An Examination of Behavioral Antecedents to Individuals' Participation in a Social Mentoring Network from a Protégé's Perspective

Abstract

The present study seeks to identify the behavioral antecedents to individuals' participation as protégé in a social mentoring network (SMN). It draws on social psychology and vocational literature and applies the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to understand and predict the specific behavioral context. A SMN was operationally defined as a special case of informal mentoring coupled with a social networking platform. Two additional variables—similarity and self-disclosure—were incorporated into the standard TPB model to improve its predictive power. A total of 376 respondents completed their first- and second wave questionnaires in a 2-week-longitudinal survey design. Two hierarchical multiple regressions were performed to determine the unique contributions made by the extended TPB model to the variance in behavioral intention and behavior. The results indicate that intention was demonstrated as a single significant variable in determining the behavior. Furthermore, intention was significantly influenced by respondents' attitudinal and normative beliefs toward the behavior, weighted by their internal mechanism that establishes the importance of necessary preconditions for the development of successful mentoring relationship. These preconditions include protégés' need for similarity with their mentor as well as willingness to self-disclose themselves to the SMN.

Introduction

Mentoring plays an important role in an individual's career development.^1–4 It refers to an instrumental intervention in which an experienced mentor is committed to providing rich expertise to an inexperienced or less-skilled protégé.^5–7,* Numerous studies demonstrate that a mentoring relationship promotes the achievement of specific goals set out for protégés, such as teaching competency,^8–9 scholarly development,¹⁰ or job search clarity.¹¹ Recent literature on mentoring has begun to acknowledge that the communication medium of the Internet may provide an alternative to the development of face-to-face mentoring relationship.¹² In response to the growing use of a social networking service (SNS), the present study argues that a platform of SNS has the potential to offer a new communication channel that develops a mentor–protégé relationship in a voluntary fashion. We further elaborate the notion of a social mentoring network (SMN) as a special case of informal mentoring coupled with a social networking platform.^13–15 For example, a SMN involves a mentoring group in a SNS (e.g., Facebook, Cyworld), where members are able to discuss their own concerns about personal career development, such as job search or major selection, as protégés. Given the fact that SNS is self-directed or participatory by nature,¹⁶ it is important to gain an understanding of behavioral antecedents that encourage individuals to participate in a SMN, particularly from a protégé's perspective.

Theoretical Background

Similarity and self-disclosure

A body of mentoring literature has consistently indicated that a protégé's perception of similarity to the mentor and willingness to self-disclose are two salient factors that are paramount to the development of a successful mentoring relationship.^17–21 Similarity implies that protégés want to be mentored by someone like them with regard to beliefs, values, competencies, or goals.^18,19 The similarity–attraction paradigm²² serves as a conceptual foundation for justifying the role of a perceived similarity in seeking out mentors. The theory implies that human beings are naturally more attracted to others perceived to be similar than those of different backgrounds,²³ that is, similarity increases attraction to others. An example includes a case, where individuals prefer to interact with their role model as someone who should be imitated, from a sense of having shared personal values or beliefs.²⁴

On the other hand, self-disclosure is considered to be required for the development of intimacy between protégés and mentors.²⁵ It is described as a communication process in which an individual is willing to reveal to others his or her ideas, necessities, or experiences.^26–28 According to the interpersonal process model of intimacy proposed by Reis and Shaver,²⁹ intimacy is an outcome variable that results from a transactional process between an individual (the speaker) and his or her peer (the listener). The model posits that intimacy is initiated when the speaker discloses intimate information to the listener. In turn, the listener responds to the specific content of the personal information, feelings, or thoughts initially disclosed by the speaker.^30,31 This response is then interpreted by the speaker such that the listener is close and significant to him or her.³² In the mentoring context, the tendency for self-disclosure among protégés' has been found to directly relate to the quality of the interpersonal bond and mutual understanding between protégés and mentors.^33,34 Protégés in need of support or guidance should not be afraid or reluctant to reveal their inner selves to their mentors. However, protégés have their own expectations of privacy, which may inhibit them from disclosing certain aspects of their profiles.³⁵ In turn, mentors need to identify positive as well as negative information belonging to the protégés to help them to fulfill developmental goals. Taken together, a successful mentoring relationship is marked by the protégés' perceptions of similarity to mentors, and their willingness to self-disclose for the development of intimacy.

A key limitation of a majority of traditional, or face-to-face, mentorships is that the pairing of a protégé with a mentor is usually designated by a third party, and is based on the stereotypes of peers or superficial demographic cues rather than shared interests or goals.¹² Chao et al.¹⁴ asserted that “[…] random assignment of protégés to mentors is analogous to blind dates […]” (p. 634). It seems likely that, as protégés may often perceive a lack of similarity to mentors, this plays a role in the success of mentoring relationship.⁵⁶ Furthermore, engineered pairing is likely to inhibit protégés from easily making disclosures to mentors with whom they identify as strangers.^36,37 Overall, there is a voluminous literature indicating that a mismatched or poor fit between protégés and mentors leads to an uncomfortable relationship, or even causes it to fail.^38–40 Given the advancements in technology, however, several studies propose that the Internet or online websites may serve as a viable resource for individuals to overcome such hurdles.^41–43

Social mentoring network

The SMN may enable a perceived similarity between protégé and mentor to be more easily achieved, which is not always possible in a face-to-face setting. This follows because it provides an ideal situation in which the mentoring relationships are initiated and refined by large numbers of individuals with a commonality of interests and mutual identification.^44–47 This might be the case when a preliminary pairing of the protégé and mentor is made by accessing each other's personal profile over time and recruiting him or her as a relationship partner, indicative of a great control over the protégé–mentor matching process. Most fundamentally, the notion of homophily has been much emphasized in the SNS context, in which individuals often tend to use a SNS to create contact with similar others in terms of age, beliefs, interests, and so forth, but not with random samples.^48,49 It thus seems reasonable to expect that the individual's greater need for similarity to their mentor may encourage them to participate in the SMN as a protégé. In addition, several past studies have discussed the ease of self-disclosure provided by computer-mediated communication (CMC).^26,50 Due to fewer social context cues, such as the lack of nonverbal, status, and physical cues, it is probable that individuals may find it easier to disclose their personal information through the perception of gaining psychological safety.^51–53 Other perspectives suggest that a platform of SNS provides individuals with controllability of disclosure rules that govern where their private information is exposed to their potential relationship partners.⁵⁴ Schouten et al.⁵⁵ noted that reduced nonverbal cues and controllability offered by a CMC may make individuals absorbed in communication tasks, and consequently, increase their self-disclosure. Ensher et al.⁴¹ indicated that the nonintrusive nature of the CMC medium facilitates self-disclosure among individuals, leading them to voluntarily seek out perceived similarity more easily than in face-to-face mentoring settings. To summarize, the extent to which individuals are willing to disclose their information within the SMN will be parallel to their SMN participation as a protégé.

Research Objective and Development of Hypotheses

The present study examines if individuals' behavioral antecedents to participate in the SMN as protégés are determined by two important factors of similarity and self-disclosure. This work is further framed by the theory of planned behavior (TPB),^56–58 which is a rational decision-making model. The theory proposes that the decisions of human beings are often based upon a reasoned assessment of possible advantages and disadvantages of the target behavior.⁵⁹ It could be argued that the behavior may depend on the opportunities and chances to do so, reflecting unplanned decision making. However, the TPB may be a potentially appropriate model for understanding the particular behavior in our study, since the decision to participate in an SMN is likely to be influenced by subjective evaluation of need and acceptability of the mentorship, and thus probably subject to the motivation to participate in the first place. For example, the factor of similarity may reflect the protégés' rational choice in creating social ties through connections with similar others to achieve their desired goal of career development.

A basic tenet of the TPB is that an individual's behavior is directly determined by his or her behavioral intention. As a general rule, the stronger the intention, the more likely the individual is to perform the target behavior. In the TPB, the behavioral intention is itself determined by three sets of key predictors: attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control (PBC). Attitude denotes the overall evaluations of the behavior by the individual. Subjective norm refers to an individual's perception of how the behavior will be judged by his or her significant referents. Lastly, PBC represents the perception of the extent to which performing the behavior is easy or difficult. Several studies also indicate that both the intention and PBC may jointly serve as predictors of behavior.^57,60 The TPB has been widely applied to the understanding of a variety of behaviors.^61,62 Notably, arguments have been made for the inclusion of other external variables to the standard TPB model for predicting the specific behavioral context.^57,63

The present study provides an integration of the TPB and two additional variables of similarity and self-disclosure based upon the foregoing discussion. This is followed by the examination of a series of research hypotheses, including (1) intention and PBC should be predictive of the individual's actual participation as protégé in the SMN (Hypothesis 1); (2) attitude, subjective norm, and PBC should be predictive of the individual's behavioral intention to participate as protégé in the SMN (Hypothesis 2); and (3) the two additional variables of similarity and self-disclosure should be predictive of the individual's behavioral intention to participate as protégé in the SMN (Hypothesis 3).

Research Methodologies

Development of measurement instruments

The present work conducted a survey study to test the proposed hypotheses. Table 1 presents the measurement instruments used in the present study.

Table 1.

Measurement Instrument: Construct/Item Description, Descriptive Statistics, Cronbach's α, and Factor Loading

Construct/Item	Factor loading
Intention (M=5.24; S.D.=0.93; α=0.789)
INT1: I intend to participate in SMN at least once per day in the next 2 weeks.	0.774
INT2: I plan to participate in SMN at least once per day in the next 2 weeks.	0.772
INT3: In the next 2 weeks, will you participate in SMN at least once per day?	0.713
Attitude (M=5.56; S.D.=0.85; α=0.883)
ATT1: For me, participating in SMN at least once per day in the next 2 weeks would be (good/bad).^*	0.708
ATT2: For me, participating in SMN at least once per day in the next 2 weeks would be (harmful/beneficial).	0.780
ATT3: For me, participating in SMN at least once per day in the next 2 weeks would be (worthless/valuable).	0.816
ATT4: For me, participating in SMN at least once per day in the next 2 weeks would be (negative/positive).	0.762
Subjective norm (M=5.28; S.D.=1.00; α=0.856)
SBN1: Most people who are important to me would participate in SMN at least once per day in the next 2 weeks.	0.836
SBN2: The people in my life whose opinions I value would participate in SMN at least once per day in the next 2 weeks.	0.796
SBN3: Will most people who are important to you approve of your participating in SMN at least once per day?	0.819
Similarity (M=5.28; S.D.=0.91; α=0.931)
SML1: My mentor and I should see things in much the same way.	0.787
SML2: My mentor should be similar to me in terms of our outlook and perspective.	0.835
SML3: My mentor and I should be alike in a number of areas.	0.806
SML4: My mentor and I should analyze problems in a similar way.	0.824
SML5: My mentor and I should have similar values about work.	0.742
SML6: My mentor and I should be more similar than dissimilar in important ways.	0.769
Self-disclosure (M=4.52; S.D.=1.01; α=0.856)
SDC1: To what extent would you disclose information and thoughts to SMN?	0.770
SDC2: To what extent would you disclose your thought about what is important to you to SMN?	0.782
SDC3: To what extent would you disclose information about your weakness or developmental needs to SMN?	0.769
SDC4: To what extent would you disclose things you have done of which you are proud to SMN?	0.784
SDC5: To what extent would you disclose information that you feel is very meaningful, personal, or revealing about yourself to SMN?	0.796

Exploratory factor analysis technique: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization; Rotation converged in six iterations.

Denotes the item that was reverse coded.

The measure of the TPB constructs

Operationalization of the target behavior was achieved by adopting the methodologies from Pelling and White⁶³ and Baker and White,⁶⁴ who studied the use of the SNS in the framework of the TPB. The target behavior for the present study was defined as unique participation as protégé in the SMN at least once per day. The actual behavior was then measured by rating the number of days an individual engaged in the target behavior in the next 2 weeks, on a single item index consisting of a fifteen-point single scale, ranging from 0 (=0 day) to 14 (=14 days). The following measures of the TPB constructs were developed in the manner recommended by Ajzen.^57,65,66 The measurement of behavioral intention was assessed by the mean of three items scored on the 7-point Likert-scale (i.e., 1=“strongly disagree” to 7=“strongly agree”). For the assessment of attitude, four items were rated on the bipolar adjectives of the 7-point semantic differential scale. The measurement of subjective norm was assessed by the mean of three items scored on the 7-point Likert-scale. For the assessment of PBC, two items were scored on the 7-point Likert scale, while one item was scored on the 7-point semantic differential scale.

The measurement of similarity and self-disclosure

The measurement of similarity consisted of six 7-point Likert-scale items based upon the operational definitions used in Ensher et al.²³ Five items from Wanberg et al.²⁵ were adapted and modified to assess the measurement of self-disclosure. Responses were rated on the seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (=“not at all”) to 7 (=“very much”).

Sample

The target sample represents a nonrandom convenience sample of: (1) adult age groups of 25 to 35 years old in South Korea, (2) those who use a SNS (i.e., Facebook, Cyworld) at least once per day, and (3) subscribed member of several SMN typed groups. The present study employed a 2-week longitudinal design with two waves of data collection. The first wave measured the constructs of behavioral antecedents to behavior in the TPB model, as well as the two additional variables of similarity and self-disclosure. In the second wave, the actual behavior during the entire 2 weeks was assessed. All questionnaire materials were properly translated into Korean. A message with an invitation was sent out to those 969 samples asking them to complete the survey. They were told that 50 gift coupons of ₩5,000 will be given randomly to those who complete two waves of survey. N=467 respondents participated in the first wave survey. Two weeks later, N=414 respondents completed the second wave survey. The exclusion of thirty eight insincere responses yielded a total of 376 usable questionnaires, for a net response rate of 38.8 percent. Respondents in the final sample were predominantly male (69.4 percent), with a mean age of 29.8 years (S.D.=3.13). The mean for the behavioral measurement was 4.6 days (S.D.=2.57).

Data Analysis and Hypotheses Test

A scale refinement of the measurement instrument

A scale refinement process was conducted to evaluate the reliability and factorial structure of the measurement instrument.^67,68 The values of Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated for all scales to ensure an acceptable level of internal consistency (α >0.7)⁶⁹ (Table 1). An exploratory factor analysis was then performed on twenty four questionnaire items. The results indicated that six distinctive factors were extracted, which correspond to the six latent constructs of interest in the present study. All factor loadings exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.7⁷⁰ (Table 1).

Hierarchical multiple regression of behavioral intention to participate in the SMN

A two-step hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to predict the behavioral intention to participate in the SMN (see Table 2), with (1) attitude, subjective norm, and PBC entered at step 1 and (2) similarity and self-disclosure entered at step 2. Hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested. Variance inflation factors calculated for each predictor indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem (<4 for all cases).⁷¹

Table 2.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Intention

Predictor	B	β	β _final	Adj. R ²	ΔAdj. R ²	F _change
Prediction of Intention
Step 1				0.304	0.304	F_{(3, 372)}=55.655^***
Attitude	0.507	0.463^***	0.306^***
Subjective norm	0.155	0.165^**	0.126^**
PBC	−0.028	−0.032	−0.032
Step 2				0.364	0.060	F_{(2, 370)}=18.324^***
Similarity	0.255	0.249^***	0.249^***
Self-disclosure	0.104	0.112^**	0.112^**

p<0.01.

***

p<0.001.

B, unstandardized coefficient; β, standardized coefficient; β_final, standardized coefficient in the final model; PBC, perceived behavioral control.

At the first step of the regression, the inclusion of attitude, subjective norm, and PBC accounted for 30.4 percent of the variance in intention. Attitude and subjective norm were significant predictors of intention, with both variables remaining significant independent predictors of intention in the final model. However, PBC did not emerge as a significant predictor of intention in either of the two steps. The results provided modest support for hypothesis 2. The addition of similarity and self-disclosure at the second step significantly increased the proportion of the total variance which could be explained to 36.4 percent, with both variables having significant beta weights. Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Hierarchical multiple regression of the behavior

A three-step hierarchical regression on behavior was performed for behavioral prediction (see Table 3), with (1) intention and PBC entered at step 1, (2) attitude and subjective norm entered at step 2, and lastly (3), similarity and self-disclosure entered at step 3. Hypothesis 1 was tested.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Behavior

Predictor	B	β	β _final	Adj. R ²	ΔAdj. R ²	F _change
Behavioral prediction
Step 1				0.302	0.302	F_{(2, 373)}=82.244^***
Intention	1.533	0.556^***	0.491^***
PBC	−0.064	−0.027	−0.056
Step 2				0.307	0.005	F_{(2, 371)}=2.164
Attitude	0.233	0.077	0.054
Subjective norm	0.129	0.050	0.032
Step 3				0.311	0.004	F_{(2, 369)}=2.120
Similarity	0.261	0.092	0.092
Self-disclosure	−0.193	−0.076	−0.076

***

p<0.001.

At the first step, the inclusion of intention and PBC accounted for 30.2 percent of the variance in behavior, with only intention having a significant beta weight. Intention remained a significant predictor of behavior at step 2 and the final step. PBC was not a significant predictor of the behavior in any of the models. The results provided partial support for hypothesis 1. The addition of attitude and subjective norm in the second step did not produce a significant increase in the amount of the behavior variance which could be explained—only an increase of 0.5 percent. None of these factors remained as significant independent predictors of behavior in the final model. The addition of similarity and self-disclosure in the final step of the regression did not significantly improve the behavioral prediction. The final model accounted for 31.1 percent of the variance in behavior.

Discussion and Conclusion

The goal of the present study was to determine behavioral antecedents to participate in the SMN within the framework of the TPB model, and to evaluate the robustness of the model. Two additional variables of similarity and self-disclosure were incorporated into the standard TPB model to improve its predictive power. The extended version of the TPB accounted for 36.4 percent and 31.1 percent of the total variance of intention and behavior, respectively. The results indicate that the variables of attitude, subjective norm, similarity, and self-disclosure played significant roles in determining the behavioral intention, which, in turn, was found to be the single significant predictor of behavior. Due to the presence of the insignificant effect of PBC for the prediction of both intention and behavior, the current study found modest support for the usefulness of applying the TPB model in the SNS domain to the specific subset of SMN participation.

The association between behavioral intention and behavior clearly indicates that respondents with a greater or lesser willingness to participate in a SMN as protégé reported a greater or lesser engagement in the subsequent behavior, respectively. This finding is consistent with Baker and White,⁶⁴ in which intention was the immediate antecedent to behavioral prediction of SNS use. In line with modest support for the TPB mechanism, the respondents' attitude and subjective norm, but not PBC, exerted significant effects on the prediction of behavioral intention. A noteworthy finding is that the construct of attitude contributed the most in the explanation of intention. Ajzen⁵⁷ argued that the relative influence of three independent constructs of the TPB—attitude, subjective norm, and PBC—may vary across behaviors and situations. One possible explanation can be derived from an idea that respondents are more likely to form their intentions to do so on the basis of the perceived advantage or disadvantage of SMN participation, because they see such personal beliefs as being the primary indicator of their needs. Interestingly, PBC was not a significant predictor of behavioral intention or actual behavior. It may be the case that respondents had fewer barriers to access the SMN as protégé and were readily using its services. This view is consistent with Pelling and White,⁶³ who argued that the insignificance of PBC for the prediction of SNS use may due to the individuals' high degree of volitional control over the behavior.

As expected, incorporating the variables of similarity and self-disclosure significantly accounted for an additional 6.0 percent of the variance in behavioral intention. Indeed, respondents with a greater or lesser perceived requirement for his or her mentor to be similar to oneself reported a greater or lesser intention to participate in the SMN, respectively. Respondents might perceive that the SMN is particularly instrumental in providing full autonomy over the selection of their mentors. The finding appears to provide strong support for the direction given by Ensher et al.,⁴¹ who pointed out that one way to overcome the lack of similarity in a mentor–protégé relationship is to participate in mentoring via CMC. In addition, a greater or lesser willingness to disclose information about him or her to the SMN was significantly associated with increasing or decreasing intention. It is possible that the extent to which respondents perceived voluntary self-disclosure as one way to initiate a mentoring relationship and develop more advanced relational stages might have a positive impact on their behavioral intention. The present study was not designed to include the career-related outcome variables as dependent measures. However, the findings are notable, since literature has much emphasized the importance of both perceived similarity and self-disclosure as salient factors in the promotion of intimacy, mutual understanding, and deep trust relation.^72,73 Taken together, overall findings suggest that protégés' behavioral intention to participate in a SMN is influenced by their attitudinal and normative beliefs toward the behavior, weighted by their internal mechanism that establishes the importance of two necessary preconditions for the development of successful mentoring relationship. These preconditions include protégés' need for similarity with their mentor as well as willingness to self-disclose themselves to the SMN.

Implication, Limitation, and Future Study

The present study is to be seen as an initial step toward a theoretical foundation based on the extension of the TPB model to protégé aspects in SMN participation. The findings contribute to behavioral literature in the context of SNS, and particularly to the design of computer-mediated mentorship programs.^12,41,42 It is suggested that practitioners can use a social networking platform as a vehicle for developing and supporting a mentor–protégé relationship.

There are several limitations that should be noted. First, demographic variables were not controlled in the two hierarchical multiple regressions, making it difficult to draw useful inferences. However, the TPB postulates that demographic factors indirectly influence behavioral intention or behavior through their impact on attitude, subjective norm, or PBC.⁷⁴ Second, there is no doubt that the present study can be extended to include other external variables (e.g., social capital) in future works.⁷⁵ For further consideration, an emphasis should be placed on a mentor's perspective to identify new sets of mentoring factors in a SMN.⁷⁶ Thirdly, the present study relied on self-rated behavioral measurements over a 2-week period. Respondents were instructed to mark the date of when they had engaged in the target behavior. However, it is quite possible that they might experience difficulties in reporting their past behaviors without specific instruments or aid. Future study may, thus, need to employ more objective behavioral measures, such as website logging profiles. Lastly, generalizability of the findings should be approached with caution, given its convenience sampling strategies. For example, individual patterns of self-disclosure may vary across cultures.⁷⁷ Future works should determine the extent to which the finding of the present study can be extended to include other settings to ensure external validity.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

The Authors declare no conflict of interest related to this work.

*

The literature has conceptually identified two dimensions of mentoring relationships: psychosocial and instrumental intervention. The former provides an emotional or social support to meet the protégé's affective needs, whereas the latter concerns career support. For the purpose of this study, the authors focus on the mentoring relationship that occurs within the context of an instrumental intervention.

References

Allen

, Eby

, Poteet

et al. Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004; 89:127–136.

Eby

, Allen

, Evans

et al. Does mentoring matter? a multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2008; 72:254–267.

Ghislieri

, Gatti

, Quaglino

. Factors affecting willingness to mentor. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 2009; 9:205–219.

Wallace

. The benefits of mentoring for female lawyers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2001; 58:366–391.

Kram

. 1985. Mentoring at work: developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Parise

, Forret

. Formal mentoring programs: the relationship of program design and support to mentors' perceptions of benefits and costs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2008; 72:225–240.

Young

, Perrewé

. What did you expect? an examination of career-related support and social support among mentors and protégés. Journal of Management, 2008; 26:611–632.

Crasborn

, Hennissen

, Brouwer

et al. Exploring a two-dimensional model of mentor teacher roles in mentoring dialogues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2011; 27:320–331.

Hobson

, Ashby

, Malderez

et al. Mentoring beginning teachers: what we know and what we don't. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2009; 25:207–216.

10.

Lev

, Kolassa

, Bakken

. Faculty mentors' and students' perceptions of students' research self-efficacy. Nurse Education Today, 2010; 30:169–174.

11.

Zikic

, Saks

. Job search and social cognitive theory: the role of career-relevant activities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2009; 74:117–127.

12.

de Janasz

, Ensher

, Heun

. Virtual relationships and real benefits: using e-mentoring to connect business students with practicing managers. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 2008; 16:394–411.

13.

Allen

, Eby

. Relationship effectiveness for mentors: factors associated with learning and quality. Journal of Management, 2003; 29:469–486.

14.

Chao

, Walz

, Gardner

. Formal and informal mentorships: a comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 1992; 45:619–636.

15.

Eby

, Lockwood

. Protégé and mentors' reactions to participating in formal mentoring programs: a qualitative investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2005; 67:441–458.

16.

Schwier

, Morrison

, Daniel

. A comparison of formal and non-formal virtual learning communities. www.scribd.com/doc/3886618/A-Comparison-of-Formal-and-NonFormal-Virtual-Learning-Communities. 2012 Aug 15.

17.

Turban

, Dougherty

, Lee

. Gender, race, and perceived similarity effects in developmental relationships: the moderating role of relationship duration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2002; 61:1–23.

18.

Lankau

, Riordan

, Thomas

. The effects of similarity and liking in formal relationships between mentors and protégés. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2005; 67:252–265.

19.

Wanberg

, Mueller-Kammeyer

, Marchese

. Mentor and protégé predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2006; 69:410–423.

20.

Dougherty

, Dreher

. 2007. Mentoring and career outcomes: conceptual and methodological issues in an emerging literature. Ragins

, Kram

. The handbook of mentoring at work: theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 51–93.

21.

Ensher

, Murphy

. 2007. E-mentoring: next-generation research strategies and suggestions. Ragins

, Kram

. The handbook for mentoring at work: theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 299–322.

22.

Byrne

. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.

23.

Ensher

, Grant-Vallone

, Marelich

. Effects of perceived attitudinal and demographic similarity on protégé's support and satisfaction gained from their mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2002; 32:1407–1430.

24.

Bryant

, Zimmerman

. Role models and psychosocial outcomes among African American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2003; 18:36–67.

25.

Wanberg

, Welsh

, Kammeyer-Mueller

. Protégé and mentor self-disclosure: levels and outcomes within formal mentoring dyads in a corporate context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2007; 70:398–412

26.

Dietz-Uhler

, Bishop-Clark

, Howard

. Formation of and adherence to a self-disclosure norm in an online chat. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2005; 8:114–120.

27.

Dindia

. 2002. Self-disclosure research: knowledge through meta-analysis. Allen

, Preiss

, Gayle

, Burrell

. Interpersonal communication: advances through meta-analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 169–186.

28.

H-C

, Kuo

F-Y

. Can blogging enhance subjective well-being through self-disclosure? CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2009; 12:75–79.

29.

Reis

, Shaver

. 1988. Intimacy as an interpersonal process. Duck

. Handbook of personal relationships. Chichester, England: Wiley, 367–389.

30.

Laurenceau

J-P

, Barrett

. Intimacy as an interpersonal process: the importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1998; 74:1238–1251.

31.

Laurenceau

J-P

, Barrett

, Rovine

. The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 2005; 19:314–323.

32.

Finkenauer

, Righetti

. Understanding in close relationships: an interpersonal approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 2011; 22:316–363.

33.

Blickle

, Schneider

, Perrewé

et al. The roles of self-disclosure, modesty, and self-monitoring in the mentoring relationship: a longitudinal multi-source investigation. Career Development International, 2008; 13:224–240.

34.

Ensher

, Murphy

. 2005. Power mentoring: how successful mentors and protégés get the most out of their relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Petronio

. 2002. Boundaries of privacy: dialectics of disclosure. NY: State University of New York Press.

36.

Armstrong

, Allinson

, Hayes

. Formal mentoring systems: an examination of the effects of mentor-protégé cognitive styles on the mentoring process. Journal of Management Studies, 2002; 39:1111–1137.

37.

Hale

. To match or mismatch? The dynamics of mentoring as a route to personal and organizational learning. Career Development International, 2000; 5:223–234.

38.

Cox

. For better, for worse: the matching process in formal mentoring schemes. Mentoring and Tutoring, 2005; 13:403–414.

39.

Eby

, Allen

. Further investigation of protégés' negative mentoring experiences patterns and outcomes. Group and Organization Management, 2002; 27:456–479.

40.

Feeney

, Bozeman

. Mentoring and network ties. Human Relations, 2008; 61:1651–1676.

41.

Ensher

, Heun

, Blanchard

. Online mentoring and computer-mediated communication: new directions in research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2003; 63:264–288.

42.

Shpigelman

, Reiter

, Weiss

. E-mentoring for youth with special needs: preliminary results. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2008; 11:196–200.

43.

Knouse

. Virtual mentors: mentoring on the Internet. Journal of Employment Counseling, 2001; 38:162–169.

44.

Bozionelos

. Mentoring provided: relation to mentor's career success, personality, and mentoring received. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2004; 64:24–46.

45.

Ragins

. 2002. Understanding diversified mentoring relationships: definitions, challenges, and strategies. Clutterbuck

, Ragins

. Mentoring and diversity: an international perspective. Oxford, MA: Butterworth Heinemann, 23–53.

46.

Ragins

, Cotton

, Miller

. Marginal mentoring: the effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 2000; 43:1177–1194.

47.

Waters

. Protégé-mentor agreement about the provision of psychosocial support: the mentoring relationship, personality, and workload. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2004; 65:519–532.

48.

Mazur

, Richards

. Adolescents' and emerging adults' social networking online: homophily or diversity? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2011; 32:180–188.

49.

McPherson

, Smith-Lovin

, Cook

. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 2001; 27:415–444.

50.

Tidwell

, Walther

. Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 2002; 28:317–348.

51.

Kiesler

, Siegel

, McGuire

. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 1984; 39:1123–1134.

52.

Leibert

, Archer

, Munson

et al. An exploratory study of client perceptions of Internet counseling and the therapeutic alliance. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 2006; 28:69–83.

53.

Nguyen

, Bin

, Campbell

. Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: a systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2012; 15:103–111.

54.

Stuzman

, Capra

, Thompson

. Factors mediating disclosure in social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:590–598.

55.

Schouten

, Valkenburg

, Peter

. Precursors and underlying processes of adolescents' online self-disclosure: developing and testing an “Internet-attribute-perception” model. Media Psychology, 2007; 10:292–315.

56.

Ajzen

. 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Kuhland

, Beckman

. Action-control: from cognition to behavior. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 11–39.

57.

Ajzen

. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991; 50:179–211.

58.

Ajzen

, Fishbein

. 2005. The influence of attitudes on behavior. Albarracin

, Johnson

, Zanna

. The handbook of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 173–221.

59.

Chatzisarantis

NLD

, Hagger

. Mindfulness and the intention-behavior relationship within the theory of planned behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2007; 33:663–676.

60.

Hrubes

, Ajzen

, Daigle

. Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences, 2001; 23:165–178.

61.

Ajzen

. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001; 52:27–58.

62.

Armitage

, Conner

. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2001; 40:471–499.

63.

Pelling

, White

. The theory of planned behavior applied to young people's use of social networking web sites. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2009; 12:755–759.

64.

Baker

, White

. Predicting adolescents' use of social networking sites from an extended theory of planned behaviour perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:1591–1597.

65.

Ajzen

. Constructing a TPB questionnaire: conceptual and methodological considerations. www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf. 2011 Jun 12.

66.

Ajzen

. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2002; 32:665–683.

67.

Gerbing

, Anderson

. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 1988; 25:186–192.

68.

Singh

, Rhoads

. Boundary role ambiguity in marketing positions: a multidimensional, multifaceted operationalization. Journal of Marketing Research, 1991; 28:328–338.

69.

DeVellis

. 2003. Scale development: theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

70.

Carmines

, Zeller

. 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

71.

Cohen

, Cohen

, West

et al. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

72.

Allen

, Russell

JEA

, Maetzke

. Formal peer mentoring: factors related to protégés' satisfaction and willingness to mentor others. Group and Organization Management, 1997; 22:488–507.

73.

Ensher

, Murphy

. Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1997; 50:460–481.

74.

Ajzen

, Albarracin

, Hornik

. 2007. Prediction and change of health behavior: applying the reasoned action approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

75.

Hezlett

, Gibson

. Linking mentoring and social capital: implications for career and organization development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2007; 9:384–411.

76.

Wang

, Noe

, Wang

Z-M

et al. What affects willingness to mentor in the future? An investigation of attachment styles and mentoring experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2009; 74:245–256.

77.

Chen

. Differences in self-disclosure patterns among Americans versus Chinese. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1995; 26:84–91.