Poster #224 - Predicting Mentor Retention: A Model of Mentors as Both Volunteers and Participants in Interpersonal Relationships

• In Event: 1-115 - Poster Session 03
  In Poster Session: PS 03 Section - Social Relationships

Integrative Statement

The positive impacts of youth mentoring depend on programs’ ability to retain volunteer mentors in long-term relationships with young people. Attempts to explain mentor retention tend to focus on the mentor as either a volunteer for an organization (Stukas, Clary & Snyder, 2014; Stukas & Tanti, 2005) or a participant in an interpersonal relationship (Gettings & Wilson, 2014). However, these are both salient aspects of the mentor’s experience and likely to contribute to whether a mentor continues or terminates a relationship. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop and empirically test a conceptual model of mentor retention integrating the concept of role identity from the volunteerism literature (e.g., Callero, 1985; Grube & Piliavin, 2000; Penner, 2002; Penner & Finkelstein, 1998) and factors from the investment model of interpersonal relationship commitment (Rusbult, 1980) to jointly predict mentor retention.

Participants were 51 college students (84% female, 69% White) serving as first-time mentors in one-on-one relationships in 5 mentoring programs. Surveys were administered approximately 8 months into mentors’ relationships with the youth to measure mentors’ sense of role identity, relationship satisfaction, investment, perceived available alternatives to the relationship and commitment. Program staff reported mentor retention at 17 months. Path analyses were conducted to explore 4 hypotheses: (1) mentor retention will be predicted by role identity as well as the mentor’s commitment to the mentoring relationship; (2) role identity and commitment will be positively correlated; (3) in accordance with the investment model (Gettings & Wilson, 2014; Rusbult, 1980), commitment to the relationship will be predicted by relationship satisfaction, available alternatives (negatively) and mentor investment; and (4) the predictors of commitment- relationship satisfaction, available alternatives and mentor investment- will also predict role identity.

Results showed support for the conceptual model to predict mentor retention at 17 months as indicated by a non-significant χ2 (χ2(3)= 2.93, p= 0.40) and acceptable values of the other fit indices (CFI= 1.00, TLI= 1.01, RMSEA< 0.01; see Figure 1). The mentor’s relationship commitment at 8 months positively predicted mentor retention at 17 months. However, role identity did not directly predict mentor retention. Role identity was positively related to mentor commitment. Contrary to the relationships predicted by the investment model, satisfaction with the relationship significantly predicted mentor commitment, but available alternatives and investment did not. Role identity was significantly predicted by all three investment model variables: satisfaction, available alternatives (negatively) and investment.

This study highlights the benefits of considering multiple when considering mentor retention to reflect the nuances of youth mentoring as both a form of volunteering and an opportunity to build a one-on-one, interpersonal relationship. In line with previous research (Gettings & Wilson, 2014), the current results demonstrate that the investment model is useful in predicting mentor retention, which suggests that mentoring programs might monitor mentor satisfaction, available alternatives, investment and commitment throughout the relationship to identify mentors at risk for terminating their relationship. Future research should further explore the contributions of role identity to mentor retention as well as other factors noted in the volunteerism literature.

Author

• Alison Drew, Boston University
  Presenting Author