Cited by 42Mentoring and Academic DevelopmentYouth Development and Social SupportCounseling Practices and Supervision

Understanding mutuality: Unpacking relational processes in youth mentoring relationships

Lester, Ashlee M., Goodloe, Courtney L., Johnson, Haley E., Deutsch, Nancy L.·2019·Journal of Community Psychology

Abstract

Evidence suggests that a close interpersonal bond is important for the success of youth–adult mentoring relationships. Mutuality has been suggested to be important for developing a close interpersonal bond (Rhodes, 2002, 2005), but mutuality remains an abstract construct, difficult to understand and cultivate. Using thematic analysis of mentor and mentee ( n = 42) interviews, we investigate how mentoring pairs reflect on mutuality. Results suggest that mutuality is understood as a combination of 2 dimensions: shared relational excitement and experiential empathy. Shared relational excitement is felt when there is a genuine desire by both the mentor and the mentee to invest in the relationship. Experiential empathy is the process through which mentors connect with, advise, and normalize the experiences of their mentees by sharing their own relevant experiences. This work has implications for mentor training, program development, and future research on youth–adult relationships.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jcop.22106

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies, both empirical and those representing the voice of the child, continually indicate the importance of positive and supportive worker-child relationships.

    “Studies, both empirical and those representing the voice of the child, continually indicate the importance of positive and supportive worker-child relationships (Harder, Knorth, & Kalverboer, 2013;Izzo et al., 2014;Lester, Goodloe, Johnson, & Deutsch, 2018;Moore, Moretti, & Holland, 1997).”

    From AN EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAM MODEL FOR FACILITATING THERAPEUTIC RESPONSES TO PAIN-BASED BEHAVIOR IN RESIDENTIAL CARE (2019) · cites this paper as Lester, Goodloe, Johnson, & Deutsch, 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lester, A. M., Goodloe, C. L., Johnson, H. E., & Deutsch, N. L.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Lester, Ashlee M.
Venue
Journal of Community Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-07-05
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
147-162
ISSN
  • 0090-4392 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6629
OpenAlex
W2868251804
Cited by
42
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4
FWCI
4.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Community Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2013‐JU‐FX‐0009)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Youth Development and Social Support
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
Keywords
mutuality, mentoring relationships, interpersonal relationships, mentor training, relationship investment
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Adolescent, Adult, Empathy, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Interviews as Topic, Mentors, Personal Satisfaction, Program Development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review