Theories in human development have driven our research at Roots of Action for more than a decade. The Compass Advantage framework is a simple and engaging lens to understand core abilities that contribute to human thriving. Through this lens, individuals and organizations can learn to strengthen abilities that have been shown to nurture human development from childhood through older age.
Our research began with a focus on adolescent development. We wanted to know how adults nurtured the development of young people in ways that fostered their engagement as responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented citizens. We soon learned the abilities that propelled youth to become purposeful citizens were the same ones that fostered human development at all ages. While Roots of Action shares articles and resources that bolster positive youth development (PYD) from kindergarten through high school, it is important to understand that the long-term goal of PYD is to promote healthy development throughout a lifetime.
What is Human Development? Why is it Important?
Human development centers on strengthening the attributes and abilities that help people flourish in life. According to the United Nations, it “is about giving people more freedom to live lives they value. This means developing people’s abilities and giving them a chance to use them.”
For young people, human development involves nurturing abilities that help them decide what matters most in life and encouraging them to determine and navigate their own paths. It is about facilitating meaning and purpose, rather than using grades and test scores as the sole measurement of self-worth. For adults, human development involves fostering abilities that give people the opportunity to live lives they value rather than using income as the sole measurement of success or wellbeing.
Human development is an important area of study. Multidisciplinary research shows that people can improve their lives and wellbeing at any age by enhancing their human abilities through positive relationships, experiences, and opportunities. In addition, the Human Development Index (HDI) is a tool for assessing a country’s development by the health and wellbeing of its citizens, not by economic growth alone.
Erik Erikson (1950) developed a theory that outlined eight stages of human development, from infancy through old age. Yet regardless of age or stage, there are core underlying abilities that are linked to human thriving throughout the lifespan. Development that begins during childhood is interconnected with adolescence and adulthood. That is why our current research using the self-administered Compass Survey of Core Human Attributes spans the ages from five through adulthood.
This article provides detailed background on the research in human development that was used to create the Compass Advantage framework and the compass surveys. It is most helpful for those interested in using our work within schools, nonprofits, and organizations; and for researchers who wish to understand the concepts behind our work.
A Framework for Understanding Human Development
The compass framework supports the concept of human development as envisioned by the United Nations. It also supports diverse educational frameworks, including Social Emotional Learning (SEL), developed by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (Dusenbury et al., 2015); the Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) model, developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and the Framework for 21st Century Learning, developed by Battelle for Kids.
Beyond educational equity, the compass framework focuses on achieving developmental equity—the right of all children to have the relationships, experiences, and opportunities that help them thrive in school and life.
One of the premises of research in the field of positive youth development is that strengthening personal abilities, attributes, competencies, and civic values in young people promotes human development throughout the lifespan (Benson et al., 2007).
Researchers in youth and adult development have identified a variety of human attributes that enable individuals to positively contribute to self and society. Since Peterson & Seligman (2004) classified twenty-six character traits and six virtues associated with human development and thriving, thousands of studies have shown how internal abilities contribute to agency and wellbeing (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
The Compass Advantage framework is grounded in systems theory. Our research explored the patterns within broad categories of abilities practiced regularly by exemplar youth. We discovered that young people who became agents of social change regularly demonstrated and practiced eight core abilities—curiosity, sociability, resilience, self-awareness, integrity, resourcefulness, creativity, and empathy—by the time they reached the end of high school (Price-Mitchell, 2010b, 2015). These teachable abilities are key components of social and emotional learning (SEL) and used to foster developmental and academic competencies in preschool through high school-aged students (Dusenbury et al., 2015).
These eight abilities have been widely studied as individual constructs by other researchers and found to be important for youth, adult, and societal thriving. Our research suggests there is a systemic connection between the eight abilities, meaning they work together toward the attainment of wellbeing. Below is an introduction to the research on each ability, how that ability contributes to self and societal wellbeing, and what we measure, based on research, in the Compass Survey of Core Human Attributes.
Empathy is the ability to recognize, feel, and respond to the needs and suffering of others. A complex human attribute, scientists agree there are affective and cognitive aspects to empathy (Davis, 1983; Deutsch & Madle, 1975) and that empathy is related to prosocial behavior and altruism (Batson, 2010; de Waal, 2008; Eisenberg et al., 2007; Hoffman, 2008). It has been shown that empathy is foundational to a person’s ability to care for others (Slote, 2001, 2004).
Research in human development and social neuroscience suggests empathy benefits individuals by fostering positive interpersonal relationships (Batson et al., 2015; Cozolino, 2006; Decety & Svetlova, 2012). It has also been shown to facilitate greater cooperation and less conflict within social groups (Cikara & Van Bavel, 2014) and to benefit society through altruistic, caring actions (Batson et al., 2015).
The compass surveys measure a person’s motivation to care for the wellbeing of others by assessing one’s intent to behave in caring, prosocial ways (Decety, 2015). This more narrow, cognitive measure of empathy is supported by the literature and helped us focus on empathy’s outcome rather than the underlying psychological complexities of empathy. The survey’s focus on caring actions is also supported by the behaviors we observed in civically engaged youth (Price-Mitchell, 2010a).
Curiosity is the ability to seek and acquire new knowledge, skills, and ways of understanding the world. It is at the heart of what motivates kids to learn, provides a key pathway to student success, and keeps young people learning throughout their lives. Curiosity facilitates engagement, critical thinking, and reasoning. Multidisciplinary researchers have studied curiosity as a mental state (Inan, 2012), an emotion (Brady, 2009; Silvia, 2008b) and an intellectual or moral virtue (Baehr, 2011; Baumgarten, 2001; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
Most contemporary scientists view curiosity as a basic element of cognition, a motivator of individual learning and decision making, and a vital force to human development and wellbeing (Kang et al., 2009; Kidd & Hayden, 2015; Park et al., 2004; von Stumm et al., 2011). Curiosity not only benefits individuals but is also linked to positive societal outcomes, including tolerance of uncertainty, positive emotions, humor, out-of-box thinking, creative innovation, and positive social action (Celik et al., 2016; Clark & Seider, 2017; Kashdan et al., 2013).
The compass surveys assess behaviors and attitudes that have been linked to aspects of curiosity that Kashdan et al. (2020) defines as joyous exploration and stress tolerance. The pleasurable experience of finding the world intriguing has been linked to a love of learning and a fascination with acquiring new knowledge and abilities (Kashdan & Silvia, 2009; Park et al., 2004; Schutte & Malouff, 2020). Curious people must also believe they can cope with high levels of challenge, complexity, and uncertainty (Silvia, 2008a). These aspects of curiosity mirrored the information-seeking behaviors of purpose-driven young people (Price-Mitchell, 2015).
Sociability is the joyful, cooperative ability to engage with others. It is derived from a collection of social-emotional skills that help students understand and express feelings and behaviors in ways that facilitate positive relationships, including active listening, self-regulation, and effective communication (Dusenbury et al., 2015; Mahoney et al., 2020).
The ability to engage in positive relationships is linked to human development and thriving, including increased resilience, health, and wellbeing (Luthar, 2015; Noble & McGrath, 2012). In youth, social competencies and friendship networks are predictive of academic achievement (Asher & Paquette, 2003). Sociability is related to prosocial behavior and civic involvement (Foschi & Lauriola, 2014) and improves societal wellbeing (Adler & Seligman, 2016).
The compass surveys use two sub-scales to assesses sociability. The Interpersonal Behaviors Subscale examines individual practices that are shown to enhance social relationships in multiple contexts, including the ability to listen, communicate clearly, negotiate conflict (Dusenbury et al., 2015), and cooperate with others (Argyle, 2013). Based on Porges’s (2001) polyvagal theory of social engagement, the Self-Control Subscale assesses an individual’s practice of regulating emotions in ways that promote positive social interactions, including managing negative emotions, anger, and defensiveness, despite disagreements and conflicts (Cozolino, 2006).
Resilience is the ability to meet and overcome challenges in ways that maintain or promote wellbeing. Historically, the study of resilience has been the purview of human development researchers who have worked on identifying protective factors that promote resilience in children, particularly in at-risk populations (Luthar, 2015). Some theorists link resilience to aspects of personality like hardiness and ego resilience, a trait that reflects general sturdiness of character (Eisenberg et al., 2004). Resilience in adulthood has been studied far less than in childhood but a growing body of research links resilience to attributes like grit, persistence, initiative, determination and positive adaptation throughout the life span (Ong et al., 2009; Snyder & Lopez, 2002).
Developmental researchers have mainly studied resilience in individuals. But resilience has also been shown to be integral to all social systems, including schools (Goldstein & Brooks, 2007), families (Patterson, 2002), organizations (Duchek & Raetze, 2017), and society (Walker, 2019).
The compass surveys assess behaviors and feelings recognized in the literature as representative of individuals who demonstrate psychological resiliency. Resilient people express feelings of hope, optimism, and faith about their futures (Ong et al., 2006; Taylor et al., 2000); convey positive emotions during difficult times (Cohn et al., 2009; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000; Ong et al., 2009); value social connectedness and find meaning when life is challenging (Ryff, 2014; Ryff & Singer, 2003).
Self-awareness is the ability to examine and understand who we are relative to the world around us. It is developed through skills like self-reflection, meaning making, and the process of honing core values and beliefs. It is an essential aspect of human development (Ardelt & Grunwald, 2018).
A benefit to individuals, self-awareness has been linked to greater emotional intelligence (Serrat, 2017); an ability to make meaning from life experiences (Gardner et al., 2005); self-efficacy (Caldwell & Hayes, 2016); and the development of mindfulness, self-compassion and gratitude (McGehee et al., 2017). The societal benefits of self-awareness are also great, including the ability to understand other’s worldviews, co-create new relationships between diverse groups (Yan & Wong, 2005), and become an effective organizational and societal leader (Gardner et al., 2005).
The compass surveys assess the private and public behaviors and beliefs that have been recognized as representative of individuals who demonstrate self-awareness. In addition to the above references, self-aware people understand their strengths and weaknesses, reflect on their life experiences, and can identify connections between their emotions, words, and actions (Serrat, 2017). They also work hard to understand their values (Gardner et al., 2005) and life purpose (Caldwell & Hayes, 2016).
Integrity is the ability to act in ways consistent with the values, beliefs, and moral principles we claim to hold. Rooted in centuries of moral philosophy and ethics, integrity is derived from the Latin word integritas, meaning wholeness. Carl Rogers (1961) first described psychological integrity as a time when a person’s feelings “are available to him, available to his awareness, and he is able to live these feelings, be them, and is able to communicate them if appropriate” (p. 61). Integrity has been classified as a character strength and virtue and linked to moral courage, honesty, responsibility, authenticity, trustworthiness, and positive human development (2004).
Integrity has inherent value to individuals and society. In contemporary literature, it has been shown to include both moral and psychological aspects of self that help individuals integrate values and actions across the lifespan (Cottingham, 2010; Cox et al., 2003). It has also been associated with self-actualization and positive interpersonal outcomes (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). For society, integrity has been shown to have a strong positive relationship to transformative leadership (Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002).
The compass surveys assess three types of behaviors that have been recognized by researchers as representative of individuals who demonstrate integrity. These behaviors include displaying consistency of words and actions, even during adversity (Palanski & Yammarino, 2007; Simons, 2002); being true to oneself; and showing moral/ethical behaviors, like honesty and moral courage (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
Resourcefulness is the ability to find and use available resources to achieve goals, problem-solve, and shape the future. The literature on resourcefulness focuses on a common theme—the processes by which humans achieve goals. Rosenbaum’s theory of learned resourcefulness suggests that a repertoire of mastery behaviors that include planning, problem-solving, and evaluation help individuals attain higher levels of achievement (1990, 2000). Psychologist Carol Dweck suggests that an individual’s beliefs about intelligence guide their goal-setting and corresponding performance. She described this belief as a growth mindset (Dweck, 1999, 2006).
The benefits of human resourcefulness are many. It has been associated with adaptation to new and challenging situations and linked to more positive health outcomes (Zauszniewski & Bekhet, 2011). Resourcefulness helps students mitigate academic stress and depression (Akgun & Ciarrochi, 2003). For society, resourcefulness is key to achieving social innovation through the capacity of communities to engage in collaborative goal setting and problem solving (Ulug & Horlings, 2019). It is also at the heart of entrepreneurism (Misra & Kumar, 2000).
Like Kennett & Keefer’s (2006) integrated approach to evaluating resourcefulness, the compass surveys draw from both Rosenbaum’s and Dweck’s work. It assesses four types of behavior and/or beliefs of resourceful people, that high achieving individuals monitor and evaluate their actions; employ problem-solving strategies; exhibit self-control (Rosenbaum, 1990); and possess a growth mindset (Dweck, 1999, 2006).
Creativity is an everyday human capacity to produce new ideas, discoveries, and processes. It has been studied from multidisciplinary perspectives, including cognitive psychology (Ward et al., 1999); motivation (Collins & Amabile, 1999); personality (Feist, 2010; King et al., 1996), and systems theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). The focus of everyday creativity is on the diverse ways people engage in activities that use their creative minds to improve themselves and society (Conner et al., 2018; Cotter et al., 2018).
Creativity has been linked to human development and flourishing for its ability to connect individuals with life’s meaning, a theme that underscores much of human inquiry (Wright & Pascoe, 2015). People who engage their creative abilities tend to respond more effectively to change, becoming more adaptable, flexible, and responsive to life circumstances (Bruner, 1993). As a foundation for art, science, and technology, creative imagination is the basis of every creative action (Lindqvist, 2003). For society, creativity and innovation are vital to solving multidisciplinary global problems (Ahlstrom, 2010).
The compass surveys assess behaviors related to everyday creativity, including one’s self-efficacy for generating new and innovative ways of doing things (Karwowski & Beghetto, 2019); ability to appreciate artistic expression by others (Wright & Pascoe, 2015); and views about one’s creative abilities (Putwain et al., 2012).
Human Development in Standards-Based Education
The Compass Advantage framework and the Compass Survey for Youth Ages 10-17 can be easily integrated into a standards-based curriculum to bolster the knowledge, skills, and abilities that students are expected to possess at critical points in their education.
The framework supports Social/Emotional Learning Standards, including those developed by the Illinois State Board of Education. Their three SEL goals include:
- Develop self-awareness and self-management skills to achieve school and life success.
- Use social-awareness and interpersonal skills to establish and maintain positive relationships.
- Demonstrate decision-making skills and responsible behaviors in personal, school, and community contexts.
With its focus on positive youth development and social-emotional learning, the compass framework also supports the mission of many kinds of schools, including the International Baccalaureate (IB) Learner Profile.
Learn how to use the compass surveys in the classroom and how to spark conversations about inner strengths.
Role of Psychological Wellbeing in Human Development
At the turn of the century, Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi (2000) predicted that “a psychology of positive human functioning will arise that achieves a scientific understanding and effective interventions to build thriving in individuals, families, and communities” (p. 13). Since then, there has been growing interest in the psychology of human development, including the study of attributes, strengths, and virtues that contribute to human thriving and wellbeing,
Psychological wellbeing generally refers to a “combination of feeling good as well as actually having meaning, good relationships and accomplishment” (Seligman, 2011, p. 25). Researchers examining human thriving across the lifespan often conceptualize the term as a growth-oriented, developmental process (See, e.g., Benson & C. Scales, 2009; Bundick et al., 2010; Lerner et al., 2003). Su et al. (2014) defines seven core dimensions of psychological wellbeing, the first being subjective wellbeing in the form of high life satisfaction and positive feelings. Subjective wellbeing is known to be an internal barometer of how other aspects of psychological wellbeing are currently satisfied.
A core aspect of our research at Roots of Action involves studying the association between subjective wellbeing and the practice of curiosity, sociability, resilience, self-awareness, integrity, resourcefulness, creativity, and empathy in youth and adulthood.
Our research in human development and how it is linked to thriving is ongoing. Preliminary data suggests that when young people and adults practice the eight compass abilities in their daily lives, they report higher subjective wellbeing.
Adler, A., & Seligman, M. E. (2016). Using wellbeing for public policy: Theory, measurement, and recommendations. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v6i1.1
Akgun, S., & Ciarrochi, J. (2003). Learned Resourcefulness Moderates the Relationship Between Academic Stress and Academic Performance. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000060129
Ardelt, M., & Grunwald, S. (2018). The Importance of Self-Reflection and Awareness for Human Development in Hard Times. Research in Human Development, 15(3-4), 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2018.1489098
Argyle, M. (2013). Cooperation: The basis of sociability. Routledge.
Asher, S. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2003). Loneliness and Peer Relations in Childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 75-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01233
Baehr, J. (2011). The Inquiring Mind. Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D. (2010). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature. (pp. 15-34). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12061-001
Batson, C. D., David, A. L., & Eric, L. S. (2015). The Empathy–Altruism Hypothesis. In A. S. David & G. G. William (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.023
Baumgarten, E. (2001). Curiosity as a Moral Virtue. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 15(2), 169-184.
Benson, P. L., & C. Scales, P. (2009). The definition and preliminary measurement of thriving in adolescence. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802399240
Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesman, A. J. (2007). Positive Youth Development: Theory, Research, and Applications. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0116
Brady, M. (2009). Curiosity and the Value of Truth. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Epistemic Value (pp. 265-283). Oxford University Press.
Bruner, E. M. (1993). Epilogue: Creative persona and the problem of authenticity. In S. Lavie, K. Narayan, & R. Rosaldo (Eds.), Creativity/Anthropology. Cornell University Press.
Bundick, M. J., Yeager, D. S., King, P. E., & Damon, W. (2010). Thriving across the life span. In R. M. Lerner, M. E. Lamb, & A. M. Freund (Eds.), The Handbook of Life-Span Development. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470880166.hlsd001024
Caldwell, C., & Hayes, L., A. (2016). Self-efficacy and self-awareness: moral insights to increased leader effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 35(9), 1163-1173. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2016-0011
Celik, P., Storme, M., Davila, A., & Myszkowski, N. (2016). Work-related curiosity positively predicts worker innovation. Journal of Management Development, 35(9), 1184-1194. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2016-0013
Cikara, M., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014). The Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An Integrative Review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 245-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614527464
Clark, S., & Seider, S. (2017). Developing Critical Curiosity in Adolescents. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(2), 125-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1301835
Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361-368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015952
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 279-312). Cambridge University Press.
Conner, T. S., DeYoung, C. G., & Silvia, P. J. (2018). Everyday creative activity as a path to flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(2), 181-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1257049
Cotter, T. S., DeYoung, C. G., & Silvia, P. J. (2018). Creativity’s role in everyday life. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 640-652). Cambridge University Press.
Cottingham, J. (2010). Integrity and Fragmentation. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 27(1), 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2009.00472.x
Cox, D., LaCraze, M., & Levine, M. (2003). Integrity and the fragile self. Ashgate.
Cozolino, L. (2006). The Neuroscience of Human Relationships. Norton.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge University Press.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.199
de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the Altruism Back into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 279-300. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625
Decety, J. (2015). The neural pathways, development and functions of empathy. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.12.001
Decety, J., & Svetlova, M. (2012). Putting together phylogenetic and ontogenetic perspectives on empathy. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2011.05.003
Deutsch, F., & Madle, R. A. (1975). Empathy: Historic and Current Conceptualizations, Measurement, and a Cognitive Theoretical Perspective. Human Development, 18(4), 267-287. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271488
Duchek, S., & Raetze, S. (2017). Resilience in Organizations: An Integrative Multilevel Review and Agenda for the Future. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.15344abstract
Dusenbury, L. A., Newman, J. Z., Weissberg, R. P., Goren, P., Domitrovich, C. E., & Mart, A. K. (2015). The case for preschool through high school state learning standards for SEL. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 532-548). Guilford.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2007). Prosocial Development. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 646-718). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0311
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S. A., Valiente, C., Losoya, S. H., Guthrie, I. K., & Thompson, M. (2004). The Relations of Effortful Control and Impulsivity to Children’s Resiliency and Adjustment. Child Development, 75(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00652.x
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. Norton.
Feist, G. J. (2010). The function of personality in creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 113-130). Cambridge University Press.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist, 55(6), 647-654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.647
Foschi, R., & Lauriola, M. (2014). Does sociability predict civic involvement and political participation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 339-357. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035331
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003
Goldstein, S., & Brooks, R. B. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding and managing children’s classroom behavior: Creating sustainable, resilient classrooms (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Hoffman, M. L. (2008). Empathy and prosocial behavior. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Inan, I. (2012). The Philosophy of Curiosity. Routledge.
Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T.-y., & Camerer, C. F. (2009). The wick in the candle of learning: Epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances memory. Psychological Science, 20(8), 963-973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02402.x
Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2019). Creative behavior as agentic action. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(4), 402-415. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000190
Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., & McKnight, P. E. (2020). The Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales while separating overt and covert social curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109836
Kashdan, T. B., Sherman, R. A., Yarbro, J., & Funder, D. C. (2013). How Are Curious People Viewed and How Do They Behave in Social Situations? From the Perspectives of Self, Friends, Parents, and Unacquainted Observers. Journal of Personality, 81(2), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00796.x
Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 367-374).
Kennett, D. J., & Keefer, K. (2006). Impact of Learned Resourcefulness and Theories of Intelligence on Academic Achievement of University Students: An integrated approach. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 441-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500342062
Kidd, C., & Hayden, Benjamin Y. (2015). The Psychology and Neuroscience of Curiosity. Neuron, 88(3), 449-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010
King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30(2), 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1996.0013
Lerner, R. M., Dowling, E. M., & Anderson, P. M. (2003). Positive Youth Development: Thriving as the Basis of Personhood and Civil Society. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 172-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_8
Lindqvist, G. (2003). Vygotsky’s Theory of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 245-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651416
Luthar, S. S. (2015). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology (pp. 739-795). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939406.ch20
Mahoney, J. L., Weissberg, R. P., Greenberg, M. T., Dusenbury, L., Jagers, R. J., Niemi, K., Schlinger, M., Schlund, J., Shriver, T. P., VanAusdal, K., & Yoder, N. (2020). Systemic social and emotional learning: Promoting educational success for all preschool to high school students. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000701
McGehee, P., Germer, C., & Neff, K. (2017). Core Values in Mindful Self-Compassion. In L. Monteiro, J. Compson, & F. Musten (Eds.), Practitioner’s Guide to Ethics and Mindfulness-Based Interventions. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64924-5_11
Misra, S., & Kumar, E. S. (2000). Resourcefulness: A Proximal Conceptualisation of Entrepreneurial Behaviour. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 135-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/097135570000900201
Noble, T., & McGrath, H. (2012). Wellbeing and Resilience in Young People and the Role of Positive Relationships. In S. Roffey (Ed.), Positive Relationships: Evidence Based Practice across the World (pp. 17-33). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2147-0_2
Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., & Boker, S. M. (2009). Resilience Comes of Age: Defining Features in Later Adulthood. Journal of Personality, 77(6), 1777-1804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00600.x
Ong, A. D., Edwards, L. M., & Bergeman, C. S. (2006). Hope as a source of resilience in later adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(7), 1263-1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.028
Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and Leadership:: Clearing the Conceptual Confusion. European Management Journal, 25(3), 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.04.006
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of Character and Well-Being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603-619. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived Integrity of Transformational Leaders in Organisational Settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 75-96. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013077109223
Patterson, J. M. (2002). Understanding family resilience. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 233-246. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10019
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.
Porges, S. W. (2001). The polyvagal theory: phylogenetic substrates of a social nervous system. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42(2), 123-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8760(01)00162-3
Price-Mitchell, M. (2010a). Boundary dynamics: Implications for building parent-school partnerships. The School Community Journal, 19(2).
Price-Mitchell, M. (2010b). Civic learning at the edge: Transformative stories of highly engaged youth [Dissertation, Fielding Graduate University]. Santa Barbara, CA.
Price-Mitchell, M. (2015). Tomorrow’s Change Makers: Reclaiming the Power of Citizenship for a New Generation. Eagle Harbor Publishing.
Putwain, D. W., Kearsley, R., & Symes, W. (2012). Do creativity self-beliefs predict literacy achievement and motivation? Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 370-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.12.001
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.
Rosenbaum, M. (1990). The role of learned resourcefulness in the self-control of health behavior. In Learned resourcefulness: On coping skills, self-control, and adaptive behavior. (pp. 3-30). Springer Publishing Co.
Rosenbaum, M. (2000). The self-regulation of experience: Openness and construction. In P. Dewe, A. M. Leiter, & T. Cox (Eds.), Coping and health in organizations (pp. 51-67). Taylor and Francis.
Ryff, C. D. (2014). Self-realisation and meaning making in the face of adversity: a eudaimonic approach to human resilience. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 24(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2014.904098
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2003). Flourishing under fire: Resilience as a prototype of challenged thriving. In Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. (pp. 15-36). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10594-001
Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2020). Connections between curiosity, flow and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109555
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5
Serrat, O. (2017). Understanding and Developing Emotional Intelligence. In Knowledge Solutions: Tools, Methods, and Approaches to Drive Organizational Performance (pp. 329-339). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_37
Silvia, P. J. (2008a). Appraisal components and emotion traits: Examining the appraisal basis of trait curiosity. Cognition and Emotion, 22(1), 94-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930701298481
Silvia, P. J. (2008b). Interest—The Curious Emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 57-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00548.x
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral Integrity: The Perceived Alignment Between Managers’ Words and Deeds as a Research Focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.188.8.131.523
Slote, M. (2001). Morals from motives. Oxford University Press.
Slote, M. (2004). Autonomy and empathy. Social Philosphy and Policy, 21(1), 293-309. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052504211128
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press.
Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The Development and Validation of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving (CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 6(3), 251-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12027
Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E., & Gruenewald, T. L. (2000). Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist, 55, 99-109.
Ulug, C., & Horlings, L. G. (2019). Connecting resourcefulness and social innovation: exploring conditions and processes in community gardens in the Netherlands. Local Environment, 24(3), 147-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1553941
von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The Hungry Mind: Intellectual Curiosity Is the Third Pillar of Academic Performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 574-588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611421204
Walker, B. (2019). Finding Resilience: Change and Uncertainty in Nature and Society. CSIRO.
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189-212). Cambridge University Press.
Wright, P. R., & Pascoe, R. (2015). Eudaimonia and creativity: the art of human flourishing. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(3), 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.855172
Yan, M. C., & Wong, Y.-L. R. (2005). Rethinking Self-Awareness in Cultural Competence: Toward a Dialogic Self in Cross-Cultural Social Work. Families in Society, 86(2), 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2453
Zauszniewski, J. A., & Bekhet, A. K. (2011). Measuring Use of Resourcefulness Skills: Psychometric Testing of a New Scale. ISRN Nursing, 2011, 787363. https://doi.org/10.5402/2011/787363
How to Cite this Article (APA)
Price-Mitchell, M. (2021). Human Development is Fundamental to Thriving. Roots of Action, 1-17. https://www.rootsofaction.com/human-development/