Chemers (1997) defined leadership as a socially persuasive process by which an individual can enlist and empower others to accomplish a task. Leadership can be learned, and a variety of factors influence the development of leadership in individuals (Burns, 2010; Northouse, 2010). Edelman, Gill, Comerford, Larson, and Hare (2004a) have proposed that youth leadership is a component of the skills attained through youth development, and youth development is an approach through which young people are empowered to reach their full leadership potential. Participation in youth leadership development programs (YLDP) during childhood and adolescence is recognized to be a contributor to leadership in adulthood (Balsano, Phelps, Theokas, Lerner, & Lerner, 2009; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003b). One area of focus in the study of leadership is leadership style, which Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen (2003) have described as "relatively stable patterns of behavior displayed by leaders" (p. 569). Cashman (2008) argued that different leadership styles can emerge based on leadership-development experiences and stages of leadership development. Most previous studies of leadership style have focused on adult experiences and professional settings (Antonaros, 2010; Floit, 1997; Khademfar, 2012; Zhu, Sosik, Riggio, & Yang, 2012). Although some studies have been conducted with respect to leadership styles of colleges students (Greiman, 2009; Gunther, Evans, Mefford, & Coe, 2007; Nagy, 2012; Spencer, 2004), additional research is being called for to explore the relationship between previous leadership experiences of college students and their current leadership practices (Schaper, 2009). The purpose of this study was therefore to examine the relationship between the participation in YLDPs during childhood and adolescence and the self-reported leadership styles of undergraduate college student leaders, with a focus on gender differences. This quantitative study utilized a nonexperimental, survey approach and included descriptive, predictive, correlational, and difference analyses. A survey instrument was used to gather information from respondents about their participation in YLDPs during childhood and adolescence and to measure for leadership style using the "Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)," Form 5X, along nine subscales (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Findings from the study show that (a) there was no statistically significant difference in the leadership styles of the respondents as measured by the MLQ based on whether or not they participated in YLDPs during childhood and adolescence; (b) for the respondents who participated in YLDPs during their childhood and adolescence, there was no statistically significant relationship between duration of participation in YLDPs and their leadership styles as measured by the MLQ; (c) for the respondents who participated in YLDPs during their childhood and adolescence, there was no statistically significant relationship between type of YLDPs and their leadership styles as measured by the MLQ; and (d) there was no statistically significant relationship between the college leadership position/title of the respondents and their leadership styles as measured by the MLQ. Also, the results of this study did not show a statistically significant relationship between the gender (female, male, transgender) of the participants and their leadership styles as measured by the MLQ. There were, however, some interesting observations for the relationship between participation in YLDPs and the leadership styles of the respondents. For the male participants, the Contingent Reward (CR) value is slightly higher for those respondents that did not participate in youth leadership development programs (M = 3.05) compared to those who participated in youth leadership development programs (M = 2.95). Conversely, for the female respondents, the CR value is significantly higher for those respondents that participated in youth leadership development programs (M = 3.07) compared to those that did not participate in youth leadership development programs (M = 2.52). With regards to the relationship between the duration of participation in youth leadership development programs and the MLQ scores of the respondents, the five subscales associated with transformational leadership (IA = Idealized Influence (Attribute); IB = Idealized Influence (Behavior); IM = Inspirational Motivation; IS = Intellectual Stimulation; and IC = Individualized Consideration) were positively correlated with the duration of participation in YLDP. In addition, the CR value was also positively correlated with the duration of participation in YLDP. Conversely, MBEA = Management by Exception (Active) which is associated with transactional leadership and the two subscales associated with passive-avoidant leadership (MBEP = Management by Exception (Passive) and LF = Laissez-Faire) were negatively correlated with the duration of participation in YLDP. Examining the relationship between type of YLDP and MLQ scores of the respondents revealed that female sports participants consistently displayed a higher level of the five subscales associated with transformational leadership compared to their male counterparts (IA: female respondents: M = 3.12; male respondents: M = 3.01; IB: female respondents: M = 3.01; male respondents: M = 2.77; IM: female respondents: M = 3.33; male respondents: M = 3.11; IS: female respondents: M = 2.91; male respondents: M = 2.88; and IC: female respondents: M = 3.15; male respondents: M = 2.90. The Contingent Reward (CR) subscale displayed a similar pattern in which the results aligned more closely with those of the five subscales of the transformational- leadership construct than with the MBEA transactional-leadership subscale. Female respondents displayed a higher level of the CR subscale (female respondents: M = 3.12; male respondents: M = 2.88) in comparison to their male counterparts. Comparatively, sports participants across all genders, showed a markedly lower level of the transactional leadership's MBEA: (female respondents: M = 1.84; male respondents: M = 1.98) as well as passive-avoidant's MBEP: (female respondents: M = 1.13; male respondents: M = 1.26) and LF: (female respondents: M = 0.82; male respondents: M = 0.83). Finally, for the interaction of gender and college leadership position/title on each of the nine subscales of the MLQ, a comparison of the means for the five subscales associated with transformational leadership: IA: (M = 2.85 -- 3.38); IB: (M = 2.69 -- 3.75); IM: (M = 3.00 -- 3.56); IS: (M = 2.63 -- 3.75); and IC: (M = 2.75 -- 3.69) speaks to the respondents scoring higher across all three (male, female, and transgender) genders for all of the reported college leadership positions/titles in comparison to the mean values of the respondents across all college leadership positions/titles pertaining to the subscales that denote transactional leadership: MBEA: (M = 1.13 -- 2.88); MBEP: (M = 0.63 -- 1.88); and LF: (M = 0.31 -- 1.50). The exception is for CR: (M = 2.50 -- 3.38); a subscale that is categorized with the transactional leadership style, and in the current study as with prior research, once again aligned more closely with the five subscales that denote transformational leadership. The current study's findings indicate opportunities for practitioners in both YLDPs and collegiate leadership to examine current practices and expand the scope of their work. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com.bibliotheek.ehb.be/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]