior, 29, 150-161.

73.

Resnick

M. D.

Bearman

P. S.

Blum

K. E.

Bauman

K. M.

Harris

Jones . . .Udry

J. R.

(1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823-832.

74.

Rhodes

J. E.

Reddy

Grossman

(2003). The protective influence of mentoring on adolescents’ substance use: Direct and indirect pathways. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 31–47.

75.

Sandfort

T. G.

Orr

Hirsch

J. S.

Santelli

(2008). Long-term health correlates of timing of sexual debut: Results from a national US study. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 155–161.

76.

Sharma

Atri

(2006). Substance abuse in African Americans: In search of a culturally competent research agenda. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 50(3), 3–7.

77.

Shrout

P. E.

Bolger

(2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.

78.

Speer

P. W.

(2000). Intrapersonal and interactional empowerment: Implication for theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 51–61.

79.

Udell

Donenberg

Emerson

(2011). The impact of mental health problems and religion on African-American girls’ HIV-risk. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 217-224.

80.

Urban

Lewin-Bizan

Lerner

R. M.

(2009). The role of neighborhood ecological assets and activity involvement in youth developmental outcomes: Differential impacts of asset poor and asset rich neighborhoods. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 601-614. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.07.003

81.

Vesely

S. K.

Wyatt

V. H.

Oman

R. F.

Aspy

C. B.

Kegler

M. C.

Rodine

McLeroy

K. R.

(2004). The potential protective effects of youth assets from adolescent sexual risk behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 356-365.

82.

Wallace

J. M.

Jr. (1999). The social ecology of addiction: Race, risk, and resilience. Pediatrics, 103, 1122-1127.

83.

Wallace

J. M.

Jr. Bachman

J. G.

O’Malley

P. M.

Schulenberg

J. E.

Cooper

S. M.

Johnston

L. D.

(2003). Gender and ethnic differences in smoking, drinking and illicit drug use among American 8th, 10th and 12th grade students, 1976-2000. Addiction, 98(2), 225-234.

84.

Wallace

J. M.

Muroff

J. R.

(2002). Preventing substance abuse among African American children and youth: Race differences in risk factor exposure and vulnerability. Journal of Primary Prevention, 22, 235-261.

85.

Wallace

J. M.

Jr. Vaughn

Bachman

O’Malley

Johnston

Schulenberg

(2009). Race/ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, and smoking among early adolescent girls in the United States. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 104, S42-S49.

86.

Wallerstein

(1992). Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: Implications for health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 6, 197-205.

87.

Wallerstein

(1993). Empowerment and health: The theory and practice of community change. Community Development Journal, 28, 218-227.

88.

Wallerstein

Bernstein

(1988). Empowerment education: Freire’s ideas adapted to health education. Health Education and Behavior, 15, 379-394.

89.

Watts

R. J.

Flanagan

C. A.

(2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 779-792.

90.

Weden

M. M.

Zabin

L. S.

(2005). Gender and ethnic differences in the co-occurrence of adolescent risk behaviors. Ethnicity & Health, 10, 213–234.

91.

Wilson

Minkler

Dasho

Wallerstein

Martin

A. C.

(2008). Getting to social action: The Youth Empowerment Strategies (YES!) Project. Health Promotion Practice, 9, 395-403.

92.

Wong

N. T.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Parker

E. A.

(2010). A typology of youth participation and empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 100-114. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9330-0

93.

Yates

Youniss

(1996a). A developmental perspective on community service in adolescence. Social Development, 5, 85-111.

94.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(1995). Psychological empowerment: issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581.

95.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community levels of analysis. In Rappaport

Seidman

(Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43–46). New York, NY: Plenum Press,

96.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Israel

B. A.

Schulz

Checkoway

(1992). Further explorations in empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 707-727.

97.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Ramirez-Valles

Maton

K. I.

(1999). Resilience among urban African American male adolescents: A study of the protective effects of sociopolitical control on their mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 733-751.

98.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Rappaport

(1988). Citizen participation, perceived control and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725–750.