The Young Women Leaders? Program: Exploring Factors and Outcomes Associated with Emerging Adult Female Mentors? Experience by Julianne Marie McGill A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 8, 2012 Keywords: mentors, factors and outcomes, conceptual model, emerging adults Copyright 2012 by Julianne McGill Approved by Francesca Adler-Baeder, Chair, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies Jennifer Kerpelman, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies Donna Sollie, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies ii Abstract The purpose of this study was to understand young adult female mentors? experiences in a mentoring program that pairs undergraduates with at-risk female junior high school students. There is extremely limited research addressing the experiences and outcomes for mentors; the vast majority of research focuses on mentoring programs? effects on the mentees. We expected that the mentors involved also experienced change because of the interactional nature of close relationships. Most young adult research focuses on parent-child, peer, or romantic relationships. Very few studies have focused on other significant relationships, such as mentoring relationships, that may also impact young adults? development. We use an a priori blended theoretical framework that included aspects of feminist theory, symbolic interactionism, and the calamity theory of growth and incorporated a grounded theory and phenomenological design for theory development and refinement. Qualitative interviews were conducted at two timepoints in the year-long program. Prompt questions focused on perceived outcomes and the factors and processes that may have led to these reported outcomes. Transcription and thematic coding techniques were utilized. Themes uncovered in the present study range from personal to practical, and relationship focused to individual focused. The wide range of positive outcomes is encouraging, but there were negative experiences, including challenges and negative feelings, reported by the participating mentors. Novel findings include the documentation of several additional outcomes for mentors not previously reported: understanding of self-disclosure techniques, persistence and iii perseverance in relationships, emotional regulation skills, teamwork, and the application of knowledge gained in class to real life experiences. A significant contribution of this study is the focus on challenges reported by the mentors. These included programmatic issues, relational challenges and individual challenges. Negative feelings associated with their mentoring relationship were also documented. These negative feelings include feeling worried about their mentees and their relationships, and frustration and discontent associated with challenges. Importantly, however, results from this study suggest an indirect relationship between participation and outcomes. While opportunities to practice skills influence the development of personal and practical outcomes focused on the individual, and relationships, the relationship between challenges and outcomes involve intervening factors, such as support from others (e.g., mentees, mentors, graduate facilitators, and faculty advisors), altered expectations, relationship quality, time invested, and differences within the mentor-mentee pair. These factors are better predictors of the outcomes experienced by the mentors than the challenges faced. This study provides an organization of existing research on mentor experiences and utilizes the details of the mentor experiences uncovered here to formulate an initial conceptual model for the study of and work with young adult female mentors. Theory is informed as these women?s experiences were more deeply explored. Results inform both the mentoring and young adult research literature as well as mentoring program administrators as they consider the planning for training, and monitoring of the mentors in their programs. This study is important for furthering our understanding of the broader context of influential relationships and experiences for young adult women. More research needs to focus on potential determinants of mentor outcomes. Once we have a better understanding of potential mentoring experiences iv through qualitative methods, different quantitative methods can help us target specific trajectories or relationships within a conceptual model. v Acknowledgments I would like to thank my family for their unconditional support of my work and education. I would like to specifically give deserving thanks to my parents, Gary and Lynn McLane, for total love, unending support, and boundless opportunities. I would also like to thank my sister, Jeanette Rosin, for giving me concrete advice on how to keep moving forward and lots of grammar support. Finally, I would like to thank my superstar husband, Tyler McGill, who has spent countless late nights with me crying, making me laugh, and always reminding me that I am loved for who I am, not for what I do for a living. I would like to give my appreciation to Dr. Jennifer Kerpelman and Dr. Donna Sollie for serving on my committee. Your thoughtful comments and feedback were greatly appreciated, as well as your support, understanding, and time. A special thanks to Dr. Francesca Adler-Baeder, my major professor, who always keeps me on track, motivated, and full of desire to work hard; her positive and calming outlook on life; and the mentorship she provides personally and professionally. vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ viii Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Review of the Literature ........................................................................................................... 11 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11 Evaluation Research Focused on Mentees ...................................................................... 11 Young Adult Development ............................................................................................. 14 Evaluation Research Focused on Mentors ...................................................................... 16 Other Relevant (Helping Relationship) Literature .......................................................... 25 Program Experience Studied: Young Women Leaders? Program .................................. 34 Theory ............................................................................................................................. 34 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 41 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 44 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 44 Background ..................................................................................................................... 44 Data Collection Plan ....................................................................................................... 47 Data Analysis Plan .......................................................................................................... 49 Credibility and Reliability ............................................................................................... 50 vii Results ....................................................................................................................................... 53 Personal Cross-Domain Outcomes ................................................................................. 53 Practical Work-Related Outcomes .................................................................................. 58 Factors Influencing Outcomes ........................................................................................ 61 Results Summary ............................................................................................................ 75 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 77 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 77 Perceived Outcomes of Mentors ..................................................................................... 77 Challenges ....................................................................................................................... 79 Conceptual Model ........................................................................................................... 80 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 84 Implications..................................................................................................................... 85 Future Directions ............................................................................................................ 87 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 91 References ................................................................................................................................. 93 Appendix A: Time 1 Interview Questions with Theoretical Underpinnings .......................... 102 Appendix B: Time 2 Interview Questions with Theoretical Underpinnings .......................... 104 viii List of Illustrations Figure 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 90 1 I. Introduction As teenagers? at-risk activity increases in the community, mentoring programs are being developed across the country at an increased rate (Rhodes, Grossman & Resch, 2000; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; DuBois & Rhodes, 2006). These mentoring programs are developed to support positive youth development and provide caring and competent non-parental adults to work with disadvantaged youth in order to enhance at risk children and adolescents? social, academic, and relational outcomes (Rhodes et al., 2002). There are different types of mentoring programs and the goals vary in scope. Some programs focus on broad developmental goals and assume the relationship between the mentor and the mentee brings about general improvements and positive outcomes (Rhodes et al., 2002). Other programs focus on specific instrumental goals such as: encouraging social competence development (Cavell et al., 2009; Zand et al., 2009), academic achievement (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Rhodes et al., 2005;Goldner & Mayseless, 2009) and personal growth that includes the promotion of self-efficacy, positive present and future selves, and self-worth (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002;Quarles et al., 2005). Even though mentoring programs are increasing at an exponential rate, the empirical literature on these programs is still relatively scarce (Jekielek et al., 2002). From the studies that exist, it appears strong mentoring relationships characterized by longer relationship duration and high relationship quality are more likely to bring about the targeted outcomes for mentees (Knight, Mahmoodzadegan, & 2 Lawrence, 2000;Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Parra et al., 2002; Rhodes et al., 2005; Cavell et al., 2009; Goldner & Mayseless, 2009; Zand et al., 2009). Even more limited is literature addressing how mentoring programs influence the mentor, particularly emerging adult mentors who are experiencing an important time in identity development (Arnett, 2000). Arnett (2000) defines emerging adulthood as the period of life from the late teenage years through the mid-twenties. The literature dedicated to this age group indicates that it is a time of exploration, especially related to love, work, and worldviews; in sum, it is a time of development of one?s self concept (Erikson, 1968; Mortimer, Finch & Kumka, 1982; Alwin, Cohen & Newcomb, 1991; Arnett, 2000). Steinberg and Sheffield-Morris (2001) emphasize this period as one in which individuals explore and examine who they are and what characteristics they possess. The transition to young adulthood is also marked by influences on and by peers, and that influence extends to multiple dimensions of development. Additionally, late adolescence and early adulthood is a time in which civic development ensues. Researchers in this area find that civic identities, views, and values are rooted in one?s social relations and in the opportunities one has for work with the community. In other words, through engagement in the community, young people develop more altruistic behaviors and beliefs. Those who study youth civic development suggest that adults have a pivotal role in teaching young people principles of openness and tolerance that lead to personal growth and development (Yates & Youniss, 1996; Flanagan & Faison, 2001). Mentors in mentoring programs are often supported and guided by administrators, facilitators and program directors, therefore mentors are often engaged in this learning relationship with adults. Although the mentoring program participant is generally understood to be the mentee, mentors are also participants in mentoring programs in that they volunteer for the program, 3 receive training and orientation, and are usually guided and mentored by program administrators (Dolan & Johnson, 2009). In other words, mentors are equally subjects, even though the outcome goals for them typically are not explicitly addressed in the program design. A transactional systems perspective suggests that mentors may show positive outcomes similar to the mentees due to the bidirectional nature of supportive relationships and the embedding of the mentor- mentee relationship within the context of the group of mentor-mentee pairs and the program facilitators or administrators. These assumptions about relationships and individual development are found in Bronfenbrenner?s (1977) ecological theory that suggests individuals develop in complex ways and are affected by their relational context. Only five studies focusing on mentoring programs for youth and young adults can be found that consider the program?s impact on the young adult mentor (Dolan & Johnson, 2009; Karcher, 2009; Slaughter-Defoe & English-Clarke, 2010; Faith, Fiala, Cavell, and Hughes, 2011; Reddick, Griffin, & Cherwitz, 2011). Additionally, three of the five studies focused solely on outcomes (e.g. cognitive gains and academic self-esteem or connectedness) and did not focus on or uncover information about the factors that may influence outcomes (Dolan & Johnson, 2009; Karcher, 2009; Reddick, Griffin, & Cherwitz, 2011). The reported outcomes included in these five studies were both personal and practical in nature. Dolan and Johnson (2009) used semi-structured interviews to document graduate and postdoctoral mentors? gains. These reported outcomes included improved career preparation, cognitive growth (e.g., clearer understanding of their own work, recalling ?forgotten? knowledge, and obtaining different perspectives), socio-emotional growth (e.g., personal satisfaction, improved confidence, self-awareness and empathy), enhanced communication skills, and greater understanding of their own academic or research experiences. Karcher?s (2009) study 4 used pre/post survey data from young mentors (i.e., grades 10 & 11) and similar aged comparison youth. He discovered significant differences between mentors and comparison classmates in school-based outcomes, such as greater connectedness to school, teachers, peers, and future selves for mentors. Karcher (2009) also reported significant positive changes in self- esteem related to extracurricular activities, sports, and school. Slaughter-Defoe & English-Clarke (2010) used journal writing to document the development of outcomes for 4 female graduate- level academic mentors. The outcomes reported included clarification of career goals, a sense of purpose, personal growth, and an altered, more positive, view of adolescents. The authors discussed how a feeling of community among the young girls and the mentors might have supported the development of the reported outcomes. The fourth study (Reddick, Griffin, & Cherwitz, 2011) analyzed graduate student mentors? written reflections about the benefits experienced. These mentors reported developing a deeper understanding of themselves and their academic field, developing the skills needed for their future careers, an opportunity to develop diversity in academia through mentoring, and a feeling of contribution to the next generation of students. The most recent study (Faith, Fiala, Cavell, & Hughes, 2011) utilized survey data (n= 102 mentor-mentee pairs) to assess mentors? change in psychological functioning after a three- semester relationship with an aggressive child. In this study authors controlled for mentors? ratings of relationship impact on their lives and mentors? and mentees? ratings of relationship support. Contrary to the other studies, results of this study indicate decreases in mentors? ratings of self-efficacy, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness over time. However, mentors who reported high rates of support within the mentoring relationship indicated an increase in openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness, as well as a decrease in attachment-related avoidance. 5 In sum, there is limited information related to outcomes for young adult mentors. The small amount of research conducted indicates positive outcomes are reported by mentors, with the exception of one study (Faith et al., 2011) which reported some negative effects depending on the level of support within the mentoring relationships. Additionally, Faith et al. (2011) was the only study to mention theoretical assumptions (i.e. the helper therapy principle; Riessman, 1965) Factors or processes involved in influencing outcomes have been largely ignored, with the exception of two studies that identified a feeling of community, and support within the relationship as elements of the process (Slaughter-Defoe & English-Clarke, 2010; Faith et al., 2011). The present study will investigate young female mentors? experiences, and address possible positive and negative outcomes, as well as the factors that may influence the development of outcomes. Additionally, this study will include the use of theory in both study design and the articulation and organization of findings. The current study is further informed by several bodies of literature. Related literature finds positive outcomes associated with being a mentor in the work place. Ganser (1994) found that benefits for teacher-mentors included reflection, satisfaction, improvements in self-esteem, and professional renewal. Liu et al. (2009) examined benefits of being a mentor in the work place and discovered mentoring was associated with the mentor?s improved job performance and social status, mediated by personal learning and social interaction quality. Research on youth volunteering is also used to inform the study of the mentoring experiences for young adults and adolescents. This rather robust literature suggests positive outcomes for being involved in civic engagement or community opportunities as adolescents and young adults (Janoski et al., 1998; Kirkpatrick Johnson et al., 1998; Harre, 2007; Brown, 2011). One recent study indicated that volunteering is associated with decreased levels of social 6 dominance beliefs, or ideas related to social hierarchy (Brown, 2011), and another found an association between volunteering and pro-social attitudes including altruistic beliefs and civic tolerance (Janoski, et al., 1998). Although similar effects may occur for mentors, it is important to note that volunteering may be qualitatively different than mentoring because in ?general volunteering? the person may not make a long-term commitment and/or may not have focused, more intimate relationships with program recipients. Another helping relationship explored in research involves therapists. Some limited research indicates therapists can experience both positive and negative outcomes as a consequence of therapy involvement. Positive outcomes experienced are typically personal growth and compassion satisfaction, while negative outcomes experienced may be compassion fatigue and burnout (Linley & Joseph, 2007). Some researchers (Richards, Campenni, & Muse- Burke, 2010) suggest taking self-care measures to ameliorate these negative impacts and to prevent them from occurring. While we can draw some parallels between mentor-mentee and therapist-client experiences, there may also be important differences because the nature of the relationships differs. That is, therapists are trained to provide a supportive relationship with limited self-disclosure and bi-directionality (Schauben & Frazier, 1995). Additionally, therapists have an academic degree and are professionally trained. Differences or similarities between therapist-client and mentor-mentee are speculative, as they have not been empirically examined. Overall, there is still much to be learned about the experiences of young adult mentors. Qualitative research methods can be valuable in launching the exploration of an under-studied phenomenon (Creswell, 2007). Therefore, the current study relied on these methods, specifically phenomenology and aspects of grounded theory, and focused on a sample of current, female, 7 college-aged mentors involved in a mentoring program for ?at-risk? junior high school-aged girls. All but one previous study (Faith et al., 2011) of young adult mentors are atheoretical; therefore, an important contribution of this study is the use of theory. Elements from several theoretical perspectives were combined to form an initial framework for the study of mentor experiences and outcomes. This framework was used to guide the core study questions and analysis of the data. Data gathered served to validate and/or inform theoretical assumptions. The present study describes the experiences of a specific sample of young women. Because this study focused on young adult women and because women may experience their own development through a different lens or perspective than men do (Kirkpatrick Johnson et al., 1998), the use of a feminist perspective was used in this investigation. Therefore, generalizability was not the goal. Most feminist researchers call for investigation on women in different contexts (Withers Osmond & Thorne, 1993; Wastell, 1996; Collins, 1998), and this study provided an opportunity to tell these young women?s stories in the context of a helping relationship. Examining women?s experiences through mentoring addresses the challenge to uncover the context-specific young adult female mentor ?voice? (Collins, 1998). Symbolic Interactionism introduced the idea that people develop and form their identities through interactions and relationships. Furthermore, the theory posits that within a dyadic relationship (i.e. the mentor-mentee pair), shared meaning and a symbolic world are developed through their interactions together. A person?s symbolic world shapes their behavior and outcomes (Blumer, 1969). In a mentor-mentee relationship, this assumption framed questions regarding the consensus or non-consensus of the meaning and purposefulness of the relationship. This theory also carries the assumption that a person has multiple roles that vary in salience. The 8 more prominent and important a role is, the more motivated an individual is to act on and excel at those particular role characteristics (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). In terms of mentoring, this would mean the more emphasis one puts on their role as a mentor, the more that those identity characteristics will take hold in their self-concept. Therefore, it may be assumed that those who highly value the importance of the mentoring role may develop characteristics associated with caring for and working with at-risk young people and be more motivated to connect with their mentees. Those who do not highly value the importance of the mentoring role will most likely not take on these same characteristics. These assumptions informed interview questions. The Relational-Cultural Theory, derived from Symbolic Interactionism and developed by feminist scholar Jean Baker Miller, emphasizes that individuals develop within relationships and interactions with others, and specifically recognizes that ?growth-fostering relationships are essential dimensions of human development and psychological well-being? (Comstock, 2008). Relational-Cultural theorists place an emphasis on the diversity within relationships, and suggest culturally different people may be pushed to understand each other and thus may experience more personal growth because they are pushed beyond their usual comfort zones. The Relational-Cultural Theory posits that by contributing to another?s growth, one grows as a result of participation. Because these relationship elements are often characteristics of community- based mentor programs, these mentor-mentee relationships were considered potentially growth- fostering relationships and the impact of mentor-mentee differences was explored through planned interview questions. Similar theory that served to inform this study is the Calamity Theory of Growth (Anthis, 2002). Assumptions in this theory center on the relationship between stressful life events and positive growth in identity exploration over time. If there are some negative aspects to the 9 mentoring experience, as the related literature indicates (Dolan & Johnson, 2009; Faith, Fiala, Cavell, and Hughes, 2011), it may be that mentors experience identity modifications and positive outcomes as a result. These assumptions informed interview questions as well. In sum, the majority of mentoring program evaluations focus on outcomes for the mentees. From the handful of studies focused on mentor outcomes, and from related literature on volunteers and therapists, it appears mentoring can shape mentors? well-being. These studies, however, provide extremely limited information on the factors associated with reported outcomes for mentors, have been primarily atheoretical in design, and no existing studies have focused explicitly on the experience of young adult females? mentoring middle school-aged girls. Some assumptions of Symbolic Interactionism, Relational-Cultural Theory, and Calamity Theory of Growth that are complementary in nature were used to guide the formation of questions a priori and used in individual qualitative interviews. A gendered lens was used in the interpretation and description of the data collected and offers a detailed account of how these female mentors explained the mentoring relationship, what they gained from the relationship, and how they described what influenced those outcomes. The grounded theory approach prescribed efforts to organize the results in a meaningful way to further refine and develop theoretical ideas about young female mentor experiences. In general, the current study focused on discovering: (1) perceptions of the type and nature of outcomes experienced by young adult female mentors participating in a female-only mentoring program (2) perceptions of the external factors and social processes involved in the mentoring experience and (3) perceptions of the cognitive or intrapsychic elements or factors involved in the mentoring experience and reported 10 outcomes. Resulting information and organization of the data serves to inform the adult development literature as well as mentoring program design. 11 II. Review of Literature Introduction Teenage at-risk activities, including risky sexual activity, illicit substance use, truancy, and gang activity, are on the rise (National Institute of Drug Abuse, National Institute of Health, & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). To address these issues, program developers and professionals began establishing mentoring programs for at-risk youth (Rhodes, Grossman & Resch, 2000; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; DuBois & Rhodes, 2006). Mentoring programs have increased in number because developers believe the programs promote positive development through a mentor?s supportive and caring non-parental relationship with the mentee (Rhodes et al., 2002). There is a growing area of research that has shown positive outcomes for the at-risk youth involved in mentoring programs that include social, academic, and relational improvements. There are also a handful of studies and some related literatures that suggest program effects for mentors. This chapter provides a background of evaluation studies on mentoring programs, with particular focus on the limited research evaluating outcomes and factors for mentors participating in programs. A brief summary of parallel literature conceptually related to the current study is then presented. Lastly, an overview of the theoretical framework for this study is provided. Evaluation Research Focused on Mentees Mentoring programs vary in their design and goals. There are programs that focus on broad developmental goals that are associated with general improvements and positive outcomes. These types of programs focus on the relationship between the mentee and the mentor as the 12 agent of change. Other programs focus on more specific improvements and outcomes. These instrumental outcomes include encouraging social competence development (Jekielek et al., 2002; Cavell et al., 2009; Goldner & Mayseless, 2009), improved academic achievement (Rhodes, Grossman & Resch, 2000; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Jekielek et al., 2002; de Blank, Lawrence & Deutsch, 2006; Zand et al., 2009), decreased risk-taking behavior (Zand et al., 2009;), and personal growth (Knight, Mahmoodzadegan & Lawrence, 2000; Parra et al., 2002; Quarles, Maldonado & Lacey, 2005; Goldner & Mayseless, 2009), and are thought to result from the specific skills taught through the mentoring program, not necessarily the relationship developed between the mentor and the mentee. One program evaluation study (Knight, Mahmoodzadegan, & Lawrence, 2000) has focused specifically on mentees involved in the Young Women Leaders? Program (YWLP) - the program utilized in the present study. The study utilized a sample of 70 young girls (the age range was not provided) that were predominantly Caucasian and participating in YWLP. Paired sample t-tests were conducted to assess ratings of self-concept, social skills and depression before and after the program. Additionally, RMANOVAs were conducted to assess how participants? age, grade, race, pubertal status, school grade, referral source, and primary caregiver related to the findings. The study reported significant increases (p < .05) in perceived athletic competence, physical appearance, and global self-worth for the sample. In addition, Caucasian girls had significantly higher ratings of global self-worth after program participation, and reported higher levels of support for autonomy than African-American girls. Also, sixth graders reported feeling significantly more connected than seventh or eighth grade girls. There have been a number of recent studies that indicate relationship duration and relationship quality influence these targeted outcomes for mentees (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; 13 Parra et al., 2002; Rhodes et al., 2005; Cavell et al., 2009; Goldner & Mayseless, 2009; Zand et al., 2009). Grossman and Rhodes (2002) conducted a study focused on the impacts of relationship duration on outcomes for 1,138 mentored youth from across the United States. More than half in the sample (62.4%) were boys and over half (57.5%) were members of an ethnic minority group. The participants in their study ranged in age from 10 to 16 (M=12). Using multivariate regression, they found that mentoring relationships lasting a year or longer had mentees with the greatest number of improvements, including improvements in perceived social acceptance and perceived social competence, and decreases in occurrences of skipping school or using drugs, when compared to youth that had a relationship that terminated early. Unfortunately and unexpectedly, youth who were in relationships for a very short time experienced declines on several functioning measures. Other aspects of the relationship, including the age and mental health status of the youth, and the income level and relationship status of the mentor, were associated with mentee outcomes. Cavell et al.?s (2009) study assessed the extent to which relationship quality affected outcomes for aggressive children in a randomized clinical trial. The mixed-gender sample consisted of 145 aggressive children in 2nd and 3rd grade. The students were randomly assigned to one of two programs: PrimeTime, a multi-component program that used community mentoring, parent-teacher consultations and problem-solving skills training, or Lunch Buddy, a mentoring program that had mentors (a new one each semester) meet with targeted children twice weekly. Results indicated that children reported more supportive relationships in the PrimeTime condition. In turn, relationship quality or support predicted parent-rated externalizing problems, but only in the PrimeTime group. This study, like Grossman and Rhodes? (2002) 14 study, also indicated that ending a mentoring relationship early could actually harm the child participant (i.e., the child experienced declines following program completion). It appears that high quality, long-term mentoring relationships can bring about positive change for mentees, but low quality, short-term relationships may result in negative outcomes and may introduce other risk factors. Young Adult Development Overall, there is still limited information on mentoring programs effectiveness, even though the number of programs has increased substantially in the United States in the last twenty years (Jekielek et al., 2002). Mentoring experiences and outcomes have been rarely researched, especially for emerging adults, despite the importance of understanding more about this transition period from adolescence to adulthood. Late adolescence and emerging adulthood is shown to be a critical time for trying on different possibilities in regards to love, work, and worldviews (Erikson, 1968; Arnett, 2000; Steinberg & Sheffield-Morris, 2001). This period is related to later/enduring self-concept and role identity (Steinberg & Sheffield-Morris, 2001). During the emerging adulthood phase, individuals focus on preparing for the future (Arnett, 2000). This means there is an emphasis on developing skills for jobs and relationships for their future lives. Emerging adults prepare to make decisions about what those jobs and relationships will be and look like. Erikson (1968) noted that young adulthood is a time for exploration in relationships and he suggested the importance of building close relationships in young adulthood. He suggested the navigation of this psychosocial developmental stage for young adults results in intimacy or isolation. That is, individuals either learn to successfully build intimacy with others or function more in isolation and are less successful in intimate relationships. 15 The transition from adolescence to adulthood also involves developing an understanding of one?s moral value system and worldviews (Arnett, 2000; Malikoff, 2004). People in this age group learn from different cultures, religions, or people from different backgrounds so they can construct a personal worldview. In other words, developing young adults are setting up values and ethical systems that will guide their behaviors. Healthy development is indicated by achieving a socially responsible system. In sum, emerging adults are trying to determine the characteristics they possess so they can better understand how they presently fit into the world around them. Determining personal characteristics also allows emerging adults to imagine how they will be in the future. By constructing these ideas about self and self in relation to others, presently and looking forward, emerging adults develop a self-concept that begins to stabilize into adulthood. Related to these concepts is the development of a philanthropic personality or future self which is discussed in the next section about civic development. Youth civic development. A specific dimension of youth and young adult development relevant to the current study is the evolution of civic identity. Duke et al. (2009) found that connection to community in adolescence was positively related to civic engagement in young adulthood, and supported the idea that volunteer work has related positive outcomes for participants. Flanagan & Faison (2001) theorized that a person?s civic identity, or one?s beliefs about civic issues such as volunteer involvement, politics, and citizenship, is rooted in one?s community involvement opportunities and one?s social relations with the community at large. Facilitators of volunteering or community programs likely play a key role in teaching young people about openness and tolerance, which in turn leads to personal growth. This assumption is 16 relevant to the study of mentors because they are engaged in relationships with program facilitators and administrators. It appears that involvement in a helping context supports the development of altruistic characteristics into adulthood. Flanagan & Faison (2001) theorized that the process of developing these altruistic characteristics might lie within the facilitated exercise of thoughtful actions, information gathering, and reflection. In other words, experiencing community involvement and engagement likely develops an aptitude for understanding others and appreciating societal engagement, and this most likely occurs when the process is facilitated. Therefore, in the present study we considered intentions for future civic engagement and community involvement. Also relevant to the current study, we inquired about program characteristics and the influence of mentors? relationships with program facilitators. Evaluation Research Focused on Mentors Literature addressing how mentoring programs influence the young adult mentor?s outcomes is limited. In general, the mentee is considered the program participant, however, it is reasonable to consider that mentors are also participants in mentoring programs and may experience change in the process, even though the program design typically does not focus on or assess their outcomes. Mentors volunteer to be involved, they receive training and orientation, and they are generally guided and mentored by program administrators and other facilitators (Dolan & Johnson, 2009). While mentors and mentees are engaged in supportive relationships with each other, mentors are also involved in supportive relationships with program administrators, facilitators, and other mentors, indicating there is a natural embedding of relationships within the context of the program. 17 There are very few studies focusing on mentors in programs working with youth and young adults. In fact, there are only five studies that can be found that address this issue and, for the most part, they focus on documenting or describing outcomes. Only one study (Faith, Fiala, Cavell & Hughes, 2011) explicitly described potential factors that may influence outcomes and uses a theoretical framework, while the other four studies vaguely described potential factors, but did not explicitly describe them as such, and are largely atheoretical. Overall, these studies show a wide range of mentor outcomes that support healthy growth and development. First, the design of each of the five studies that address mentor outcomes and potential process elements are described below. Then, the detail of the studies? findings are organized and presented conjointly. Dolan & Johnson (2009) interviewed 7 graduate level students and one postdoctoral student about the impacts and challenges involved in mentoring research-focused undergraduate students. The mentors were contacted via phone and participated in semi-structured interviews after their mentoring relationship had concluded. Thematic data analysis was used to acquire reoccurring themes reported in the mentors? interviews. These mentoring relationships were defined by a mentor?s explicit intention to form a relationship with the younger student, and qualified for the study if the relationship lasted at least one academic semester, but some dyads participated in a relationship together for many years. A limitation of this study is the mentor- mentee relationships varied in length and context. Another limitation to this study is the lack of a theoretical framework to guide their approach or frame their findings. The second study focusing on the impacts on mentors in programs for youth quantitatively examined the impact of mentoring on mentors? school-based connectedness and school-based self-esteem. The mentors in this study were upper level high school students, while the youth being mentored were incoming students (Karcher, 2009). Survey responses from 46 18 high school aged peer mentors (74% females and 95% Caucasian) and 45 comparison youth (78% female and 96% Caucasian) were collected at the beginning of the school year and at the end of the school year to understand the impact mentoring had on the high school aged mentors. This study provided only basic information on mentors. The study did not include an explicit theoretical framework and no information on factors that influenced outcomes. A recent qualitative case study documented four female academic mentors? outcomes using data from weekly journals. Slaughter-Defoe and English-Clarke (2010) used a thematic data analysis approach. Their findings centered on a change in career course, personal growth, and more positive views about adolescents. They also described some of the processes involved in the mentor-mentee relationship. While this study represents an initial step forward in understanding more about female mentors? experiences, the study was atheoretical and did not emphasize the female perspective. Reddick, Griffin and Cherwitz (2011) reported mentor outcomes for graduate students in the Intellectual Entrepreneurship Pre-Graduate School Internship Program. The sample of 81 was ethnically diverse and participants were in a wide array of academic disciplines. The gender makeup of the study was mostly women (70%), and about half (56%) of participants were in a doctoral program; the other half were in a master?s program. The authors used a thematic data analysis plan to understand the mentors? written reflections, and reported both challenges and benefits to serving in a mentor role. Though this study adds to the literature, it is largely descriptive in nature and focuses only on outcomes. It does not discuss factors that influenced outcomes, and it is atheoretical. Finally, Faith, Fiala, and Cavell (2011) conducted a quantitative study to understand the impact of mentoring highly aggressive children on mentors. Using Riessman?s (1965) helper 19 therapy principle and attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969), they specifically addressed changes in mentors? attitudes, personality and attachment affinities. Participants included 102 mentors and mentees. The mentors were mostly single (96%), female (86%), and had a European American ethnic background (86%). The mentors were college students and their mean age was 20 years old. Mentees were second and third grade children (M age= 7.87) and were mostly boys (64%). The mentees? ethnic backgrounds were diverse: 31% European American, 47% African American, and 22% Hispanic. The authors conducted paired sample t-tests and repeated measures ANCOVAs to address their research questions which focused on mentors? attitudes about mentoring efficacy and future parenting, Big Five personality traits and attachment styles. The authors did not consider gender in their discussion. The authors did utilize theory in the present study, but it was not detailed throughout the work. Furthermore, the theory was not integrated into the findings or discussion to clarify or refine the helper therapy principle or attachment theory. The following information describes the categories of findings from these five studies, both practical and personal, as well as the challenges, for young adult mentors. Positive practical outcomes for mentors. Many of the mentor focused studies (Dolan and Johnson, 2009; Karcher, 2009; Slaughter-Defoe & English-Clarke, 2010; Reddick, Griffin, and Cherwitz, 2011) discussed the impact mentoring youth had on future career choices for emerging adult mentors. Two of the eight graduate/postdoctoral mentors in Dolan & Johnson?s (2009) study discussed professional gains that centered on understanding the roles and responsibilities faculty members participate in. In other words, for mentors wanting to become faculty members, being involved in mentoring relationships, similar to professor-student relationships, further solidified their desire to become a faculty member. 20 Reddick, Griffin, and Cherwitz (2011) also discussed mentors? reports of developing skills needed for their future careers due to their mentoring experience. Their mentors noted they learned important skills including how to balance support and scaffolding, while still setting high expectations for their prot?g?s. Mentors also reported learning how to be realistic and honest about goals and expectations, especially related to graduate school, while still building confidence in their mentees. Overall it seems being involved gave mentors a deeper understanding of the work they would do in the future. Similarly, a mentor in Slaughter-Defoe and English-Clarke?s (2010) study discussed how her involvement with her mentee led her to further understand what she wants to do in graduate school and in her future career. Through her experiences with her mentee, this mentor had a shift in perspective and was inspired to find a career in a field where she can work directly with children in need. Finally, Karcher (2009) also noted that high-school aged mentors had a greater connection to their future-selves, or a better idea of what they wanted to be and how they would reach those goals. Though the authors simply describe, and do not explicitly discuss a theme, it appears that these studies suggest that mentoring gives young adults experiences that allow them to ?try on? their future professional selves. Other mentors in Dolan and Johnson?s (2009) study indicated that being a mentor for an undergraduate student helped them become more self-aware and reflective, which led to a better understanding of their skills, interests, and shortcomings. This allowed them the ability to make better career choices in the future. Reddick, Griffin and Cherwitz (2011) echo this finding. The mentors in their study reported participation in a mentoring relationship brought to life their past experiences and challenges and allowed them the opportunity to reflect on their journey to and 21 development in graduate school. This processing further solidified the participants? decision to pursue graduate studies. Another benefit reported by mentors was experiencing changes in negative ideas or concerns about working with adolescent girls (Slaughter-Defoe & English-Clarke, 2010), which is related to their career choice. Mentors reported that after working closely with their young female mentees, they were better able to understand adolescents and adolescents? experiences. The mentors involved reported an initial hesitation or concern about working with adolescent girls, based on their preconceived notions and beliefs. After becoming involved with the girls, the mentors saw how driven and interested the young girls were. It appears their previous notions and ideas were challenged and altered through their experience. Dolan and Johnson (2009) also reported that mentors experienced perspective changes because the prot?g?s challenged the mentors? ideas and beliefs. Another individual practical outcome associated with mentoring youth is academic or cognitive gains. Mentors in Dolan and Johnson?s (2009) study discussed cognitive gains, specifically mentioning a deepened understanding of their own research and obtaining alternative perspectives or ways of thinking. These mentors also mentioned benefits including: recalling lost information, carefully thinking all the way through their projects, and reassessing their knowledge base. That is, graduate student mentors felt that mentoring undergraduate students stretched their thinking and enhanced their critical thinking skills. Dolan and Johnson?s (2009) study did not focus on or document more in-depth information on the processes resulting in these benefits; they simply report the outcomes. While the authors did not summarize and label these findings, it appears that mentoring experiences are a supplementary teaching tool for young 22 people, as it may offer them opportunities to apply knowledge and experience first-hand topics, information from research discussed in classes. Other practical outcomes related to being a mentor are gains centered on improved communication skills and teaching skills (Dolan & Johnson, 2009). The mentors mentioned that these interpersonal gains were connected to their future selves, especially related to careers. Positive personal outcomes for mentors. These five studies also highlighted evidence of socio-emotional personal gains. In this organization of the literature, personal gains or outcomes are distinguished from professional outcomes by virtue of their applicability to a broader range of contexts or a more general personal attribute. One personal gain noted was pride in self. One of the participants in Slaughter-Defoe and English-Clarke?s (2010) study indicated that she took personal pride in the work she was doing with her prot?g?. She felt that what she was doing was worthwhile and helpful, and believed that she was a large part of her prot?g??s improvements. Dolan and Johnson (2009) also reported discussion related to mentors? self-satisfaction in their study. The graduate/postdoctoral mentors felt proud when supporting their prot?g??s educational and career goals. They were also pleased to see their mentees succeed. Dolan and Johnson (2009) elaborated on this finding by reporting that mentors felt gratification and individual satisfaction associated with mentoring and that this enjoyment spilled over into their work life. Reddick, Griffin and Cherwitz (2011) had somewhat similar findings in their study about graduate student mentors. Mentors had positive emotions that centered on opportunities to give back to academia and to future students. Many mentors in this study reported having a significant person guide them to their aspirations, and the mentors felt a need to give back in a similar way. In sum, participating in a mentoring relationship appears to give mentors a feeling of satisfaction and reciprocity. 23 Karcher (2009) found that high school aged peer mentors reported higher rates of connectedness to friends and culturally different peers when compared to non-mentor high school aged youth. Although the authors did not explicitly mention it, it appears that the mentoring experience allowed the high school mentors to learn social skills. In turn, that allowed them to obtain the knowledge and attitudes that support better understanding and respect for self and others. Unfortunately, this study did not discuss the potential differences between genders. Faith et al. (2011) discussed findings related to social interactions and personality. The results of the study indicated openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness improvements for mentors of highly aggressive youth, but only when the mentors rated the mentoring relationship as supportive. Other personal growth areas associated with mentoring young people include improved confidence and self-awareness. Slaughter-Defoe and English-Clarke (2010)?s study discussed how a mentor?s experiences in the mentoring program allowed her see new potential in herself to become a better teacher and student. In other words, the mentoring relationship gave her confidence in many aspects of her life. Dolan and Johnson (2009) detailed confidence gains for mentors by noting mentors felt confident due to their selection as a mentor, or in other words, being selected to mentor undergraduate students gave a boost to the mentors? feelings about their work and credibility. The mentors also discussed how the process of interacting with their mentees built their confidence, and that the pairs? interactions together developed the mentors? feeling of competence. Karcher (2009) discovered mentoring in the high school years was associated with more school related self-esteem. High-school aged mentors had higher levels of improvement in self-esteem related to extracurricular activities, sports, and school at the end of 24 the year when compared to non-mentor youth. Again, these studies did not report or comment on specific processes and factors influencing these perceived outcomes. Challenges for mentors. Although it appears there are many positive benefits to mentoring, there may be some challenges and negative outcomes as well. In this area, more so than when reporting benefits, glimpses of the factors influencing outcomes were provided. Dolan and Johnson (2009) reported challenges that may have had a negative impact on the graduate student mentors. Overall, when discussing challenges, mentors reported feeling let down because prot?g?s did not meet expectations or, in other words, the mentoring experiences were not how they imagined they would be. The majority of mentors describing challenges reported interpersonal struggles related to communication and misunderstandings, while a few mentors reported feeling a struggle to trust their prot?g?s or feel confident in their prot?g??s abilities. Finally, mentors reported their struggle of balancing their role as a researcher, their primary role, and their role as a mentor. The mentors felt that this imbalance was related to lower levels of research productivity and more frustration. Reddick, Griffin, and Cherwitz?s (2011) also reported that mentors felt the mentoring relationships required a significant time commitment and they felt overwhelmed at times. More explicit negative outcomes were discussed in Faith et al.?s (2011) study. After controlling for mentors? ratings of relationship impact on their lives results of the study indicated mentors? ratings of self-efficacy, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness decreased after program participation. However, high levels of relationship support reversed the relationship for openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Relationship support moderated such that high levels of support were associated with increases in openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness, and low levels of support was associated with decreases in these areas. 25 Other Relevant (Helping Relationship) Literature Related areas of study, including workplace mentorship, volunteering, and therapy, indicate similar gains and potential risks for helpers in helping relationships. Outcomes documented are in a range of domains, including the personal, professional and social realms. Though the context of experiences may differ for adult mentors, therapists, and volunteers, studies of their outcomes may provide additional information that is helpful in the study of young adult mentors. Workplace literature. There is a small literature dedicated to mentors in the workplace. Some studies are focused in schools where more advanced teachers mentor and guide beginning teachers. Other studies focus on general workplace arenas, such as business. Recent studies of mentoring in the workplace reveal some effects of mentoring on the mentor, and provide some documentation of elements of the process and unintended outcomes. Again, in this review, outcomes are synthesized across studies and are categorized as practical and personal outcomes. Ganser (1994) assessed teacher mentors? outcomes using data from 24 teachers that served as mentors for beginning teachers. The sample was composed of 18 females and 6 males, and the participants, on average, worked with 2 beginning teacher mentees. The results are based on two interviews, with the preliminary interview being composed of open-ended questions related to the benefits of teacher mentoring relationships, while the second meeting was devoted to having the teachers rank the reported benefits mentioned in the first interview. This study contained a good description of the outcomes associated with being a teacher-mentor, but did not address the factors influencing the outcomes. Iancu-Haddad and Oplatka (2009) conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 teacher- mentors, 10 female, and 2 males, to address the motivation for and outcomes of mentoring 26 novice teachers. The authors also focused on the circumstances of the mentoring relationship, including the age of the mentor and the career stage of the mentor, and how differences impacted the reported benefits. This study was thorough in providing information about the backgrounds of teachers that may impact the mentoring relationship, but failed to address important aspects such as the gender makeup of the pair, and the commitment level of the mentoring relationship. Liu, Liu, Kwong Kwan, and Mao (2009) used a three-time point longitudinal design, which included three data sources (mentors, team leaders, and company records), to describe outcomes for Chinese workplace mentors. The human resources department matched the mentoring pairs, and the mentoring relationships lasted approximately 6 months. The authors used confirmatory factor analyses to address their hypothesized model with data from 512 mentors. The sample consisted of 153 females (30%) and 359 males (70%) that ranged in age from 20 to 53. Their conceptual model hypothesized that the amount of mentoring provided was related to the mentors? personal learning and social interaction, which in turn were related to mentors? job performance and social status. This study did not consider gender in their analyses. Eby, Durley, Evans, and Ragins (2006) also used a longitudinal design to understand how some short-term mentoring outcomes were related to long-term mentoring outcomes. Surveys were completed by 2,501 university employees (63% female). The sample was composed of mostly Caucasian employees (97%) working in a wide range of jobs, who were in, or had recently been in, a mentoring relationship as a mentor. The authors employed the use of hierarchal regression to address their research questions related to outcomes for adult mentors in the workplace. The study did not consider gender, the duration of the relationship being described, or whether the relationship was a formal or informal mentoring relationship. 27 Positive practical outcomes. These studies indicated that there are practical outcomes associated with being a mentor in the workplace, such as enhancement of teaching skills. Ganser (1994) reported that teachers ranked ?reflection and introspection about teaching,? the highest benefit with ?learning new ideas, renewal,? ranked next. Similarly, Iancu-Haddad and Oplatka (2009) discovered that teacher mentors felt ?renewal and advancement? by working in a mentoring relationship. More specifically, they reported mentors felt that they learned new things about themselves and professional practices or perspectives. These mentors also reported exposure to new points of view and academic knowledge that could help them in their classroom. Similarly, Eby et al. (2006) discovered mentors see and feel improvements in their job performance. In addition, Liu et al. (2009) reported that more involved mentors (i.e., those that offered a greater amount of mentoring), obtained higher levels of job performance. More specifically, the time spent mentoring was positively related to the mentor?s personal learning, the development of one?s knowledge, skills, or capabilities, which was also positively related to the mentor?s performance on the job. Therefore, the time one spends mentoring appears to be a factor influencing reported outcomes. Eby et al. (2006) also discovered that these short-term practical benefits, including improved job performance and feelings of recognition and respect from colleagues, were predictive of mentors? work attitudes in the future. In addition, Liu et al. (2009) reported mentors received concrete work benefits, such as increased income or promotion, for participating in mentoring. Both Iancu-Haddad and Oplatka (2009) and Ganser (1994) also reported the financial incentives offered at some schools as a benefit for teacher mentors, although Ganser (1994) noted that financial incentive was the lowest ranked benefit. 28 Positive workplace mentoring personal outcomes. Along with practical outcomes associated with mentoring there are some broader personal outcomes associated with workplace mentoring as well. Ganser discovered that teacher mentors described personal benefits related to personal satisfaction that included, in ranked order, ?satisfaction of helping someone,? ?the challenge of a new role,? and ?honor and recognition, self-esteem boosted.? Iancu-Haddad and Oplatka (2009) had similar findings in their study about mentoring novice teachers. They discovered that ?job satisfaction? was the most commonly reported benefit of mentoring new teachers. The mentors described this as feeling pleasure at watching their prot?g? succeed and feeling that they were a part of their prot?g??s success. This definition of job satisfaction is different than typical descriptions of job satisfaction and seems to describe vicarious accomplishment, and possibly suggests that ulterior motives may be involved, although the authors do not interpret or discuss these responses further. Another general emotional reward for being a teacher-mentor was receiving positive feedback and gratitude, especially from those above them professionally. Both Eby et al. (2006) and Liu et al. (2009) reported mentors developed a feeling of recognition and respect from others because of their involvement as a mentor. It appears that this external recognition predicts the internal emotional benefits and support, indicating that acknowledgment from others may be another possible factor influencing outcomes. There are some social benefits to being a mentor in the workplace as well. Iancu-Haddad and Oplatka (2009) reported that the teacher-mentors valued the friendships and relationships they established through the mentoring program. This appreciation for new, cherished relationships was also documented in business workplace mentoring (Eby et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2009). Liu et al. (2009) discovered the amount of time mentoring was positively related to the 29 mentor?s social status or interactions at the workplace. That is to say it appears the more investment a person puts into their role as a mentor, the more they get out of the experience. As noted earlier, the amount of time spent mentoring may be a potential factor associated with outcomes for mentors. Finally, Eby et al. (2006) reported that short-term relational outcomes, such as satisfaction and support, were more important in predicting mentor?s intention to mentor in the future. Workplace mentoring challenges. One study (Iancu-Haddad & Oplatka, 2009) noted negative consequences or challenges associated with being a teacher mentor for novice teachers. Mentors in this study reported disappointment when their expectations were not met, explained they felt overloaded with emotions that took a toll on them personally, and they expressed feelings of failure when their novice teacher-mentee did not do well. These mentors also expressed they felt uncomfortable being forced to ?be the bad person? if they needed to give an unfavorable report, and expressed that mentoring felt like a waste of time when their mentees did not improve or perform well. The authors also reported the motivation of the prot?g? impacted how the mentors felt about the relationship, indicating this is a factor impacting outcomes. Mentors felt more apt to participate when their novice teacher was receptive to the relationship. If the novice teacher did not want to be mentored, the mentors tended to feel ?isolated? and not as comfortable. Another reported obstacle that may get in the way of shaping and continuing the relationship were cultural differences, such as race or ethnicity or beliefs or viewpoints. This study provided some insight into possible processes or factors associated with reported outcomes, though the authors did not frame their findings in this way. 30 Volunteer literature. Because school-based mentor programs typically utilize volunteer mentors, the literature on adolescent volunteerism can also inform the basis of the current study since mentors in school-based or community-based programs typically volunteer for the program. There is some evidence that indicates volunteerism is a beneficial and worthwhile activity. It is important to note that volunteers, by definition, select themselves into these positions and may introduce bias in reporting outcomes in contrast to some workplace mentors who are selected to participate in programs. While there may be some basic similarities between samples in volunteer studies and mentors, it is noted that the nature of volunteering is often different than mentoring. Volunteering encompasses a broader range of service activities, and volunteers often do not develop direct, close relationships with the people they serve. Therefore, this literature likely provides information on broad, general outcomes to expect for mentors. Outcomes for volunteers. Most outcome studies of volunteerism among youth are centered on personal growth and intrapersonal impacts. Kirkpatrick Johnson et al. (1998) discovered the development of higher levels of general intrinsic work value for youth that participated as youth volunteers. A review of youth volunteerism by Harr? (2007) discussed the development of volunteer?s identity through participation in community service work. Themes or outcomes discussed in this report included stimulation of the passion to be an advocate (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Ryan and Deci, 2000 in Harr?, 2007), the experience of efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Ryan & Deci, 2002 in Harr?, 2007), and the formation of integrity for the world and for self (Frankl, 1962; McAdams, 1997; McGregor & Little, 1998; Habermas & Bluck, 2000; Sedikides & Skowronski, 2000; Vallacher & Nowak, 2000 in Harr?, 2007). Harr? (2007) noted that participation in advocacy for others, or volunteering support to others, stimulates an activist identity to form for adults and youth volunteers. She also discussed the development of 31 integrity, or incorruptibility, to the world and to one?s self. In other words, volunteers understand the charge to fulfill a purpose and a drive to triumph over the bad. In addition to personal growth impacts, volunteerism has also been associated with enhanced relationships with the community and within social groups (McAdam, 1988; Yates & Youniss, 1996 in Harr?, 2007). Volunteers develop new friends through their activities, have more social contact and support and have more opportunities to network, thus adding to their feelings of belonging. Brown (2011) discovered benefits even for students randomly assigned to service learning work. These youth demonstrated decreases in levels of social dominance orientation, while those not involved in service learning work saw levels stay relatively the same. This relationship appeared to be mediated by empathic concern for others that appeared to develop through the service learning work. Volunteer challenges. While Harr? (2007) noted that volunteers develop efficacy through the development of new skills, this review discussed how outcome of efficacy can also go in a negative direction. Similar to findings in workplace and mentoring literatures, the review noted the frustration of being unsuccessful or feeling ineffective can make one feel incompetent or deficient (Eigner, 2001, in Harr?, 2007). Therapist Literature. It is also possible to glean relevant information from studies of the impacts therapy interaction has on therapists. A handful of recent studies indicate therapists in helping relationships experience both positive and negative outcomes as a consequence of being involved in therapy with a client. For example, Linley and Joseph (2007) conducted a study of 156 therapists (122 women and 34 men) with a mean age of approximately 54 years old. The participants were primarily Caucasian (97%) and had been working for an average of 15 years in 32 this field. The authors used multivariate analysis of variance to address their questions about the positive and negative aspects of therapists? well being. Similarly, Paris, Linville, and Rosen (2006) conducted a study to understand experiences of growth for marriage and family therapy interns. Their sample consisted of 19 marriage and family therapy interns (10 female and 9 male) across the United States. All participants were Caucasian, except one African American participant. They collected data by way of discussion threads and online chat forums, and the data were analyzed in a traditionally grounded theory methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). They reported findings related to the sources of the participants? growth and what kinds of growth the interns experienced. Richards, Campenni, & Muse-Burke (2010) also conducted a study to understand the self-care measures taken by therapists to address their well being. The sample was composed of 148 mental health professionals (77% female) that were mostly Caucasian (94%) and had been working for an average of 14 years. The authors tested the mediation of mindfulness in the relationship between self-care importance and therapist well being. Positive therapist outcomes. Linley and Joseph (2007) saw positive outcomes (personal growth, compassion satisfaction) associated with therapists? well-being. These outcomes were affected by the therapists? sense of reasoning or awareness, indicating that individual characteristics may play a role in the process of outcome development for mentors. Another factor influencing outcomes was the therapeutic bond between the client and the therapist. This seems to be applicable to mentoring research as well because research supports the idea that mentoring quality affect outcomes, at least for mentees (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Parra et al., 2002; Rhodes et al., 2005; Cavell et al., 2009; Goldner & Mayseless, 2009; Zand et al., 2009). 33 In general, Paris, Linville and Rosen (2006) discovered MFT interns described personal and professional growth through their internship experience. The interns also described the reciprocal relationship between both aspects of their lives indicating that when the participants felt professional gains, improvements in their personal lives (i.e., personal relationships) were also felt, and vice versa. Personal growth reports included impacts on personal relationships, spiritual beliefs and general learning. Finally, the authors reported the ?kinds of growth? experienced by the interns including, general learning, self-awareness, confidence and perspective taking. No negative impacts were addressed in this study. Negative therapist outcomes or challenges. Linley and Joseph (2007) reported there can be negative outcomes such as compassion fatigue and burnout associated with participating in a helping relationship. Compassion fatigue, or emotional exhaustion from working with people in need occurs often, especially when clients have experienced traumatic events. High frustration levels can also cause emotional exhaustion. The authors also reported high levels of burnout for therapists. Another recent study (Richards, Campenni, & Muse-Burke, 2010) suggests self-care measures are important in preserving therapists? well being and in preventing burnout. Richards and colleagues (2010) discovered therapists that participated in self-care activities- anything one does to feel good about themselves (physical, psychological, spiritual and seeking support)- experienced lower rates of burnout and emotional fatigue. They also reported self-awareness (internal consciousness of thoughts and emotions) and mindfulness (internal and external awareness of thoughts and emotions, as well as the environment) were important self-care action. These therapy studies open the door for further examination of the intrapsychic processes people 34 in helping relationships may use to regulate their emotions and feelings when dealing with a difficult situation. The dearth of studies on the outcomes for therapists may be due to the emphasis on professional boundaries and the more unidirectional dynamic of the therapist-client relationship compared to the mentor-mentee relationship. There is perhaps less of an assumption of a growth experience for the therapist. Again, this is speculation, as similarities and differences between types of helping relationships remains an unstudied area of inquiry. Program Experience Studied: Young Women Leaders? Program The Young Women Leaders? Program (YWLP) is a program started by Edith ?Winx? Lawrence at the University of Virginia., The program pairs ?at-risk? youth, specifically junior high school or middle school girls, with female undergraduate students. The program?s purpose is to support young girls? leadership potential and provide the mentee with the opportunity to develop a caring and supportive relationship. The program is curriculum-based. The original curriculum contained 20 lessons. Much work was done to enhance the curriculum and program for its implementation at Auburn University. A more explicit focus and training in relationship skills was added by integrating several lessons from Relationship Smarts Plus+ (Pearson, 2007), a curriculum focused on youth interpersonal relationships. Additionally, more activities focusing on identity development for mentees were included. The program trains undergraduate women in areas such as adolescent development, adolescent group work, and women?s issues, so that the mentors are able to work competently with the young girls. A more explicit focus was placed on issues related to working with adolescents than was previously emphasized. In addition to this class work with a faculty advisor, the mentors have readings and assignments to complete for a course grade. The mentors 35 also participate in planning meetings with graduate facilitators and other mentors. The planning meetings are opportunities to discuss the upcoming plans for the week and to process how the mentoring experiences are proceeding. The mentors and mentees meet weekly for approximately one and half to two hours on site at the school. This is where the curriculum is implemented and group discussions occur. Finally, the mentors meet one-on-one at least once weekly with their assigned mentee. In total, the mentors invest a minimum of 5 hours a week in program participation. The Young Women Leaders? Program is a multi-tiered program. Faculty advisors work directly with graduate assistants and periodically with the mentors (e.g., class time and trainings). Graduate Assistants work directly with the mentors through planning activities, discussion sessions, and facilitation of mentor-mentee classes. Additionally, the mentors develop relationships with each other through activities in and outside of the program. Finally, the mentors work directly with their mentees for a minimum of one hour per week. As noted in the summary of research on evaluations of mentoring programs, there is some limited empirical work showing positive outcomes for mentees involved in this program. Data from the YWLP at the University of Virginia show positive, significant change in mentees? global self-worth, perceived athletic competence, and perception of physical appearance (Knight, Mahmoodzadegan, & Lawrence, 2000). The program?s website boasts reports of improvements related to how mentees dealt with problems at school and at home, felt more support from their friends, felt more able to make good decisions, and thought more about their future-selves (Deutsch, et al., under review). No published studies related to mentor outcomes were found for this program. Theory 36 Previous research in this area has made little effort to use theory in the study of mentoring effects on mentors. Faith et al.?s (2011) study used a theoretical background but did not emphasize or discuss it throughout their work. This study integrated and pulled from multiple theories in human development to support a framework for this study, (i.e., for both the planned interview protocol and the interpretation of the data). Theories that guide the research methods are the Grounded Theory Approach and the Feminist Perspective. Symbolic Interactionism, the Relational-Cultural Theory, and the Calamity Theory of Growth are utilized to frame research questions pertaining to young adult female mentors? experiences and to organize the findings. The over-arching themes and connections between these theories support the idea that women develop within relationships, they seek to understand others, themselves, and their symbolic world through interaction and engagement with one another, and that interactions, both positive and negative, can positively affect both individuals participating in the relational dyad. The Grounded Theory Approach. A grounded theory study traditionally includes multiple individuals that have participated in a process about a central phenomenon. Grounded theory studies are focused on understanding how individuals experience phenomena and how they understand the processes and steps involved in development (Creswell, 2007). Grounded theory is most often used when there is no theory available to explain a phenomenon. Traditionally, a grounded theory design is intended to form an all-encompassing theory of how the phenomenon occurs or how something is experienced. But, there are instances where theories already exist but are incomplete or have not been applied to certain populations and contexts (Creswell, 2007). This use of grounded theory is especially appropriate for the study of program impacts on young adult female mentors because there is limited research in this area of study. The present study intends to build upon and clarify already existing human development 37 theories. This theoretical approach lends itself to a priori questions that investigate the processes mentors perceive that influence their outcomes. Further details are provided in the methods section. Feminist Perspective. It is important to acknowledge the gendered experience of individuals studied. A feminist approach in research acknowledges that females tend to experience their development through a different lens than men do (Kirkpatrick Johnson et al., 1998). Many scholars have called for more research that examines women?s experiences in different contexts (Withers Osmond & Thorne, 1993; Wastell, 1996; Collins 1998). The feminist psychoanalytic perspective emphasizes that women have a ?different voice? (Gilligan, 1982) and that the purpose of feminist psychoanalytic research is to empower that voice (Collins, 1998). Gilligan (1982) notes the purpose of feminist psychoanalytic research is to highlight a different perspective or outlook; not to support generalization. Feminists, particularly interpretative feminists, emphasize that women develop in the context of relationships and women tend to discuss their outcomes and experiences in terms of relationships (Withers Osmond & Thorne, 1993). Men, on the other hand, are thought to focus more on autonomy and independence in their development (Wastell, 1996). Interpretive feminism is rooted in symbolic interactionism (discussed in a following section) and phenomenology, the study of experience and the perspective of that experience (Creswell, 2007). Interpretive feminism suggests that people, particularly women, develop within a society of relationships and these interactions with others affect both people?s realities and understandings of themselves and others. The current study will allow the female mentors an opportunity to tell their stories, articulate their perspective, and explain them in the context of a specific helping relationship. 38 Symbolic Interactionism. Symbolic Interactionism is the classic theory that originally suggested that individuals develop within relationships. Blumer (1969) declared that a person?s symbolic world, which is formed within relationships, shapes the person?s outcomes and behavior. This perspective suggests that within a dyadic relationship, shared meaning is developed and a mutual symbolic world is formed based on the interactions between the two people involved. These interactions however, are influenced by the outside culture (i.e., context) and by other relationships. Early on, Strauss (1978) emphasized the connection between individuals or dyads and society and how they interact with each other. Strauss? ?negotiated order approach? helps frame this dynamic and has three foundational concepts: negotiation, negotiation context, and structural context (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). Negotiation is characterized by the ins and outs of accomplishing a task and includes bargaining, compromising, and engaging together. Negotiation contexts are the specifics of the immediate situation and negotiation. Also recognized is the structural context; the broader, community/societal impacts on the negotiation process. We can assume that as a mentoring relationship develops there will be negotiations that take place. These negotiations may be influenced by individual attributes and socio-historical context, such as preconceived notions (Quarles, Maldonado & Lacey, 2005), trust issues (Rhodes, et al., 2005), or lack of understanding due to disadvantaged backgrounds (Zand, et al., 2009). Importantly, through negotiation and discussion in the context of a broader network of relationships (i.e., other mentors, program facilitators and faculty), dyads may come to a mutual understanding of their symbolic world within themselves, each other and society and individuals self-concepts and role identities are affected. Additionally, the role or roles that a person places the most emphasis on tend to dominate a person?s identity and characteristics (LaRossa & 39 Reitzes, 1993).This theoretical approach was the basis for a priori questions that addressed how the context of the program, the hierarchical and embedded relationships, the salience of the mentor role, and the individuals involved were perceived and processed by the mentors. The Relational-Cultural Theory. The Relational-Cultural Theory is a derivative of the broader Symbolic Interactionist perspective and frames individual and relationship development through a mutual understanding of one another?s differences and similarities. This theory focuses specifically on how growth-fostering relationships are created and how participating in these relationships are connected to human development and emotional well-being. An important and unique aspect of this theory is the assumption that culturally different individuals are pushed to understand one another and by doing so they both experience greater personal growth. This theory was developed by Jean Baker Miller, the well-known feminist and author of Toward a New Psychology of Women (1976). She developed the theory to support the multicultural and social justice movements occurring at the time. Therefore this theory is focused on identifying contextual and sociocultural obstacles that impede people?s ability to develop and sustain growth-fostering relationships. It focuses on enlightening people about specific contexts of human development and how relationships, particularly those with dissimilar others, may add to or promote healthy development. The theory is based on seven core tenets centered on the idea that development, particularly female development, and growth comes from a context of ?mutually empathic, growth-fostering relationships? (Comstock, 2008). The first tenet is that throughout the life span people experience growth by moving toward and working through relationships. The next tenet is that movement toward mutuality and not separation characterizes mature functioning. The next tenet of the Relational-Cultural Theory is participation in complex and diverse relationships 40 leads to psychological growth. Next is the assumption that at the core of growth-fostering relationships is mutual empathy and mutual empowerment. The next tenet is that to really engage in growth-fostering relationships both parties need to be authentic. The sixth tenet, and perhaps most meaningful to this study, suggests that contributing to a growth-fostering relationship results in growth of the contributing participant. Finally, the last tenet of the Relational-Cultural Theory states that the desired goal of development over the lifespan is to increase females? relational competence. In sum, this theory focuses on connectedness to others, mutual support in growth- fostering relationships, and development of maturity and overall growth within supportive relationships. Ivey et al. (2007) noted that love and belonging are of central importance to a person?s mental health. Experiencing love and belonging within mutually empathetic and empowering relationships supports emotional maturation. It also supports the development of emotional well-being. Comstock et al. (2008) note that having mutually empathic encounters allows for the development of cultural competence. This is implied in some of the studies of mentors (Karcher, 2009; Dolan & Johnson, 2009; Slaughter-Defoe & English-Clarke, 2010; Reddick, Griffin, & Cherwitz, 2011), but has not been documented and discussed in published research on mentors. Comstock et al. (2008) also notes that relational awareness, or being attentive to the process of moving through and around connections and disconnections to others, plays a key role in developing growth-fostering relationships. This concept of mindfulness and self-awareness will be considered in the proposed study as well. This key framework allowed for the development of a priori questions that sought: (1) an understanding of the differences and similarities between the mentor and the mentee; (2) the 41 level of importance a mentor places on their mentoring role; (3) the mutuality in perception of the relationship; and (4) the level of awareness a mentor has about the relationship processes. Calamity Theory of Growth. Another complementary theory that serves to inform the proposed study is the Calamity Theory of Growth (Anthis, 2002). This theory?s assumptions focus on the relationship between stressful life events and one?s growth in identity. Identity development processes continue throughout adolescence and into early and middle adulthood, and is therefore open to transitions and transformations. Anthis (2002) suggests eight different event types that may qualify as a stressful life events, but a few are of particular importance to this study: exposure to different cultural or social situations or sources of knowledge, the direct influence of a significant other, and internal changes. If there are some negative aspects to the mentoring experience, as some research suggests (Harr?, 2007; Linley & Joseph, 2007; Iancu- Haddad & Oplatka, 2009; Faith et al., 2011; Reddick, Griffin, & Cherwitz, 2011), it may be that mentors experience positive growth as a result. This theory prescribed a priori questions related to challenges in the mentoring relationship and how the mentors? difficult experiences may have contributed to positive outcomes. Summary Currently, we know very little about outcomes and factors related to outcomes experienced by late adolescent and emerging adult female mentors. The little evidence we do have supports the idea that mentors potentially experience positive outcomes, both practically and personally. There are also suggestions that challenges exist and may influence outcomes. The review of the literature found only five studies addressing mentoring in early adulthood, and four of the five had mixed gender samples. In these studies and in related literature focused on adult mentors in the workplace, therapists, and youth volunteers, the emphasis has been on 42 perceived outcomes, with minimal attention to the factors involved. In addition, all previous studies except one (Faith et al., 2011), are atheoretical and do not contribute to the development of a conceptual framework to guide the study of program effects on young adult mentors. In order to move this research forward, a qualitative design is appropriate as an exploration of young adult female mentors? experiences. Data were collected at two timepoints. This research design also informs the literature considering the majority of the studies referenced in the review of the literature used a cross-sectional design, with the exception of one study focused on young adult mentors (Karcher, 2009). The goal was to allow for a deeper and richer understanding of the female mentors? perceptions of their experiences. Utilizing information from previous, relevant research and existing theoretical assumptions, the current study documented how young adult mentors experienced their mentoring relationships within a female only program for at-risk youth. The research questions explored: perceptions of the type and nature of outcomes experienced by female mentors participating in a female-only mentoring program; mentors? perceptions of the external factors or social processes that influenced or brought about these perceived outcomes; and the mentors? perceptions of the cognitive and intrapsychic elements involved in their experiences and outcomes. Specific questions and their basis are explicated in Appendix A and B. This study serves to inform the research literature on young adult development. The majority of young adult research focused on relationships centers on parent-child, peer, or romantic relationships. Very few studies have focused on other significant relationships, such as mentoring relationships, which may also impact young adult development. Research on mentoring programs also benefits from this study because only a handful of studies have considered outcomes for mentors. This study uniquely documents and theoretically frames both 43 the perceived outcomes and the factors and processes involved in the mentoring experience for young adult women that may influence reported outcomes. Thus, results of this study also inform program administrators as they consider program design and the training and monitoring of the mentors in their programs. 44 III. Methods Introduction The current study used a qualitative design in addressing the main research questions and analyzing the collected data. More specifically, the present study employed a phenomenological design, utilizing aspects of grounded theory throughout the design and analysis. The approach provided an arena for the voices of the participants to be heard and allowed for a more complex description and interpretation (Creswell, 2007) of the mentors? experiences than has been documented previously. The following chapter provides a methodological background of the approaches used in the proposed study, the rationale for use of a phenomenological and grounded theory design, a description of the participants and the program involved, the data collection procedures, the analysis plan, an assessment of my bias and role in the study, and a discussion about the credibility and reliability measures used to address research related issues. Background Phenomenology. Phenomenology is the study of a phenomenon, or an observable occurrence. In this study the phenomenon studied was the development of and the experience in a mentor-mentee relationship from the mentor?s perspective. A phenomenological approach is characterized by the assumption that there is no single ?right answer? for research questions, but rather that phenomena exist in how people perceive and experience them (Hammond, Howarth & Keat, 1991). The goal of phenomenology is to study a phenomenon without considering the cause of the participants? objective realities. Phenomenologists also believe that phenomenon is 45 experienced through consciousness in an effort to develop meaning of the phenomenon (Creswell, 2007). This is similar to a core tenet of Symbolic Interactionism- that pairs develop a co-constructed meaning within relationships that allow a person to better understand ?one?s reality? (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). The primary purpose of phenomenological studies is to report the detailed description of an experience. Phenomenological researchers tend to use a thematic data analysis plan and present their findings in these themes, while still expressing the diversity of the participants? experience (Kvale, 1996). Phenomenologists break their data down into ?meaning units? and use an interpretative process to turn implicit comments into explicit meanings so the phenomenon can be understood more clearly (Daly, 2007). A phenomenological design was selected for the present study to understand and describe the impacts of being in a mentoring relationship with a junior high school-aged girl, for an undergraduate female. Phenomenology was also chosen for this study because it allows participants to speak for themselves or explicitly describe their experiences (Hammond, Howarth & Keat, 1991) and is typically used in feminist research in order to document and organize information about experiences of understudied women as a means for bringing out women?s unique voices (Withers Osmond & Thorne, 1993; Wastell, 1996; Collins, 1998). Grounded Theory. Aspects of grounded theory were used to complement the phenomenological frame of this study. A grounded theory study traditionally studies multiple individuals that have participated in a process associated with a central phenomenon. It complements phenomenological designs because it addresses the processes involved in the observable occurrence or phenomenon (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In other words, grounded theory studies are focused on understanding how individuals experience phenomena and 46 understanding the factors and steps involved in the process (Creswell, 2007). Grounded theory researchers strive for saturation of the data so that they can form a complete theory based in all the information they have collected (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Grounded theory is most often used when there is no theory available to explain a phenomenon. Traditionally, a grounded theory design is intended to form an all-encompassing theory of how the phenomenon occurs and how that phenomenon is experienced. But, there are instances where theories already exist but are incomplete or have not been empirically applied to specific populations (Creswell, 2007). The proposed study?s intent was to build upon and clarify already existing human development theories (i.e., relational-cultural theory and calamity theory of growth) in the context of young adult female mentor experiences with junior high school- aged mentees. These theories guided question development as well as assumptions and expectations. This use of grounded theory is applicable to the study of the experiences of young adult female mentors because there is extremely limited largely atheoretical research in this area of study. A Grounded Theory design was selected in order to contribute to the development of a framework for understanding the underlying processes that result in mentors? outcomes and may be useful in future quantitative studies. A Grounded Theory approach allows researchers to develop connections between factors and outcomes from the ground up, or in other words, to use the data to create theory. The Grounded Theory design was also selected because it suggests the use of multiple data collection time points to clarify participants? understanding of the phenomenon being described. In other words, further data collection allows researchers to refine their understanding and achieve saturation of data (Creswell, 2007). In this study, the second interview included refined and clarifying questions based on the participants? data from the 47 initial interview in order to work toward saturation of data. This is not ideal according to Strauss and Corbin (1998), but was sufficient considering there are no other potential participants to interview. The Use of Both Phenomenology and Grounded Theory. While conceptually compatible, the use of both phenomenology and grounded theory in the design of this study requires a decision regarding the approach taken in the description of the results of this study. Phenomenology typically prescribes detailing information about individual respondents (with the use of pseudonyms) and a clear connection of the individual to their data. On the other hand, a grounded theory approach emphasizes theory-building and commonalities among the respondents. Because this is our larger purpose in the study, we utilized broader descriptions in the presentation of results and do not specifically identify and distinguish respondents. Data Collection Plan Participants. The participants in this study were 14 young adult female mentors participating in the 2011-2012 Young Women Leaders? Program. The mentors were undergraduate students who volunteered to participate in the program and received course credit for their involvement. The work involved in the program consisted of readings and assignments, class participation once a week with faculty advisors and graduate facilitators, a planning meeting with graduate facilitators once a week, curriculum-based on-site meetings once a week with all mentors and mentees and the graduate facilitators, and one-on-one time with an assigned mentee at least once a week. About half of the mentors were in majors related to human development, while the others came from a wide array of academic interest, including Chemistry and Pre-Physician?s Assistant. The women ranged in age from 18-22, and twelve are Caucasian 48 and two are African-American women. Though the young women mentors shared the commonality of attending the same university, they originated from across the United States. Procedure. The female mentors participated in two semi-structured, one-on-one, face-to- face interviews over the course of an academic year. The core questions for these interviews were derived from relevant empirical and theoretical work reviewed in Chapter 2. In addition, some questions were broad and exploratory with no explicit link to existing empirical or theoretical work (Kvale, 1996; Patton, 2002; Shwandt, 2007). Questions pertained to differences between individuals in mentor-mentee pairs, challenges, experiences with others in the program, relationship quality, definition of a successful mentoring relationship, and perceived outcomes. See Appendix A and B for questions and their theoretical or empirical basis. Interviews were conducted rather than focus groups, based on the interest in the individual level of experience. Two interviews were conducted with each mentor. The first wave of interviews was conducted at the end of the first semester of the program (i.e. the first week of December). At this point the dyad had been working together for approximately 3-4 months. This interview helped develop an initial understanding of how the mentors experienced the program in its earliest phase and during the initial establishment of the mentor-mentee relationship. These data also facilitated the building of more complex and relevant questions for the next wave of interviews (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998). The second and final interview was conducted at the end of the program relationship (the end of April). Similar questions were asked, but others stemmed from specific comments made in the initial interview. The second interview allowed us to learn more about and clarify comments we did not expect to learn about in the first interview. While doing so, the interviews provided pertinent information about the mentors? perceived 49 outcomes and assessments of their experience at a later point in the development of the mentor- mentee relationship and any changes from the first interview could be noted. IRB process. All ethical considerations, including informed consent and IRB approval, were taken into consideration and implemented. The faculty on the project sought IRB approval, and my name was added to the approval form along with the list of interview questions. Participants were asked to sign an informed consent letter explaining the study and their rights as human subjects. As participation was voluntary, the mentors had the right to decline participation, but all mentors were given the opportunity and 100% agreed to participate. Participants were assured confidentiality and all interviews used pseudonyms in place of actual names. I have completed CITI training with a concentration in human subjects studies and sought ethical guidance when needed. Data Analysis Plan The first interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and entered into Atlas t.i. for coding. The data analysis plan for this study loosely followed Strauss & Corbin?s (1990, 1998) procedure for grounded theory analysis. I used both an open coding technique to develop categories of information and developed a priori codes before initial coding was initiated. After this preliminary coding was completed, the axial coding technique was used to develop the connection or processes between the categories. Axial coding arises when the researcher selects one core phenomenon and then goes back to the data to create categories about that phenomenon, and this can occur multiple times. The next step was selective coding, in which the researcher develops hypotheses that interrelate the categories. This allowed me to begin building a story of the experiences of the female mentors. The second interview allowed for new themes to surface and for new information related to previous themes to be discussed. 50 During the second interview, field notes (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000) were taken and the interviews were audio recorded. An undergraduate research coder and I took further field notes on the interviews by listening to the prerecorded interviews. The method of taking field notes was chosen for the second interview, instead of transcription and coding, because it allowed me to focus on confirming previously developed themes and identifying any new themes in a succinct and purposeful manner (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). The constant comparative method, an attempt to saturate the categories by looking for examples that represent each category, was used. This allowed me to identify possible ?disconfirming? information that would indicate a range of mentors? experiences (Creswell, 2007). Credibility and Reliability Researcher?s role in the study. Qualitative research calls for attention to the role of the researcher and how it may impact the results of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I became interested in the topic of the impacts on young adult female mentors after I was a mentor in the pilot year for the Young Women Leaders? Program at Auburn University, the program in the present study. I felt that I had a transformative experience and that I learned a lot about myself and about working with young girls. I wanted to hear how other young adult female mentors experienced the program and their relationship with their mentees. I now work as a graduate facilitator for the program, working specifically with the mentors involved. I am aware that my involvement with the Young Women Leaders? Program affects my research of the program. I tried to separate myself from personal agendas or pre-conceived notions so that I could retain my objectivity. But, as much as I tried to set bias aside, there is always some partial impact on the research (Richards & Morse, 2007). Even though my bias may have affected how I viewed the data and interpreted the results, this is not necessarily a negative. Because I was a 51 mentor in the program, I had enhanced insight into implicit messages conveyed by the mentors in their explicit data and I believe I was able to bring even more meaning to the interpretation. Still, I monitored my emotions and ideas by utilizing a strategy called memoing, the act of reflecting on the data record or code and the emotional arousal brought about by certain transcription (Creswell, 2007) and worked to retain an observer?s stance. As recommended, I am mindfully explicit in the discussion when I feel my biases were engaged. Reliability and credibility methods. A few different types of credibility and reliability methods were used to establish confidence in and trustworthiness of this study. To establish reliability, two coders were used to assess and code the interviews. This intercoder agreement focused on seeking agreement about the interpretations of coded passages. Each coder, myself, and one trained undergraduate student, coded three transcripts and then met to examine the codes, codes? names, and the text segments that were coded. This helped establish a qualitative codebook of all the major codes and themes (Creswell, 2007). After this, both coders continued coding based on the codebook developed. The two coders met periodically as interviews were coded to discuss the findings. This entire data analysis process occurred at each time point in the data collection (e.g., December and April/May), but two different undergraduate coders were used at each timepoint. This enhanced reliability of the codes. Additionally, the participants in the study were given the opportunity to reflect on the interpretations of the first wave of interviews; this is known as member checking (Creswell, 2007). This allowed the female mentors to provide feedback about the understanding I had about the data and assured that the story I was voicing was theirs and was true amongst the group. In addition, both dependability and confirmability were established through writing an audit trail (Creswell, 2007). The audit trail kept track of decisions in the data collection and data 52 analysis phases so that others in the future can replicate this study and so that I remained transparent in my process. 53 IV. Results Findings were broken down into categories similar to the organization of the findings in the literature review outlined previously. Personal and practical outcomes are addressed in this section, as well as challenges and negative feelings reported by the mentors. Reported outcomes are either individual or relational in nature and are categorized as such. Individual outcomes are focused on mentors? specific outcomes, while relational outcomes are focused on outcomes impacting mentors? relationships. Finally, reported factors and the ways in which the mentors perceived that they may have influenced these outcomes are discussed; themes are organized and depicted in the conceptual model (Figure 1). Relationships among variables, explicated in the section, ?Factors influencing outcomes,? are also represented. Personal Cross-Domain Outcomes Personal, cross-domain outcomes were conceptualized based on the idea that they can be used in multiple facets of life. In other words, the new skill described can be used in the workplace, in the family realm, within friendships, etc. These outcomes reported are not specific to one domain of life, and the mentors in this study often described these personal outcomes as extending to multiple areas of their lives. Relational outcomes. Mentors reported feeling more prepared to establish future relationships, including mentoring relationships. These future relationships could be informal or personal relationships. Obviously, the mentors have had experience developing relationships with others in their lives, but through this experience of mentoring they were able to thoughtfully consider what actions and factors contribute to the establishment of relationships. The mentors 54 highlighted openness, adaptability, and flexibility as cornerstones of the relationship establishment process, but also mentioned other relational skills they gained through their involvement in the program, including persistence and listening. One mentor said being relatable was important in establishing a relationship with her mentee: ?Learning how to relate to other people, and changing your approach? it?s helped me think outside the box, and think of different ways? I have to adjust to her. And that?s when you think about? later on in life, if I want to get someone to trust me, and have a connection, I have to put my effort out there really, and see what I can do to get them to connect with me and respond back to me.? Many of the mentors discussed the development of their active/receptive listening skills after their involvement in a mentoring relationship. Initially, the mentors reported they felt they had to fill the ?awkward silences?, but after giving the relationship time to develop, the mentors allowed the mentee time to speak on their own terms, and therefore provided an opportunity for the mentors to listen to, more than talk to, their mentees. Along these lines, one mentor noted, ?When you hear someone you?re like ?I want to say something,? I mean sometimes you have to just let it come.? This indicates she learned to not interrupt her mentee, but rather listen intently before considering what to say. Building a relationship with a mentee also afforded the mentors? an opportunity to understand appropriate self-disclosure in a casual helping relationship. One mentor explained this development of self-disclosure in the context of other relationships: ?[They] don?t want to share like everything with us, and for some reason I?ve always felt like in order to be someone?s friend you have to tell them everything about yourself all the time. But, that?s not really true. You don?t have to tell them 55 every single thing about yourself. You can be a little bit guarded; it?s not a big deal. So, in that sense, I?ve also learned that also I can maintain my privacy and not have to tell someone everything.? Mentors discussed their feelings about the fact their mentees had different backgrounds than they did and what that looked like. Some of the mentors were surprised by how and where their mentees lived, while others learned more about different family types and cultures. The diversity the mentors saw in their mentees impacted their affect and because of their new heightened sensitivity to others? differing experiences the mentors developed some sympathy and compassion for mentees in the program. One mentor described it well when she said, ?It?s hard seeing? what they live in. And I knew that they were? at-risk. But I?ve been to some of their houses, and it?s? difficult seeing how much different they are from how I was when I grew up. I feel like I?m more understanding, and I try to? be more sensitive to what they?re going through.? A similar theme was related to an understanding of differing viewpoints related to diversity. The mentors learned from the interactions with the other mentors and mentees because they challenged their views and thoughts about relationships, culture, and school. Though the interactions may not have changed the mentors? perceptions of those topics, the interactions were an opportunity to learn about and accept different views. One mentor explained this theme by saying, ?I think, it has been really interesting for me, to? see where all of the other, even the other mentors and little sisters? where they come from, and? their backgrounds, cause we are all from different places, and we all have 56 differences? to see our differences but we are like united because we all want to be a part of this program.? Though this mentor specifically said ?different places,? the overall sense of what she was saying indicated different viewpoints due to different pasts. Another outcome relevant to relationships reportedly gained by mentors in this program is patience, persistence, or perseverance in relationships. The mentors discussed working hard at and being intentional about staying in contact with their mentees. Often times the mentors reported feeling discouraged, but continued to work through the struggle. The young women mentors thought the skill would be applicable in other settings as well. One mentor said she learned ?being persistent even when people don?t respond. Cause that was definitely the first little bit. Like, there was no response? I think I can apply that in any aspect.? Therefore, it seems learning how to be deliberate in relationships and being persistent and patient with partners in relationships were important outcomes for mentors in this program. The mentors reported gaining skills related to teamwork and asking for support. For example, one mentor said the program ?really taught me that when I need help, just to ask for it, because people will give it to me. And I don?t have to do everything by myself, like it is ok to ask for help.? This suggests this awareness will be applied across domains and was not only related to the program and seeking help or support for the mentoring relationship, but can be used in other areas such as class work. Additionally, mentors pointed out that support was not only sought within the program, but outside from family and friends. Individual outcomes. A common personal outcome for the mentors involved in this program was personal satisfaction. The female mentors reported feeling good or proud about working with their mentees each week. A few short quotes related to this 57 topic include, ?I just like being looked up to by people,? ?I feel really good about having a little sister, and just having somebody look up to me,? ?It makes me feel good all week long,? ?She?s really sweet, she?s really encouraging, basically. Like I?ll tell her I have exams and she?ll be like ?I?m sure you?ll get a 100 on it.?? This is a clear description of the bidirectional nature of the relationship and the potential for the mentees? direct impact, by certain things they say or do, or indirect impact on making the mentors feel good about or proud of themselves. Many of the mentors reported becoming more self-reflective throughout the program, monitoring how their relationship developed, and how they grew as individuals. Some mentors discussed how the experience allowed them to become more self-aware. For example, one mentor said, ?[the challenge] makes me? self -reflect? ?cause I have a problem being vulnerable with people sometimes, [and] evaluate my own ways of developing relationships with other people.? In other words, the mentors had to become aware of how they were as a person, especially in relation to their mentees, to be able to connect with them or be able to help them in a situation. The mentors were also able to evaluate their growth due to the development of self- awareness. Mentors also built confidence in themselves and their abilities. The mentors reported having more overall faith in themselves, less fear of rejection, more belief in their abilities to do things, and more confidence to do things they wouldn?t always be willing to try. One mentor said: ?I think before, I was really intimidated by people coming to me with things, like I was afraid I wouldn?t have a response or I wouldn?t know what to say, and I think that internally, I?ve realized that, I don?t know, that I?m confident enough at 58 some point to be able to respond and be able to feel like I told them the right thing that I felt that they should do.? Interestingly, the mentors almost consistently reported having no expectations of gaining new friends from their involvement in the mentoring program, but one of the most commonly reported outcomes was the feeling of friendship amongst the mentors. One mentor explained this experience by saying, ?There?s never been a group that we?ve been put together with randomly that I have felt so comfortable around, and it?s just been so great. We became friends because of this, and I definitely think we?ll stay friends. We just like really bonded and? it was just great.? There is one exception to this. One mentor did not feel completely comfortable in the group. She said, ?I think it?s been different, just cause I feel like all of us are so different. And I really do like that a lot. I think it?s cool. But it?s kind of hard like connecting. Not like I was expecting us to be best friends. But I wouldn?t feel like I could call and be like let?s go do this with our [mentees]. And not like it?s anything they?ve done, I just think it?s a comfort - I just don?t feel fully comfortable in the group, and I think its cause we have a lot of really outgoing? personalities.? No negative personal outcomes, individual or relational, were explicitly reported during the interviews. Practical Work-Related Outcomes Here themes are grouped pertaining to practical outcomes that seemed to be related to a specific area of a mentor?s life. These are skills developed or gained through participation in a 59 mentoring relationship that the mentor did not suggest permeates other aspects of the mentor?s world, but rather are focused in one (typically work-related) domain. Relational outcomes. The mentors learned how to work with ?at-risk? adolescent girls. Many of the female mentors struggled throughout the program with connecting with their mentees or getting beyond a superficial level with their mentees. As the program went on they learned how to work with their mentees. One mentor said, ?I think it?s helped me learn to connect with adolescents, you kind of have to keep changing your approach.? This idea of thinking about one?s approach to their mentees indicates development of intentionality in relationships. The mentors also learned how to be relatable with young girls, and how to react in certain uncomfortable situations. The mentors felt that this would be directly applicable to their work in the future, though it is important to note that the mentors participating in this program were primarily Human Development and Family Studies students and most who expressed this outcome have the intention to work with ?at-risk? populations in the future. Knowing how to work with one?s target population will help a mentor in future career responsibilities: ?I guess one skill is being more comfortable with talking about things that maybe I?m not used to, or that I didn?t even know were going on? I guess that?s important in being a counselor. If I?m counseling someone, and someone tells me something shocking, I?ll be able to respond and so I guess I didn?t really have that before.? Another relational-focused practical outcome relevant to the work domain reported by the mentors in YWLP is the development of emotion regulation skills specifically in helping relationships. Similarly, the mentors felt that this skill would help them in their future careers. After their experience many mentors reported being more able to manage their emotions and 60 reactions in stressful situations. In other words, when their mentee said something shocking or if the mentor felt uncomfortable, the mentor felt better able to self-regulate and respond to her mentee. One mentor explained it in this way: ?I think that I?ve learned how to be able to react in situations and tell her, I guess, good reaction to that, or ways to think about it without being shocked, or [feel] like I don?t know what to say.? Individual outcomes. The mentors? experience in the program offered many opportunities to speak in front of people, teach in group meetings, and lead discussions. Through these experiences the mentors became more comfortable in public speaking and teaching roles. One mentor reported ?I was terrified to talk in front of a group at first, but now I?m fine with it, and I really enjoy it.? Many of the young women reported their experience in the Young Women Leaders? Program afforded them an opportunity for career goal clarification. For example, one mentor originally wanted to work with preschool aged children but through her experience with YWLP she changed her mind: ?I found out that I really like the older kids a lot better, cause it?s not as much like being silly all the time, and it?s more about building relationships and that kind of stuff.? Others felt reassured by their experience. These mentors reported their experience in YWLP confirmed that they wanted to work with adolescents: ?I guess I would have to say it just like reaffirms how I was already feeling with what I wanted to do in the future? I was interested in counseling before, and it kind of reaffirms that I do have like, I guess, more of a passion for counseling. 61 And I guess, being a listener for people that like either have a lot going on, or even if they?re not similar to me at all.? Still, others thought they would give this experience with adolescents a chance to see if they enjoyed this more and found that their original career path was their true passion: ?I thought maybe this would be a good way to see if I would like to work with adolescents and see how I fit there. I?ve enjoyed it thus far, but I think I still want to do work in a hospital setting.? Some mentors mentioned being able to apply knowledge they gained in classes to their experience with their mentees. Class application indicates that the mentors can take the theories, research based knowledge, or mentoring skills presented in class and integrate them into their dynamics with their mentees. This skill is difficult for some people, but is the purpose of service learning classes. One mentor that was able to do this said, ?Actually a lot of the HDFS classes, I saw a lot of things like put into action. You know you learn about and you kind of reflect on your own upbringing and all of the theories you?ve learned. But then you can see it in someone else. See how their different life situations have like affected them and maybe changed their outcomes. I?ve had different environments and it?s just seeing things put into action.? No negative practical outcomes, individual or relational, were explicitly reported during the interviews. Factors Influencing Outcomes Two key aspects of program participation were evident in mentors? descriptions of the experiences: opportunities for practice as mentors and experiencing challenges. As these were 62 described, the stories of how outcomes were realized began to unfold. Processes explicitly and implicitly related are included in the description in the following section and depicted in the conceptual model (Figure 1). Opportunities to practice. Participation in a mentoring relationship and program consequently includes opportunities to practice skills as a mentor. One mentor said, ?I feel like the best way to learn something is to get thrown into it, so it?s like I just have to figure it out as I go? while another said ?I think just practicing and doing it has helped.? Practice was indicated as the pathway to the outcomes described, particularly individual skill development related to future career goals. For example, mentors? experiences with their mentees allowed them to understand how to work with adolescent girls or how to talk about things that are uncomfortable. There were many times that the mentors felt confused or unprepared in situations because they had never experienced them before. But, through practice and guidance they gained skills to prepare them for their future. For example, one mentor noted: ?I guess one skill is being more comfortable with talking about things that maybe I?m not used to or that I didn?t even know were going on. I guess that?s important in being a counselor, if I?m counseling someone, and someone tells me something shocking, I?ll be able to respond and so I guess I didn?t really have that before.? Challenges. Although no negative outcomes were explicitly reported in this study, the mentors discussed numerous challenges as aspects of program participation that occurred throughout their mentoring experience. Some were related to the program while others were related to their relationship with their mentee. In addition, mentors described internal individual 63 challenges and negative feelings. Some mentors reported more challenges than others, but all noted at least some. Programmatic challenges. Time commitment was the key programmatic challenge that emerged from the discussions with the mentors. The mentors felt that they could not have predicted how much time or energy this program or relationship would take. Because the mentors did not know that it would be so time-consuming, the mentors had some negative feelings associated with the time commitment. One mentor said, ?I just think it?s been like such a big time commitment, and I wish that they had told us that up front, how much it was going to be,? while another mentor said, ?it?s frustrating that it is so time consuming.? Developing a relationship with someone takes time and energy, especially when one person may have great needs. It seems that the mentors felt strain because of the time and energy they put into both the classwork and relationship development and establishment. Mentors reported issues related to the class they participated in the first semester of the program. Many of these frustrations were related to the time it took to do the course work and saw this as time they could be spending with their mentees. For example one mentor explained: Mentor: ?There is just a lot more work. Like course load work that also added on to hanging out with her. And I wanted to spend time with her and do all of that, but then I thought I had all this other class work to do that was like that is a lot for me to get done on my own. I was taking a full course load, as well. So, it just put a lot more pressure on me. Like I have to get this work done so I?ll have to push off my hanging out with her till I get this done. Which is kind of? ? Interviewer: ?Frustrating.? Mentor: ?Right, right.? 64 Another related program challenge discussed by the mentors was a feeling that there was a minimal understanding of the workload involved in mentoring and lack of empowerment to alter this. Approximately half of the mentors appeared upset when they explained that they felt that their input into the program was not respected. As an example, one mentor expressed her feelings when she said, ?I just also didn?t really respect that [the faculty advisor] just kind of like added an hour to everything, she was like ok, well you?re not gonna care if we do this, and I?m like, well, we don?t really have a choice, but I guess. I just didn?t feel like we got credit for all the work we?ve done for this, and when I came to her with that concern, she seemed to think that I was just lazy, which really irritated me.? Related to this, overall, it appears that the program design presented some challenges and affected mentors? frustration level and carried the potential to influence mentors? outcomes. Relational challenges. Some mentors reported they were confronted with specific challenging events in their relationship related to boundaries. For example, one mentor had an incident when her mentee asked her to pay for her phone bill because she was late on the payment. The mentor felt torn on what to do and she said: ?I don?t want her to feel like she can?t depend on me, but I don?t want her to think that if I do pay it that she can just do it every time.? These types of events posed challenges to the mentors that had never presented themselves before, therefore the mentors felt tested and in need of help to establish appropriate roles and boundaries. Many mentors had problems spending time with their mentees due to scheduling conflicts. All mentors are in college, some have jobs, and others have many other activities they 65 are involved in on campus. Similarly, the mentees are sometimes hard to get in contact with, want to spend time with their friends, are involved in sports or extracurricular activities, and do not have transportation. The mentors discussed scheduling conflicts as one of the biggest challenges to the development of the mentoring relationship. For example, ?I was pushing and pushing to hang out and she was busy doing band and cross-country and our schedules conflicted a lot,? and ?I don?t have an always-free schedule, neither does she, and it?s just complicated sometimes.? One mentor indicated that if she and her mentee did not have scheduling conflicts the pair would have had a stronger relationship. She said, ?I think if we could spend more time together, and get to know each other a little bit more. Then [the relationship] would be ideal.? In sum, the scheduling conflicts impeded the development of the relationship. These scheduling conflicts were persistent and frustrating for most mentors. Another related challenge was limited communication. Mentors reported having limited communication with their mentees as some mentees do not have cell phones. One mentor explained the situation this way: ?most of our communication comes from the meetings and before or right after. I mean I am just going to have to be more intentional and like calling [home].? The mentors mentioned how hard it is to develop a relationship when they cannot get in contact with each other. Similar to the scheduling conflict, this seemed hard to avoid for some mentors. Another relational challenge reported by the mentors was a lack of depth in the mentoring relationship. Many of the mentors expressed frustration because they had hoped to have moved beyond superficial topics to discussions of deeper, more meaningful topics in the relationship. This frustration was especially prevalent in the first interview, but was still reported in the final interview. The mentors felt that the purpose of the mentoring relationship was to develop a deep 66 relationship and the lack of depth caused emotional stress for those affected. Some of these struggles were often related to the mentee?s hesitation to open up or come out of their shell. This is expressed well by one mentor in the program: ?I would just say? we are getting over it a little bit but just kind of the small talk, and not really getting deep into things. But I feel like we?re not, were still not to that stage where, unless we?re all sitting there in the group talking about a certain topic, than if her and I were just by ourselves. It?s one of those things where, we just do the small talk thing and then maybe there will be some kind of more serious topic. But that?s almost brought up as if I?m told I have to talk about that with her or something. So she kinda is skeptical still of that. And I think that she has had a lot of hardships with her family and she is extremely appreciative of everything. But she?s had hardships and she just keeps it all in and just doesn?t- there is kind of a little wall.? A broader relational issue discussed by mentors was the differences between the pair, including personality and cultural differences. Some mentors felt they had a hard time working with their mentees because their mentees were very different from them. An example of this is expressed by one mentor when she describes the differences between her and her mentee: ?Our attitudes are kind of different. So sometimes we have conflicts with how we view a situation and whether it?s going to be fun. She?ll have a negative view if she doesn?t like something right away, and it?s hard.? While challenges to the mentors? views and perspectives and differences between personalities were not always perceived as negative, sometimes the distinct differences were seen as problematic. 67 Another issue that created challenges for the mentors was the mentees? attitude problems. These attitude problems were typically described as a demanding attitude or an attitude of entitlement. This sometimes interfered with the pair?s relationship development overall, but sometimes just impacted the mentors? frustration level at a given time. One mentor explained her mentee?s attitude problem in this way: ?she can be kind of difficult, she can kind of make remarks, and I know she doesn?t mean anything mean, but just like you know, stuff like why aren?t you paying this for me, or why don?t we do this? And sometimes I?m like okay, well you know, I don?t really have a job, I?m a college student too.? Therefore, it appears that a more demanding attitude from the mentee can be a challenge within mentoring relationships. Individual challenges. Several perceptual challenges were documented. Some mentors spoke negatively about their feeling disappointed about unmet expectations of the mentoring relationship. For some, the relationship that the mentors idealized from the beginning is not what developed over the course of the year, and this disappointed many of the mentors in the program. One mentor said, ?It?s just a slower process than I thought,? while another said ?it is not as drastic as, I guess, I idealized it to be. Like, ?I?ve changed this girl?s life forever!?? In other words, the mentors felt let down and expectations were left unmet after the relationship developed. Finally, it was also clear that the relational challenges of unmet expectations resulted in negative feelings. Mentors reported associated feelings of worry, frustration, and discontentment. Another individual challenge for mentors was the perceived financial responsibilities brought about by the relationship. More than one mentor expressed feeling pressured to buy things for their mentees. For example, one mentor felt like her mentee expected meals or gifts: ?she sees all the really cool stuff that the other [mentors] and [mentees] get to do. Like, 68 a lot of them will go out to dinner and places, but I just am really broke, so we?ll go to campus and eat with my [campus card].? There appeared to be some peer pressure regarding extra supports or ?perks? in regards to the mentoring relationships. The mentors frequently reported feeling confused or unprepared in situations with their mentees. For example, one mentor expressed that she felt ?just a little bit of being overwhelmed. Like, not necessarily panicked, but just being ? ?oh, my goodness this is outside of what I feel like I?m equipped to handle.?? These confused or unprepared feelings were often coupled with negative feelings of frustration or discontent. Negative feelings. In addition to extracting themes related to situational challenges (programmatic, relational, and individual), we also coded the themes related to emotions experienced in challenges. Mentors reported several negative feelings during their participation in the program. These feelings included worry, frustration and discontentment. Some of the mentors reported feeling worried about their mentees because they wanted much more for their mentees? future. For example, one mentor said ?It kind of makes me a little anxious, a little bit at first, cause I don?t want her not to go to school, to finish high school, and I want her to go to college.? This anxiety shows care for the mentee, but nonetheless seemed to cause stress for the mentor involved. Another negative feeling reported by the mentors was a feeling of frustration. The mentors were frustrated by programmatic issues and because they wanted the mentoring relationship to be more impactful. Frustrations about the program were highlighted previously in this chapter. Mentors would express frustration and even sadness when they did not feel as if they were fulfilling their role as a mentor. They often times compared themselves to other mentors. For example: 69 ?Well, in the beginning I was a little bit frustrated. Or, it didn?t feel like I was a good mentor because I wasn?t like being more productive, I guess. And I know you aren?t supposed to like [compare] to the other girls. But like one girl had a really good relationship and I was like I hope that happens. So, I was a little bit sad.? Mentors also reported a feeling of discontentment. The mentors were discontent in the relationship at times because they felt like they were in a rut or, in other words, were not getting anywhere. They were also discontent because the relationship was so much work sometimes. One mentor was very explicit in her feelings of discontentment and said, ?To be perfectly honest, I?m not always excited about hanging out with her because I know it?s going to be kind of a chore to get her to talk, to get her to, you know, be responsive.? Researcher?s bias related to challenges. I acknowledge that I dealt with a bias when documenting these responses from mentors on challenges. This was not my experience and I hold an assumption and interpretation that many of these challenges, especially the programmatic challenges, may be related to a cohort effect. I worked with the mentors in this cohort and I noticed a greater propensity to complain or discuss challenges in excess compared to the group of mentors I was a part of. Individual characteristics that the mentors bring into the program may impact the experience. In addition, the role of groupthink (Aldag & Fuller, 1993) may be involved in this cohort. That is, one or two mentors who were especially focused on challenges seemed to influence others in focusing on these aspects of the experience more so than they might have otherwise. While I recognize this opinion or bias that I hold, I was careful not to allow it to influence how I presented the results and conducted the theory-building. The following description of factors and the processes 70 involved represents, as accurately as possible, this specific group of mentors? perceptions of their experiences. Buffers. Although, to some degree, all mentors described challenges, there appeared to be a number of factors that ultimately influenced and encouraged more positive outcomes: support from others, adjusting expectations, differences between pairs, relationship quality and time invested. Support from others. It appears that support from others in the program influences the relationship between challenges and relational or individual outcomes for mentors. Potential sources of support described by mentors were faculty, graduate facilitators, other mentors in the program, and their mentees. Support was described as ?encouraging,? ?giving advice? and ?just talk[ing] through [everything].? In other words connecting with their mentees, processing issues with faculty, graduate facilitators and other mentors, and a feeling of community with the women around them seemed to support the mentors through their growth experience. Support within their cohort seemed to be especially important. For example, one mentor felt that the support of the other mentors enhanced her teamwork skills. The mentor explained the support of the other mentors by saying: ?It?s been really helpful just to have a great group of people, at least at [the school] that are so supportive, and I feel like we really have bonded, and they?ve been just a great support team.? Then the mentor explained how it impacted the way she asked for help and the relational skill of teamwork development: 71 ?[It] really taught me that when I need help, just to ask for it, because people will give it to me. And I don?t have to do everything by myself, like it is ok to ask for help.? Another example demonstrates how the graduate facilitators in the program supported growth for the female mentors. One mentor was having negative feelings about how she was doing as a mentor and the graduate facilitator spoke with the mentor about things and processed issues going on. The mentor felt she gained a lot from that experience and had this to say about the graduate facilitator?s help: ?I think when I talked to [graduate facilitator] to see the mid-semester thing, she kind of like brought up something I was doing that I didn?t realize I was doing, and it kind of like showed I guess my insecurities with? the speaking in class, or giving advice- just not being very confident in my responses. And she was just kind of like, not necessarily call me out, but she brought it to light, and I didn?t realize that I was doing that, and it was just because I didn?t really know what to say, or what I wanted to say.? The mentor went on to say how it made her feel more confident and helped her develop a more positive view of herself as a result: ?[Graduate facilitator] was like ?You know what you?re saying, and you know what you?re talking about, so just be more confident about it.? And I [thought], no one?s really said that to me before, I guess. And like I know those things, but I guess it?s always better and more? motivating when other people say that they?ve noticed that you?ve been doing those things.? 72 At a time when one mentor was feeling confused by a situation she felt like practicing skills discussed with graduate facilitators helped her learn how to work through difficult situations, as exemplified by this quote: ?I know me and [graduate facilitator] had this conversation one day. About like [mentee] had a spurt where she wanted to hang out like all the time but I was really busy. It was mid-term week and so there was like 3 times in a row where she wanted to hang out and I couldn?t because I had to do homework or work or something. And she was kind of mad at me for a few weeks. And so I was talking to [graduate facilitator] about it and she was giving me advice, like ?be really energetic and really positive, just explain to her like I?m sorry but we?ll hang out next week.? ?and I think using her advice has helped me and [mentee] get over that hurdle.? Adjusting expectations. Many mentors were frustrated throughout the program by the lack of depth in their relationships, but through practicing persistence they found individual satisfaction from the work they poured into their relationships. It was also apparent that there was a change in expectations from the first interview to the second interview. Here a mentor expresses her frustration with the lack of depth in her mentoring relationship in her first interview: ?I still want to get to know more about her, and I don?t really know too much about her life, or her family life and all that kind of stuff.? In later interviews mentors described how they were beginning to understand that initial expectations were too high and they made a small, but significant impact with their mentee. After expectations were alleviated, one mentor said, 73 ?I do think it?s exciting to feel like we are on the track of being just a lot closer. And I am excited that we are like that.? The focus switched from getting to know the mentee?s issues or background to spending time together. This seemed to indicate an adjustment in their expectations for the relationship over the course of the program, and may be a factor influencing outcomes. Relationship quality. It also appears that the relationship between challenges and individual or relational outcomes were influenced by the mentor-mentee relationship quality. Overall, the experiences and outcomes reported by the mentors in this program were positive, even though they reported challenges throughout the experience. In general, the types of challenges and relationship quality interacted in distinct ways to impact overall reported understanding. It seems that those that had negative programmatic issues and challenging and unsatisfying mentor-mentee relationships did not report feeling great gains after their participation. Those that discussed the most gains were those that reported few, if any, programmatic issues and a less challenging, satisfying mentor-mentee relationship. Also, those that reported challenges related to the program, but had satisfying mentor-mentee relationships still reported gains. Therefore, it appears that the relationship quality impacts mentors? perceptions of the experience more so than the programmatic aspects- though these still influence the overall experience. Time invested. Time invested in the program and relationship is also a factor in the relationship between challenges and outcomes. It seemed the mentors who discussed the most positive outcomes were the ones who invested time in the relationship and the program. Those that reported less time investment felt they wished they had tried harder to spend more time with and working harder at getting to know their mentee. In general, it appears that those who 74 discussed this desire reported fewer positive outcomes and more frustration. For example, one mentor noted, ?some people in our group? they hardly hang out because their schedules are insane and so in the meetings you can tell a difference between people who hang out a lot and people who don?t.? Differences between pair. Although there can be challenges, the mentors in pairs with a high level of differences reported being pushed beyond their comfort zone and ultimately, to experience positive outcomes. In other words, greater differences between the individuals within a pair can lead to benefits for mentors involved. For example, one mentor described differences and their role in helping them bond in some ways: ?? her father is not in the picture and she?s just been raised with different social norms and just with her older sister has a large influence on her and it?s not, I don?t think it is a very positive influence. Um, and I was just very sheltered, um, as a kid, and I?ve heard of things happening in the world but I?ve never like seen what happened?and we started talking about [differences], and I think that brought us a lot closer together because we realized that even though we are a lot different, we are still young girls that? both make mistakes and we both try to learn from them.? Another mentor expressed initial concern that the mentee would feel uncomfortable around her because of their differences, but she was excited to see it did not impact their relationship negatively. She said, ?But I do think she feels comfortable around me, which is? encouraging, because we are very different, and so I didn?t know if she was gonna feel like she couldn?t feel comfortable.? Another mentor elaborated and said seeing the differences directly impacted her understanding of others. She said, ?I?ve been to some of their houses, and it?s like 75 difficult seeing how much different they are from how I was when I grew up. So, I feel like I?m more understanding, and I try to like just be more sensitive to what they?re going through.? Results Summary Overall, there are a wide range of outcomes reported by female mentors. Additionally, a large topic of discussion was related to challenges experienced in the context of the program and within the mentoring relationship. Some of the challenges reported may be due to the particular characteristics of the mentors in this cohort, and therefore should be considered carefully. Buffers, such as support from others, altered expectations, relationship quality, time investment, and differences between pairs influenced the relationship between the challenges and outcomes reported. Figures 1 depicts an organization of themes, factors and their linkages with reported outcomes. 76 77 V. Discussion Overview The first purpose of the present study was to understand young adult female mentors? perceived outcomes and the nature of those outcomes. The other goal of the present study was to gather information about factors, both external and internal to the participant that may have influenced the reported outcomes. This work also focused on building and clarifying present theories to make them more relevant for young adult women and to refine theory details pertaining to the mentoring experience. To address these objectives, qualitative interviews were conducted with 14 female mentors in the Young Women Leaders? Program (YWLP) in the middle and at the end of the formal mentoring relationship. A phenomenological and grounded theory approach was used, along with an articulated a priori theoretical foundation. The study provided validation of outcomes documented for mentors in the handful of studies that exist. In addition, several novel contributions are made related to the identification of challenges and the documentation of factors influencing outcomes. Both the research literature and programs can be informed by the results and their organization within a conceptual model. Perceived Outcomes of Mentors This study reported a multitude of personal, practical, relational, and individual outcomes discussed by the participants in the study. Many of the reported outcomes are identical or comparable to the outcomes reported in the small amount of literature focused on outcomes for mentors, teachers, volunteers and therapists. It is important, however, to expect that the mentoring program context or type of mentoring program (i.e., graduate-undergraduate 78 mentoring, community mentoring, peer mentoring, etc.) uniquely affects the experiences and outcomes reported. The present study provides further details on outcomes previously reported and uncovers a few novel categories of outcomes for young adult mentors. Previous research has found mentors report gaining new relationships, along with relationship skills, after their mentoring experience (Harre, 2007; Iancu-Haddad & Oplatka, 2009; Karcher, 2009; Reddick, Griffin, & Cherwitz, 2011); however, little research has been specific in how or what skills related to relationships were gained. The present study provides some clarification. Mentors described gaining an understanding of self-disclosure techniques and appropriate levels of self-disclosure. Being able to self-disclose to someone and accept self- disclosure from another person are important aspects of close relationships (Adler Baeder & Futris, 2005). Another specific relational skill identified is persistence and perseverance in relationships. Commitment to working hard on a relationship, and continuing to work through tough times, are aspects of many healthy relationships (Adler Baeder & Futris, 2005). Mentors also note enhanced emotion regulation skills in helping relationships. The mentors perceived that they were better able to control how they respond to their emotions and reactions in stressful or uncomfortable situations with their mentees- a skill that will help them in their future relationships, professionally and personally. Another novel outcome reported is teamwork skills and the ability to ask for support from others. Being able to rely on others for support and help was mentioned by the mentors in this study and seems to have been facilitated by the program design. The final original outcome reported in this study is the ability to apply knowledge gained in the program?s class to the mentoring relationship. The mentors participate in a for-credit educational class related to mentoring relationships and adolescent female development and the mentors discussed that they 79 were able to use the class information in experiences with their mentee. Overall, the organization and details provided about outcomes helps to move the field forward. The personal outcomes reported are especially interesting and intriguing because they show evidence of a spillover effect. What the mentors learn through the mentoring relationship may be applicable to other personal relationships and mentors were cognizant of this. Specifically, mentors in the present study reported being able to use skills with their sisters or their boyfriends. Furthermore, the personal cross-domain outcome of self-awareness and reflection may impact relationships with parents, specifically the use of empathy and understanding. Challenges One of the most significant contributions of this study is the information provided on challenges reported by the mentors. Most previous work did not document negative experiences or challenges. However, two studies (Iancu-Haddad & Oplatka, 2009; Faith, Fiala, Cavell, and Hughes, 2011) found some indication that challenges were part of the mentor experience. For this reason, the a priori theoretical framework included assumptions from The Calamity Theory of Growth, and Relational-Cultural Theory. Prompt questions related to challenges revealed more details on programmatic issues, relational challenges, and individual challenges. Again, the challenges reported may be related to a cohort effect. There appeared to be more emphasis placed on discussing challenges and issues in this group than might be evident in other cohorts. The Relational-Cultural Theory perspective would suggest that the mentoring relationship is affected by the program context and should be considered because it plays a role in framing how the relationship works. Therefore, it seems that the Relational-Cultural Theory was validated as some of the programmatic challenges discussed may have impacted relationship 80 formation and stability. Mentors often mentioned the differences between them and the mentees in general and within specific dyads. The challenges, in turn, were related to some type of negative feeling for most mentors. The mentors described feeling worried about their mentees and their relationships, frustrated by challenges and discontentment concerning their experiences. Specifically, mentors extensively discussed feeling let down because their expectations of the relationship were not met in their year-long experience. Most previous literature has either not documented or steered clear of reporting any negative experiences for the mentor. In this study it was clear that negative experiences and challenges are central to the mentoring experience since all mentors in the present study reported challenges and negative feelings during the program and mentoring relationship. These challenges occur in the context of the program, as well as the context of the relationship. Some mentors specifically mentioned that because they were challenged in the program and in their relationship they achieved positive relational and individual outcomes. This validates assumptions in the Calamity Theory of Growth, which suggests one can achieve positive developmental outcomes as a result of challenges. For example, the basic premise of the calamity theory of growth (Anthis, 2002) is that positive growth and identity exploration can result from stressful life events, although it does not describe how this might occur. The present study expands on this theory and describes factors that may play a role in this process. Conceptual Model The conceptual model is a heuristic that can serve to inform both research and program design and evaluation. While it is not intended to be an empirical model, testable models can be derived. The overall conceptual model (Figure 2) that was developed in the present study portrays a framework for understanding elements of the mentoring experience and is a more 81 parsimonious model derived from the organization of the themes presented in the results (Figure 1). Figure 2 is an illustration of the basic connections and factors influencing the outcomes. Results from this study suggest that program participation and outcomes is an indirect relationship that involves intervening factors, such as support from others (e.g., mentees, mentors, graduate facilitators, and faculty advisors), altered expectations, relationship quality, time investment, and differences between pair. First, it appears that mentor program participation results in opportunities for practice and the experience of facing challenges. Opportunities to practice influence individual and relational outcomes. This is intuitive, as participation in a mentoring relationship suggests one is doing activities and executing skills, and is therefore practicing them. It is also driven by the data, as many mentors mentioned that the opportunities to practice inherent in the program design impacted their outcomes. It was also clear that support from others in the program, altered expectations, relationship quality, time invested, and differences between pairs served to promote the development of positive mentor outcomes. Uncovering these factors serves to add to and clarify previous theory and research. Support is operationalized in a broad way and includes: feeling encouraged, having the opportunity to discuss issues, not feeling alone in their mentoring experience, and working together in a ?bidirectional? relationship with others in the program. This study extends the use of the Relational-Cultural Theory (derived from feminist theory and Symbolic Interactionism) (Comstock et al., 2002; Comstock et al., 2008) to a mentoring type of female relationship (one characterized by a hierarchical yet bidirectional helping relationship). The present work suggests that relationships outside the parent-child, peer, and romantic relationships can play a role in 82 young females? development and that feeling supported within a relationship and having others provide a context of support appears key to positive outcomes, particularly when there are differences between the individual in the dyad. Findings here are consistent with the idea that women tend to recognize their development and outcomes within relational contexts (Wastell, 1996), and that relational experiences, including mentoring relationships, are particularly impactful for women. This, however, does not imply a comparison with young men?s experiences in mentoring since we do not have these data. We can speak only about the descriptions the young women in our sample provided. The women in this study spoke in terms of connected growth and development. One mentor said ?I felt like we kind of grew alongside of each other.? This discussion of growing together invokes assumptions of Symbolic Interactionism because the pair develops shared meaning together (Blumer, 1969) in order to have a positive experience wherein both individuals achieve positive outcomes. Relational-Cultural Theory (Comstock et al., 2002) also suggests mutual growth is present in relationships. It appears that mentoring relationships are transactional in nature, and that mentors and mentees may have related and similar outcomes. Altered expectations were discussed by the mentors in this study. Being able to use meta- perspective and evaluate how their expectations were impacting their relationship was crucial in understanding and reporting perceived outcomes. One of the reported challenges that lead to negative feelings was unmet expectations. When expectations were too high or unrealistic the mentors reported feeling discouraged. Altering expectations to be more reasonable seemed to help alleviate feelings of discouragement and focus on the positive experiences; thus, this cognitive reframing appears key to predicting positive outcomes in the face of challenges. 83 Relationship quality is another key factor influencing the relationship between challenges and relational outcomes. Previous literature (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Parra et al., 2002; Rhodes et al., 2005; de Blank, Lawrence, & Deutsch, 2006; Cavell et al., 2009; Goldner & Mayseless, 2009; Zand et al., 2009) indicates that relationship quality is key to positive outcomes for the mentees involved, and it appears to be the same situation for the participating mentors. For the mentors in this study, relationship quality was related to their overall experience in the program. It seems that those who had negative programmatic challenges and challenging mentor- mentee relationships did not report high amounts of gains after their participation. It seems that those who discussed the most gains were those who reported few, if any, programmatic issues and less challenging mentor-mentee relationship. Also, it seems that those who reported programmatic challenges, but had satisfying mentor-mentee relationships still reported gains. Therefore, it appears that relationship quality and overall view of the relationship may be more impactful. Time investment in the program and relationship appears to impact individual and relational skills. This finding was supported by the mentors? reports and by previous literature (Liu et al., 2009) that indicates the more involved mentors are the more they gain from their experience. The time and energy invested in the program or relationship influences how much is gained by the mentor (Liu et al., 2009). Almost all of the mentors reported regretting a lack of time spent with their mentees, suggesting that they feel they would have gained more from the program if they had invested more time or energy into the relationship and program. Still, there was variability in investment. It appeared that those mentors who had higher investment levels reported higher relationship quality with their mentee. It appears also that those who invested more in their mentoring had a high value for this experience and the role of mentor. This finding 84 is consistent with Symbolic Interactionism that suggests salience of role influences effort and subsequent outcomes (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). Finally, differences within a pair affect the relationship between challenges and individual and relational outcomes in ways that are consistent with The Calamity Theory of Growth and the Relational Cultural Theory. The majority of the mentees in the program are ethnic minorities and came from backgrounds of low socioeconomic statuses. The majority of the mentors were European-American and came from higher SES backgrounds. Therefore, at a very basic level the mentoring relationships were characterized by cultural differences. Relational-Cultural theorists (Comstock, Duffey, & George, 2002; Comstock, et al. 2008) would suggest differences within the pair influence outcomes in a positive way because individuals develop within growth-fostering relationships. This may be especially true for relationships characterized by high levels of diversity within the relationship. This appeared to be true in the present study, as mentors in culturally diverse pairs reported positive outcomes in spite of cultural and personality differences. Interestingly, research focused on mentees indicates that racial or ethnic differences may be experienced differently by the mentees in that those with more similar mentors tend to have more positive outcomes. Suggested reasons for this difference include the salience of ethnic identities (i.e., those that have strong ethnic identities look up to ethnically similar role models) or because some ethnic minorities? experience a feeling of cultural mistrust (Darling, Bogat, Cavell, Murphy, & Sanchez, 2006). This presents somewhat of a dilemma for program administrators when determining matches between mentor and mentee. Limitations As in all studies, the present study has certain limitations. The qualitative nature of the present study affects the research process because the researchers? gender, ethnicity, and 85 previous experiences may impact the research process (Steier, 1991). As previously noted, however, I have taken multiple actions to address the possible bias that could influence the outcome of the study. Still, interpretation of processes and outcomes described likely include and reflect my experience as a mentor as well. Qualitative research assumes that the research does not stand apart from the research (Creswell, 2007). In this study, this is especially true. Another limitation of the present study is the level of saturation achieved. Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggest that qualitative research has a saturation point that is reached by adding new participants to the sample. The present study did not reach a saturation point in this way because there were no new mentors to interview. To address this issue I implemented two interviews and utilized both member checking and saturation from previous interviewees. Doing so allows the participating mentors to add to and confirm previous findings and further validate interpretation of the data. Also, by its nature, qualitative findings are not generalizable to other populations and represent only the experiences of the group of young women interviewed. This is noted as a limitation, however, generalizability was not the purpose of the present study. Implications The study is important for furthering our understanding of the broader context of influential relationships and experiences for young adult women. In general, most emerging adult research is dedicated to understanding parent-child, romantic, and peer relationships; however, the present study suggests that other relationships may play a part in the development of young adult females. It may be that developing relationships outside the norm of one?s social circle can also help emerging adults begin to understand who they are and what skills they possess and influence their development and well-being. The present study shows how identity work can occur within the mentoring relationship. Therefore, it is recommended that program 86 administrators view mentors, as well as mentees, as ?participants? in the program and work to ensure positive experiences and developmental outcomes for both groups. Results of the study can inform program administrators and guide them in training and monitoring mentors? experiences. The results of the present study suggest that both the mentor- mentee dyad and the program context matter and can play a role in how the participating mentors perceive their experience. Overall, the participants in the present study reported positive outcomes, but there was variability as some emphasized positive outcomes more so than others. Regarding programmatic challenges, mentors would benefit from administrators? assessment of the amount of coursework required or the administrators might spend more time describing the value of the coursework to enhance its salience to the mentors. It could also be helpful to have open and frank discussion about programmatic and individual challenges and any negative feelings. Mentors may benefit from periodic one-on-one discussions with administrators about these issues. To facilitate mentors? developmental outcomes, administrators can make opportunities to practice skills available and develop policies to make support available for the mentors involved. As outlined previously, a recent study conducted by Faith et al. (2011) indicates that the lack of support can cause negative outcomes for mentors. Explicit focus on developing mentor group cohesion may enhance support within the mentoring group. Facilitators or administrators may want to address group dynamics amongst mentors due to potential for negative groupthink (Aldag & Fuller, 1993). There appeared to be two or three people that may have impacted the number of negative reports related to challenges. While groupthink may be negative, there is a potential for it to be positive by working together as a group to be supportive of each other, to normalize the experience of some challenges, and 87 the assist each other in maintaining an openness to positive outcomes resulting from challenges. Understanding of theories related to group dynamics may be important to integrate in the program. The level and type of differences between pairs can be discussed at initiation of the mentoring relationship as differences can be a factor related to positive growth in the mentors. Program administrators may need to weigh the differences in suggestions resulting from research focused on mentees and research focused on mentors. Again, research focused on mentees indicates that racial or ethnic differences may be experienced differently by the mentees due to salience of ethnic identities and cultural mistrust. Therefore, it is suggested that program administrators decide how to deal with potential pair differences at the beginning of the program and relationships. A conversation about differences should be conducted at program start- in the group context and between mentor-mentee pairs to ensure a match that potentially benefits both mentor and mentee is made. Setting realistic expectations about what the mentoring relationship means should be discussed thoroughly with mentors. It is also suggested to place an emphasis on time investment in the program and relationship. One suggestion is to set an expected and reasonable time commitment at the beginning of the participation. Finally, ways of developing high levels of relationship quality can be discussed often. Mentors who are not studying social or behavioral sciences may need extra skills training in this area. Future Directions It became very evident in the literature search for the current study that there is a lack of research focused on mentors? experiences in mentoring programs, even though they are participants as well. Within the small amount of literature focused on mentors there is even more 88 limited research on understanding what factors influence reported mentors? outcomes. More research should focus on potential determinants of mentor outcomes. Additionally, research could focus on similarities and differences between male and female mentors. In terms of research design it is important to consider the inclusion of mentee data in the future and to assess dyadic influences. Mentoring is theoretically unidirectional, with the emphasis on mentees? experiences and growth; however, the present study indicates that the relationship is transactional and bidirectional. Therefore, collecting mentee data is an important next step to understand how the individuals within the mentoring pair influence each other. This approach would lead to the building and validation of a theory focused specifically on mentoring relationships ? an important contribution to the literature. These efforts should utilize longitudinal data to empirically track the growth among mentors and mentees and the directional influences among variables. This approach will also uncover any delayed effects or further growth after program participation. The spillover effect is also a meaningful future direction to address. It appears that mentoring relationships may impact other personal relationships in the mentors? lives. This may be an especially important aspect to explore in emerging adults because they are working on identity formation and stabilization within relationships with others. Future research could address this aspect by collecting information about how their experience has impacted other specific areas of their lives and relationships. Focus should also be placed on potential negative outcomes associated with the mentoring experience. In the present study mentors reported some challenges and negative feelings throughout the program and relationship. These preliminary findings warrant more study as they suggest there may be some negative impacts for the mentor. The documentation of 89 intervening factors is also important as this information provides areas of focus for program administrators to ensure more positive outcomes. This research should be conducted across the lifespan, but particular attention should be placed on young adult mentors, as they are forming concrete identities during this time (Arnett, 2000). A feminist perspective advocates for diverse qualitative methods, allowing researchers to speak for those who may be under-represented. At the same time, this methodology provides the research community with potential concepts to study and a framework to guide work. It may also prevent unproductive testing of irrelevant outcomes or factors. Once we have a better understanding of potential mentoring experiences, different quantitative methods can help us validate trajectories and processes for a broader population of mentors. The conceptual model developed here to frame the results from this sample provides a heuristic within which empirical tests of outcomes and factors associated with the process can be conducted using quantitative methods (Figure 2). The model is a starting place for a model of growth in mentors and certainly can be further refined. In other words, this model can grow and be added to after empirical testing is applied. Additionally, using multiple reporters in research focused on mentors may provide an even richer understanding of outcomes and factors associated with the developmental process for both mentor and mentee. Other reporters can include administrators, facilitators, other mentors, and the mentees involved in the program. Future research should also consider the context of specific mentoring programs: the developmental period of those involved, specific design elements of the program, and group context. The type of mentoring program may impact the perception of outcomes or may alter how the mentors experience the mentoring relationship. Finally, as noted previously, there may 90 91 be a cohort effect for the present study. Further work needs to assess if this is unique to this cohort and integrate theories related to group processes. Conclusion The present work suggests continued efforts to study relationships outside the parent- child, peer, and romantic relationships when investigating young females? development. It also suggests the study of mentors as subjects in mentoring program evaluations and the consideration that there are both negative and positive aspects to participating in a mentoring program for young adult females. It appears that the reported outcomes in the present study are similar to the outcomes discovered in previous studies. The outcomes uncovered in the present study range from personal to practical, and relationship focused to individual focused. This study provided an organization of reported outcomes not seen previously in research. The wide range of positive outcomes is encouraging, but there were negative experiences, including challenges and negative feelings, reported by the participating mentors. More exploration of these aspects of program participation is warranted. Results from this study, however, suggest an indirect relationship between challenges and outcomes. While opportunities to practice skills appears to influence the development of personal and practical outcomes focused on the individual and relationships, the relationship between challenges and outcomes involve intervening factors, such as support from others (e.g., mentees, mentors, graduate facilitators, and faculty advisors), altered expectations, relationship quality, time invested, and differences within pair. These represent areas of focus for program design. 92 Recognizing mentors are impacted by their involvement in mentoring programs is an important discovery due to the fact that the prevalence of mentoring programs is increasing across the United States (Rhodes et al., 2002). Understanding this experience for emerging adult women is especially important because females tend to define themselves in the context of relationships (Withers Osmond & Thorne, 1993; Wastell, 1996). Mentoring programs appear to provide a setting within which self-concept is formed (Erikson, 1968; Arnett, 2000; Steinberg & Sheffield-Morris, 2001). Program administrators are advised to consider mentors as participants in mentoring programs and to specifically address the challenges and intervening factors discovered in this study in order to facilitate positive developmental outcomes. In the future, more studies should be conducted to assess the impact of mentoring on the mentors. There is a large gap to fill and both qualitative and quantitative methods are encouraged. 93 References Adler-Baeder, F., & Furtis, T. (2005). Proceedings from NERMEN ?05: The National Extension Relationship and Marriage Education Network Team Retreat. Champaign, Illinois. Aldag, R.J. & Fuller, S.R. 1993. Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113: 533-552. Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L., & Newcomb, T. M. (1991). Political attitudes over the life span: The Bennington women after fifty years. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Anthis, K. S. (2002). On the calamity theory of growth: The relationship between stressful life events and changes in identity over time. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 2(3), 229-240. doi:10.1207/S1532706XID0203_03 Bandura, A. (1977). Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513 Bowlby, J. (1969\1991). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1: Attachment, (2nd ed). New York, NY: Basic Books. Boss, P. G., Doherty, W. J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (Eds.). (1993). Sourcebook of family theories and methods a contextual approach. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Brown, M. (2011). Learning from service: The effect of helping on helpers? social dominance orientation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(4), 850-871. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 94 Cavell, T. A., Elledge, L., Malcolm, K. T., Faith, M. A., & Hughes, J. N. (2009). Relationship quality and the mentoring of aggressive, high-risk children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38(2), 185-198. doi:10.1080/15374410802698420 Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Collins, L. H. (1998). Illustrating feminist theory: Power and psychopathology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(1), 97-112. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00144.x Comstock, D. L., Hammer, T. R., Strentzsch, J., Cannon, K., Parsons, J., & Salazar, G. (2008). Relational-cultural theory: A framework for bridging relational, multicultural, and social justice competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(3), 279-287. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Comstock, D. L., Duffey, T., & St. George, H. (2002). The relational-cultural model: A framework for group process. Journal for specialists in Group Work, 27(3), 254-272. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage Publications. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Daly, K.J. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies & human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Darling, N., Bogat, G., Cavell, T., Murphy, S., & Sanchez, B. (2006). Gender, ethnicity, development, and risk: Mentoring and the consideration of individual differences. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 765-779. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20128 95 De Blank, G., Lawrence, E., & Deutsch, N. (2006, March). Self-reported attachment and mental health in at-risk early adolescent girls. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Francisco, CA. Dolan, E., & Johnson, D. (2009). Toward a Holistic View of Undergraduate Research Experiences: An Exploratory Study of Impact on Graduate/Postdoctoral Mentors. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(6), 487-500. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. DuBois, D. L., Doolittle, F., Yates, B. T., Silverthorn, N., & Tebes, J. (2006). Research methodology and youth mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 657-676. doi:10.1002/jcop.20122 DuBois, D. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Youth mentoring: Bridging science with practice. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 647-655. doi:10.1002/jcop.20121 Duke, N. N., Skay, C. L., Pettingell, S. L., & Borowsky, I. W. (2009). From adolescent connections to social capital: Predictors of civic engagement in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44(2), 161-168. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.07.007 Eby, L. T., Durley, J. R., Evans, S. C., & Ragins, B. R. (2006). The relationship between short- term mentoring benefits and long-term mentor outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 424-444. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Eigner, S. (2001). The relationship between ?protecting the environment? as a dominant life goal and subjective well-being. In P. Schmuch & K.M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well- being: Towards a positive psychology of human thriving (pp. 182-201). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York, NY: Norton. 96 Faith, M., Fiala, S., Cavell, T., & Hughes, J. (2011). Mentoring highly aggressive children: Pre- post changes in mentors? attitudes, personality, and attachment tendencies. Journal of Primary Prevention, 32, 253-270. doi: 10.1007/s10935-011-0254-8 Flanagan, C. A., & Faison, N. (2001). Youth Civic Development: Implications of Research for Social Policy and Programs. Social Policy Report XV(1), 3-14. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Frankl, V. (1962). Man?s search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press. Ganser, T. (1994). How Mentors Rank Mentor Roles, Benefits of Mentoring and Obstacles to Mentoring. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Goldner, L., & Mayseless, O. (2009). The quality of mentoring relationships and mentoring success. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(10), 1339-1350. doi:10.1007/s10964-008- 9345-0 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(2), 199- 219. doi:10.1023/A:1014680827552 Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The emergence of the life story in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 748?769. Hammond, M., Howarth, J. & Keat, R. (1991) Understanding Phenomenology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Harr?, N. (2007). Community service or activism as an identity project for youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 711-724. doi:10.1002/jcop.20174 97 Iancu-Haddad, D., & Oplatka, I. (2009). Mentoring novice teachers: Motives, process and outcomes from the mentor?s point of view. The New Educator, 5, 45-65. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Janoski, T., Musick, M., & Wilson, J. (1998). Being volunteered? The impact of social participation and pro-social attitudes on volunteering. Social Forum 13(3), 495-517. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Jekielek, S. M., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., Scarupa, H. J., & Child Trends, I. C. (2002). Mentoring: A Promising Strategy for Youth Development. Child Trends Research Brief. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Johnston, L. D., O?Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2009). Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2009 (Volume 1) Secondary School Students. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Karcher, M. (2009). Increases in Academic Connectedness and Self-Esteem among High School Students Who Serve as Cross-Age Peer Mentors. Professional School Counseling, 12(4), 292-299. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Kirkpatrick-Johnson, M., Beebe, T., Mortimer, J. T., & Snyder, M. (1998). Volunteerism in adolescence: A process perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(3), 309-332. doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0803_2 Knight, A, Mahmoodzadegan, N., & Lawrence, E. (2000, March) Enhancing adolescent girls? self-esteem: The young women leaders? program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Baltimore, MD. Kvale, Steinar. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 98 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Linley, P., & Joseph, S. (2007). Therapy work and therapists' positive and negative well- being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(3), 385-403. doi:10.1521/ jscp.2007.26.3.385 Liu, D., Liu, J., Kwan, H., & Mao, Y. (2009). What can I gain as a mentor? The effect of mentoring on the job performance and social status of mentors in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(4), 871-895. doi:10.1348/ 096317908X380664 Malekoff, A. (2004). Group work with adolescents principles and practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. McAdams, D.P. (1997). The case for unity in the (post)modern self. In R.D. Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity (pp. 46?78). New York: Oxford University Press. McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom summer. New York: Oxford University Press. McGregor, I., & Little, B.R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness and meaning: On doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (2), 494?512. Mortimer, J.T., Finch, M. D., & Kumka, D. S. (1982). Persistence and change in development: The multi-dimensional self concept. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Lifespan development and behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 164-310). New York, NY: Academic Press. Paris, E., Linville, D., & Rosen, K. (2006). Marriage and family therapist interns? experiences of growth. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 32(1), 45-57. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 99 Parra, G. R., DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., Pugh-Lilly, A. O., & Pavinelli, N. (2002). Mentoring relationships for youth: Investigation of a process-oriented model. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(4), 367-388. doi:10.1002/jcop.10016 Patton, M. Q. (2002).Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pearson, M. (2007) Love U2?: Relationship Smarts PLUS. Berkeley, CA: The Dibble Institute. Quarles, A., Maldonado, N., & Lacey, C. H. (2005). Mentoring and At-Risk Adolescent Girls: A Phenomenological Investigation. Online Submission, Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Reddick, R. J., Griffin, K. A., & Cherwitz, R. A. (2011). Viewpoint: Answering President Obama?s call for mentoring: It?s not Just for mentees anymore. Planning for Higher Education, 59-65. Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (2003). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents' academic adjustment. In M. E. Hertzig, E. A. Farber, M. E. Hertzig, E. A. Farber (Eds.) , Annual progress in child psychiatry and child development: 2000?2001 (pp. 585-603). New York, NY US: Brunner- Routledge. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Rhodes, J., Reddy, R., Roffman, J., & Grossman, J. B. (2005). Promoting Successful Youth Mentoring Relationships: A Preliminary Screening Questionnaire. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(2), 147-167. doi:10.1007/s10935-005-1849-8 Richards, K. C., Campenni, C., & Muse-Burke, J. L. (2010). Self-care and well-being in mental health professionals: The mediating effects of self-awareness and mindfulness. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32(3), 247-264. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2007). User?s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 100 Riessman, F. (1965). The ??helper?? therapy principle. Social Work, 10, 27?32. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68?78. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectic perspective. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self- determination research (pp. 3?36). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Schauben L. J., & Frazier P. A. Vicarious trauma: the effects on female counselors of working with sexual violence survivors. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1995;19:49?64. Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J.J. (2000). On the evolutionary functions of the symbolic self: The emergence of self-evaluation motives. In A. Tesser, R.B. Felson, & J.M. Suls (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on self and identity (pp. 91?117). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Slaughter-Defoe, D., & English-Clarke, T. (2010). Mentoring in the Philadelphia go-girl program impact on penn's graduate school of education student mentors. educational HORIZONS, 89(1), 80-94. Retrieved from ERIC (EBSCOhost). Steinberg, L., & Sheffield-Morris, A. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Vallacher, R.R., & Nowak, A. (2000). Landscapes of self-reflection: Mapping the peaks and valleys of personal assessment. In A. Tesser, R.B. Felson, & J.M. Suls (Eds.), 101 Psychological perspectives on self and identity (pp. 35?66). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wastell, C. A. (1996). Feminist developmental theory: Implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74(6), 575-581. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Yates, M. & Youniss, J. (1996). A developmental perspective on community service in adolescence. Social Development , 5, 85-111. Zand, D. H., Thomson, N., Cervantes, R., Espiritu, R., Klagholz, D., LaBlanc, L., & Taylor, A. (2009). The mentor-youth alliance: The role of mentoring relationships in promoting youth competence. Journal of Adolescence, 32(1), 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence. 2007.12.006 102 Appendix A: Time 1 Interview Questions with Theoretical Underpinnings Mentor Interview Questions T1 1. How would you categorize or describe your experience in this program thus far? a. An exploratory question seeking to understand how they view their experience in YWLP. 2. How do you view your relationship with your Little Sister? a. Based on the symbolic interactionism assumption that people develop their symbolic world within relationships- looking for their perceptions of their mentor- mentee relationship. 3. What are your thoughts about the program being female only? a. Based on the feminist perspective and taps into meta-perspective on gender differences. 4. Are there differences between you and your Little Sister? If so, what are they? How have you navigated these differences? What has been the result? a. Based on the theoretical assumptions of the Relational-Cultural Theory- that the more diverse a pair is, the more potential there is for change and development. 5. What are some things you have gained from being a mentor? Describe how these gains developed. a. Based on three studies that suggest positive outcomes for young adult mentors. Also based on the youth civic development literature that suggests community engagement activities develop enhanced open-mindedness, acceptance and tolerance. 6. Have you experienced challenges as a Big Sister? If yes, what were these challenges? What are some ways you have coped with these situations? a. Based on the Calamity Theory of Growth that suggests people grow as a byproduct of challenges- Looking for processes involved. 7. How much do you value your role as a mentor in relation to other aspects of your life? a. Based on the symbolic interactionist perspective that suggests a highly valued role will bring out characteristics associated with that role for the participant. On the other hand, those who do not highly value the role in question do not see those characteristics appear as strongly. 8. What have your experiences with the faculty, facilitators, and other mentors been like? a. Based on the feminist perspective and the Relational-Cultural Theory that suggest women tend to develop within relationships b. Also based on the ecological perspective that people develop within complex and embedded systems 9. How do you think your mentoring experience would be different or similar if you had this experience at an older age? a. Based in the young adult development literature. It is suggested that young adulthood is a time for stabilization of identity and one?s self-identity. 10. On a scale from 1-10, how would you rate the quality of your relationship with your Little Sister? Explain. How do you think your Little Sister would rate the quality of the relationship? Explain. a. Based on the empirical evidence that relationship duration and quality facilitate outcomes for mentees. Follow up question allows for meta-perspective. 103 b. Also based on Symbolic Interactionism assumption that shared meaning is developed within dyads 104 Appendix B: Time 2 Interview Questions with Theoretical Underpinnings Mentor Interview Questions T2 1. Describe your experience with your Little Sister over the year? a. An exploratory question. We are trying to gather a general understanding of the mentor-mentee relationship. 2. Describe how your Big-Little relationship has changed and developed over the course of this year. Has the quality changed? Have your feelings changed? a. An exploratory question. We are trying to understand in their relationship has changed and if that may play a role in how they feel at this interview. 3. How do you think you Little Sister views your relationship? Is this similar to your view? a. Based in the therapy literature that suggests mindfulness and self-awareness help facilitate a healthy understanding of the situation. b. Also based on symbolic interactionism?s assumption that a symbolic world is developed through relationships and shared meaning. 4. How do you envision your relationship in the future? a. An exploratory question. But is related to the empirical evidence that duration and quality facilitate outcomes. 5. What are some things you have gained from being a mentor? Describe how you experienced these gains. a. Based on three studies that suggest positive outcomes for young adult mentors. Also based on the youth civic development literature that suggests community engagement activities develop enhanced open-mindedness, acceptance and tolerance. It is also important to see if there any new outcomes reported here that were not reported in the first interview. b. Based on the Calamity Theory of Growth that suggests people develop and grow as a byproduct of challenges c. Based on the Relational-Cultural Theory?s assumption that people develop in growth-fostering relationships 6. Did you encounter any challenges as a Big Sister? What steps did you take to cope or understand your mentoring situation? a. Based on the lack of literature discussing the processes involved in the development of reported outcomes for mentors. b. Based on the Calamity Theory of Growth that indicates challenges occur and people grow as a consequence of the challenge 7. How has this experience affected you in your reality, or in the real world? a. Based on the theoretical assumptions of symbolic interactionism. Symbolic Interactionism suggests that through relationships one develops a shared meaning of the world. 8. How important has it been to be a mentor to your Little Sister in relation to other aspects of your life? a. This question is related to Symbolic Interactionists? suggestions about emphasis on one?s roles. 9. On a scale from 1-10, how would you rate your relationship with your mentee? Explain. a. Based on the empirical evidence that relationship duration and quality facilitate outcomes for mentees.