Life effectiveness and Attitude towards the Psy4life Program

Abstract

This study examines differences across gender in eight components of life effectiveness in pre- and post-studies. This study also measures differences in rural youths’ attitudes toward positive youth development (Psy4life) programme across three demographic factors (gender, educational level, and past involvement in youth programmes). We predicted that there would be differences between male and female in life effectiveness and its components and that there would be differences in youths’ attitudes toward Psy4life programme according to the three demographic factors. Twenty rural youths participated in Psy4Life programme (9 male, 45%; 11 female, 55%; mean age: 15.3, SD=1.81). In the post-study, Mann-Whitney U Test results showed significant differences between males and females in life effectiveness and three of its components (achievement motivation, intellectual flexibility, and leadership). In the pre-study, only intellectual flexibility was associated with significant gender differences. There were no significant differences in attitudes toward Psy4life programme across gender, education level, and past involvement in youth programmes. We assumed that female participants might be more motivated, open to new ideas, and capable of leading a group than male youth. Attitudes towards youth programmes might differ based on other factors, such as extrinsic and intrinsic motives, which need to be examined in the future.

Keywords: AttitudePsy4Life Programmeachievement motivationintellectual flexibilityleadershiplife effectiveness

Introduction

In the modern world, youth are exposed to a variety of social problems, such as violence, teen pregnancy, substance abuse, and school dropout. This situation demands implementation of systematic, positive youth development programmes to prevent risk behaviors, tackle social problems, and promote positive development among youth. Young people have their own individual strengths which may help them reach optimum development, and Psy4life programme are designed to engage them in constructive, productive ways to enhance their strengths. Positive youth development refers to the building of the personal skills or assets, including cognitive, social, emotional, and intellectual qualities, necessary for youth to successfully function as members of society (Weiss & Wiese-Bjorns, 2009). Access to programmes and activities that support positive development, helps guide young people towards successful lives as contributing members of society (Benson, Scales, Hamilton, & Sesma, 2006).

Youths are considered important human capital which plays a major role in enabling and enhancing national growth (Economic Planning Unit, 2010). Accordingly, under the Tenth Malaysia Plan 2011–2015, many youth programmes have been implemented to equip youths with specific leadership and entrepreneurial skills or to promote social unity and integration. In all, 2,400 programmes involving more than half a million multi-ethnic participants were conducted, focusing on instilling leadership, patriotism, and volunteerism (Economic Planning Unit, 2010). Therefore, there is a need to design and implement programmes that focus specifically on positive youth development, including life effectiveness and its components (time management, achievement motivation, emotional control, intellectual flexibility, self-confidence, leadership, social competence, and active initiative) and to develop positive attitudes towards youth programmes. Increased positive youth development could improve life satisfaction (Mohamad, Mohamad & Mat Ali, 2014).

Considering the growing number of youth affected by social problems, there is a need for government and non-governmental agencies to design and implement various programmes to promote positive development for youth, increase their well-being and life effectiveness, and prepare them to face challenges in the modern world. Although many youth programmes are conducted by government and non government organization in many counties across the globe , however not all young people are interested in participating in these programmes. This lack of interest in youth programmes could be possibly due to various demographic factors, such education level, gender, and previous involvement in youth programmes. Regarding gender, past studies (e.g., Homan, Dick & Hedrick, 2007; Shekhar & Devi, 2012) found that girls perceived youth programmes more positively than boys. Possible explanations of this difference are that girls are generally more perceptive of their environment (Patel & Buiting, 2013) and that women are more likely to be affected by context (Croson & Gneezy, 2009; Miller & Ubeda, 2012). In addition, many researchers have discussed gender differences pertaining to participation in youth development programmes and its effect on youth (e.g., Bartoszuk & Randall, 2011; Patel & Buiting, 2013). Compared to male participants, females tend to exhibit better life satisfaction and fewer behavior problems. Malaysian female youths have expressed higher satisfaction with life than male youths (Mohamad, Mohamad, & Mat Ali, 2014). This issue, however, need to be explored further to understand the reasons why female participants gain more positive effects from involvement in positive development youth programmes than males.

In addition to gender, education level might affect attitudes toward youth programmes. For instance, high-school students may show high interest in participating in youth programmes because they have the intrinsic motivation to develop skills and strengths in preparation to enter college or the workforce (Hansen & Larson, 2007). Finally, youths frequently involved in youth programmes and activities might hold more positive attitudes towards them. For example, in past studies, youth participants gave positive feedback about programmes (Gobeli, 1995; Strawczynski, Baumgold, & Dolev, 1999). Participation in these programmes may help youths increase their life effectiveness, including their self-confidence, achievement motivation, intellectual flexibility, and leadership skills. These components may help youths adapt to and deal with challenging social environments and prepare them to succeed in life and work.

The effectiveness of involvement in youth development programmes have been demonstrated by

many researches. However it is also suggested that many demographic factors such as age, gender,

culture and prior positive or negative experiences with youth development programme can play role in

determining whether a programme will be effective or not. Therefore, the program Psy4life was

designed specifically for Malaysian rural youth. It was assumed that programme can address the needs

of young people growing up in these peripheries. The programme was based on the three dimensions of

positive youth development suggested by Neil (2008) and Ryff (1989). All the 13 activities in this

programme was designed based on the Yale attitude change model (Hovland, Janis & Kelly, 1953).

The activities in programme focused on enhancing youth life effectiveness skills and psychological

well-being. Furthermore, it was assumed in the present study that effect of demographic factors

affecting programme implementation and efficacy need to be explored to accommodate it with needs of

youth across age, gender and prior experience with any youth development programme.

Problem Statement

Past studies found demographic differences in attitudes toward youth programmes (e.g., Bartoszuk,

& Randall, 2011) and positive self-concepts (e.g., Mohamad et al., 2014; Shekari & Devi, 2012).

Regarding gender, girls perceived youth programmes more positively than boys (e.g., Bartoszuk, &

Randall, 2011; Homan et al., 2007). However, other past studies have not found any gender differences

(e.g., Jones, 2009). Regarding education level, Hansen and Larson (2007) showed that high school

students indicated that they gained intrinsic motivation and experienced positive development from

youth programmes, in part because the experience they acquired could be used as a preparation to enter

higher education or the workforce.

Rayfield, Compton, Doerfet, and Akers (2008) found that access to on-campus activities is one

factor that affects students’ level of involvement in youth organizations. Participation gives young

people opportunities to assume significant roles in a safe, supportive environment where they can

experiment with roles, tasks, and responsibilities (Gobeli, 1995). Strawczynski, Baumgold, and Dolev

(1999) found that most participants in youth programmes expressed positive feedback, such as feeling

higher confidence and self-esteem, developing their personalities, and acquiring life experience.

Participants in leadership programmes exhibited more positive attitudes toward military service and

emphasized the importance of helping others.

To understand these findings, an empirical study examining gender differences in the eight

components of life effectiveness needs to be conducted. In addition, rural youths’ attitudes toward

Psy4life programme and any differences by three demographic factors (gender, educational level, and

past involvement in youth programmes) need to be investigated.

Research Questions

Are there significant differences between male and female participants in life effectiveness and its eight components in the pre- and post-studies (before and after participants were involved in Psy4life programme)? In addition, are there any differences by demographic factors (gender, education level, past involvement in youth programmes) in attitudes toward Psy4life programme?

Purpose of the Study

The objective of this study is to examine differences between male and female youths’ life effectiveness and its eight components in pre- and post-studies. Differences in attitudes toward the three-day programme based on three demographic factors (male vs. female, lower secondary school vs. higher secondary school education, involved vs. never involved in youth programmes) are also investigated.

Research Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusions

In conclusion, we believe that the gender differences we found in three life-effectiveness

components (achievement motivation, intellectual flexibility, & leadership) in the pre and post-studies

confirm the effectiveness of the three-day Psy4life programme. However, other components of

activities should be re-examined to determine how they can also benefit male youth. As stated by Jones

(2009), youth service providers must strategically create opportunities that stimulate and maintain the

interest of males. In the future, challenging, adventurous activities could be added to the programmes

to attract and achieve positive outcomes for male participants. Regarding attitudes toward Psy4life

programmes, our study found no significant differences across three demographic factors (gender,

education level, involvement in youth programmes). This result contrasts with the findings of past that

girls perceived youth programmes more positively than boys studies (e.g., Bartoszuk, & Randall, 2011;

Homan et al., 2007). We believe that attitudes towards programmes might be more affected by other

factors, such as extrinsic motives (e.g., incentives, affiliating with friends) and intrinsic motives (e.g.

personal enjoyment), than demographic factors. In addition, Dawes and Larson (2011) stated that, for

youth to gain positive benefits from organized programmes, they need to not merely attend

programmes but also be psychologically engaged in activities. All these factors need to be further

explored in future research to be better understood.

Acknowledgement

We express our thanks to the participants involved in this study and to University Malaysia Sabah for research grant—SBK 016-SS-2014. Special thanks also go to volunteers who contributed invaluable efforts to conducting the three-day Psy4life programme in Sulit village, Paitan.

References

1. Bartoszuk, K., & Randall, B.A. (2011). Characteristics and perceptions of 4-H participants: Gender and age differences across adolescence, Journal of Extension, 49,3,48-55
2. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma, A., Jr. (2006). Positive youth development: Theory, research, and applications. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Theoretical models of human development. Volume 1 of Handbook of Child Psychology (6th ed.) (pp. 894-941). Editors-in chief: W. Damon & R. M. Lerner. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
3. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences, Journal of Economic Literature, 42,2,1-27
4. Dawes, N.P., & Larson, R. (2011). How Youth Get Engaged: Grounded-Theory Research on Motivational Development in Organized Youth Programs, Developmental Psychology, 47, 1,259–269
5. Deschenes, S. N., Arbreton, A., Little, P. M., Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B.,Weiss, H. B., & Lee, D. (2010). Engaging older youth: Program and city-level strategies to support sustained participation in out-of-school time. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/out-of-school-time/publications-resources/engaging-older-youth-program-and-city-levelstrategies- to-support sustained-participation-in-out-of-school-time
6. Economic Planning Unit. (2010). Tenth Malaysia Plan, 2011-2015.The economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister Department, Putrajaya, Malaysia, June 10, 2010
7. Gobeli, V.C. (1995). Extension rural youth programmes: part of a comprehensive strategy for sustainable development in developing countries. In: (Report); Expert Consultation on Extension Rural Youth Programmes and Sustainable Development, Rome (Italy), 29 Nov - 1 Dec 1995 Cook, J.F. (ed.) / FAO, Rome (Italy). Research, Extension and Training Div, 65-78
8. Hansen, D., & Larson, R. (2007). Amplifiers of developmental and negative experiences in organized activities: Dosage, motivation, lead roles, and adult–youth ratios. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 360–374.
9. Herrera, C., & Arbreton, J. A. (2003). Increasing opportunities for older youth in after-school programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
10. Homan, G., Dick, J., & Hedrick, J. (2007). Differences in youth perception of Ohio 4-H based on gender. Journal of Extension [On-line], 45(5) Article 5RIB7. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2007october/45-5-rb7.php
11. Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L., Kelley, H.H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
12. Jones, K.R. (2009). Influences of youth leadership within a community-based context, Journal of Leadership Education, 7, 3,246-264
13. Lal, K. (2014). Emotional Maturity, Self Confidence and Academic Achievement Of Adolescents In Relation To Their Gender And Urban-Rural Background.American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences 5(2): 188-193
14. Martin, D. J. (2004). School motivation of boys and girls: Differences of degree, differences of kind, or both. Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 3, 133-146.
15. McLellan, J. A., & Youniss, J. (2003). Two systems of youth service:Determinants of voluntary and required youth community service. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 47–58.
16. Miller, L., & Ubeda, P. (2012). Are Women More Sensitive to Decision-Making Context? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83, 98-104.
17. Mohamad, M., Mohammad, M., & Mat Ali, BN.Z. (2014) Positive Youth Development and Life Satisfaction among Youths. Journal of Applied Sciences, 14,21, 2782-2792.
18. Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K.V., Rieffe, C., & Bakker. (2007). Trait Emotional Intelligence, Psychological well-being, and peer-rated Social Competence in adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 263-275
19. Neill, J. (2008) Enhancing life effectiveness: The impacts of outdoor education programs, PhD Thesis, University of Western Sydney
20. Patel, G., & Buiting, S. (2013). Gender differences in leadership styles and the impact within corporate boards. The Commonwealth Secretariat, Social Transformation Programs Division. Retrieved from http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/cpadocs/Genderdiffe.pdf
21. Patrick, H., Ryan, A., Alfred-Liro, C., Fredericks, J. HRUDA, l., & Eccles, J.(1999). Adolescents’ commitment to developing talent: The role of peers in continuing motivation for sports and the arts, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 741-763
22. Rayfield, J., Compton, K., Doerfert, D., & Akers, C. (2008). Factors that influence the decision to participate in youth organizations in rural high schools in three states, Journal of Agricultural Education, 49, 4,83-95
23. Ryff, C. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.Salili, F. (1996). Achievement Motivation: a cross-cultural comparison of British and Chinese students. International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 16, 3, 271-27.
24. Shekhar, C., & Devi, R. (2012). Achievement Motivation across gender and different academic majors, Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 2, 105-109
25. Singh, R., Pant, K. & Valentina, L. (2013). Gender on Social and Emotional Maturity of Senior School Adolescents: A Case Study of Pantnagar. Stud. Home Com. Sci.7(1): 1-6
26. Strawczynski, P.K., Baumgold, S., & Dolev, T. (1999). Perceptions of the Impact of a Youth Leadership Program on its Participants and the Community, Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland 22-25 September 1999.
27. Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., & Bouffard, S. M. (2005). More than just being there: Balancing the participation equation. New Directions for Youth Development, 105, 15–31.
28. Weiss, M.R., & Wiese-Bjornstal, D.M. (2005). Promoting positive youth development through physical activity, Research Digest, 10,3,1-8