Youth Mentoring Relationships and College Social and Academic Functioning: The Role of Mentoring Relationship Quality, Duration, and Type

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cara M. McClain ◽  
William C. Kelner ◽  
L. Christian Elledge
Keyword(s):  
Relationship Quality ◽  
Academic Functioning ◽  
Mentoring Relationships ◽  
Youth Mentoring ◽  
Mentoring Relationship

scholarly journals Unpacking Community-Based Youth Mentoring Relationships: An Integrative Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 5666
Author(s):  
Limor Goldner ◽  
Adar Ben-Eliyahu
Keyword(s):  
Relationship Quality ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Mentoring Relationships ◽  
Youth Mentoring ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Moderating Variables ◽  
Relational Processes ◽  
Positive Attitudes ◽  
Relational Domains ◽  
The Relationship

Formal community-based youth mentoring relationships (CBM) are a popular form of intervention worldwide in which caring, non-parental adult figures are matched with at-risk children (i.e., children who experience an intense and/or chronic risk factor, or a combination of risk factors in personal, environmental and/or relational domains that prevent them from pursuing and fulfilling their potential) to promote development and health. Common models suggest that a close mentoring relationship is needed for the success of the intervention. However, it remains unclear which key relational processes and variables promote relationship quality to generate the most significant benefits. Using the PRISMA framework, 123 articles were identified as relevant for this review which explores the state of the literature on CBM relationships describing the main findings regarding the characteristics of the relationship and the mediating and moderating variables. An essential ingredient that consistently emerged for generating mentoring outcomes is characterized by feelings of support, sensitivity, and trust and accompanied by a purposeful approach to shaping the goals of the relationship. A balanced approach comprised of recreational, emotional, and catalyzing aspects has been reported as essential for mentoring success. Mentors’ positive attitudes toward underprivileged youth, maturity in terms of age and experience are essential in forging positive relationships. Mentees who have better relational histories and more positive personality traits exhibited higher relationship quality. However, data imply the possibility of addressing mentees from moderate risk status. Preliminary evidence on thriving as a mediating variable was found. Program practices, such as training, parental involvement, and matching based on perceived similarities and similar interests, emerged as important factors. Generating many research suggestions, the review identifies research questions and uncharted territories that require inquiry.

scholarly journals A Working Model of Mentors’ Contributions to Youth Mentoring Relationship Quality: Insights From Research on Psychotherapy

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renée Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Informal Learning ◽  
Relationship Quality ◽  
Youth Development ◽  
Young Person ◽  
Mentoring Relationships ◽  
Positive Outcomes ◽  
Mentoring Relationship ◽  
Working Model ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Over Time

Mentoring is a flexible approach to youth development that can promote positive outcomes through informal learning. Not all mentoring relationships are beneficial, however, as lower quality mentoring relationships tend to have little effect. A mentor’s overall approach to the relationship has been found to influence relationship quality. But what does it take to engage a young person in such a relationship and sustain it over time? In this paper, I draw from the research on psychotherapy and other related literatures to briefly sketch out a working model for the determinants of mentoring relationship quality and then focus in detail on one of these—the contributions of the mentor.

scholarly journals Investigating mentor commitment in youth mentoring relationships: The role of perceived program practices

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 2264-2276
Author(s):  
Alison L. Drew ◽  
Thomas E. Keller ◽  
Renée Spencer ◽  
Carla Herrera
Keyword(s):  
Mentoring Relationships ◽  
Youth Mentoring

Mentoring and gender: perception is not reality

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 346-359
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Torney Welsh ◽  
Erica W. Diehn
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Design ◽  
Mentoring Relationships ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Informal Mentoring ◽  
Working Adults ◽  
Empirical Results ◽  
Mentoring Relationship ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Workplace Outcomes

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore whether the disconnect between mentoring theory, which posits that women receive less workplace mentoring than men, and empirical results, which have found that women report equivalent or more mentoring received than men, is due to differences in perception rather than in actual mentoring provided. Design/methodology/approach Using an MTurk sample of working adults (n=251), a 2 (protégé/participant gender: male/female) × 2 (mentor gender: male/female) × 3 (amount of mentoring: high/medium/low) between-subjects experimental design was tested. This approach held relationship characteristics constant, allowing for an examination of the role of gender in mentoring perceptions. Findings Gender was associated with the way protégés viewed a mentoring relationship and their reports of mentoring received. When identical relationships were described, women were more likely than men to identify a senior colleague as a mentor, and protégés in heterogeneous gender mentoring relationships reported more mentoring received than those in homogeneous gender relationships. Research limitations/implications When examining mentoring, perceptual differences need to be considered before drawing conclusions. Practical implications This study calls into question findings of equivalent mentoring – refocusing attention on the importance of informal mentoring for improving women’s workplace outcomes. Originality/value Using an experimental design that holds relationship characteristics constant, this study is able to examine whether perceptions of mentoring are affected by gender. No study has previously done so, and results from the current study help to explain why there has been a disconnect between theory and empirical results.

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 438-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renée Spencer ◽  
Antoinette Basualdo-Delmonico ◽  
Jill Walsh ◽  
Alison L. Drew
Keyword(s):  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Qualitative Interview ◽  
Interview Data ◽  
Mentoring Relationships ◽  
Youth Mentoring ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Relationship Strength ◽  
Mentoring Relationship ◽  
Program Support ◽  
Life Circumstances

Endings in youth mentoring relationships have received little empirical attention despite the fact that many relationships do end. The present study utilized qualitative interview data collected from participants in a longitudinal study of community-based mentoring relationships to examine how and why the relationships ended and how participants experienced these endings. Interviews with 48 pairs of mentors and youth and the youth’s parent or guardian conducted at the time the mentoring relationship ended were analyzed. Three types of procedural endings (formal goodbye planned and completed, formal goodbye planned but not completed, and agency ended) were identified as were five main reasons for relationship endings (changes in life circumstances, youth dissatisfaction or disinterest, mentor dissatisfaction, gradual dissolution, and mentor abandonment). Interrelationships between ending types and reasons are discussed, as are the roles of relationship strength and program support in these processes.

Validating a Mentoring Relationship Quality Scale

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 415-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean E. Rhodes ◽  
Sarah E. O. Schwartz ◽  
Margaret M. Willis ◽  
Max B. Wu
Keyword(s):  
Relationship Quality ◽  
Youth Development ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Mentoring Programs ◽  
Mentoring Relationships ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Relationship Duration ◽  
Mentoring Relationship ◽  
Quality Scale

Youth mentoring relationships have significant potential for promoting positive youth development. Nonetheless, the benefits derived from such relationships depend considerably on the length and quality of the bonds that are created between mentors and youth. Although some attention has been paid to youth’s experience of relationship quality, few studies have focused on mentors’ experience of relationship quality. In the context of a national sample of mentor and youth dyads in Big Brothers Big Sisters community-based mentoring programs ( N = 5,222), the current study validated a new mentor-reported measure of relationship quality, explored associations between mentor and youth assessments of relationship quality, and investigated the capacity of early assessments of relationship quality to predict mentoring relationship duration. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Faculty mentoring faculty: career stages, relationship quality, and job satisfaction

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Lunsford ◽  
Vicki Baker ◽  
Meghan Pifer
Keyword(s):  
Job Satisfaction ◽  
Relationship Quality ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Career Stages ◽  
Mentoring Relationships ◽  
Regression Equations ◽  
Faculty Mentoring ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mentoring Relationship

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand faculty mentoring experiences across career stages and the influence of mentoring relationship quality on job satisfaction. The study participants were faculty members from a consortium of liberal arts colleges in the USA. The theoretical lens draws from scholarship on career stages, developmental networks, and working alliances. Design/methodology/approach The analysis is based on a subset of 415 faculty member responses about mentoring from a larger data set on faculty development. The online survey was conducted in Spring 2014. Frequencies, χ2, regression equations, and confirmatory factor analysis were computed using R statistical software. Findings Over half the faculty members were both mentors and protégés; although, a sizable minority of faculty members did not engage in mentoring. Early-career faculty members were significantly more likely to have a mentor than were mid- or late-career faculty members. For both mentors and protégés, the higher they rated the quality of the mentoring relationship, the more job satisfaction they reported; this finding was greatest for mid-career (associate rank) faculty members. Participants reported significantly higher relationship quality with their mentors than with their protégés. Research limitations/implications The results may not generalize to faculty members who work at other institution types, for example, research-intensive or two-year schools, or to non-US higher education contexts. Statements made regarding those who do not participate in mentoring are speculative on the part of the authors. Practical implications Institutions may need to develop support for faculty members who may not desire to engage in mentoring. More attention may be warranted to create individual and institutional supports focused on high-quality mentoring. Originality/value This study extends the literature on mentoring by establishing that many employees serve in mentor and protégé roles simultaneously. Further, employees engage in mentoring relationships across career stages as mentors and as protégés. The authors developed a reliable measure of mentoring relationship quality that may be used in future mentoring studies. Higher quality mentoring relationships were associated with significantly greater job satisfaction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document