Alexa Montemayor and Khirad Siddiqui

The Effects of Familial and Community Factors on System-Involved Adolescent Girls Alexa Montemayor and Khirad Siddiqui

Motivation is one of the most studied constructs in the field of psychology, with literature ranging from theories of reinforcement and self-determination, to studies of its ability to predict engagement (Turenne & Pomerol, 2013; Walker, Greene, & Mansell, 2006). As theoretical models of motivation evolve, it is increasingly important to consider factors that influence individuals’ motivation, such as home, school, and social contexts (Van Der Helm, Kuiper, & Stams, 2018). While these external factors have emerged as predictors of the motivation of individuals more broadly, their influence on a specific population, such as system-involved girls (i.e., girls involved in the juvenile justice system), are less widely-understood (Van Der Helm et al., 2018). Yet, exploring the motivation of system-involved girls through a widely-encompassing and less internally-focused lens is important, since their motivation to engage in more prosocial behaviors may shape their interactions with legal systems such as court or probation, which places high emotional and physical demands on these individuals (Flores, Hates, Westbrooks, & Henderson, 2018; Gatz & Kelly, 2017; Herz, Ryan, & Bilchik, 2010; Javdani, Sadeh, & Verona, 2011; Maschi, Hatcher, Schwalbe, & Rosato, 2008; Sattler & Thomas, 2016). Additionally, examining girls’ motivation is particularly important, as their incarceration rates have drastically increased in the past two decades, while boys’ rates have decreased or remained stagnant (Javdani et al., 2011). While there is a plethora of research that explores boys’ delinquent behaviors, there is limited research explaining the recent spike in girls’ incarceration rates. Thus, the specific factors that motivate girls, who come into contact with legal systems through different pathways than their male counterparts, are important to consider in order to work towards reducing their system-involvement (Gorman-Smith & Loeber, 2005). Since an understanding of girls’ engagement in risky and delinquent behaviors is limited, this current study attempted to fill these gaps by using a central theory of motivation (i.e., SelfDetermination Theory) to examine the ways in which various aspects of system-involved girls’ interactions with others affect their self-determination and subsequent behaviors.

The Construct of Motivation

One widely-accepted theory of motivation is the SelfDetermination Theory (SDT), which argues that motivation is a basic human need that drives individuals to make certain choices and can be influenced by factors in social, professional, academic, and environmental contexts (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Central to SDT is the assertion that the highest levels of motivation are characterized by a state known as “self-determination,” which can arise only when individuals are intrinsically motivated to initiate an activity because they want to, rather than for the purpose of obtaining an external goal (Deci & Ryan, 2008). While SDT was originally constructed to examine the motivation of adults, there have been modifications in the theoretical framework to include adolescents, especially in their home and community contexts (Ryan, 2001). For instance, literature on SDT and adolescents focuses on the pivotal role that key individuals (e.g., peers or parental figures) have on facilitating and scaffolding levels of adolescent motivation, as well as their self-determination through social relationships (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This support is achieved through distinct methods depending on the degree of closeness and the nature of the relationship involved, but some common methods include the encouragement of an adolescent’s autonomy, and acting as a reference point for the adolescent to model (Deci, Schwartz, Scheinman, & Ryan, 1981). Whether or not adolescents perceive their reference point as exemplary has implications for their subsequent motivation to achieve similar results as them (Deci et al., 1981; Luan et al., 2018). Once these key figures help scaffold adolescents’ motivation, they also help shape adolescents’ behaviors and self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan, 2001; Sattler & Thomas, 2016). While these methods of facilitating motivation are specific to adolescents, they have larger implications in the framework of SDT. Since SDT positions individuals in their broader home and community contexts, relationships with their parental figures and peers are crucial in achieving the very state of self-determination that SDT is built upon. Once an individual reaches a state of self-determination, they are more likely to make more positive and prosocial decisions that lead to better behavioral outcomes in academic, and social, extracurricular arenas (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Additionally, SDT studies have found that higher levels of motivation and self-determination are associated with less deviant behavior, which is a crucial finding to apply to system-involved girls, as it may have implications for their involvement (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ennett & Bauman, 1994). It is important to consider how SDT impacts system-involved girls specifically, to better interpret how social factors such as relationships, can work to either increase or decrease their motivation to engage in certain behaviors that may or may not lead to their system involvement.

Peer Influence on Motivation

Many studies of SDT and adolescents have significantly

focused on the influence of peer-to-peer relationships on selfdetermination and motivation, a social factor that may impact adolescent girls’ system involvement (Molloy, Gest, & Rulison, 2011; Ryan, 2001). This is informed by research suggesting that levels of influence are highest during adolescence, and therefore adolescents can significantly affect the self-determination and motivation of their surrounding peers (Brown, Clasen, & Eicher, 1986; Ryan, 2001). Research has also found that social comparison is a key process through which peers influence levels of self-determination and motivation (Ryan, 2001). Social comparison is defined as the ways in which adolescents assess their worth through comparing themselves to their peers as reference points (e.g., noticing that their peers are all adept at sports or getting high grades academically; Molloy et al., 2011). An adolescent’s engagement in social comparison within their peer groups is highly correlated with their levels of selfdetermination and motivation, often because social comparison compels adolescents to achieve objectives similar to those of their peers in order to fit in (Ennett & Bauman, 1994). The importance of relationships on an individual’s self-determination, as outlined by the SDT framework, is critical to consider amongst system-involved girls, since it can manifest as the referencing of their own social and relational progress in comparison with that of their peers, which has implications for how they behave and become involved with or evade legal systems (Molloy et al., 2011). For example, a systeminvolved girl who notices that all of her friends are involved in an after-school program might be more motivated to join the program herself, potentially reducing her likelihood of becoming involved with the legal system. However, not all social comparison between peers is positive. There is also research suggesting that adolescents who value social bonds too highly have the potential to be negatively affected by their peer groups, resulting in less achievement of given objectives (Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Hoffman, Monge, Chou, & Valente, 2007). Therefore, while peer-to-peer relationships can influence an adolescent’s levels of motivation, there is an important distinction between positive social comparison and negative social comparison (Berndt & Keefe, 1995). Since social comparison plays a significant role in the lives of adolescents (Ennett & Bauman, 1994), it is important to consider the peers of system-involved girls’ as they can affect their motivation to engage in either positive or negative behaviors.

Parental Influence on Motivation

While SDT highlights the influence of peers on motivation, there is also ample literature on the influence of parental figures on adolescent motivation (Chirkov & Ryan, 2001; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994; Sattler & Thomas, 2016). Research shows that the most effective method through which parental figures can influence motivation is through a process known as autonomy support, or actively allowing a child to feel involved and in control of their decision-making (Deci et al., 1981; Ryan et al., 1994). Adolescents who feel as though they are in control of their own decisions are often more motivated and self-determined to expend their efforts to obtain desired outcomes (Bandura, 2006; Gatz & Kelly, 2017). Additionally, system-involved adolescent girls may benefit from autonomy support even more so than their peers, because research suggests that system-involvement can decrease one’s feelings of agency and control, as well as overall self-determination (Deci et al., 1981; Rappaport, 1981; Ryan et al., 1994). Therefore, parental figures who provide autonomy support for system-involved girls may increase their daughters’ motivation to engage in legal arenas where they traditionally have had little autonomy (e.g., discussing alternatives to incarceration with a judge; Gatz & Kelly, 2017). However, not all parental figures engage in autonomy support, and those who do not can also influence their children’s levels of motivation through excessive parental monitoring (i.e., monitoring their children’s behavior such that they cannot make their own decisions; Ryan et al., 1994). While high levels of parental monitoring is correlated with higher grades and achievement in school, it has been suggested that this is solely because a parental figure, who closely monitors the activity of an adolescent, may exert external pressure in an adolescent’s life, and force them into compliance, rather than facilitate internal motivation on behalf of the adolescent (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Ryan et al., 1994). Forcing compliance does not allow an adolescent to develop a sense of agency, and impedes the development of self-determination and motivation (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Ryan et al., 1994). Thus, while parental behaviors significantly influence the development of motivation in an adolescent’s life, the distinction between parental autonomy support and parental monitoring matters significantly in the kind of behavior and motivation parental figures help to scaffold (Chirkov & Ryan, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In considering system-involved adolescent girls, the type of behavior that their parental figures exhibit may have implications on their motivation to engage in more prosocial or deviant behaviors, depending on whether or not they feel that they have some agency in their lives (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ennett & Bauman, 1994).

Current Study

Due to the lack of research on the motivation of systeminvolved girls, especially literature considering home and community contexts, the aim of the present study was to apply the theoretical framework of SDT and the subsequent literature on parental and peer methods of facilitating motivation and self-determination to the experiences of system-involved girls. This will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how parental figures and peers can affect not only adolescent motivation to engage in prosocial activities, but also add to motivation literature on system-involved girls more specifically. Thus, this study aimed to answer the following question: how are system-involved adolescent girls’ motivation to engage in desired objectives affected by their parents and peers?

Method

Participants & Data Sources

The study’s sample consists of eight girls (N = 8, ranging in ages 11 - 17) who were at-risk for or were involved in the juvenile justice system, as well as their parents and peers. The participants were all involved in the ROSES intervention, where the researchers worked as a data collector and an advocate. The ROSES intervention is a community-based intervention that works with young girls in the juvenile-justice system for 1012 weeks to mobilize resources in areas of unmet need in an adolescent’s life. Advocates are responsible for meeting with one client multiple times over the course of an intervention in order to mobilize and monitor these resources, whereas data collectors meet with different adolescents every week and are tasked with administering questionnaires for participants on key variables for the ROSES intervention. The purpose of the intervention is not only to ensure that girls avoid contact with the juvenilejustice system, but also to allow them to become advocates in their own life, through a process of transferring self-advocacy skills. Additionally, participants of the ROSES intervention were never mandated to participate and had the capacity to end their involvement in the intervention at any given point. Since advocates and data collectors interact with participants differently on ROSES, it is important to clarify that two of the participants in this study were involved solely with a ROSES advocate, and the remaining six with a data collector. All of the participants identified as Hispanic, a majority lived with at least one biological parent (75%), and all were enrolled in school, although most disclosed that they did not frequently attend (88%). All participants were from two of the five boroughs of New York City (i.e., the Bronx and Brooklyn) and were typically referred to the ROSES intervention by caseworkers, social agencies, parental figures, parole officers, and court judges.

Procedure

The researchers observed the participants and their interactions with peers and/or parents over a six-to-twelveweek period at their homes in the Bronx and Brooklyn. The researchers agreed upon a set of desired objectives for which to observe during their meetings with the participants, which included the completion of psycho-social assessment questionnaires, or weekly short-term and long-term advocacy objectives, such as creating a resume or obtaining a reliable source of income. To limit their influence on the participants’ motivation, the researchers verbally agreed to not encourage or prod the participants to engage with the objectives when they did not want to. Both researchers acted as naturalistic observers to avoid interfering with the behaviors they were observing, and the participants did not know that their interactions with their parental figures and peers were being observed and later recorded. The researcher completing advocacy interventions observed two different participants on a weekly basis over the course of 10 to 12 weeks. The researcher working as a data collector gathered information from six participants during the administration of surveys, which typically lasted three to four hours. Both researchers recorded detailed field notes immediately after observation of participants.

Coding of Data

The researchers utilized content analysis for this paper, choosing to develop their major coding themes from the literature and then operationalizing each construct after an initial exploratory analysis of their field notes. This analysis included a brief overview of all of the field notes, and a thorough examination of roughly twenty percent of their collective field notes. After establishing inter-rater reliability to ensure that the researchers were consistent on the assessment of their field notes, the field notes were coded on a sentence-by-sentence basis, with three major themes being coded for frequency. Identified themes included: (1) parental autonomy support vs. parental monitoring, (2) positive peer social comparison vs. negative peer social comparison, and (3) motivation to engage vs. non-motivation to engage. The researchers then split their analyses into two separate coding tables: one for client interactions in which parental figures were present (See Table 1), and then a second for client interactions in which peers were present (See Table 2). Given that the researchers were only focusing on the influence of parental figures and peers on system-involved girls, the sample was deliberately chosen to include only ten interactions (four from advocacy and six from data collection) where either a parental figure (i.e., a legal guardian) or peer was present. Participants from advocacy were used for both analyses, simply utilizing one pair of field notes for interactions in which their peer was present and another pair of field notes for interactions in which their parental figure was present. On the other hand, the six participants from data collection were each only analyzed once since three of them had meetings with their parental figures present, whereas the remaining three had meetings with their peers present. To avoid any complications in the data, no instances where both peers and parents were present were counted in this sample. In constructing the first coding theme of parental autonomy support versus parental monitoring, the researchers utilized both the SDT literature on parental behaviors, as well as common themes across their field notes to create a list of inclusionary criteria for both variables (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Ryan et al., 1994). The researchers coded a sentence for parental autonomy support if the following criteria were present: parental figures allowed the adolescent to make a joint decision, parental figures asked the adolescent what they preferred for a joint decision, and/or parental figures stayed uninvolved in a decision by reserving it solely for the adolescent. The researchers also chose to code for parental monitoring behaviors, since the SDT literature suggests that parental monitoring can influence adolescent motivation and self-determination to engage in

desired objectives in distinct and typically negative ways (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). The researchers coded for parental monitoring if the following criteria were present: parental figures asked the data collector or advocate what the adolescent was working on, parental figures asked the data collector or advocate to pivot the session to focus on a specific issue, parental figures looked at the adolescent’s answers on survey packets, parental figures answered questions posed by the data collector or advocate to the adolescent, and/or parental figures decided when to end or begin the meeting. Since both parental autonomy support and parental monitoring could appear in the same meetings, the focus of coding was on whether the frequency of parental autonomy support outweighed parental monitoring, meaning that parents could monitor their children to an extent, without blocking their ability to engage in ROSES from a client-centered framework. To operationalize the second theme of either positive or negative peer social comparison, the researchers utilized the examples given in previous research, as well as common themes in their own field notes (Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Ryan, 2001). Positive peer social comparison was coded if the following criteria were present: peers expressed interest in the objectives of ROSES and/or asked to participate, peers spoke about the adolescent’s progress in school or community contexts, peers interacted with the data collector or advocate and expressed their approval of the intervention, and/or peers spoke positively of the work that the adolescent had accomplished through ROSES. Additionally, negative peer social comparison was coded based on the inclusion of the following criteria: peers expressed interest in rescheduling or ending the meeting, peers expressed disapproval of the ROSES intervention or of the meeting itself, peers asked the adolescent to finish the intervention quickly, and/or peers spoke about non-goal areas such as non-school or work-related activities. Since research indicates that motivation can act as a predictor of engagement (Turenne & Pomerol, 2013; Walker et al., 2006), the researchers chose to code for motivation to engage based on the appearance of any of the following criteria: the adolescent completed a pre-set objective, the adolescent asked about the progress of a previous objective, the adolescent finished all survey questions she was given, the adolescent initiated a new objective by herself, the adolescent made progress on an objective by herself, and/or the adolescent expressed satisfaction with ROSES and motivation to continue. The researchers also chose to code for non-motivation to engage as a distinct variable, since they observed many moments in their field notes where parental or peer behaviors caused a participant to lose interest in the meeting. The researchers coded a behavior as non-motivation to engage based on the following criteria: the adolescent did not complete the pre-set objectives, the adolescent was silent when asked a question directly, the adolescent did not finish all survey questions, the adolescent asked to remove an objective from their sheet, the adolescent had not made any progress on their objectives, the adolescent expressed dissatisfaction with ROSES, and/or the adolescent asked to end or reschedule the meeting.

Results

To address the gaps in the literature on how parents and peers influence system-involved girls’ motivation to engage in the desired objectives of an applied intervention, the researchers explored the following two hypotheses: (1) More frequent parental autonomy support would lead to more frequent motivation to engage for system-involved girls, whereas more frequent parental monitoring would lead to more frequent non-motivation; (2) More frequent positive peer social comparison would lead to more frequent motivation to engage for system-involved girls, whereas more frequent negative peer social comparison would lead to more frequent non-motivation to engage. To address the first hypothesis, the researchers found that in instances where parental autonomy support behaviors were more frequent than parental monitoring behaviors, 80% of the participants displayed higher motivation to engage than non-motivation. The other 20% of the participants displayed higher motivation to engage when both parental autonomy support and parental monitoring behaviors were present, but not when parental monitoring was exclusively present. While based solely on frequency, these results are consistent with literature that suggests that parental autonomy support is a more effective mode to facilitating adolescent motivation to engage than parental monitoring (Chirkov & Ryan, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000). This suggests that the presence of parental autonomy support is an important scaffold for increased motivation to engage in the desired objectives of an intervention, which has heightened implications for system-involved girls since research suggests that system-involvement can result in a lack of agency and perceived autonomy (Javdani et al., 2011). Findings regarding the second hypothesis, on the influence of positive peer social comparison on increased motivation, were consistent with the literature on SDT and peer social comparison (Ryan, 2001; Molloy et al., 2011). Results showed that in 80% of meetings where positive peer social comparison took place more frequently than negative peer social comparison, motivation to engage was also higher than non-motivation. Additionally, for the 20% of meetings in which negative peer social comparison was more frequent than positive peer social comparison, the participants no longer displayed higher levels of motivation than non-motivation, instead having roughly similar levels of both. This suggests that for system-involved girls, positive peer social comparison is a meaningful factor to facilitate their motivation to engage, but also that a degree of independence exists in this population such that negative peer social comparison can decrease their motivation, but not to the extent to where they are completely unmotivated. To fully utilize the richness of the data presented in this study, the researchers also analyzed the most useful methods that both parental figures and peers used to facilitate autonomy

support and positive social comparison. For autonomy support, the researchers noted that instances in which parental figures explicitly asked adolescents what they wanted to do were the most effective at both engaging in the intervention itself and in increasing the levels of motivation of their daughters. In an instance where an advocate asked a participant how she would like to proceed in either changing her school or meeting with her guidance counselor, the adolescent initially turned to her mother for an answer. It was only when the mother asked her how she felt that she took a moment of silence, which relayed to the researchers that she was thinking about her options. When the parental figure supported her daughter’s autonomy by allowing her to make her own decision, the dynamic between the participant and the researcher changed as the participant was more willing to engage in the objectives of ROSES, since the participant had previously shown very little motivation to engage. For peer social comparison, the most useful methods seemed to involve the peer showing explicit interest in the intervention. For example, one particularly impactful incident occurred when a participant was initially disinterested in a data collection, or survey completion visit, and preferred to speak to her peer about unrelated topics. However, once the peer expressed interest in ROSES by asking questions about what the intervention entailed, and asked the researcher how she herself could be involved in the intervention, the participant’s demeanor shifted. The participant then displayed a higher motivation to engage with the survey packet and requested to finish it all in one meeting as opposed to rescheduling. Without the presence of positive peer social comparison, it is likely that this visit would have ended very quickly, and that the participant would not have displayed any motivation to engage in the objectives of ROSES. Thus, both instances elucidate how impactful peers and parental figures can be in achieving the objectives of community-based interventions and increasing the motivation of system-involved adolescent girls to engage in diversion efforts.

Discussion

Findings of the current study can inform best practices for ROSES and other community-based interventions that have frequent or unintended contact with participants’ parental figures and peers. Overall findings seem to suggest that parental autonomy support and positive peer social comparison are effective methods used in motivating adolescents to achieve positive outcomes, which is valuable to note as it can help to increase awareness around factors that further, or reduce, adolescent girls’ involvement with the legal system. Although the researchers were only able to select their sample based on participants who were able to attend meetings and whose parental figures or peers were present in at least one meeting, the findings remain meaningful. These results highlight how the SDT literature on adolescent motivation facilitated by both peers and parental figures applies specifically to the lives of systeminvolved girls and their motivation to engage in a communitybased intervention (Deci & Ryan, 2008). The findings mirror current research that elucidates the ways in which motivation can act as either a pathway into or a protective factor against system involvement (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Past studies suggest that adolescents whose motivation is negatively influenced may display more deviant behaviors, and conversely, those who are positively motivated may engage in prosocial behaviors, which is important to consider given that these type of behaviors can reduce or prevent girls’ system involvement all together (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ennett & Bauman, 1994). While this study found that parental autonomy support scaffolded motivation in system-involved girls in similar ways to the literature on non-system-involved adolescents, it also found that this was not the case with all system-involved girls. This may be due to the ways in which system-involved girls, in particular, are closely supervised by many social service agencies such as ACS or court services (Javdani et al., 2011). This monitoring can result in a precedent being set in which system-involved girls feel unsure of how to proceed when presented with too much autonomy or agency, as they become used to court or social service agencies making decisions on their behalf. Thus, while the trends of SDT theory and literature on adolescent motivation apply to system-involved girls more generally, there is also nuance in their parental relationships and their relationship to authority. These nuances should be more closely examined by interventions aiming to facilitate higher levels of motivation for system-involved girls through their parental figures. Moreover, this study also highlights the significant influence that either positive or negative peer social comparison can have on system-involved girls’ motivation to engage in desired objectives, and the applicability of SDT frameworks in their lives. Participants who experienced higher non-motivation as a result of negative peer social comparison still displayed some level of motivation during their meetings, showing that system-involved girls might be more resistant to peer-influence than previously suggested (Molloy et al., 2011; Ryan, 2001). This may be attributable to the resilience that this population has adopted as a result of their unique legal contexts. For example, a system-involved girl with constant negative stimuli in home, school, and legal contexts may develop a level of resilience to those negative stimuli so that they do not affect her ability to engage in essential interventions or court programs (Javdani et al., 2011). With this subsequent resilience, system-involved girls may become more resistant to negative peer social comparison than non-system-involved adolescents, explaining the findings from this study. Additionally, findings from this study are limited by small sample size, and the very specific nature of the intervention, which caters to participants who are system-involved and referred through social service agencies, and not all system-involved girls have this exact contexts. While this study only focused on two factors that affect adolescent girls’ motivation to engage, other factors such as monetary compensation, time of meeting, degree of system involvement, setting of meeting, and the

feasibility of objectives likely influenced participant motivation, as well. Additionally, the small sample size compromises the generalizability of this study, even though the goal was not to generalize to all system-involved youth, but to better understand factors that affect the motivation of a few system-involved girls. Furthermore, these girls were not mandated to participate in the ROSES intervention, and sometimes went several weeks without completing meetings, which may have skewed the data on their levels of motivation if they were already low due to other contextual factors. Given these limitations, future research should focus on examining the interactions between adolescents and their parents or peers in a more controlled setting, which would allow for the isolation of individual factors. Additionally, further research should look at how these parental and peer relationships affect not only system-involved adolescent girls’ motivation to engage, but also the degree to which this shapes their future legal-system involvement. Finally, research could be guided by the implications from this study, particularly in the modification of SDT frameworks to consider the lack of agency of system-involved girls in relation to their parental autonomy support, and their resiliency in relation to negative peer social comparison. A more comprehensive study guided by this initial research would have meaningful implications for the ways in which interventions working with system-involved girls should best collaborate with key figures in their home and community contexts. This could then ensure that system-involved adolescent girls’ have high levels of motivation to engage in prosocial behaviors and desired objectives, and hopefully limit their future system-involvement. Despite the need for further research, the current study serves as an important contribution to the literature surrounding system-involved adolescent girls, which can aid the process of understanding the recent spike in their involvement, and can subsequently inform community organizations that work with them, and their peers or parents, to reduce their involvement.

References

Berndt, T., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment to school. Child Development, 66(5), 13121329. Brown, B. B., Clasen, D. R., & Eicher, S. A. (1986). Perceptions of peer pressure, peer conformity dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 22(4), 521-531. Chirkov, V. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy-support in Russian and US adolescents: Common effects on well-being and academic motivation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 618-635. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182. Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642. Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. Research on Motivation in Education, 3(1), 139-186. Ennett, S. T., & Bauman, K. E. (1994). The contribution of influence and selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity: The case of adolescent cigarette smoking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 653. Flores, J., Hawes, J., Westbrooks, A., & Henderson, C. (2016). Crossover youth and gender: What are the challenges of girls involved in both the foster care and juvenile justice systems? Children and Youth Services Review, 91(1), 149-155. Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148. Gatz, J., & Kelly, A. M. (2018). After school school triathlon training for 11- to 14-year old girls: Influences on academic motivation and achievement. Health Education Journal, 77(2), 156-168. Gorman-Smith, D., & Loeber, R. (2005). Are developmental pathways in disruptive behaviors the same for girls and boys? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14(1), 1527. Herz, D. C., Ryan, J. P., & Bilchik, S. (2010). Challenges facing crossover youth: An examination of juvenile-justice decision making and recidivism. Family Court Review, 48(2), 305-321. Hoffman, B. R., Monge, P. R., Chou, C. P., & Valente, T. W. (2007). Perceived peer influence and peer selection on

adolescent smoking. Addictive Behaviors, 32(8), 15461554. Javdani, S., Sadeh, N., & Verona, E. (2011). Gendered social forces: A Review of the impact of institutionalized factors on women and girls’ criminal justice trajectories. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(2), 161-211. Luan, Z., Poorthuis, A., Hutteman, R., Asendorpg, J. B., Denissen, J. J. A., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2018). See me through my eyes: Adolescent–parent agreement in personality predicts later self-esteem development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42(1), 17–25. Maschi, T., Hatcher, S. S., Schwalbe, C. S., & Rosato, N. S. (2008). Mapping the social service pathways of youth to and through the juvenile justice system: A comprehensive review. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(12), 1376-1385. Molloy, L. E., Gest, S. D., & Rulison, K. L. (2011). Peer influences on academic motivation: Exploring multiple methods of assessing youths’ most “influential” peer relationships. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 13-40. Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(1), 1-25. Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72(4), 1135-1150. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 226-249. Sattler, L. J., & Thomas, K. A. (2016). “Parents need a village”: Caseworkers’ perceptions of the challenges faced by single parents of system-involved youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 293-301. Turenne, N., & Pomerol, J. C. (2013). Knowledge Needs and Information Extraction: Towards an artificial consciousness. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Van Der Helm, G. H. P., Kuiper, C. H. Z., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2018). Group climate and treatment motivation i n secure residential and forensic youth care from the perspective of self determination theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 93(1), 339-344. Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(1), 1-12.