Supporting the College Women Mentors' Strengths and Training Needs with Mindfulness Training

In recent years, youth mentoring programs have faced a nationwide shortage of adult mentors (Manchir, 2011, O’Connor, 2006). However, college students are increasingly interested in community service opportunities with youth mentoring and are a viable source of mentors to help combat this deficit (Dote, Cramer, Dietz, & Grimm, 2006; Wasburn-Moses, Fry, & Sanders, 2014). College students enroll in youth mentoring because they want to form a relationship with a youth, to be a role model and source of support (Hughes & Dykstra, 2008), and to experience more leadership opportunity (Wasburn-Moses et al., 2014). Interestingly, mentoring programs have utilized this population to provide more mentors to interested youth. In fact, findings from the Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring study indicate that 31% of their total mentors are now college students (Herrera, Kauh, Cooney, Grossman, & McMaken, 2008). In addition to their motivation to work with youth, multiple characteristics of college students make them well suited to mentor youth, including their similar developmental issues and flexible schedules. Compared to older adult mentors, college students are closer in age with youth mentees and may be seen as “cooler” than older adults. This may be especially true for adolescent mentees. College students also face developmental issues similar to adolescent mentees, including identity exploration and navigating growing independence (Arnett, 2000). These shared experiences can contribute to an enhanced sense of mutual understanding within the mentoring relationship and may help to facilitate a strong bond between mentor and mentee (Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, & Noam, 2006). Logistically, college students are likely to have more availability in their schedules, compared to older adults who may work full time or have significant familial responsibilities (Davis, 2012). Given that the amount of time invested in a mentoring relationship is positively associated with mentor satisfaction (McGill, Adler-Baeder, Sollie, & Kerpelman, 2014), it is advantageous for programs to recruit mentors with more availability and flexible schedules. At the same time, mentoring youth can be challenging and college student mentors face programmatic, relational, and individual issues that are unique for their age group (McGill et al., 2014). Compared to older adults, college students are likely to have less experience with youth and may not have a strong understanding of the natural ups and downs that occur while building a relationship with an adolescent (Deutsch, Futch, Varga, & Fox, 2015). In addition, college students’ focus on achievement and evaluation during college may, inadvertently, cause them to strive for perfection as a mentor, which can put undue pressure on both the mentor and mentee. This achievement-oriented mindset (Eccles, Barber, Jozefowicz, Malenchuk, & Vida, 1999) may also make college students more susceptible to feeling like a failure if their mentoring relationship does not advance as they expect it to (Spencer, 2007). Finally, factors related to college students’ academic schedules (i.e., changing class schedules each semester, extended vacations, study abroad, transportation issues) may interfere with consistent meetings with their mentee and stymie the development of a successful mentoring relationship (Jekielek, Moore, Hair, & Scarupa, 2002). Over time, logistical barriers and developmental issues can lead to a premature termination of the mentoring relationship if mentors are not receiving adequate support. In fact, approximately 55% of mentoring relationships end before their initially agreed-upon commitment (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). This statistic is particularly troubling given that premature termination has been associated with negative outcomes for mentees (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). Thus, it would behoove mentoring programs to consider the satisfaction of their mentors, since mentor satisfaction suggests the likelihood that a mentor will remain in their mentoring relationship for the full duration (Weiler, Zarich, Haddock, Krafchick, & Zimmerman, 2014). Tailoring mentor training to meet the incoming strengths and needs of college student mentors may help programs increase mentor satisfaction and reliability. However, there is a dearth of research examining the pre-existing characteristics of college students who sign up to be youth mentors and how these initial characteristics may be associated with mentor satisfaction. The first study, Initial Characteristics and Mentoring Satisfaction of College Women Mentoring Youth: Implications for Training, sought to fill this gap in the literature by addressing the following research questions: (a) who among college students signs up for youth mentoring and (b) how are college mentors’ initial traits associated with their mentoring satisfaction. This study builds on recent qualitative research investigating the experiences of college students enrolled in service-learning youth mentoring programs (Banks, 2010; Weiler et al., 2014) and expands the focus to college mentors’ initial characteristics and their association with mentoring satisfaction. In addition, the study utilizes a comparison group of female college students interested in working with youth (i.e., teaching) but not enrolled in mentoring to assess whether the initial characteristics of college mentors differ from those of their peers who have not signed up to be youth mentors. For the first study, survey data from college women enrolled in a youth mentoring program (n = 158) and a comparison group (n = 136) were analyzed to determine how initial characteristics of youth mentors differ from comparisons and are associated with mentors’ satisfaction. To answer the first research question, a multivariate analysis of covariance was conducted and assumptions met, with group (mentor vs. comparison) as the independent variable and initial characteristics (GPA, depressive symptoms, autonomy, and cultural sensitivity) as the dependent variables, controlling for year in college and ethnicity. Group means and effect sizes are reported in Table 2 of the first manuscript. Relative to the comparison group, the mentor group reported fewer depressive symptoms and higher initial levels of autonomy, cognitive empathy, and collective self-esteem. To answer the second research question, partial correlation analyses were conducted to determine the relationship between each of the pre-test measures and mentoring satisfaction (see Table 3 of the manuscript). Grade point average, having fewer depressive symptoms, and cognitive empathy were positively correlated with satisfaction and collectively explained 13% of the variance in mentoring satisfaction. Results from this study suggest that in comparison to college women interested in working with youth (i.e., teaching) but not engaged in youth mentoring, a relative strength for college women who sign up to mentor youth is their willingness to be empathic about and sensitive to the issues and views of their own and others’ racial/ethnic group. Other relative strengths for the college women mentors in this study included higher autonomy and fewer depressive symptoms than the comparison group. These findings have several implications for mentor training for college students. First, training for this population should acknowledge their empathy, since this characteristic is both a strength and positively associated with satisfaction among college student mentors. Given the natural ups and downs of mentoring relationships, including relational challenges from mentees (Rhodes, 2002), however, it also may be important that mentor training for college students include a focus on how to remain empathic toward their mentee during these challenges. In addition, given that recent research findings suggest mentor autonomy is negatively associated with mentee satisfaction (Leyton-Armakan, Lawrence, Deutsch, Williams, & Henneberger, 2012), it is important that mentor training for college students focus on the value of collaborative decision-making between mentee and mentor. The second study, Mindfulness and Mentoring Satisfaction of College Women Mentoring Youth: Implications for Training, builds on these training implications. It examines whether the addition of mindfulness training is an effective way of tailoring mentor training for college students. Given the unique issues that college student mentors face, additional training aimed at stress management may be particularly beneficial for this population. Stress reduction strategies such as mindful awareness practices (MAPs) may help college student mentors feel better able to handle relational challenges and be more likely to remain in the mentoring relationship. Training in MAPs is associated with enhanced relationship satisfaction among couples (Barnes, Brown, Krusemark, Campbell, & Rogge, 2007; Carson, Carson, Gil, & Baucom, 2006; Jones, Welton, Oliver, & Thorbum, 2011) and in parent-child relationships (Coatsworth et al., 2015). MAPs have also been linked to lower stress among college students (Oman, Shapiro, Thoresen, Plante, & Flinders, 2008). Despite these positive outcomes for relationships and college students, no study to date has examined the potential benefits of mindfulness for college student mentors. The second study sought to address this gap in the literature by examining the following research questions: (a) is the addition of a mindfulness component to college student mentor training associated with mentors’ mentoring satisfaction; (b) does this help them enhance their ability to be empathic in challenging situations; and (c) does this help them shift their inclination for autonomous decision-making and prescriptive mentoring toward a more collaborative, youth-centered approach. The second study is quasi-experimental and analyzes survey data from mentors from the 2014 academic year (n

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.