Balancing Skills and Challenges: Exploring the Concept of Relational Engagement in Combined Group and One-On-One Mentoring for Adolescent Girls

Abstract

This study explored engagement in interpersonal relationships within the context of combined group and one-on-one mentoring. Using flow theory, we propose that “relational flow” requires an optimal balance between an individual's relational skills and the challenges inherent in relationship development. The Young Women Leaders Program (YWLP) is a relationally based after-school program for early adolescent girls that combines structured group time with one-on-one mentoring. Researchers explored relational engagement through interviews with seventh-grade participants and group observations. Results indicated that four relational processes occurred that made girls feel more comfortable: (1) giving advice and helping, (2) asking questions/reaching out, (3) sharing and opening up, and (4) spending time with/being there for them. These processes helped the adolescent girls feel closer to and more comfortable with both mentors and peers by reducing feelings of anxiety or self-consciousness, thus freeing them to experience relational flow. The group also provided a safe context for girls to stretch their relational skills and appeared to mitigate the relational challenges associated with a new one-on-one mentoring relationship. This study presents a conceptual model of relational engagement and suggests that this may be a critical component for girls in out-of-school programming.

A group of girls and their mentors are sitting in a circle talking about “boy problems.” One girl, Ann, shares that she and her friend like the same boy and she is not sure what to do. A mentor suggests that both girls could find another guy. “It's not worth the friendship,” she says. Ann chimes in with “Unless he's really cute!” Another girl, Shantel, agrees with Ann. “Sometimes it is [worth the friendship].” The mentors laugh, saying, “Not in seventh grade! It is not worth losing your friendship over a boy.” But Ann seems stuck on the boy. When asked for a suggestion of something positive her peer could do, Ann says, “Have the guy choose.” A mentor asks what would be the pros of that idea. Shantel answers, “If he picks you, you feel good about yourself.” The mentor nods and adds, “So I guess the con is if he doesn't pick you, you don't feel good.” Ann and Shantel are in agreement that both would leave their friend for the guy. A third girl shakes her head, disagreeing with her peers, saying it's not worth the friendship.

References

Bogat

G. A.

, & Liang

(2005). Gender in mentoring relationships. In DuBois

D. L.

& Karcher

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 205–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brown

L. M.

, & Gilligan

(1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women's psychology and girls’ development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Charmaz

(2004). Grounded theory. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

& Leavy

(Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 496–521). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Connell

J. P.

, & Wellborn

J. G.

(1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-esteem. In Gunnar

M. R.

& Sroufe

L. A.

(Eds.), Self processes and development. The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crick

N. R.

, & Bigbee

M. A.

(1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337–347.

Crick

N. R.

, & Grotpeter

J. K.

(1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Deutsch

N. L.

, Williams

J. L.

, Henneberger

, Reitz-Krueger

, Futch

, & Lawrence

E. C.

(2012, March). Young women leaders: Outcomes of a group and one-on-one mentoring intervention for girls. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

DuBois

D. L.

, Neville

H. A.

, Parra

G. R.

, & Pugh-Lilly

A. O.

(2002). Testing a new model of mentoring. New Directions in Youth Development, 93, 21–57.

10.

DuBois

D. L.

, Portillo

, Rhodes

J. E.

, Silverthorn

, & Valentine

J. C.

(2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 57–91.

11.

Erickson

(1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York, NY: Macmillan.

12.

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.

13.

Grossman

J. B.

, & Tierney

J. P.

(1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Evaluation Review, 22, 403–426.

14.

Hamre

B. K.

, & Pianta

R. C.

(2003). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638.

15.

Herrera

, Vang

, & Gale

L. Y.

(2002). Group mentoring: A study of mentoring groups in three programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

16.

Hirsch

(2005). A place to call home: Community based after-school programs for urban youth. Washington, DC/New York, NY: American Psychological Association/Teachers College Press.

17.

Jones

J. J.

, & Deutsch

N. L.

(2010). Relational strategies in after-school settings: How staff-youth relationships support youth development. Youth & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0044118X10386077

18.

Jordan

J. V.

, Kaplan

A. G.

, Miller

J. B.

, Stiver

I. P.

, & Surrey

J. L.

(1991). Women's growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

19.

Larson

R. W.

(2000). Towards a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55, 170–183.

20.

Lawrence

, Sovik-Johnston

, Roberts

, & Thorndike

(2009). The Young Women Leaders Program mentor handbook. University of Virginia.

21.

Levy

, Deutsch

, Henneberger

& Lawrence

(2011). The Young Women Leaders Program final report. University of Virginia. U.S. Department of Education Grant Q184B070479.

22.

Markowitz

E. S.

(2010). Exploring connectedness and self-esteem in a girls sports-based youth development program: How the ingredients fit together (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Virginia.

23.

MENTOR. (2006). Spanning the gender gap in mentoring Retrieved from http://www.mentoring.org

24.

Miller

J. B.

(1976). Towards a new psychology of women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

25.

Moretti

M. M.

, Catchpole

R. E. H.

, & Odgers

(2005). The dark side of girlhood: Recent trends, risk factors and trajectories to aggression and violence. Canadian Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Review, 14, 21–25.

26.

Multisite Violence Prevention Project. (2009). The ecological effects of universal and selective violence prevention programs for middle school students: A randomized trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 526–542.

27.

Nakamura

, & Csikszentmihalyi

(2002). The concept of flow. In Snyder

C. R.

& Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

28.

Nichols

M. P.

(1996). The lost art of listening. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

29.

Noam

G. G.

, & Fiore

(2004). Relationships across multiple settings: An overview. New Directions For Youth Development, 103, 9–16.

30.

Pianta

R. C.

(1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

31.

Pryce

(2012). Mentor attunement: An approach to successful school-based mentoring relationships. Child & Adolescent Social Work. doi:10.1007/s10560-012-0260-6

32.

Rhodes

J. E.

(2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today's youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

33.

Rhodes

J. E.

(2004). The critical ingredient: Caring youth-staff relationships in after-school settings. New Directions for Youth Development, 2004(101), 145–161.

34.

Rhodes

J. E.

, & DuBois

D. L.

(2006). Understanding and facilitating the youth mentoring movement. Social Policy Report: Giving Child and Youth Development Knowledge Away, 20, 1–19.

35.

Rhodes

, Lowe

S. R.

, Litchfield

, & Walsh-Samp

(2008). The role of gender in youth mentoring relationship formation and duration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 183–192.

36.

Rose

S. R.

(1998). Group work with children and adolescents: Prevention and intervention in school and community systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Ryan

R. M.

, & Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

38.

Shernoff

D. J.

(2010). Engagement in after-school programs as predictors of social competence and academic performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 325–337.

39.

Shernoff

D. J.

, & Vandell

D. L.

(2007). Engagement in after-school program activities: Quality of experience from the perspective of participants. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 891–903.

40.

Underwood

M. K.

(2003). Social aggression among girls. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

41.

Vandell

D. L.

, Shernoff

D. J.

, Pierce

K. M.

, Bolt

D. M.

, Dadisman

, & Brown

B. B.

(2005). Activities, engagement and emotion in after school programs (and elsewhere). New Directions for Youth Development, 105, 121–129.