Understanding Process in a Group-Based Mentoring Program

Introduction: Mentoring programs have great potential to promote well-being for both mentors and mentees (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011). The majority of research has focused on one-on-one mentoring, but growing attention is being given to group mentoring, due to its more efficient use of resources and potential to provide additional support (Kuperminc & Thomason, 2013). Yet a better understanding is needed of the complex social dynamics that develop within these groups.  In order to enhance our understanding of group mentoring as a promising intervention, it is essential to assess individual experiences and group processes in a way that captures these complex dynamics.

Method: This pilot study uses longitudinal social network data from a group mentoring program for middle school girls and college women to explore how features of group process relate to psychosocial benefits for both mentors and mentees.  Administered immediately following each of 14 weekly sessions, social network surveys asked participants (N = 119) to rate how connected they felt to each groupmate during that session, and how much they felt each groupmate made an effort to reach out to them.  Ratings made (i.e., outdegree centrality) and received (i.e., indegree centrality) in response to each network item were used to quantify participants’ connectedness in the group. Pre- to post-test improvement in outcomes targeted by the program were assessed via surveys completed at the beginning and end of the mentoring program, including measures of: self-perceptions of competence (Johnston & Finney, 2010) and empathy (Davis, 1983).

Results: Cleaning of mentee data is still in progress; thus, findings presented here are preliminary and focus on mentor outcomes. Preliminary correlations between mentors’ mean centrality across sessions and their program outcomes suggest meaningful implications of these indices of connectedness. Pre- to post-test gains in self-perceived competence were significantly greater among mentors who were more connected within their groups (r = .31, p < .01), and those who were more often rated by their group-mates as someone who made an effort to reach out (r = .32, p < .01) (i.e., those with greater indegree centrality).  In addition, mentors were more likely to report gains in empathy if they reported feeling connected to a larger number of their group-mates (r = .32, p < .05), and reported a larger more group-mates making an effort to reach out to them (r = .35, p < .01) (i.e., those with greater outdegree centrality).

Conclusion: Overall, findings further support the value of a group mentoring format for promoting well-being and reducing disparities, and highlight the importance of considering group social dynamics within these settings.