Young mentors’ relationship capacity: Parent–child connectedness,attitudes toward mentees,empathy,and perceived match quality

Abstract

Because the responsibility of developing strong connections to mentees often depends on mentors themselves, examining mentor qualities and relational capacity may identify malleable factors—or potential points of intervention—to improve perceived match quality. Relational capacity has been proposed as a theoretical concept for understanding how mentors’ previous experience, characteristics, and skills relate to mentoring quality. Our conceptual model posited that parent–child relationships build young mentors’ relational capacity for successful mentoring relationships. Using data from young mentors age 15–26 participating in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters school-based mentoring program (n = 155), this study extends current knowledge by examining potential mediators of the relationship between young mentors’ perceived parent–child connectedness and perceived match quality. Attitudes toward mentees and empathy skills mediated the relationship between parent–child connectedness and perceived match quality. Findings suggest that parent–child connectedness contributes to attitudes and skills that may strengthen perceived match quality. From a positive youth development perspective, young mentors with low relational capacity may require support to ensure high-quality matches.

Keywords

Adolescents empathy mentoring parent–child relationships youth

Theory and research suggest that for most mentoring programs, higher quality relationships produce better outcomes and may be the active ingredient by which mentoring effects are realized (Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, Feldman, & McMaken, 2007; Kanchewa, Yoviene, Schwartz, Herrera, & Rhodes, 2016; Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, & Noam, 2006). As a result, recent studies focus on discerning factors that produce higher quality mentoring relationships. Because mentors carry a large portion of the responsibility for forming and maintaining a positive relationship with children, focusing on malleable factors such as mentor qualities and relational capacity is important to identify potential points of intervention to improve match quality. In this article, the term “match” refers to a mentor and mentee pair.

Investigations of mentor characteristics and relational capacity help illuminate factors that impact match quality (Keller & Pryce, 2010; Spencer, 2012). In particular, mentor attributes are associated with mentor persistence in the match, relationship quality, and overall longevity of the match (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Karcher, Nakkula, & Harris, 2005; Smith, 2012), with the caveats that relationships tend to be reciprocal in nature and mentee characteristics also influence match quality and program outcomes (Karcher et al., 2005; Schwartz, Rhodes, Chan, & Herrera, 2011; Weiler & Taussig, 2017). Although relational capacity has been theoretically linked to match quality (Spencer, 2012), the processes affecting relational capacity of mentors have not been identified or empirically tested. Yet, the potential for this type of research to inform youth mentoring practice is high.

In school-based programs, a large proportion of children are served by high school and college-aged mentors (Bernstein, Rappaport, Olsho, Hunt, & Levin, 2009), which highlights the need to understand the attributes and processes involved with young mentors in this particular setting. School-based mentoring is distinct from Big Brothers/Big Sisters (BBBS) community-based programs, with school-based mentors tending to be more racially and ethnically diverse, interested in structured mentoring opportunities, and of varied ages (e.g., high school, college, and over age 50; Herrera, 2004). School-based program impacts are mixed and positive effects tend to be modest in size (Bernstein et al., 2009). Identifying amenable and critical processes involved in quality matches is needed to produce more consistent, and more robust, effects. As one step toward understanding factors associated with successful mentoring, the current study examines parental influences, young mentors’ attitudes about mentees, empathy skills, and perceived match quality in a school-based mentoring program.

Influence of parents on relational development

The positive youth development perspective (PYD) highlights the importance of connectedness with parents in youths’ relational development (Karcher, 2011). In this study, connectedness refers to “perceived caring, quality of and satisfaction with relationships, and a sense of belonging” (Sieving et al., 2017, p. 3). A young mentor’s connectedness and history with parents, including attachment, has a profound impact on the mentor’s relational development and potentially on mentoring relationship quality. The influence of parents may be especially salient for young mentors because parent connectedness continues to be developmentally influential through adolescence and young adulthood (Englund, I-Chun Kuo, Puig, & Collins, 2011; Seiffge-Krenke, Overbeek, & Vermulst, 2010; Tsai, Telzer, & Fuligni, 2013). Relational experiences not only affect parent–child connectedness and intimate relationships but all interpersonal interactions (e.g., Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008; Zeifman & Hazan, 2008) and young adult adjustment (Englund et al., 2011). Specifically, empathy has been linked to parental warmth (Strayer & Roberts, 2004) and secure parent–child attachment (Mikulincer et al., 2001; Murphy, Laible, Augustine, & Robeson, 2015).

Significant relationships influence young people’s expectations and ability to trust others in future relationships and contribute to relational development (Bowlby, 1969; Karcher, 2011; Sieving et al., 2017). Mother and father connectedness has been related to prosocial behavior toward family and peers (Day & Padilla-Walker, 2009; Lindsey, Colwell, Frabutt, Chambers, & MacKinnon-Lewis, 2008). Both adolescents and adults who felt secure in their relationships were more likely to develop prosocial inclinations and altruistically help others in volunteer settings (Gillath et al., 2005; Thompson & Gullone, 2008). In an Australian sample, adolescent report of trust, communication, and lack of alienation with parents was related to prosocial behavior toward both humans and animals, and empathy mediated this relationship (Thompson & Gullone, 2008). Another longitudinal study found a relationship between parents’ involvement with and connection to their adolescents and adolescents’ prosocial behaviors toward friends and strangers (Padilla-Walker & Christensen, 2011). Additionally, empathy mediated the relationship between parenting and adolescents’ prosocial behaviors.

Although research has shown that parent–child relationships influence future peer and family relationships, few studies have examined the influence of parent–child relationships on the relationship between mentors and mentees, which is unique in its length and purpose. Additionally, we extend past research by focusing on processes by which young mentors’ parent–child relationships may influence perceived match quality. Parent–child relationships have been linked with empathy (Padilla-Walker & Christensen, 2011; Thompson & Gullone, 2008), but little is known about the relationship between parent–child connectedness and young mentors’ attitudes toward mentees. Understanding attitudes toward mentees is important because early, negative impressions a mentor has may bias the formation of the mentoring relationship. Young mentors with healthy familial relationships may be inclined to have positive attitudes and empathy toward others—including mentees—and be in a better position to form a quality mentoring relationship.

Relational capacity of young mentors

Spencer (2012) proposed a model in which relational capacities of mentors are considered particularly influential to the development and maintenance of the mentoring relationship. A mentor’s relational capacity refers to the experiences, characteristics, and skills that contribute to the quality of the match. Results of a longitudinal study indicated that mentees paired with mentors who had comfort with intimacy reported stronger relationship quality, and mentees paired with empathic mentors reported feeling accepted and understood (Spencer, Martin, Basualdo-Delmonico, Walsh, & Jeon, 2010). Similarly, mentors’ attitudes toward children influence the relationship experience, and mentors with negative attitudes may even contribute to harmful effects (Karcher, Davidson, Rhodes, & Herrera, 2010). Those with negative attitudes often find it difficult to connect with and understand youth (Spencer, 2007). In contrast, mentors who hold mentees in positive regard and are capable of engaging authentically and empathically with mentees are more likely to be effective in establishing strong relationships (Spencer, 2006).

According to PYD, understanding and supporting relational capacity becomes an important goal of program staff when high school students and young adults are engaged as mentors. In the PYD tradition, young people are viewed as “resources to be developed” (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003, p. 94). For example, some programs for high school and young adult mentors have established successful service-learning environments where young mentors participate in mentoring while engaging in structured learning about child development, connectedness, and relationship skills (Haddock et al., 2013; Karcher, 2009).

Young mentors, including high school and college students, report benefits from mentoring younger students such as an increased sense of civic engagement and awareness, personal and academic self-esteem, problem-solving skills, and connectedness (Karcher, 2009; Weiler et al., 2013). Notably, these findings were based on programs that provided support in structured, service-learning environments to young mentors. In a qualitative study, college mentors reported that involvement in mentoring helped them develop an awareness of self, learn to manage stressful situations, and gain confidence in their leadership skills (Haddock et al., 2013). These studies highlight the developmental benefits of being a young mentor and the possibility of increasing relational capacity. Additionally, evidence suggests that peer mentoring is beneficial to mentees because young mentors relate well to students who are close in age (Brady, Dolan, & Canavan, 2014). In sum, the PYD perspective and studies on mentoring relationships highlight the importance of identifying processes that may improve young mentors’ relational capacity.

The current study

Although caring relationships with parents are known to promote prosocial behavior (e.g., Day & Padilla-Walker, 2009), little is known about potential mediators of the relationship between young mentors’ parent–child connectedness and perception of match quality, particularly in the context of school-based mentoring. Past research has demonstrated the importance of mentor qualities in successful relationships between mentors and mentees (e.g., Keller & Pryce, 2010). Qualities such as attitudes toward mentees and empathy skills may reflect relational capacity, and young mentors in particular have reported that a supportive mentoring environment contributes to building relational skills (e.g., Haddock et al., 2013). Understanding relational processes that may contribute to perceived match quality is important to provide support and maximize positive experiences young mentors have in formative volunteer experiences.

The purpose of the current study was to test a conceptual model specifying that parent–child relationships build capacity for mentoring relationships via attitudes toward mentees and empathy skills. We hypothesized that young mentors’ reports of connectedness with parents early in the school year would be positively related to ratings of perceived match quality near the end of the school year. Moreover, we expected that young mentors’ positive attitudes about mentees and empathy skills would mediate the relationship between connectedness with parents and perceived match quality.

Method

School-based mentoring program

Data for this study came from an evaluation of the BBBS of the Greater Twin Cities (BBBS-GTC) school-based mentoring program, located in Minneapolis and St Paul, Minnesota. Typically, the program matches elementary-aged mentees with youth or adult mentors and brings them together for about an hour a week to eat lunch, play a game, work on crafts or homework, or just talk about their week. Many high school-aged mentors are transported by program staff to elementary schools to meet with their younger mentees in group-based settings after school hours. All mentees are supported by program staff, who are often present at school during match meeting times. Youth mentors typically receive about two or more hours of initial training primarily through group sessions, individual support, and written materials.

Study procedures

All mentors and parents of high school-aged mentors participating in the school-based mentoring program were notified of the opportunity to participate in the evaluation, or opt out of having contact information shared with the research team, by a letter from the BBBS-GTC program coordinator. All eligible adult mentors were e-mailed an online link to the consent form and survey. Mentors under the age of 18 were sent a link upon receipt of a signed parental consent form. Survey data were collected online at two points during the 2013–2014 school year through secure survey links e-mailed to mentors, using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Minnesota (Harris et al., 2009). Gift cards were mailed to participating mentors upon completion of online surveys. All study procedures were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Minnesota.

Sample

Of 432 eligible school-based mentors, 304 enrolled and completed the first online survey at the beginning of school (Time 1), resulting in a participation rate of 77%. Based on BBBS program intake data, a comparison of mentors who chose not to participate versus those who completed surveys yielded a few statistically significant results with regard to age and race. In particular, nonparticipants were significantly more likely to be younger, African-American, and Asian compared to participating mentors.

In total, 283 mentors completed the second survey at the end of the school year (Time 2), resulting in a retention rate of 93%. An analysis of attrition demonstrated few differences between participants and those who chose not to fill out a follow-up survey. For our analytic sample, we selected the 155 youth mentors who were (a) age 26 or younger, (b) asked specific questions about their family of origin, and (c) who reported having the same mentee at both time points. Mentors over the age of 26 were excluded from the current analyses because they were not asked questions about their parents. Of the analytic sample, 74% completed the survey within 1 month of school ending, and all completed the end-of-the-year survey within 3 months of school ending. Table 1 displays the demographic characteristics of the analytic sample.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristic of analytic sample (n = 155).

	%
Female	78.1
Age, mean (SD)	19.32 (2.39)
Age group
High school student (<=18)	28.4
Young adult (19–26)	71.6
Education
High school graduate	11.7
Some college	51.9
College gradate	10.4
Race/ethnicity American Indian or Alaskan native	1.9
Asian or Pacific Islander	21.3
Black, African, African-American	5.2
Hispanic	4.5
White	75.5
Receipt of free or reduced-price lunch	31.1
Mother college graduate	67.4
Father college graduate	67.9
Live at home	75.5
Work one or more jobs	58.1
New mentor	50.3
Total months with mentee, Mean (SD)	14.75 (11.53)

Measures

Young mentor perceived match quality at the end of the school year (Time 2) was measured by 6 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Questions were developed for the evaluation study based on qualitative interviews with mentors and previous relationship quality measures (Karcher, Herrera, & Hansen, 2010; Rhodes, Schwartz, Willis, & Wu, 2014). Specific items were: “During this past school year, how often did you…look forward to the time you spent with your Little (e.g., mentee)?” “…have fun together,” “…just talk casually together,” “…notice that your Little copies behaviors you try to model?,” “…feel close to your Little?,” and “Thinking about this past school year, how often did the following happen…my Little was open with me (shared thoughts and feelings).” Response options ranged from 1 = never to 5 = very often. Internal consistency for these items was α = .76, and a factor analysis yielded evidence of the unidimensionality and construct validity of this scale.

Attitudes toward children who participate in mentoring were measured by 5 items asked on the Time 1 survey, on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = none or almost none to 5 = all or almost all). Items were adapted from the Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, Feldman, and McMaken (2007) scale that measured overall attitudes toward youth in the community. Mentors responded to the following questions: “How many kids participating in the Big Brothers Big Sisters mentoring program do you think…work hard at school,” “are fun to be around,” “try to do their best,” “are interested in learning,” and “are troublemakers” (reverse coded). This scale demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .85).

Empathy was measured with 3 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all true to 5 = very true), adapted from the California Healthy Kids Survey (Constantine & Bernard, 2001). When asked the question “How true do you feel these next statements are about you personally?,” mentors responded to the following items: “I feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt,” “I try to understand what other people go through,” and “I try to understand what other people feel and think.” Internal consistency was α = .69.

Mentors’ perceived connection with parents at Time 1 was measured by 6 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale. These items were derived from a subscale of the Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness (Karcher, 2011). When asked “How true about you is each statement below?” mentors responded to the following items: “My family has fun together,” “It is important that my parents/guardians trust me,” “My parents or guardians and I disagree about many things” (reverse coded), “My parents or guardians and I get along very well,” “I care about my parents or guardians very much,” and “I enjoy spending time with my parents/guardians.” Internal consistency of these items was α = .82.

Background variables included in the analyses were mentor age, gender (1 = male, 2 = female), race (1 = White checked, 0 = unchecked), previous mentoring experience (1 = new big, 0 = experienced big), and total months with current mentee at Time 2.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were conducted and correlations were computed for all variables used in the structural equation models. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was estimated in four steps. First, we constructed a measurement model and allowed the constructs to correlate freely using Stata 14 (StataCorp, 2015). Second, we fit a structural equation model to test our hypotheses. To evaluate model fit, standard criteria were examined, including χ², root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI). The goal in SEM is to support the hypothesis that the proposed model is consistent with the data and that there is good or at least adequate fit. Best practice in SEMs is to report on a range of indices to examine model fit (McDonald & Ho, 2002). As one of the most stringent criteria, a nonsignificant χ² indicates that the model is a good fit with the data. Common guidelines are that CFI and TLI values more than .90 and RMSEA values .08 or less indicate adequate fit; CFI and TLI values more than .95 and RMSEA values .05 or less indicate good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The direct pathways of the structural part of the model were evaluated for significance, and decomposition of effects was examined with the significance of indirect pathways indicating mediation (Kline, 2011). Third, we added background variables—age, gender, race, and previous mentoring experience—as controls for Time 1 variables and total months with current mentee as a control for perceived match quality at Time 2. Fourth, we checked for robustness of the model by bootstrapping the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) and by using a Hubler/White sandwich estimator (Huber, 1967; White, 1980). Because there were very few missing data in the analytic sample (3% of cases, n = 4; of 155), missing data were handled by listwise deletion.

Results

Descriptive statistics

In the analytic sample, just over three quarters were female and about three quarters were White. About a quarter of mentors were high school students and the remainder was young adults. About a third of the sample reported receiving free or reduced lunch currently or in the past, and about two thirds reported that their parents had a college degree. Demographic characteristics of the sample are listed in Table 1, and correlations are found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Correlations between study variables (n = 155).

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
Structural model indicators
1. Match quality,* anticipate		—
2. Match quality, have fun		.54	—
3. Match quality, talk casually		.45	.31	—
4. Match quality, mentee copies		.28	.23	.21	—
5. Match quality, feel close		.46	.47	.30	.29	—
6. Match quality, open		.37	.40	.26	.25	.46	—
7. Parent connectedness, have fun		.08	.18	.16	.03	.18	.23	—
8. Parent connectedness, trust		.05	.07	.06	.07	.10	.14	.40	—
9. Parent connectedness, agree		.09	.11	.11	.02	.09	.04	.38	.38	—
10. Parent connectedness, get along		.14	.18	.18	.08	.09	.17	.62	.46	.38	—
11. Parent connectedness, care		.14	.03	.10	.09	.03	.07	.49	.32	.23	.50	—
12. Parent connectedness, enjoy		.12	.13	.08	.08	.11	.12	.77	.42	.34	.69	.62	—
13. Attitudes, work hard		.17	.17	.05	.00	.21	.11	.19	.07	−.09	.29	.23	.24	—
14. Attitudes, respect adults		.18	.22	.06	.05	.23	.17	.22	.12	−.02	.23	.29	.22	.66	—
15. Attitudes, try best		.26	.27	.17	.11	.26	.22	.19	.09	−.08	.25	.35	.22	.63	.49	—
16. Attitudes, interest in learning		.27	.35	.12	.19	.16	.17	.10	.15	.01	.21	.27	.15	.57	.50	.61	—
17. Attitudes, not troublemakers		.11	.11	−.05	.17	.16	.08	.03	.07	−.08	.08	.18	.05	.51	.49	.39	.45	—
18. Empathy, feel others’ hurt		−.10	.01	.10	.05	.03	.03	.27	.24	.19	.18	.15	.24	.05	.10	.04	.05	−.03	—
19. Empathy, for others’ experience		.12	.18	.24	.18	.05	.17	.10	.15	.12	.12	.06	.04	.14	.13	.15	.12	.06	.33	—
20. Empathy, for feelings/thoughts		.26	.10	.30	.14	.05	.11	.28	.25	.11	.32	.26	.26	.27	.22	.19	.13	.03	.34	.64	—
Mean		4.39	4.57	4.41	3.12	3.79	3.91	4.20	4.65	3.84	4.29	4.81	4.42	3.88	4.06	4.15	3.88	3.92	4.41	4.46	4.42
Standard deviation		.68	.58	.75	.93	.79	.92	.94	.64	1.06	.82	.46	.80	.82	.77	.82	.90	.80	.75	.65	.63
Background variables
	Age	−.04	−.12	.18	−.04	−.06	−.07	.10	.03	.11	.06	.11	−.05	−.09	−.07	−.09	−.11	−.17	−.06	−.10	.06
	Female	−.01	−.12	.16	−.10	.02	.08	.02	.12	.23	.12	.13	−.12	−.15	−.11	−.00	.21	−.27	.12	.21	.16
	White	.09	−.03	.21	.16	.04	.03	.07	.05	.15	−.04	.09	−.14	−.27	−.21	−.12	−.11	−.26	−.01	.08	.02
	New mentor	.05	−.03	.12	.02	.14	.07	−.04	−.17	.01	−.06	−.03	.05	.01	−.01	.04	−.04	−.03	−.09	−.15	−.13
	Total months	.07	.05	.16	.11	.28	.16	.08	−.02	.16	.03	.05	−.01	.02	.07	.10	.00	.03	−.03	−.02	−.10

Note. Bold text indicates significance, p < .05. *Refers to perception of match quality.

Consistent with the hypotheses, individual survey items that operationalized the latent variable parent–child connectedness at Time 1 (but theoretically established prior to Time 1) were significantly correlated with items that operationalized latent variables for attitudes about mentees and empathy skills, potential mediators at Time 1. Parent–child connectedness items and items that operationalized perceived match quality at Time 2 were also positively correlated. No significant relationships were noted between the following indicators of latent variables: perceived match quality with trust, agreement, and enjoyment of time spent with parents/guardians; the relationship between perceived match quality and feeling bad when someone gets their feelings hurt.

Structural equation model

We conducted a measurement model, or confirmatory factor analysis, to assess factor loadings before testing the structural model. Factor loadings were all significant (p < .000), and the measurement model fit the data adequately for three of the four fit indices (χ²(160) = 221.35, p = .001; RMSEA = .05; CFI = .94; TLI = .93). Although the χ² test was significant, the RMSEA, CFI, and TLI (indices that adjust for parsimony) suggested adequate fit.

As hypothesized, in the structural model, the relationship between parent connectedness at Time 1 and young mentor’s perceived match quality at Time 2 was mediated through attitudes toward mentees and empathy skills after adding controls (see Figure 1). Perceived match quality was significantly related to attitudes toward mentees (β = .26, SE = .11, p = .023), and attitude toward mentees was significantly related to parent connectedness (β = .39, SE = .08, p < .000). Perceived match quality was significantly related to empathy (β = .20, SE = .10, p = .049), and empathy was significantly related to parent connectedness (β = .31, SE = .08, p < .000). The indirect effects of perceived match quality modeled on parent connectedness were significant (β = .10, SE = .02, p < .000), suggesting mediation through attitudes toward mentees and empathy skills. A bootstrapping procedure was conducted to estimate the 95% CI of the indirect effect, 95% CI [.03, .20], drawing 65 random samples from the full sample with replacement. The bootstrapped CI excluded zero, which supports the hypothesis that attitude toward mentees and empathy mediated the relationship between parent connectedness and perceived match quality. Controls were also included in the final model. Gender and age were not significantly related to perceived match quality, attitudes toward mentees, empathy, or parent connectedness. Mentees who were White reported higher positive attitudes toward mentees (β = .26, SE = .08, p = .001). Being a new mentor at the beginning of the school year was negatively related to empathy at level of a trend (β = -.17, SE = .09, p = .054), and total months spent with the current mentor by Time 2 was positively related to match quality (β = .24, SE = .09, p = .005).

Figure 1.

Perceived match quality modeled on connection with parents mediated by attitudes and empathy (n = 151).

The final structural model fits the data adequately according to three of four fit criteria (χ²(224) = 327.79, p < .000; RMSEA = .05; CFI = .92; and TLI = .91), which provides support for the theoretically specified relationships. Results did not differ when this model was run with the Hubler/White sandwich estimator (as a sensitivity check), suggesting that the original model was robust.

Discussion

Grounded in a PYD perspective, our conceptual model posited that parent–child relationships build relational capacity for mentoring relationships (Spencer, 2012). Past research linked attitudes toward mentees and empathy with perceived match quality (Karcher et al., 2010; Spencer, 2007; Spencer et al., 2010), and close parent–child relationships support prosocial behavior (e.g., Thompson & Gullone, 2008). However, few studies have examined mediators of the relationship between parent-connectedness and young mentors’ perceived match quality, which could highlight leverage points to improve mentors’ relational capacity and perceived match quality. We found that young mentors’ reports of parent connectedness were positively related to attitudes toward mentees and empathy skills early in the school year, which, in turn, were positively related to young mentors’ perceived match quality near the end of the school year.

Findings from the current study lend support to the idea that parental connectedness affects young mentors’ attitudes about children who participate in mentoring and empathy skills, thereby building relational capacity for a positive mentoring experience. Past studies demonstrate similar associations between parent–child relationships and positive youth characteristics (Day & Padilla-Walker, 2009; Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008; Zeifman & Hazan, 2008). Importantly, parent warmth has been linked with empathy (Strayer & Roberts, 2004). This study extends previous research by linking parent–child connectedness to young mentors’ attitudes about mentees. Young mentors may approach volunteering with a more positive attitude when they have a solid relational foundation to draw from (Fletcher, Elder, & Mekos, 2000; Luengo Kanacri et al., 2014). The current study also implies that screening questions about parent–child relationships, attitudes about mentees, and empathy may help identify young mentors who would benefit from extra support, and mentoring programs may provide training to increase their relational capacity.

School-based mentoring may be a more feasible context to implement support for young mentors compared to other settings, given the success of socio-emotional programming in school settings (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004). Mentoring agencies may consider screening for relational capacity and work with schools to provide targeted training for young mentors who report lower than average attitudes toward potential mentees or a lack of empathy. More specifically, training could address keeping an open mind about mentees as young mentors meet them as well as supporting mentors to think positively about their mentees during the school year to encourage positive self-fulfilling prophecies.

Training and support for young mentors is in line with the PYD approach to working with youth which seeks to increase the capacity of young people (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Past research found evidence that volunteering experiences could help individuals with low relational capacity to strengthen their interpersonal functioning (Faith, Fiala, Cavell, & Hughes, 2011; Gillath et al., 2005). In addition, improving relationship quality may also contribute to lengthening school-based mentoring relationships (Karcher et al., 2005). In contrast, a negative experience may deter mentors from a long-term relationship and volunteering in the future (Gettings & Wilson, 2014; Stukas & Tanti, 2005), truncating the benefits of the relationship for both mentors and mentees.

Results also imply that relationship capacity built on connections with parents may have an impact on adolescents’ and young adults’ future prosocial qualities and a trickle-down effect on relationships in the school community. Mentors who reported a positive mentoring experience have also reported greater self-efficacy in the mentoring relationship (Faith et al., 2011) and greater civic action (Weiler et al., 2013). These results imply that strengthening parent–child relationships and young volunteers’ relational capacity could strengthen mentoring relationships and the community at large.

Strengths, limitations, and future directions

Strengths of this research include a novel conceptualization of young mentors’ relational capacity with respect to the association between their parent–child connectedness and perceived quality of match relationships. More specifically, this study illuminated pathways from youth mentors’ parent–child relationships to attitudes about mentees and empathy skills to perceived match quality. Additionally, few studies of this nature focus on young mentors in school-based settings; findings highlight the importance of fostering a positive experience for young mentors, which will benefit their mentees and also the likelihood that young mentors will volunteer in the future.

Limitations of the study must also be acknowledged. First, this is a small, local sample of mentors participating in a school-based program in a Midwest city of the U.S. Results may not generalize to other mentoring settings or populations. Second, although measuring match quality using multiple informants is ideal, the program data from mentees available for this study were characterized by missing data due to nonresponse and the fact that mentees under the age of 9 were not surveyed. We chose to use only the mentor report and focus on processes that specifically involved mentors. However, the relational capacity of mentees would also be important to consider as a predictor of relationship quality in mentoring matches. Third, the fit of the models tested here was adequate for three of four fit statistics. We have chosen to report a range of fit statistics, each with its strengths and limitations (McDonald & Ho, 2002). The significant χ² test in both the measurement model and the structural model may indicate that stronger measures of key variables might be useful to assess the model’s utility. For example, the measure of empathy included only 3 items; future research might consider including other facets of empathy that may be more strongly correlated with relational capacity such as empathetic concern and perspective-taking. Fourth, although data were collected at two time points, longitudinal studies that assess relational capacity at an earlier age might better establish temporality. We assumed that perceived parent–child connectedness reported by young mentors was based on a history of stable relations with parents. However, parent–child relationships during late adolescence and young adulthood are often dynamic and fluid; data collected over several points may have better predictive strength.

With regard to future research, we recommend that relational capacity in the context of mentoring includes assessments of relationships with peers and teachers. Because relational capacity may encompass skills utilized in a variety of relationships, such assessments would allow researchers to account for measurement error by modeling parent, peer, and teacher report of relational capacity as a latent variable. Other mechanisms through which parents may influence young mentors’ relational capacity may also be explored, such as attitudes toward volunteering, motivation, civic engagement, and social skills. Regarding mentoring programs, screening and training processes might be empirically tested to assess whether identification and support for mentors improves their relational capacity, perceived match quality, and length of matches as well as mentee outcomes.

In conclusion, this research contributes to the mentoring research by providing evidence of processes that may impact young mentors’ perception of match quality. Namely, parent–child connectedness may contribute to the relational capacity of mentors by influencing one’s attitudes toward mentees and empathy skills. Ultimately, understanding and supporting mentors’ experiences may result in more robust program impacts by strengthening critical processes that increase match quality and outcomes for both mentors and mentees.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Bureau of Health Workforce, or the U.S. Government. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Society for Research on Adolescence.

Acknowledgements

The authors would gratefully like to acknowledge the contributions and collaboration of Deanna Threadgill and Richard Gibson at Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Greater Twin Cities, and most importantly, the match support staff and mentors in the school-based program who chose to participate in the program evaluation.

Author contributions

Kara Beckman and Shari Plowman contributed numerous hours to data collection and project coordination.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by grant number 2012-JU-FX awarded Dr McMorris by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. In addition, Drs Doty and Mehus were supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under National Research Service Award in Primary Medical Care grant number T32HP22239 (PI: Borowsky), Bureau of Health Workforce.

References

Bernstein

Rappaport

C. D.

Olsho

Hunt

Levin

. (2009). Impact evaluation of the US Department of Education’s student mentoring program (Final Report, NCEE 2009-4047). Retrieved from National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance website: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094047/.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brady

Dolan

Canavan

(2014). What added value does peer support bring? Insights from principals and teachers on the utility and challenges of a school-based mentoring programme. Pastoral Care in Education, 32, 241–250. doi:10.1080/02643944.2014.960532

Constantine

N. A.

Bernard

(2001). California healthy kids survey resilience assessment module: Technical Report. Berkeley, CA: Public Health Institute.

Day

R. D.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

(2009). Mother and father connectedness and involvement during early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 900–904.

Durlak

J. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

Dymnicki

A. B.

Taylor

R. D.

Schellinger

K. B.

(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.

Englund

M. M.

I-Chun Kuo

Puig

Collins

W. A.

(2011). Early roots of adult competence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 490–496. doi:10.1177/0165025411422994.

Faith

M. A.

Fiala

S. E.

Cavell

T. A.

Hughes

J. N.

(2011). Mentoring highly aggressive children: Pre–post changes in mentors’ attitudes, personality, and attachment tendencies. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 32, 253–270.

Fletcher

A. C.

Elder

G. H. J.

Mekos

(2000). Parental influences on adolescent involvement in community activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 29–48.

10.

Gettings

P. E.

Wilson

S. R.

(2014). Examining commitment and relational maintenance in formal youth mentoring relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 1008–1015. doi: 10.1177/0265407514522145

11.

Gillath

Shaver

P. R.

Mikulincer

Nitzberg

R. E.

Erez

Ijzendoorn

M. H.

(2005).Attachment, caregiving, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in an attachment-theoretical framework. Personal Relationships, 12, 425–446.

12.

Grossman

J. B.

Rhodes

J. E.

(2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199–219. doi:10.1023/A:1014680827552.

13.

Haddock

Weiler

L. M.

Krafchick

Zimmerman

T. S.

McLure

Rudisill

(2013). Campus corps therapeutic mentoring: Making a difference for mentors. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 17, 225–256.

14.

Harris

P. A.

Taylor

Thielke

Payne

Gonzalez

Conde

J. G.

(2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42, 377–381.

15.

Herrera

(2004). School-based mentoring: A closer look. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

16.

Herrera

Grossman

J. B.

Kauh

T. J.

Feldman

A. F.

McMaken

(2007). Making a difference in schools: The big brothers big sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

17.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

18.

Huber

P. J.

(1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (pp. 221–233), vol. 1, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

19.

Kanchewa

S. S.

Yoviene

L. A.

Schwartz

S. E.

Herrera

Rhodes

J. E.

(2016). Relational experiences in school-based mentoring: The mediating role of rejection sensitivity. Youth and Society. doi: 10.1177/0044118X16653534.

20.

Karcher

(2009). Increases in academic connectedness and self-esteem among high schoolstudents who serve as cross-age peer mentors. Professional School Counseling, 12, 292–299.

21.

Karcher

M. J.

(2011). The hemingway measure of adolescent connectedness (Adolescent version 5.5 and child “pre-adolescent’ version 5): A manual for scoring and interpretation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at San Antonio. Retrieved August 1, 2013 from http://adolescentconnectedness.com/media/HemingwayManual2012.pdf.

22.

Karcher

M. J.

Davidson

A. J.

Rhodes

J. E.

Herrera

(2010). Pygmalion in the program: The role of teenage peer mentors’ attitudes in shaping their mentees’ outcomes. Applied Developmental Science, 14, 212–227.

23.

Karcher

M. J.

Herrera

Hansen

(2010). “I dunno, what do you wanna do?”: Testing a framework to guide mentor training and activity selection. New Directions for Youth Development, 126, 51–69. doi: 10.1002/yd.349

24.

Karcher

M. J.

Nakkula

M. J.

Harris

(2005). Developmental mentoring match characteristics: Correspondence between mentors’ and mentees’ assessments of relationship quality. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 93–110. doi:10.1007/s10935-005-1847-x

25.

Keller

T. E.

Pryce

J. M.

(2010). Mutual but unequal: Mentoring as a hybrid of familiar relationship types. New Directions in Youth Development, 126, 33–50.

26.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Publications.

27.

Lindsey

E. W.

Colwell

M. J.

Frabutt

J. M.

Chambers

J. C.

MacKinnon-Lewis

(2008). Mother-child dyadic synchrony in European American and African American families during early adolescence: Relations with self-esteem and prosocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54, 289–315.

28.

Luengo Kanacri

B. P.

Pastorelli

Zuffianò

Eisenberg

Ceravolo

Caprara

G.V.

(2014). Trajectories of prosocial behaviors conducive to civic outcomes during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 1529–1539.

29.

Lyons-Ruth

Jacobvitz

(2008). Attachment disorganization: Genetic factors, parenting contexts, and developmental transformation from infancy to adulthood. In Cassidy

(Ed)., Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 666–697). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

30.

McDonald

R. P.

M. H. R.

(2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.

31.

Mikulincer

Gillath

Halevy

Avihou

Avidan

Eshkoli

(2001). Attachment theory and reactions to others’ needs: Evidence that activation of the sense of attachment security promotes empathic responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1205–1224.

32.

Murphy

T. P.

Laible

D. J.

Augustine

Robeson

(2015). Attachment’s links with adolescents’ social emotions: The roles of negative emotionality and emotion regulation. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 176, 315–329.

33.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Christensen

K. J.

(2011). Empathy and self-regulation as mediators between parenting and adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 545–551.

34.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

35.

Rhodes

J. E.

Schwartz

S. E.

Willis

M. M.

M. B.

(2014). Validating a mentoring relationship quality scale: Does match strength predict match length? Youth and Society, 1–23. doi:10.1177/0044118X14531604

36.

Rhodes

J. E.

Spencer

Keller

T. E.

Liang

Noam

(2006). A model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 691–707. doi:10.1002/jcop.20124

37.

Roth

J. L.

Brooks-Gunn

(2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94–111.

38.

Schwartz

S. E.

Rhodes

J. E.

Chan

C. S.

Herrera

(2011). The impact of school-based mentoring on youths with different relational profiles. Developmental Psychology, 47, 450–462. doi: 10.1037/a0021379

39.

Seiffge-Krenke

Overbeek

Vermulst

(2010). Parent–child relationship trajectories during adolescence: Longitudinal associations with romantic outcomes in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 159–171. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.001

40.

Sieving

R. E.

McRee

McMorris

B. J.

Schlafer

R. J.

Gower

A. L.

Kappa

H. M.

… Resnick

M. D.

(2017). Youth-adult connectedness: A key protective factor for adolescent health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52, 275–278. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.07.037

41.

Smith

C. A

. (2012). An investigation of mentor and program characteristics associated with mentor perception of relationship quality (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia).

42.

Spencer

(2006). Understanding the mentoring process between adolescents and adults. Youth & Society, 37, 287–315. doi:10.1177/0743558405278263

43.

Spencer

(2007). “It’s not what I expected” A qualitative study of youth mentoring relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 331–354. doi:10.1177/0743558407301915

44.

Spencer

(2012). A working model of mentors’ contributions to youth mentoring relationship quality: Insights from research on psychotherapy. Informal Learning: Flexible Contexts and Diverse Dimensions, 5, 295–312.

45.

Spencer

Martin

N. C.

Basualdo-Delmonico

Walsh

Jeon

S. M.

(2010, 11). Youth mentoring relationships: The role of mentor expectations and characteristics in relationship closeness and duration. Poster presented at 138th American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.

46.

StataCorp. (2015). Stata 14 base reference manual. Retrieved from http://www.stata.com/manuals14/r.pdf.

47.

Strayer

Roberts

(2004). Children’s anger, emotional expressiveness and empathy: Relations with parents’ empathy, emotional expressiveness, and parenting practices. Social Development, 13, 229–254.

48.

Stukas

A. A.

Tanti

(2005). Recruiting and sustaining volunteer mentors. In DuBois

D. L.

Karcher

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 235–250). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.

49.

Thompson

K. L.

Gullone

(2008). Prosocial and antisocial behaviors in adolescents: An investigation into associations with attachment and empathy. Anthrozoös, 21, 123–137.

50.

Tsai

K. M.

Telzer

E. H.

Fuligni

A. J.

(2013). Continuity and discontinuity in perceptions of family relationships from adolescence to young adulthood. Child Development, 84, 471–484. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01858.x

51.

Weiler

Haddock

Zimmerman

T. S.

Krafchick

Henry

Rudisill

(2013). Benefits derived by college students from mentoring at-risk youth in a service-learning course. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 236–248.

52.

Weiler

L. M.

Taussig

H. N.

(2017). The moderating effect of risk exposure on an efficacious intervention for maltreated children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15374416.2017.1295379

53.

White

(1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–830.

54.

Zeifman

Hazan

(2008). Pair bonds as attachments: Reevaluating the evidence. In Cassidy

(Ed)., Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 436–455). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

55.

Zins

J. E.

Weissberg

R. P.

Wang

M. C.

Walberg

H. J

(Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning—what does the research say? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.