CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44Mentoring and Academic DevelopmentAttachment and Relationship DynamicsYouth Development and Social Support

Perceived similarity, expectation-reality discrepancies, and mentors’ expressed intention to remain in Big Brothers/Big Sisters programs

Madia, Benjamin P., Lutz, Catherine J.·2004·Journal of Applied Social Psychology
DOI 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02562.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Studies have begun to document the academic and psychosocial benefits of Big Brothers/ Big Sisters programs for at‐risk youth (Rhodes, Grossman, & Resch, 2000). However, investigators have noted a problem with mentor attrition (Meissen & Lounsbury, 1981). The purpose of the current study was twofold. First, we explored the relative importance of specific dimensions of perceived similarity (including similarity in attitudes, interests, race, and personality) as well as mentors' expectation‐reality discrepancies in predicting mentors' expressed intention to remain in Big Brothers/Big Sisters programs. Second, we examined a model whereby interpersonal attraction and relationship quality served as mediators of these associations. Our results suggest that perceived similarity in extraver‐sion as well as the discrepancy between mentors' ideal versus actual roles were significant predictors of mentors' expressed intention to remain in the relationship. Relationship quality and interpersonal attraction appeared to mediate these findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02562.x

Cites

77 of 77 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?

  • The perceived similarity between BBBS mentors' ideal versus actual roles were significant predictors of mentors' expressed intentions to preserve the relationship, whereas mentors' feelings of frustration and ineffectiveness compared with their initial expectations were shown to account for early termination.

    “The perceived similarity between BBBS mentors’ ideal versus actual roles were significant predictors of mentors’ expressed intentions to preserve the relationship [144], whereas mentors’ feelings of frustration and ineffectiveness compared with their initial expectations were shown to account for early termination, as reported in qualitative studies [116,117,120].”

    From Unpacking Community-Based Youth Mentoring Relationships: An Integrative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [144]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Madia, B. P., & Lutz, C. J.
Affiliations
University of Dayton (US)
Corresponding author
Lutz, Catherine J.
Venue
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-03
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
598-623
ISSN
  • 0021-9029 (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-1816
DOI
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02562.x
OpenAlex
W1966288919
Cited by
44
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 882 d)
Locations
Journal of Applied Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Youth Development and Social Support
Keywords
Big Brothers Big Sisters, mentoring, intention to stay, perceived similarity, interpersonal attraction, relationship quality, at-risk youth, personality similarity, extraversion, mentor role

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