Mentoring relationships from early adolescence through emerging adulthood: A qualitative analysis

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182 www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Mentoring relationships from early adolescence through emerging adulthood: A qualitative analysis Belle Liang a

a,*

, Rene´e Spencer b, Deirdre Brogan a, Macarena Corral

a

Boston College Lynch School of Education, Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Chestnut Hill, MA 02461, USA b Boston University School of Social Work, 264 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215, USA Received 7 March 2007 Available online 9 January 2008

Abstract This study compared perceptions of mentoring relationships among early adolescents, middle adolescents, and emerging adults. In ten focus groups, 56 middle school, high school, and college students described relational experiences that were analyzed thematically. Differences in the characteristics of the mentors nominated by the youth across the age groups were noted and five broad themes identified. Three themes were similar across the different age groups: (a) the importance of spending time together and engaging in shared activities, (b) trust and fidelity, and (c) role modeling and identification. Two themes were present in the narratives of all three age groups but played out differently in ways that were consistent with developmental issues and needs of that age group: (a) balancing connection and autonomy and (b) empowerment. These data can help guide future research and practice involving youth mentoring relationships across developmental and disciplinary divides. Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Mentor relationships; Middle school; High school; College; Adolescents; Emerging adults

1. Introduction Mentoring relationships are thought to contribute to the positive development of young people in general (Rhodes, 2002); yet, there has been little consideration of how the mentoring process evolves as youth move through adolescence into early adulthood. Further, research has mostly focused on formal mentoring (Rhodes, 2002), despite evidence that natural mentoring relationships, or those formed with adults youth encounter in their communities, are far more prevalent (Spencer, 2007). The little research on natural mentoring relationships does suggest that adolescents derive a variety of psychosocial benefits from these ties (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005). However, questions remain about the nature of youth mentoring relationships during the different developmental stages within adolescence. Adolescence is comprised of sub-stages—early, middle, and late adolescence—and has recently been elongated such that these stages coincide with the educational transitions of middle school, high school, and *

Corresponding author. Fax: +1 617 552 1981. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Liang).

0001-8791/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.11.005

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

169

college or full entry into the world of work, respectively (Steinberg, 2005). With each of these transitions, adolescents’ social worlds expand as they move into new educational, out-of-school, and workplace settings; and they engage in an increasing number of natural mentoring relationships (Beam, Chen, & Greenberger, 2002; Hamilton & Darling, 1989). Interestingly, little attention has been paid to informal mentoring relationships (Linnehan, 2003), much less to how such relationships evolve as youth move through this rich and complex period. Some studies have documented that 53–85% of youth reported having a natural mentor (Spencer, 2007). In another national sample, nearly three quarters of the respondents reported having had a mentor since the age of 14 apart from any reference to a formal program (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005). Some consideration has been given to the roles these relationships play (Greenberger, Chen, & Beam, 1998; Hamilton & Darling, 1989), but there is little understanding about how mentoring works from the young person’s perspective. The handful of qualitative studies examining the nature of youth mentoring focus on formal programs rather than natural mentoring (Spencer, 2006) or tend to focus on youth as a whole rather than as separate developmental stages (Spencer, Jordan, & Sazama, 2004). To date, no qualitative studies investigate the differences in natural mentoring in early, middle, and late adolescence or emerging adulthood.1 This lack of differentiation is problematic given literature suggesting great variability in the characteristics and needs of youth during the different adolescent phases (Steinberg, 2005). Along with the biological processes associated with puberty, the onset of adolescence brings significant changes in social, emotional, and cognitive functioning (Arnett, 2004). There are several types of developmental changes that seem particularly relevant to understanding the fit between mentoring and the needs of early, middle, and late adolescents or emerging adults including changes in: cognitive ability and perspective taking, the parent–adolescent relationship, the peer context, and the setting from middle school to high school to college. The shift from preoperational or concrete thinking to formal operational or abstract reasoning brings with it increases in perspectivetaking which allows adolescents to engage in deeper and more complex relationships (Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003). With increases in mobility and independence in adolescence come shifts in adolescents’ parental relationships and a greater emphasis on extrafamilial relationships (Arnett, 2004). As youth progress through adolescence, their opportunities for engaging with adults across an array of settings (e.g., in-school, out-of-school, community and workplace) expand greatly. For example, extracurricular activities are associated with many psychosocial benefits (Darling, Caldwell, & Smith, 2005), and some of these positive outcomes may be mediated by relationships youth develop with their activity leaders which have been considered mentoring relationships given their frequency of contact and supportive nature (Hirsch, 2005). It stands to reason that the shifts described above would affect the nature of mentoring at each developmental stage. Indeed, at each stage, adolescents confront a host of new freedoms and roles that mentors may help them negotiate (Schulenberg, O’Malley, Bachman, Wadsworth, & Johnston, 1996). For example, the developmental shifts associated with early adolescence (e.g., importance of extrafamilial ties), can create a unique opening for mentors. Although friendships play a substantial role in development throughout the life span, they are especially critical in early adolescence (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1993); and although friendships have many benefits, they may also play a role in the emergence of relational and physical aggression in early adolescence (Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995). In addition, the transition from childhood to adolescence can be marked by increases in behavioral and emotional problems (Angold & Rutter, 1992; Fleming, Boyle & Offord,1993); and although it has been assumed that early adolescents tend to be more influenced by peers as they navigate such challenges, research indicates that parents may contribute to their successful negotiation (Lengua, 2006). Thus, mentors—somewhere between parents and peers—may be in an even better position to influence young adolescents (Rhodes, 2002). Compared to earlier stages, late adolescents and emerging adults may be more likely to move away from home, and engage in adult work roles. Thus, relationships with nonfamilial adults may not only be more accessible than parents, but may take on different functions and meanings. Hamilton and Darling (1989) study of undergraduates suggests ways that mentoring may shape the transition to adulthood—a time when older adolescents may be especially open to the influence of adults other than their parents. In particular, they 1 Early adolescence (ages 11 through 14) correspond to middle school years; mid adolescence (ages 15 through 18) corresponds approximately to the high school years, and emerging adulthood (late teens through mid twenties) overlaps typically with the college years (Steinberg, 2005).

170

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

may be more apt than younger adolescents to turn to older adults in the community for role modeling and help with important decisions. These relationships can provide late adolescents with knowledge, perspectives, or skills that are different than those found at home. In particular, mentors may help late adolescents negotiate developmental tasks involving the balancing of autonomy and connection, which most saliently characterize this period: (1) accepting personal responsibility, (2) making independent decisions, (3) developing a sense of efficacy and individuation, and (4) developing the capacity for mature intimacy (Arnett, 2004). Although these developmental tasks involving the balancing of autonomy and connection start evolving prior to late adolescence (Collins & Sroufe, 1999), during this period they are even more central (Allen & Land, 1999). For example, the process of deidealization has been used to explain the process of separation where, in its initial stages, youth disengage from childish representations of an omnipotent, all-knowing parental figure and question the previously embraced values of the parental figure (Blos, 1967). In dethroning parental figures from their pedestals, perceiving them as human, and de-intensifying early identifications, deidealization enables late adolescents and emerging adults the opportunity to develop both greater autonomy and more mature intimacy. Indeed, despite the fact that late adolescents may seek autonomy in the form of ‘‘freedom,’’ there is evidence that they are just as likely to desire continuing close ties with parental figures, and even more likely than are younger youth to be invested in approval from parental figures. Empirical evidence for what theorists have considered a tension between autonomy strivings and strong needs for closeness and support among late adolescents may help explain the fact that few have achieved deep levels of autonomy in the form of individualism where they are free to make choices apart from the expectations of parental figures (Offer & Offer, 1975). Although no published studies compare the nature of natural mentoring relationships across these three groups, a number of studies on mentoring programs have found that younger and older adolescents differentially benefit from mentoring. These studies have divided groups of adolescents in various ways, including by developmental stage, splitting youth into the categories of ‘‘early adolescents’’ and ‘‘middle/late adolescents’’ (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002) and by the schooling categories of ‘‘middle school’’ and ‘‘high school’’ (Cavell & Smith, 2005). Cavell and Smith (2005) found that high schoolers benefited more than middle schoolers. In contrast, DuBois and colleagues (2002) found evidence that early adolescents benefited more than middle/late adolescents. Thus, the few studies that compare mentoring during different stages in adolescence have mixed findings. Other questions also remained unanswered, including, how do adolescents in different stages characterize the mentoring relationships they naturally gravitate toward, in terms of (1) mentor characteristics, (2) relationship characteristics, (3) key functions, and (4) outcomes? Across the related fields of research on youth, academic and workplace mentoring there has been some discussion of the developmental stages of mentoring, most based on Kram (1983) model (e.g., Keller, 2005), but virtually no research on how mentees’ developmental needs may shape the mentoring process. Developmental perspectives have informed conceptual work in the various mentoring literatures. For example, Otto (1994) notes that careers develop in stages and are associated with differing needs. She contrasts the formative nature of early career development (when adults are becoming more independent from their families of origin and developing a sense of competence) with the mid-career phase (when adults tend to reassess their career direction). Johnson, Rose, and Schlosser (2007) discuss the differing developmental needs of undergraduates as well as those of faculty. Drawing on the theories of Erikson (1980), Chickering (1969) and Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, and Mckee (1978), Johnson et al. (2007) describe key developmental tasks facing mentees at various stages and identify ways mentors can help them work through tasks at each stage. In their model which integrates youth, academic, and workplace mentoring, Allen and Eby (2007) utilize a developmental framework to draw linkages between mentoring relationships across the lifespan and highlight the different roles that such relationships can play in meeting fundamental belongingness needs at each stage of life. Thus, within the mentoring field, various authors have drawn from developmental theories, however, little empirical work has been done to confirm these concepts. 2. The current study This study attempts to address some of the gaps in research described above by using a qualitative method in which students in middle school, high school, and college discussed salient characteristics of their connections with natural mentors. We expected that participants in each developmental group would provide a rich

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

171

picture of their mentoring experiences. However, given the dearth of existing studies, we held no specific hypotheses about the nature of developmental differences that participants might reveal. Instead, our goal was to generate hypotheses for future research on youth’s impressions of and experiences in mentoring relationships. Specifically, the two-fold purpose of this study was: (1) to examine salient characteristics reported by youth when describing their mentor relationships, and (2) to compare characteristics across three developmental phases within adolescence. 3. Method 3.1. Participants The sample was comprised of 56 students ages 11–22, all attending school in the Northeast. These participants were drawn from three settings: middle school (6th graders), high school (9th graders), and college (first years, sophomores and juniors). Focus groups in each setting were further subdivided by gender. Specifically, there were two middle school focus groups consisting of 6 females and 4 males, and two high school groups with 5 females and 4 males. Six college groups consisted of 7 females, 8 females, 5 females, 4 males, 8 males, and 5 males (total of 20 females and 17 males). The middle and high school students attended public schools, and two of the college groups attended a private liberal arts college, while the other four attended public universities. The middle and high schools were from the same general geographic location in the Northeast and contained students spanning a diversity of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. With the exception of several of the college focus groups, students in each group were reflective of this diversity.2 After obtaining Human Subjects approval, we asked faculty in each setting for permission to announce the focus groups during class. Students were invited to participate in a focus group if they had a relationship with a nonparental adult who they considered important in their personal development. Participation was voluntary and all students signed assent forms. In the middle and high school settings, parental consent was also obtained, and students received a free movie pass for their participation. In the college settings, students received extra credit in a psychology course. Each focus group met once for one hour during non-instructional time at their schools. Refreshments were offered as a token of appreciation after the focus group sessions. The middle and high school groups were each facilitated by two Euro-American women. In the first two sets of college groups, the facilitators were one Asian American woman, one Latina woman, and one Euro-American man. In the third set of college groups, the facilitators were one Asian American woman, and one Euro-American woman.3 A researcher in each of the focus groups was primarily responsible for taking notes as a back up in case there were problems in the quality of the audiotapes. 3.2. Procedure The focus group method was chosen to produce insights that are fostered through group dynamics (Morgan, 1997). This method has been used in previous studies of natural mentoring (Spencer et al., 2004) to gain insight into youth’s collective experiences. A moderator directs questions to a group of 4–12 participants who then respond, validate, challenge, and expand on each other’s statements (Morgan & Krueger, 1993). In the process of interacting, participants can speak about their experience in their own words (Patton, 1990). Focus groups also provide a space where youths can reflect on and describe experiences they have observed in their natural settings (Bergin, Talley, & Hamer, 2003), and are especially well suited to exploring personal topics. The group context may actually facilitate personal disclosures (Farquhar & Das, 1999). Finally, whereas oneto-one interviews tend to heighten existing age and power differences between researchers and participants in a way that may hinder the latter’s ability to be open and honest; focus groups tend to be less hierarchical and 2 Ethnicity: Middle School: 2 African American, 1 Dominican Republic, 1 Euro-American, 4 Latino, 2 Puerto Rican; High School: 6 African-American, 1 Euro-American, 1 Haitian, 1 Latino; College: 5 African American, 1 Chinese, 28 Euro-American, 3 Latino. 3 Demographic background of the facilitators is important to note due to the potential interaction effects between the participant’s and facilitator’s characteristics that may affect both the interviewer’s interpretation of focus group material as well as the participant’s verbalizations (i.e. type of material disclosed and level of disclosure).

172

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

shift the balance of power away from the researcher toward the participants (Eder & Fingerson, 2002). In this study, given the personal nature of questions posed to youths about their mentoring relationships and the need for a less hierarchical approach with adolescents, we expected focus groups to be an effective method for obtaining a broad and authentic picture of participants’ mentoring experiences. This study’s focus group method (Millward, 2000) involved using a semi-structured format, with questions focused on the participants’ relational experiences with mentor figures. In each focus group, the facilitators evolved from asking more general to more specific questions. That is, participants were first asked to define the meaning of mentoring relationships in general (i.e., What is a mentor?). They were then asked whether they would consider any one of the important adults in their lives a ‘‘mentor’’ and who this mentor was (e.g., a coach, teacher, religious leader, etc.). Afterwards, they were asked more specific questions about the kinds of activities they engaged in with their mentors and what made them feel close to their mentors. Moreover, they were asked to provide examples of particularly significant (positive or negative) experiences they had with mentors. Group interactions were structured in some respects, and free-flowing in others. That is, all participants were encouraged to contribute to the discussion by taking turns answering facilitator’s questions. Participants then spontaneously clarified and elaborated on each other’s comments. Most experiences and behaviors described by one member were either elaborated on or agreed upon (as indicated by words and nonverbal signs such as nodding) by at least one other focus group member. Each group ended when members could not think of any more incidents or experiences to describe. A modification of the Van Kaam Method (Moustakas, 1994) as described below was used to analyze the focus group data. Audio tapes of the sessions were transcribed verbatim. A team of three coders (two EuroAmerican women and one Latina woman) independently reviewed all of the ten transcripts and extracted descriptions that pertained to mentoring relationships and initially categorized these under various themes. These initial themes were closely tied to questions posed in the focus groups. A process termed horizontalization was used in which every description relevant to mentoring experiences was listed independently by all three coders (Moustakas, 1994). To consolidate this initial set of themes, the coders grouped together quotes that were conceptually similar and provided each cluster with a mutually agreed upon thematic label (i.e., initial themes were subsumed under the meta themes). Consensus on labels required agreement by two out of the three coders. The labeled clusters thus formed the core themes of respondents’ experiences. Researcher biases and reactions were carefully noted in an attempt to ensure that the participants’ experiences of mentoring were understood as they experienced them. For example, when consensus was not obtained on a theme, the coders returned to the audio tapes to recapture the participant’s words within the context of the focus group while discussing how researchers’ biases may have affected discrepancies in interpretation. In some cases, after lengthy discussions, the coders agreed to place descriptions under more than one meta-theme. 4. Results Analysis of the focus group transcripts yielded four categories of themes: (1) mentor characteristics; (2) relationship characteristics; (3) key functions, and (4) outcomes. There were notable differences in the characteristics of the mentors nominated by youth across the age groups and five broad themes that reflect their mentor relationships (see Table 1 for summary of the themes with exemplar quotes). Three of these themes were similar across the different age groups: (a) the importance of spending time together and engaging in shared activities, (b) trust and fidelity, and (c) role modeling and identification. Two themes were present in the narratives of all groups but played out differently in ways consistent with the developmental issues and needs of each age group: (a) balancing connection and autonomy and (b) empowerment. The mentor characteristics and each of the five themes are detailed below. It is important to note this study’s purpose was to examine the qualitative aspects of how young people from different developmental stages described their mentoring relationships, rather than compare the frequency of particular types of experience across groups. 4.1. Mentor characteristics Role and gender were particularly salient characteristics of the adults identified as mentors. Middle schoolers tended to identify same-sex mentors (e.g., girls identified female cousins, aunts, and older sisters; boys iden-

Table 1 Themes and exemplar quotes by age group Category

Mentor characteristics

Key functions

Exemplar quotes Middle school

High school

College

‘‘Neighbors, family (cousins, siblings, etc.)’’

‘‘School staff, coaches, family (aunt, uncle, etc.)’’

‘‘A role model’’

‘‘Someone who sets an example’’

Male 6th grader

Male 9th grader

‘‘High school and college professors, athletic coaches, work supervisors, coworker, older friends, spiritual leaders’’ ‘‘Someone who acts in a way you would like to act in the future’’ Male college student

Shared activities

‘‘Going to the mall without an adult’’

‘‘Cheerleading trips’’

Trust & fidelity

Female 6th grader ‘‘Good at keeping secrets’’

Female 9th grader ‘‘We talk about any issue that you need to talk to an adult [about]’’

Female 6th grader

Male 9th grader

‘‘Every summer my mentor and I go to the Warped Tour together’’ Female college student ‘‘My mentor shared with me a time when he was really depressed after graduating from college and how he sought help’’ Male college student

‘‘My cousin is an A and B student . . .I want to follow in her footsteps’’ Male 6th grader

‘‘She gave us advice about high school before we got there’’ Female 9th grader

‘‘Someone who acts in a way that I would like to act in the future’’ Female College Student

‘‘I wish that he would work a little harder in school’’

‘‘She stands up for me. . .and she is pretty experienced with like everything. . .and she is pretty experienced with like everything. . . she has gone through all the situations’’ Male 9th grader

‘‘It’s not good to raise your mentors on a pedestal, or see them as flawless. You have to see them as humans, and you need to want to be better than them’’ Male college student

‘‘When you talk to most adults they are trying to steer you in one direction or another and with my uncle he is just trying to help me out and give his opinion. I like the difference there’’ Male 9th grader ‘‘They have to be honest with you and you have to be honest with them’’

[I was] ‘‘deeply disappointed. . .because [my pastor/mentor] disagreed with my decision to attend a [secular, liberal arts] college’’ Female college student ‘‘My coach not only told me to work hard, but worked hard with me’’

Gender & role of mentor

Role-modeling and identification Balancing connection & autonomy Deidealization

6th grade boy ‘‘I wish that he [uncle] would stop smoking and drinking’’ Male 6th grader Autonomy in decision-making

Outcomes

‘‘He’s [my mentor] always there for me and gives me so much even though I don’t do much to deserve it’’

Male 9th grader

Female college student

Empowerment

‘‘He tells me to never give up’’

‘‘When I do something right she will make a point of coming and finding me. She always tries to keep us on the right path’’

Male 6th grader

Female 9th grader

‘‘My mentor is like a reality check. . .makes me realize that I’m not the only one going through what I’m going through’’ Female college student

173

Mutuality

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

Relationship characteristics

Theme

174

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

tified male cousins, uncles, older brothers). In contrast, high schoolers identified both male and female mentors (e.g., cousins, uncles, older friends and step-mothers). Moreover, middle school and high school adolescents identified immediate and extended family members as mentors, even though they were instructed to identify nonfamilial adults as mentors. College students on the other hand, were more likely to report a greater diversity of mentors, including cross-sex, familial (e.g., older male and female siblings), as well as nonfamilial adults (e.g., neighbors, family friends, school faculty, sports’ coaches, relatives’ significant other, spiritual leaders, coworkers, and older peers). 4.2. Shared activities: the ‘‘fun factor’’ Youth in all three groups described the mentoring support they received as occurring within the context of, or in some cases being enhanced by, shared fun activities. Similarly, middle schoolers described sharing trips to movies, the mall, the park, and other field trips with mentors. One middle schooler said that she enjoyed the chance to do things that the mentor could do because she was older (e.g., go to the mall without an adult). Another recounted how his mentor, a female cousin, celebrated receiving her driving license by taking the two of them to get ice cream. A high schooler described how his mentor took him to sporting events where they had fun and talked together like friends. Sharing fun activities with mentors continued to be important to college students. Whether an afternoon outing or a multi-day trip, these activities were described as facilitating the mentoring process. One college student gave the following example: ‘‘Every summer my mentor and I go to the Warped Tour [an annual touring multi-band rock concert] together. We spend the whole day just hanging out. There is a road trip out there and back where we just chill.’’ Another described how time spent hiking together deepened the mentoring relationship: ‘‘he [mentor] took me on a long trail hike, and it was incredibly peaceful and relaxing. We bonded.’’ Such activities were also cited as providing chances for long talks as one youth noted, ‘‘My mentor and I went on a long sail together with the crew I was sailing with last summer. . .so we had time to talk about my goals for the future.’’ 4.3. Trust and fidelity Mutual trust and fidelity were cited by youth in all three age groups as distinguishing features of an adult mentor. Middle schoolers described trust in these ways: ‘‘You can trust your mentor,’’ ‘‘. . .like if you are serious with your mentor, really serious, like he’s serious to you and you’re serious to him,’’ ‘‘he doesn’t tell you like a lie, like. . .he’s not going to play around with you and tell you something that’s not true.’’ Among middle schoolers and high schoolers, this major theme was described in terms of having a mentor who is ‘‘good at keeping secrets.’’ Several high school boys illustrated the strong link between mutual honesty and secret-keeping in the following exchange: Paul: ‘‘[a mentor I can be close to] is a person who always tells the truth. . .’’ Ron: ‘‘and if I tell a secret, they keep it.’’ Thomas: ‘‘It has to be a mutual thing. . .So like when one of you breaks the trust or honesty you loose the bond . . . like it’s over, they [mentors] can’t trust you again. So it has to stay that way. [Mentors] have to be honest with you, you have to be honest with them.’’ College students described confiding in mentors about personal matters that could not be trusted to most family and friends. Moreover, they conveyed the importance of reciprocity in self-disclosures; they felt ‘‘special and trusted’’ when mentors also shared personal failures or triumphs with them. 4.4. Role-modeling and identification Youth across all three age groups expressed admiration for their mentors and a desire to emulate them. One middle school boy described his mentor in the following way:

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

175

I chose him [my mentor] cuz he always decides to do the right thing. He never got held back and he’s makin’ it in college and he’s a great singer, he’s got C.D.’s in the stores and he makes it on the radio too. He does the right thing . . . he’s going to wait to pass college and get a job so that he can get married and he can get his own house and all that. Another said, ‘‘[My mentor] is in high school and . . . not afraid. She’s an A and B student, she does good. I wanna like follow in her footsteps.’’ Older students similarly described admiring and identifying with their mentors. In the words of one high schooler: ‘‘[My mentor and I] are friends but we can talk to each other about grades and it’s kind of like I am the younger version of her. . .We have a lot of similarities.’’ Other high schoolers added that mentors provided guidance and modeled acceptable behavior by ‘‘setting an example’’ and by being ‘‘someone who has the right attitude.’’ College students also emphasized role-modeling: ‘‘someone who acts in a way that I would like to act in the future,’’ ‘‘[my mentor] lives the way I want to live. . .I respect her values,’’ ‘‘I want to emulate [my mentor’s] lifestyle. I see who I want to be in him.’’ 4.5. Balancing connection and autonomy Although participants across developmental stages described a respect for and identification with mentors as role-models, varying levels of autonomy from mentors seemed to be reflected in these descriptions. Level of autonomy or separation-individuation was evidenced in several ways: tolerance of imperfections, need for both autonomy and support in decision-making, and mutuality. 4.5.1. Deidealization When mentors fell short of idealizations or revealed human flaws, middle schoolers expressed distress and wished their mentors would demonstrate positive behavior more and negative behaviors less: ‘‘[my mentor] never does anything bad, but he does pretty bad on his grades, so I get upset sometimes and wish that he would work a little harder in school.’’ Another middle school boy wished that his mentor, an uncle, ‘‘would stop smoking and drinking and know that I really believe in him and want him to quit. I don’t want to have to worry about him.’’ In contrast, older students seemed more accepting and discussed the importance of ‘‘learning from mentors’ strengths and weaknesses.’’ High schoolers spoke about the value of hearing about a range of mentors’ experiences, including struggles and failures (e.g., ‘‘[My mentor] is like an older sister. She stands up for me. . .and she is pretty experienced with like everything. . . she has gone through all the situations. . .like sex and drugs’’). Similar to others in his group, a college student said: ‘‘It’s not good to raise your mentors on a pedestal, or see them as flawless. You have to see them as humans, and you need to want to be better than them.’’ 4.5.2. Autonomy in decision-making In addition to accepting mentors’ imperfections, high school and college youth described valuing a nondirective, nonjudgmental approach that encouraged autonomy. They suggested that good mentors provide support without imposing values, noting that this distinguished mentors from other adults: ‘‘when you talk to most adults they are trying to steer you in one direction or another and with my uncle he is just trying to help me out and give his opinion. I like the difference there.’’ Mid to late adolescents also wanted to discuss nonjudgmentally with mentors, issues they referred to as ‘sensitive topics,’ such as sexual activity and drug use, or ‘‘any issues that [they] needed to talk to an adult about but would not feel comfortable sharing with parents.’’ Interestingly, although college students desired autonomy in decision-making, they simultaneously revealed a desire for approval and validation from their mentors. One college woman described feeling ‘‘deeply disappointed. . .because [my pastor/mentor] disagreed with my decision to attend a [secular, liberal arts] college.’’ Another college woman recounted an experience in which she felt ‘‘betrayed’’ by [her] college sports team coach. In this case, her coach had asked her advice during a game about which players she should play. When the coach failed to take her advice and chose different athletes to play, she ‘‘felt very bitter that the coach did not listen to me.’’ A third young woman aptly drew a connection between these simultaneous desires for autonomy and approval: ‘‘[my mentor] refused to talk to me when I decided on my college. She couldn’t

176

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

see it as a place that would help me to grow. I was upset because she should respect my decisions; trust me, even when she doesn’t agree. She should realize that I am growing up.’’ College students described how a lack of validation from mentors was a reminder of unwelcome hierarchy in the relationship: ‘‘an incident one day when my aunt [my mentor] didn’t side with me. I was upset because she was acting like an authority figure and not as a peer.’’ Indeed, older students expressed a need to be on equal footing with mentors by not feeling judged or discounted in their opinions. By expressing tolerance for imperfections and differences, and emphasizing the need to make their own decisions free of judgment, older adolescents described valuing a balance of connection and autonomy with mentors. This theme was not present in the narratives of the early adolescents perhaps due to greater power-differentials in their mentor relationships. 4.5.3. Mutuality Relatedly, participants in the older groups strongly emphasized mutuality in mentoring. A high schooler stated that a mentoring relationship has to be ‘‘mutual. . .so like when one of you breaks the trust or honesty, you lose the bond. . . So it has to go both ways—they have to be honest with you and you have to be honest with them.’’ To an even greater degree, college students highlighted the importance of mutuality: ‘‘mentors and mentees can learn from one another if the mentoring relationship is based on mutual respect’’ and ‘‘equal status,’’ ‘‘mentors need to have the attitude ‘‘we learn from you, you learn from us,’’ ‘‘mentor relationships should evolve into a partnership. . .There is a finite number of things you can learn from a mentor.’’ They provided examples of mutuality such as: ‘‘I watch [my mentor’s] children and we have grown close through our chats. We give each other advice.’’ Middle schoolers perceived themselves in more of a novice position and recipient’s role with their mentors. They described ‘‘respecting’’ mentors as older and more experienced, and did not expect the same give and take (e.g., ‘‘I look up to [my mentor], she’s a lot older than me and has been through a lot, so she tells me what happened to her and what I should do.’’ ‘‘He’s [my mentor] always there for me and gives me so much even though I don’t do much to deserve it.’’). 4.6. Empowerment Across all age groups, youth described feeling both tangibly and emotionally empowered through mentoring. However, the high school and college age students described their mentors getting even more actively involved in helping to shape their futures at a time when the consequences of their decisions were becoming weightier. Middle schoolers relayed experiences in which mentors helped them develop a new skill or a feeling of confidence to do what they previously did not think they could do. Mentors empowered them through instrumental support, practical advice, guidance, role-modeling of behavior, and verbal encouragement: ‘‘My sister helps me out with homework too and gives me stuff like books to read.’’ Moreover, these youth described feeling that their mentors believed in them, which when coupled with practical advice and encouragement was experienced as particularly potent. One boy chose his uncle as his mentor because ‘‘he tells me to never give up.’’ Another middle schooler admitted, ‘‘Last year in elementary school I was one of the bad kids and my cousin. . . . she like told me that if I wanted to get a great job and grow up to be someone I’m proud of, I had to do good in school.’’ Several high schoolers also discussed feeling profoundly valued by a mentor who was the coordinator of a program that buses primarily minority students from urban areas to the school: ‘‘She gave us advice about high school before we got there and she told us what to do and to not get caught up in social life, and stuff like that, and to be focused on our work,’’ ‘‘she still comes by once in a while to say hi to us. She always talks to us, she lets us know that we are her favorite students . . . she even starts crying [and saying] she loved us and how we remind her of when she was younger. . .When I do something right she will make a point of coming and finding me. She always tries to keep us on the right path.’’ Similar to the high schoolers, college students related instances in which mentors helped to instill confidence through a combination of practical advice, skill development, and having faith in them: ‘‘my mentor made me feel confident doing stuff I would not normally do,’’ ‘‘(my mentor) helps me set goals and stick with them. . .helps me develop time management skills.’’ One older adolescent described how the mentor had pushed her to achieve her goals by helping her contextualize her struggles: ‘‘my mentor is like a reality

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

177

check. . .makes me realize that I’m not the only one going through what I’m going through.’’ Another said simply, ‘‘my mentor makes growing up easier.’’ Older adolescents also described how mentors had been actively involved in developing their education and career paths by providing critical information, guidance, and emotional support at key moments. For example, one high schooler described how her mentor had ‘‘helped to familiarize her with colleges and the things that you have to do for the college application process.’’ Three youth said their mentors had ‘‘sat down with them,’’ or initiated pointed conversations when they were faced with important choices: ‘‘helped me choose my major by sitting down with me and talking through all the options with me,’’ ‘‘my mentor sat me down and explained to me exactly how she felt about my abilities and strengths, being completely honest,’’ ‘‘my mentor sat with me and had a lengthy discussion on my future in college and potential career choices.’’ Two college students expressed appreciation for the support from their mentors during challenging transitions: ‘‘[my mentor] listened and gave advice [when I] was stressed about [job] applications,’’ ‘‘my mentor got me oriented in college when I was lost freshman year.’’ Both the connection they felt to these mentors and the pride in their own accomplishments were revealed when they recounted sharing good news with these mentors: ‘‘[my mentor] was the first person I went to when I had gotten into my first choice for colleges.’’ Additionally, some of the older youth emphasized how important it had been to them to have their mentors’ support as they navigated through some persistent difficulties, such as being minority students in an urban school (‘‘my parents immigrated to the U.S. so me and my sisters could have a good education, but they didn’t really think about me going to college. My high school advisor who came from my same country, kept telling me I could make it in college, and that I should go out of state, away from the city where I might be distracted from my studies.’’), or dealing with stress and depression (‘‘my mentor stayed and prayed with me for hours one day when I just felt like life was falling apart.’’). 5. Discussion and conclusions This study demonstrates how a developmental perspective may elucidate the youth mentoring process. The findings offer insight into some features of mentoring relationships that may be consistent across age groups, and highlight ways that youth may differentially experience, and draw support from, mentoring relationships in early, middle and late adolescence. The early adolescents’ tendency to identify familial mentors is consistent with literature suggesting that youth may have less contact with unrelated adults than was the case in previous generations (Darling, Hamilton, & Hames, 2003). Modern circumstances, such as the extension of schooling, dual-parent employment, and most teens being employed in settings with individuals not much older than themselves (Greenberger & Steinberg, 1986), may result in youth spending a lot of time in settings where there are few chances to connect with adults outside the family. The shift towards more diverse, extrafamilial choices in mentors among college students may reflect changes associated with late adolescence—a time when youths’ social worlds broaden and they shift from family embeddedness to greater independence. Although some studies have revealed ethnic differences in choice of natural mentors, with Latino and African American college students being more likely to select mentors who are family members and White youth being just as likely to name non-relatives (Sanchez & Colon, 2005), this difference did not hold for college participants in the present study. Regardless, our study suggests that programs should consider how to improve opportunities for connection with both familial and nonfamilial mentors. The tendency for each group to emphasize trust, shared leisure activities, and role modeling in mentoring relationships is consistent with previous research on natural and formal youth mentoring (Rhodes, 2002; Spencer, 2006; Spencer et al., 2004), as well as work on academic and workplace mentoring. Rose (2005) found that graduate students’ ratings of qualities of ideal mentors, such as exhibiting behavior to be emulated and engaging in social activities, did not vary significantly by developmental stage as a graduate student. Dougherty, Turban, and Haggard (2007), in their review of natural workplace mentoring, also note the importance of these psychosocial aspects of mentoring. As Kram (1988) in her seminal study of workplace mentoring observed, the quality of the interpersonal bond ‘‘enables the younger to identify with the older and to find a model whom the younger would like to become’’ (p. 23). Together these observations suggest that mentoring, in whatever form, is distinguished by a personal connection that promotes positive identification and role modeling.

178

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

Although it may require much time and patience, mentors who invest in winning youths’ trust and confidence may be more likely to have a positive influence (Spencer, 2006). Research on workplace and academic mentoring has found that perceived similarities between mentors and prote´ge´s relates to the amount of mentoring received (Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Turban, Dougherty, & Lee, 2002), perhaps due to the trust that ensues from perceived similarities. Thus, youth mentor programs which tend to attract Caucasian middleto-upper-income adults to mentor low-income youth of color (MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. Mentoring in America, 2002) may need to pay particular attention to the building of common ground and trust between youth and mentors. Sharing leisure activities may help establish this trust and common ground while also serving as a growth-promoting process itself. The Relational Cultural Theory of psychological development suggests that a central feature of growth-fostering relationships is ‘‘zest,’’ conceptualized as that which creates a sense of vitality within the connection (Miller & Stiver, 1991). For youth, ‘‘zest’’ may be fostered by a sense of shared fun that motivates them to engage in relationships. For example, Loder and Hirsch (2003) found that youth clubs were powerful contexts for developing close relationships because of the enticement of fun activities. Similarly, our participants’ emphasis on shared recreational activities is consistent with studies that show the importance of mentors paying attention to a young person’s need for fun (Morrow & Styles, 1995; Spencer, 2006). Not only is having fun key to relationship-building, it can also provide young people with special opportunities that go beyond those attained in their family (Morrow & Styles, 1995). These recreational needs, perhaps more important to younger adolescents, remained a significant aspect of mentoring relationships among emerging adults in our study. Role modeling is central to all types of mentoring, whether in workplace, academic, or youth mentoring settings (Ramaswami & Dreher, 2007; Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, & Noam, 2006). Role-modeling is thought to foster positive development by shaping and expanding adolescents’ identities (Rhodes et al., 2006). Our findings suggest that role-modeling may evolve throughout adolescence as youth work to redefine their relationships with significant adults, especially regarding autonomy and connection. Indeed, theorists have long associated role-modeling with issues of autonomy and connection in adolescence. Specifically, ‘‘imitation, identification, idealization’’ are tied with emotional connection, whereas disidentification and deidealization are tied with separation processes, particularly in late adolescence (Dashef, 1984). Shifts in autonomy may be seen even between early and mid-adolescence (Levpusˇcek, 2006). Results showed that idealization and individuation issues were relevant for middle schoolers and high schoolers, but the younger group tended to emphasize more dependency on and idealization of mentors. Taken together, these findings suggest that adolescents move toward greater autonomy strivings which in turn are associated with a more differentiated form of identification with role-models, where role-models may be increasingly accepted for their human imperfections and vulnerabilities. Similarly, although youth in each developmental phase described identifying with their mentors, early adolescents described greater idealization and a desire for mentors to consistently live up to these positive images. The middle and late adolescents, on the other hand, articulated an appreciation for the opportunity to see mentors’ struggle and to be able to both model their strengths and learn from their mistakes. Halperin (1988), in his analysis of films providing commentary on the process of mentoring in the lives of adolescent artists, specifically identified the developmental progression from idealization and mirroring to deidealization later in an adolescent’s mentoring relationship. The shifts in cognitive development in later adolescence that allow for the development of critical thinking and lead to greater complexity in our views of self and other (Arnett, 2004) may call on mentors to engage with their prote´ge´s in different ways. Older adolescents may not only be more accepting of mentors’ flaws but may also need to see some aspects of their mentors’ personal struggles to realistically balance strengths and weaknesses in the face of life’s challenges. Engagement with authentic mentors may provide older adolescents opportunities to enhance their coping capacities by learning that shortcomings and adversity are inevitable parts of life that need not stand in the way of personal and professional achievement. Further, the narratives of our participants reveal subtle variations in autonomy-seeking across developmental stage. In general, our findings suggest a potential shift from early to late adolescence in desires for autonomy in mentoring relationships. The middle and late adolescent participants detailed various attempts to balance connection with increasing autonomy, a theme that was absent from the narratives of early adolescents. The older youth emphasized their expectation that they should be able to make autonomous decisions,

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

179

and at the same time expressed strong wishes for approval and feelings of disappointment when such responses were not forthcoming from their mentors. They described how a lack of approval felt like a betrayal of sorts in that it dashed their expectations for a non-hierarchical relationship with their mentors. Thus, the present study suggests that issues of connectedness and autonomy in mentoring relationships remain relevant throughout adolescence (Bogat & Liang, 2005). Further, mentoring that is sensitive to simultaneous desires for autonomy and approval may be especially well-received by older adolescents. The older adolescents were also more sensitive to mutuality; they described a need for give and take in the mentoring relationship in ways that early adolescents did not. The high school and college students described the sharing and advice giving as reciprocal, and noted a sense of mutual respect with their mentors. Halperin et al. (1988), who used films to elucidate the nature of mentoring in adolescent creativity, noted a particular emphasis in films on the importance of a mutual relationship between mentors and mentees in which personal growth as well as technical education occur. The author argued that mentoring without mutuality degenerates into the relationship of a master to an ‘‘apprentice/servant.’’ Although our study participants were speaking explicitly about personal sharing, research on academic mentoring in higher education settings has also pointed to the importance of mutuality, here in the form of mutual respect, shared decision-making, and a sense of mutual benefit and valuing of the relationship (Dixon, 2001). Indeed, in a longitudinal, qualitative study of graduate student-faculty mentoring, mutuality was the most important relational quality sought after by mentees (Dixon, 2001). The literature on workplace mentoring has similarly emphasized mutuality, indicating that mutual relationships endured far longer than top-down mentoring relationships (Kram & Isabella, 1985). Mutuality has been described by individuals in workplaces as a matter of being able to influence the other person in work-related or technical matters (Kram & Isabella, 1985). Others described mutuality in terms of role flexibility, such as serving as both the giver and recipient of advice or support. In addition, mutuality was described in terms of both mentees and mentors deriving benefits from the relationship. As mentors provided career and psychosocial support to younger talent, they themselves gained technical and psychological support, personal satisfaction, and respect from colleagues (Kram, 1983). Moreover, these studies suggested that mutuality became more important during later stages in career mentoring as compared to earlier ones (Kram & Isabella, 1985). A recent study of professional women’s experiences of mentoring relationships (Deweese, 2004) similarly demonstrated an evolution toward more mutual relationships across career mentoring stages. Finally, consistent with previous research on the informal mentoring relationships of early and late adolescents that has demonstrated the relevance of empowerment and its psychological benefits in adolescent mentees (Liang, Tracy, Taylor, & Williams, 2002; Liang, Tracy, Taylor, Williams, Jordan, & Miller, 2002), empowerment emerged as a prominent theme across our three age groups. The ways that empowerment was achieved, however, sounded a bit different in the two older adolescent groups than it did among middle schoolers. The process of empowering youth—coupling practical support and verbal encouragement to excel—was consistent, but the older youth described mentors becoming even more actively and practically engaged during key times of transition, such as preparing for the next step in their educational and vocational lives. Although there exists virtually no literature that examines how the process of empowering mentees may evolve over time within adolescent and academic mentoring relationships, the workplace literature reveals some specific ways in which empowerment shifts across developmental stages of mentoring. Specifically, in Kram and Isabella (1985) study, individuals in the youngest age group and earliest career phase needed general empowerment, such as acquiring confidence while defining their professional role. As individuals became established in their professions, they became concerned with advancement in their profession (Hall, 1976), and thus needed more specific information from mentors that could enable their future advancement through increased knowledge of the organization, as well as through greater visibility to those in power. Mid-career is a time when individuals re-evaluate life choices; and thus mentors can provide career strategizing, jobrelated feedback, and psychosocial support in managing fears of obsolescence. 5.1. Limitations and recommendations There are several limitations to this study that should be noted. Although some have argued that focus groups may be less constrained by participants’ verbal ability, as listening to others articulate their experiences

180

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

often sparks the thinking of group members who may be less insightful and articulate in a one-to-one interview, the verbal abilities of the younger adolescents were certainly less well-developed than those of the college students. Moreover, the focus group methodology may have limited our ability to detect aspects of mentoring relationships that are differently experienced across participants. That is, by using focus groups, we may have been more likely to gather data on commonalities across the participants’ experiences, rather than capturing aspects that are unique and idiosyncratic to each participant. In addition, group dynamics might be considered a confounding factor in this study, in that they might drive differences in themes rather than age. Thus, future work may do well to include alternative data collection procedures, such as individual interviews, that would offset any data potentially lost through focus groups. Given that convenience sampling was used, another limitation is that the sample is not necessarily representative of all middle school, high school, and college students. For example, several of the college focus groups tend to be relatively lacking in ethnic, and perhaps also socioeconomic, diversity. Unfortunately, we did not have specific social class data that would help determine the comparability of groups. Third, as noted previously, the presence of the themes identified does not indicate their relative importance to participants or provide insight into whether and in what ways these dimensions of mentoring relationships may play a role in their effectiveness. Future research should systematically examine potential demographic differences in the mentoring process by including increasingly diverse populations of youth and by using multiple forms of data collection, such as individual interviews, observations, and surveys to address these noted limitations. Indeed, little empirical research has explicitly focused on elucidating differences between girls and boys in how each relate with mentors (Bogat & Liang, 2005). Similarly, more work is needed to delineate ethnic influences on access to mentors, as well as mentoring processes (Liang & Grossman, 2007). The findings from this study align with previous research that has begun to examine the importance of qualitative aspects of mentoring, ranging from relationship duration to level of closeness and trust (Rhodes, 2002). These dimensions of mentoring were salient to youth who participated in this study, whether they were in early or late adolescence. Future research should examine the relative contribution the qualitative aspects of mentoring relationships make to their effectiveness and whether these are more and less important at different developmental moments for youth of varying ethnic backgrounds. Moreover, systematic exploration of the relevance of Relational–Cultural Theory qualities (e.g., authenticity, engagement, empowerment, zest) in youth mentoring relationships should be done. In sum, despite these subtle variations across developmental stage, our findings suggest that mentors should seek to foster close, enduring relationships that are not overly directive or hierarchical, but rather ones that are responsive, mutual, and trustworthy, providing an appropriate balance of emotional and practical support, challenge, and enjoyment. References Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2007). Common bonds: An integrative view of mentoring relationships. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp. 397–419). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment theory and research. New York: Guilford. Angold, A., & Rutter, M. (1992). Effects of age and pubertal status on depression in a large clinical sample. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 5–28. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Education, Inc. Beam, M. R., Chen, C., & Greenberger, E. (2002). The nature of adolescents’ relationships with their ‘‘very important’’ nonparental adults. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 305–325. Bergin, C., Talley, S., & Hamer, L. (2003). Prosocial behaviors of young adolescents: A focus group study. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 13–32. Blos, P. (1967). The second individuation process of adolescence. The adolescent passage. Madison: International Universities Press. Bogat, G., & Liang, B. (2005). Gender in mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), The handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 205–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1993). Popularity, friendship, and emotional adjustment during early adolescence. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & B. Laursen (Vol. Ed.), New directions for child development (Vol. 60). Close friendships in adolescence (pp. 2337). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Validation of the Prosocial Tendencies Measure with early- and middle-aged adolescents: Relations with cognitions, emotions, and social behaviors. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 107–134.

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

181

Cavell, T., & Smith, A. (2005). Mentoring children. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), The handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 160–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Collins, A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1999). Capacity for intimate relationships: A developmental construction. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 125–148). New York: Cambridge University Press. Darling, N., Caldwell, L., & Smith, R. (2005). Participation in school-based extracurricular activities and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Leisure Research, 37, 51–76. Darling, N., Hamilton, S., & Hames, K. (2003). Relations outside the family: Unrelated adults. In G. Adams & M. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 349–360). New York: Blackwell. Dashef, S. (1984). Aspects of identification and growth during late adolescence and young adulthood. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 38, 239–247. Deweese, E. (2004). A qualitative study of the mentoring relationships of Christian women in academia. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering (Vol. 65, pp. 2675). Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process. Child Development, 66, 139–151. Dixon, D. (2001). Mentoring over distance: The construction of the student–faculty relationship in a doctoral program for mid-life adult. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering (Vol. 61(12-B), pp. 6736). Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Haggard, D. L. (2007). Naturally occurring mentoring relationships involving workplace employees. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring (pp. 139–158). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157–197. DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Natural mentoring relationships and adolescent health: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 518–524. Eder, D., & Fingerson, L. (2002). Interviewing children and adolescents. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 181–201). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). The impact of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460–481. Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Farquhar, C., & Das, R. (1999). Are focus-groups suitable for ‘sensitive’ topics?. In R. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.) Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 47–63). London: Sage. Fleming, J., Boyle, M., & Offord, D. (1993). The outcome of adolescent depression in the Ontario Child Health Study follow-up. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 28–33. Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Beam, M. R. (1998). The role of ‘‘very important’’ nonparental adults in adolescent development. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 27, 321–343. Greenberger, E., & Steinberg, L. (1986). When teenagers work: The psychological and social costs of adolescent employment. New York, NY: Basic Books. Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Halperin, D. (1988). Master and apprentice: The mentoring relationship in the development of adolescent creativity. In S. Feinstein, A. Esman, J. Looney, G. Orvin, & J. Schimel, et al. (Eds.). Adolescent psychiatry: Developmental and clinical studies (Vol. 15, pp. 279–287). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hamilton, S., & Darling, N. (1989). Mentors in adolescents’ lives. In K. Hurrlemann & U. Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents: International perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyler. Hirsch, B. (2005). A place to call home: After-school programs for urban youth. Washington, D.C./New York: American Psychological Association/Teachers College Press. Johnson, W. B., Rose, G., & Schlosser, L. Z. (2007). Student–faculty mentoring: Theoretical and methodological issues. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Keller, T. (2005). The stages and development of mentoring relationships. In D. DuBois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 82–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentoring relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608–625. Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110–132. Lengua, L. J. (2006). Growth in temperament and parenting as predictors of adjustment during children’s transition to adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42, 819–832. Levinson, D., Darrow, C., Klein, E., Levinson, M., & Mckee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf. Levpusˇcek, M. P. (2006). Adolescent individuation in relation to parents and friends: Age and gender differences. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 238–264. Liang, B., & Grossman, J. (2007). Diversity and youth mentoring. In T. Allen & L. Eby (Eds.), Handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp. 239–258). Blackwell Publishing. Liang, B., Tracy, A., Taylor, C., & Williams, L. (2002). Relational mentoring of college women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 271–288.

182

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 168–182

Liang, B., Tracy, A., Taylor, C., Williams, L., Jordan, J., & Miller, J. B. (2002). The Relational Health Indices: A study of women’s relationships. Psychology of Women’s Quarterly, 26, 25–35. Linnehan, F. (2003). A longitudinal study of work-based adult–youth mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 40–54. Loder, T., & Hirsch, B. J. (2003). Inner-city youth development organizations: The salience of peer ties among early adolescent girls. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 2–12. MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. Mentoring in America 2002. Alexandria, VA: MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership; 2002. Available from http://mentoring.web.aol.com/common/one_report/national_poll_report_final.pdf. Accessed 15.04.2007. Miller, J.B., Stiver, I.P. (1991). A relational reframing of therapy. (Work in Progress No. 52). Wellesley, MA: The Stone Center, Wellesley College. Millward, L. J. (2000). Focus groups. In G. M. Breakwell, S. Hammond, & C. Fife-Schaw (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 303–324). London, England: Sage Publications Ltd. Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Qualitative research methods series, 16. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1993). When to use focus groups and why. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 3–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Morrow, K. V., & Styles, M. B. (1995). Building relationships with youth in program settings: A study of big brothers/big sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Offer, D., & Offer, J. B. (1975). From teenage to young manhood. New York: Basic Books. Otto, M. (1994). Mentoring: An adult development perspective. In M. Wunsch (Ed.), Mentoring revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions (pp. 15–24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Ramaswami, A., & Dreher, G. F. (2007). The benefits associated with workplace mentoring relationships. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 211–231). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Keller, T. E., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). Processes at the heart of youth mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 691–707. Rose, G. L. (2005). Group differences in graduate students’ concepts of the ideal mentor. Research in Higher Education, 46, 53–80. Sanchez, B., & Colon, Y. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and culture in mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 191–204). Newbury Park: Sage. Schulenberg, J., O’Malley, P., Bachman, J., Wadsworth, K., & Johnston, L. (1996). Getting drunk and growing up: Trajectories of frequent binge drinking during the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57, 289–304. Spencer, R. (2007). Naturally occurring mentoring relationships involving youth. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Spencer, R. (2006). Understanding the mentoring process between adolescents and adults. Youth and Society, 37, 287–315. Spencer, R., Jordan, J. V., & Sazama, J. (2004). Growth-promoting relationships between youth and adults: A focus group study. Families in Society, 85, 354–362. Steinberg, L. (2005). Adolescence (7th ed.). Columbia, MI: McGraw Hill. Turban, D. B., Dougherty, T. W., & Lee, F. K. (2002). Gender, race, and perceived similarity effects in developmental relationships: The moderating role of relationship duration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(2), 240–262.