The Role of Multicultural Competence, Privilege, Attributions, and Team Support in Predicting Positive Youth Mentor Outcomes

In the current study we use Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory to guide an inquiry into how the social environment surrounding mentors’ matters in regards to mentor outcomes of satisfaction, retention, and extra-role pro-social behavior (i.e., mentors willingness to go above and beyond for their mentee or the mentoring program). Mentors are sampled from mentoring organizations across the United States. Drawing from Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory (1979), we examine mentors embedded in distinct microand macrosystems. At the microsystem level we explore how the relationship between the mentor and the (a) mentee, (b) mentees’ family, and (c) the mentoring team may predict mentoring outcomes. At the level of the macrosystem we test how mentor’s structural understandings of White privilege and outgroup disadvantage predict mentor outcomes. We also examine how blaming the mentee for shortcomings rather than contextual factors may help explain the connection between micro and macrosystem factors and mentoring outcomes. Taken together, this study provides a unique and novel approach to understanding how mentor and ecological characteristics may contribute to positive mentoring outcomes. PREDICTING POSITIVE MENTOR OUTCOMES 2 The Role of Multicultural Competence, Privilege, Attributions, and Social Support in Predicting Positive Youth Mentor Outcomes Adult-youth mentoring is one way that adult volunteers may promote positive youth development. Mentoring may be a rewarding experience for adults, but research also documents the positive impact of mentoring for youth. Positive outcomes for youth mentees have been demonstrated in areas such as (a) academic performance and persistence (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011; DuBois & Rhodes, 2006; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002), (b) educational attainment and employment (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; DuBois et al. 2011), and (c) promoting resiliency (DuBois et al., 2002; Hamilton & Hamilton, 1992; Rhodes, 1994; Werner 1995). In an effort to understand how to promote positive mentoring relationships, the majority of research to date focuses on mentor-mentee relationships (e.g., DuBois et al., 2002; Hamilton & Hamilton, 1992; Jacobi, 1991), demographic characteristics of the mentee and mentor (e.g., DuBois et al., 2002; Emmerik, Baugh, & Euwema, 2005; Ragins, 2009), match based on demographics (e.g., Campbell & Campbell, 2007; Koberg et al., 1998; Noe, 1988; Santos & Reigadas, 2002), and characteristics of the mentoring programs (e.g., DuBois et al., 2011; DuBois et al., 2002; DuBois & Rhodes, 2006). However, it may be as important to consider the other relationships, social forces, and contextual factors that may affect the mentoring relationship. Little research has focused on the larger social context in which the mentoring relationship is embedded (Spencer, Basualdo-Delmonico, & Lewis, 2011). Indeed, understanding intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual PREDICTING POSITIVE MENTOR OUTCOMES 3 factors in concert holds promise to inform mentoring programs and relationships to maximize the possible benefits to both the mentor and most importantly the mentee. In the current study we move beyond a singular focus on the menteementor relationship to consider the larger social ecology surrounding mentors. We investigate how factors at multiple levels may be associated with positive mentoring outcomes for the mentor. General Theoretical Framework The current study draws from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological framework to better understand how layers of social influence may be important in shaping mentors’ experiences. According to this framework, individual development is understood by how individuals interact with others within their immediate setting, as well as through the influence of other larger settings, systems, and contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Bronfenbrenner (1979) defines four systems, the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. As shown in Figure 1, each system is nested within the subsequent system (e.g., the mircosystem is nested within the mesosystem). Individuals are nested at the center within this set of larger structures, all of which define the individual’s ecological environment. This unique system allows for the individual to exert influence on their immediate environment (i.e., their microsystem), while at the same time in a dynamic interplay, their microsystem exerts influence back on the individual. All of the structures in this model participate in this same type of bidirectional dynamic interplay with one another, in which each exerts influence upon the other, ultimately influencing the individual located in the center of the PREDICTING POSITIVE MENTOR OUTCOMES 4 structures (e.g., the microsystem exerts influence on the mesosystem, and the mesosystem simultaneously exerts influence on the microsystem; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The microsystem is comprised of the person in the center and the relationships they form with others in their setting through direct contact (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In this study the mentor is in the center, and their microsystem is formed by their relationship with the (a) mentee, (b) mentee’s family, and (c) mentoring team. Due to the direct nature of the contact, Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed that the bi-directional nature of influence is the strongest in the Microsystem since the person is directly interacting with those in their environment. The mesosystem is the next layer out that provides connections between the structures of the individual’s microsytem, where this layer is comprised of the interactions between Microsystem relationships (e.g., for the mentor, the relationship between the mentoring organization’s program staff and the mentee; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The exosystem is comprised of larger social structures that the individual may influence and be influenced by, even though they do not participate in these structures directly (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For example, the mentor may be influenced by changes occurring at their mentee’s school, or when one of their co-mentors divorces their spouse, even though they may not interact directly with the school or their co-mentor’s spouse. The outermost layer, the macrosystem, is made up of more intangible influences such as customs, values, norms, and laws (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In this study we will examine mentor’s understanding of macrosystem influences such as PREDICTING POSITIVE MENTOR OUTCOMES 5 White privilege or structural understandings of outgroup disadvantage instead of directly assessing macrosystem variables. In the current study we use Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) framework to examine mentors as nested within a social environment that may be important in the positive mentor outcomes of satisfaction, retention, and extra-role pro-social behavior. The mentoring literature has begun to draw upon ecological theory, as well as family systems, social network, and systems theory to better understand the way in which the mentoring dyad may be impacted by other relationships within its nested system (Keller, 2005; Keller & Blakeslee, 2013). For example, in the mentoring literature, mentoring program effects have been found to be mediated by the mentee’s relationships with other individuals (e.g., parents, program staff), supporting the idea the mentors may indirectly affect positive outcomes through other relationships in the mentee’s system (Keller, 2005; Rhodes, Grossman, & Resch, 2000). In the present study we consider the mentor to be embedded in three microsystems consisting of relationships between the mentor and (a) mentee, (b) mentee’s family, and (c) mentor’s team. In later sections we assert that characteristics of each of these relationships (e.g., mentors perceived multicultural competence in relating to the mentee, positive relationship with mentee’s family, and social support from a team) may be important in predicting mentor outcomes. The collection of these three microsystems defines the larger mesosytem that the mentor is embedded within. Although we do not assess interactions between the microsystems directly (the mesosystem), it is very likely that mentors, mentees, family, and teams all interact over the course of PREDICTING POSITIVE MENTOR OUTCOMES 6 time. We also do not assess dimensions of the exosystem for this study. Finally, mentors are embedded in a larger macrosystem in the U.S. that contains many cultural messages about the meaning of race, privilege, and disparity (Pinteritis, Poteat, Spanierman, 2011; Thompson & Neville, 1999). Although we do not assess societal attitudes, we assert that mentors have certain understandings about their macrosystem that are important in predicting their mentoring outcomes. Thus, in this study we examine awareness of White privilege and awareness of structural outgroup disadvantage as well as emotional reactions to racism including White guilt and White empathy to predict mentoring outcomes. See Figure 1 for a description of how the mentor is nested within this larger social environment and a summary of how study variables are conceptualized at each level. With this theoretical framework in place, we now develop the rationale for, (a) the importance of mentoring and focusing on mentors, (b) examining dimensions of mentee, family, and team relationships at the level of the microsystem, and (c) examining attitudes toward privilege, and awareness of outgroup structural disadvantage at the macrosystem level.