This study aimed to explore the heterogeneity of adolescent development by identifying distinct and meaningful subgroups on the basis of the facets of the 5 C model of positive youth development (PYD), a framework validated and refined in previous research [4, 31]. It also seeks to explore their relationships with various distal outcomes, including well-being, contribution, mental health, and problem behaviors. Unlike previous studies, this is the first study that employed an in-depth analysis of 15 subdimensions of 5 C, uncovering unique profiles of strengths and challenges. The results for the 5 C subdimension are usually less frequently reported but have been reported in studies with upper-secondary students [11, 32] and college students [33, 34].
Student assessments of the major 5 C dimensions align with global patterns, affirming the cross-cultural robustness of the framework [12, 20, 31]. For example, connection scores were strong for family and peers, whereas school connection emerged as a weaker area, reflecting challenges in the school context, which has been widely discussed in recent research. The competence results also mirrored the global findings, with academic competence surpassing social and physical competence, reflecting a prioritization of academic success. In the character domain, value diversity was notably strong, whereas conduct behavior was weaker, indicating that challenges in moral and ethical development may be influenced by permissive parenting and prolonged adolescence. Confidence was associated with greater self-worth and positive identity than was appearance confidence, reflecting not only normative challenges related to body image during this developmental stage but also social media norms. Finally, caring demonstrated robust scores, which is consistent with findings of high levels of empathy and prosocial behaviors in adolescence.
Variability across the 5 C indicators underscores diverse developmental experiences and supports the specificity principle, which suggests that patterns of positive youth development differ between adolescents [35, 36]. Variations occur at multiple environmental levels, not only between geographical regions but also within smaller systems such as schools and families. For example, aring and character showed relatively low variability, indicating a homogeneous sample with strong beliefs, values, empathy, and prosocial behaviors. While connection appeared homogeneous overall, variability increased for school connections and neighborhood connections, reflecting diverse contextual experiences related to school environment quality and community cohesion. Competence exhibited moderate variability, whereas confidence) showed slightly greater variability. Subdomains such as physical competence and appearance confidence demonstrated the highest variability, suggesting divergent self-perceptions in areas related to physical and social identity.
The adolescents in the sample exhibited mild symptoms of depression and anxiety, with stress at the upper normal limit [26]. While these average levels may not seem alarming, the high standard deviations indicate significant variability, suggesting that some participants may experience clinically relevant levels of these conditions. Similarly, binge drinking and antisocial behavior displayed comparable variabilities, emphasizing the heterogeneity within the sample ranging from abstinence to very high levels of risk behavior. This variability underscores the heterogeneity within the sample and signals distinct patterns that emerge more clearly when comparing outcomes across latent profiles—differences that are examined in detail in the following sections.
This study identified six distinct 5 C classes, which is more than what has been previously reported within the 5Cs framework. Prior studies identified two to four PYD classes via similar approaches [18,19,20]. By revealing a broader spectrum of profiles, this study provides a more nuanced understanding of adolescent development and its connection to well-being, mental health, and risk behavior. A possible explanation for the variation in the number of latent profiles of PYD identified in studies conducted across different countries is the influence of cultural, social, and contextual factors. These factors can shape how the dimensions of PYD—competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring—manifest in different populations. Additionally, the unique methodological approach of including 15 facets or subdimensions of 5Cs in an LPA may have influenced the identification of latent profiles more than in previous studies, reflecting diversity within and among the Cs. Although there are reports on differences between countries in terms of level of PYD and associations of the Cs with outcomes [13, 37], future research should explore these influences in greater detail, potentially conducting cross-national comparative studies to better understand how context shapes different developmental trajectories.
The identified profiles align with prior LPA studies while contributing unique insights. For example, the “Thriving Stars” profile corresponds well to High PYD or Flourishing profiles identified in previous research [19, 20, 38] and excelles across all dimensions. Conversely, “Vulnerable Youth” and “Self-Centered Underachievers” align with Low PYD or Languishing profiles, characterized by underdevelopment and vulnerability. However, by distinguishing between two distinct Low PYD profiles, one retains some strength in caring and character despite overall low PYD, whereas the other presents very low caring and character but relatively higher levels in other Cs.
Distinct profiles like “Caring but struggling” and “Confident but Detached” showcase particular strengths (e.g., character, competence), yet their interplay with other Cs suggests varying pathways to different outcomes. This introduces additional complexity that previous research has not fully explored. Strong sex-specific trends were found in “Vulnerable Youth” and “Caring but struggling”, which were predominantly female profiles, whereas “Confident but Detached” was mostly male.
To deepen the understanding of the implications of the identified classes, a distal outcome analysis was performed. This analysis explored how the classes relate to key indicators of mental health, well-being, and risk behaviors.
This profile aligns with the low PYD or languishing profiles previously identified in the literature [19, 22], characterized by the highest levels of depression, anxiety, and stress, alongside severe antisocial behavior and alcohol misuse. A similar combination of mental health problems and externalizing behaviors was also observed in Arbeit et al.’s study [21] on profiles of problematic adolescent behaviors. The predominantly female composition of this group, along with its lowest scores for well-being and contribution, highlights significant vulnerabilities within the PYD domain. These findings suggest that interventions, including clinical interventions, should take a multidimensional approach, addressing both mental health challenges and behavioral risks simultaneously.
This profile consists almost entirely of females who experience high levels of depression, anxiety, and stress yet engage minimally in antisocial behavior and alcohol use. Despite their significant mental health struggles, these adolescents demonstrated relatively greater well-being and engagement in life activities than did those in the “Vulnerable Youth” profile. Previous studies often categorize such adolescents into broader low-PYD groups [19, 22], which are related to mental distress, but the findings of this study suggest that further distinctions should be made on the basis of behavioral tendencies. This aligns with the aforementioned research on profiles of problematic adolescent behaviors [21], which differentiated mental health struggles from profiles that exhibit both mental health and externalizing risk behaviors. A defining characteristic of this group is their exceptionally high scores in character traits, particularly diversity and caring, which are the highest among all profiles. This pattern is consistent with research linking high levels of caring [6, 12, 39] to increased vulnerability to mental health challenges. Additionally, their lower levels of confidence further support this interpretation. Although a strong sense of diversity fosters inclusivity and moral integrity, it may also heighten emotional sensitivity in unsupported environments. This aligns with findings from Yu et al. [20], who suggest that sociocultural assets such as cultural pride can promote adjustment and serve as protective factors against risk behaviors and emotional symptoms, but only in the absence of significant external barriers. Adolescents in this profile display strong empathy and social awareness, which may help protect them from externalizing behaviors but could simultaneously contribute to anxiety and stress due to heightened emotional sensitivity and self-imposed pressures. These findings also emphasize the nuanced role of caring, as different studies have identified it as both a developmental asset and a risk factor [6, 12, 39]. Geldhof et al. [39] suggested that “less is more” may be a more appropriate perspective on caring, which aligns with the present study’s findings but requires further analysis for who, when and under what circumstances.
The results emphasize the need to recognize heterogeneity not only among “low PYD” profiles but also within the broader category of “poor mental health” adolescents. While adolescents in Classes 1 and 2 share similar high levels of mental health struggles, their distinct strengths and vulnerabilities suggest divergent developmental pathways. Specifically, when these two groups are compared, the high character and caring scores in Class 2 suggest the presence of a subgroup where emotional sensitivity acts as both a risk factor for internalizing problems and a protective factor against externalizing behaviors. Holsen et al. [12] reported associations between higher levels of caring and character and positive outcomes while also noting vulnerabilities related to internalizing symptoms such as stress and anxiety. This study extends that understanding by demonstrating how caring serves as a protective factor against externalizing behaviors.
These distinctions highlight the limitations of treating “low PYD” youth as a homogeneous group and underscore the importance of tailored interventions. For example, self-compassion interventions have been suggested by [14] as effective means of enhancing emotional resilience among adolescents struggling with anxiety. Such programs could leverage these youth’s strengths in caring and character to support adaptive development and well-being. Furthermore, research [13] suggests that attachment-related factors may mediate these developmental outcomes, particularly in different cultural and school settings. The implementation of self-compassion support groups and programs focused on peer engagement and community involvement may offer adolescents opportunities to channel their empathy and social concern into positive contributions, fostering the development of their confidence and connections.
This profile aligns with balanced PYD profiles identified in prior research [21, 22], demonstrating low mental health problems, moderate stress, and high well-being, with minimal risk behaviors. Representing the relative majority of adolescents, this group appears to follow a stable developmental trajectory characterized by resilience and balance. Schmid et al. [40] emphasized the critical role of hopeful future expectations and intentional self-regulation in fostering such balanced profiles, enabling adolescents to thrive despite moderate challenges.
Given these characteristics, interventions for this group should focus primarily on maintaining stability and encouraging growth through opportunities for active school and community engagement. Additionally, ensuring access to stress-management resources could prevent moderate stress levels from escalating into more significant mental health concerns.
This group, characterized by the second lowest total PYD score, has the lowest scores in character; the second lowest scores in competence, caring, and connection; and a below-average confidence score. Their behavioral tendencies resemble the alcohol and aggression behavior profile identified by Arbeit et al. [21]. However, unlike the high-PYD profile associated with this behavioral pattern, this group presents low PYD across most dimensions, distinguishing it from previous findings.
Positioned between Class 1 and Class 2 in terms of total PYD level, this group differs significantly in that it does not struggle with internalizing mental health issues to the same extent. Instead, externalized, risk behaviors primarily characterize this profile. The combination of low character and caring, with preserved confidence appears to set this group apart, potentially acting as a protective factor against mental health issues. The second lowest contribution supports notions of a self-centred profile. Conversely, Class 1, with very low PYD, demonstrates some strength in caring and character despite an overall low PYD. However, this profile appears to be at risk for both mental health challenges and risk behaviors.
Adolescents within this profile could benefit from targeted efforts that promote behavioral alternatives to risky activities. Structured programs emphasizing peer-driven models and extracurricular engagement could help redirect their energy toward healthier, organized activities while simultaneously enhancing their peer connections, competence and confidence. Such programs should also integrate teamwork and respect for diversity, fostering the development of character, empathy, and caring. Additionally, interventions incorporating motivational interviewing and decision-making skill development could help these adolescents recognize the long-term consequences of their risky behaviors on well-being and social relationships.
This profile consists predominantly of boys who report low levels of depression, anxiety, and stress but engage in the highest levels of binge drinking and antisocial behavior. Despite these risk behaviors, they maintain high well-being and average contribution levels, resembling the high-risk, High-PYD profiles previously identified [20, 21], as well as the Self-efficacy profile [19]. Prior research [21] has demonstrated that attributes such as competence and confidence can coexist with elevated risk behaviors, including alcohol use and antisocial conduct. Similarly, a negative relationship between self-efficacy, high PYD, and anxiety symptoms can be found [19], suggesting that self-perceived competence may buffer against internalized distress while still being associated with externalized behaviors. The relationships among competence, confidence, alcohol use, and problem behaviors may be linked to increased socialization and higher social status, as suggested by previous research [21]. These findings are consistent with theories on peer influence and the role of socially rewarding risk behaviors in adolescent peer groups.
The Class 5 students, predominantly male, demonstrated above-average PYD scores across most indicators, particularly in terms of social and physical competence and confidence. However, they had the lowest score for caring; they lack connection to school (second lowest) and are very low in most character subdomains. This reflects a detached orientation that likely contributes to their risk-taking tendencies and distinguishes them from the more balanced PYD profiles observed in prior research. Interestingly, while they had high conduct behavior scores within the 5 C framework, they also presented the highest antisocial behavior scores in distal measures, creating an apparent contradiction. A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that these adolescents may internalize moral values and exhibit prosocial conduct in structured settings (e.g., school, home), leading to high conduct behavior scores. However, in less structured environments such as peer groups or social gatherings, situational factors—including peer pressure and alcohol use—may contribute to antisocial behaviors. Further research is necessary to explore this hypothesis in greater depth.
Interestingly, when focusing solely on externalizing behaviors, Class 5 shares similarities with Class 1 (“Vulnerable Youth”), as both groups engage in high levels of antisocial behavior and alcohol misuse. However, the key distinction is that Class 1 consists mainly of females who experience significant mental health burdens and score low (or lowest) across all other 5 C indicators, whereas Class 5 demonstrates notable strengths in confidence and competence, likely buffering them against internalized mental health issues and allowing them to function effectively in structured settings.
Also, it appears that Alcohol and Aggression profile from Arbeit et al. study [21] can actually be separated into two distinct profiles (Class 4 and Class 5 in our case), where both profiles share high alcohol abuse and antisocial behavior but have different PYD characteristics. While both classes have the lowest scores for caring and character, class 4 is below average for all other PYD, and class 5 has high competence/confidence.
This comparison highlights the necessity of looking beyond surface behaviors to understand the interplay between strengths and vulnerabilities among adolescents. Although both groups engage in similar high-risk behaviors, their developmental resources and challenges vary considerably. This further emphasizes the need for nuanced, person-centered interventions. These strong sex-specific profiles “Caring but struggling: Distressed but Reserved” and “Confident but Detached: High-Performing Rebels” “resonate with previous findings [22], which suggest that females with high levels of empathy and emotional concern are more vulnerable to internalizing symptoms, whereas males tend to prioritize confidence and competence, often translating into risk-taking behaviors.
Class 5 strategies that build on their confidence and competence to build group cohesion and strengthen prosocial motivation, empathy and caring could help channel their resources toward more balanced development. Motivational interviewing and situational decision-making (e.g., resisting peer pressure) skill training could also reduce the risk of externalizing tendencies. Recognizing these complexities enables more targeted and effective approaches to support youth in these multifaceted profiles.
Finally, Class 6, “Thriving Stars: Thriving and Contributing,” represents youth with the best PYD indicators; the best mental health profiles; the lowest depression, anxiety, and stress; and the highest scores for wellbeing and contribution while maintaining low antisocial behavior. This profile closely aligns with the high PYD/flourishing profiles identified in prior research [19, 20, 22], which characterize thriving adolescents who excel across multiple developmental outcomes.
As the second-largest group in this study, these adolescents offer an optimistic perspective on the overall well-being of young people. For this profile, interventions should focus on maintaining their positive developmental trajectory and maximizing their potential. Given their relatively high ratings of peer connections and alcohol abuse, they appear to share similarities with broad groups of peers rather than standing apart as “shiny ones”, which suggests that their potential for making positive contributions within their peer groups is significant, particularly in the context of positive development. Programs that use a peer-to-peer approach, provide advanced leadership opportunities, encourage volunteerism, and promote engagement in global or community-oriented projects could help sustain their growth while fostering a broader impact on their peers and communities.
Taken together, these profiles highlight the interplay of strengths and vulnerabilities, suggesting the importance of examining both visible behaviors and underlying traits for the development of targeted interventions. The interplay of strengths and vulnerabilities across profiles underscores the developmental complexity of adolescents, as described by Lerner et al. [1]. For example, while “Thriving Stars” exemplify optimal development, profiles such as “High-Performing Rebels” demonstrate how strengths in one area (e.g., confidence, competence) can coexist with significant risks (e.g., binge drinking, antisocial behavior). These findings highlight the importance of strength-based interventions that promote resilience by leveraging developmental assets while addressing contextual risks. The identification of distinct youth profiles has direct implications for the development of school- and community-based programs. For example, youth characterized by low confidence or connection may benefit from interventions that focus on building social-emotional competencies, self-efficacy, and supportive peer networks. Conversely, profiles high in caring but also at risk may require tailored support that addresses emotional regulation and boundary-setting skills to prevent internalizing symptoms. These findings support the use of targeted, rather than one-size-fits-all, programming in schools and youth services. Additionally, early screening using brief PYD measures could help educators identify students who may not appear at risk academically but show emotional or social vulnerability that warrants proactive support.
Limitations and future studies
Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the data were collected at a single time point, which prevents causal inferences. The findings reflect the developmental characteristics of adolescents at a specific moment, and the identified profiles need to be validated in more independent samples. A longitudinal follow-up is planned, tracking the same cohort across four measurement points. This will allow us to examine the probabilities of transitions among profiles and to explore distinct developmental trajectories over time. As research on PYD profiles grows, with evident similarities and differences, there is a need to conduct cross-national and comparative studies using longitudinal and person-centered approaches to better understand how cultural, social, and contextual factors shape PYD profiles and their associations with distal outcomes. Additionally, while the study includes key distal outcomes such as mental health indicators, risk behaviors, and well-being, a more comprehensive understanding of these profiles would benefit from examining their associations with family circumstances, school resources, and peer influences. Future research should integrate these contextual factors to provide a more comprehensive picture of positive youth development.