Children and Youth Services Review 114 (2020) 105043

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Deconstructing empathy: A qualitative examination of mentor perspective- T

taking and adaptability in youth mentoring relationships
⁎
Renée Spencera, , Julia Pryceb, Johanna Barryb, Jill Walsha, Antoinette Basualdo-Delmonicoa
a
Boston University, United States
b
Loyola University Chicago, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Empathy has been identified as a central component of effective youth mentoring relationships yet little is
Empathy known about what empathy within mentoring relationships looks like and the specific aspects of empathy that
Youth mentoring may be at work in this context. Longitudinal qualitative interview data with 50 mentor participants in a larger
Qualitative research study of mentoring relationship development were used to examine mentors’ expressions of different dimensions
of empathy within their narratives about the nature and quality of their mentoring relationships. Two main
dimensions of empathy were identified: (a) perspective-taking, which was marked by mentors’ descriptions of
their efforts to relate to the youth’s experiences and to understanding things from the youth’s point of view and
(b) adaptability, which was conveyed through the mentors’ descriptions of their openness to the wants, needs,
and experiences of the youth and to their flexibility in the relationship and responsiveness to the youth. Mentors
who described being able to engage empathically with their mentees also conveyed greater satisfaction with the
experience of mentoring.

1. Introduction
Formal mentoring programs strive to provide young people with an
ongoing relationship with a supportive non-parental adult. Such re-
lationships have been found to promote more positive social, emo-
tional, behavioral, and academic functioning for youth (DuBois,
Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011; Raposa et al., 2019).
However, the quality of these relationships matter, as youth in higher
quality relationships are more likely to reap these benefits (Goldner &
Mayseless, 2009; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Parra, DuBois, Neville,
Pugh-Lilly, & Povinelli, 2002). Rhodes’s (2002) conceptual model of the
mentoring process identifies empathy as a central component of effec-
tive youth mentoring relationships. Empathy is thought to facilitate the
development of a meaningful relationship through which an array of
positive youth outcomes may be promoted (i.e., social-emotional,
cognitive and identity development) (Rhodes, 2002). Empirical studies
examining the processes at work in mentoring have also identified
empathy on the part of the mentor as a distinguishing characteristic of
higher quality relationships (Ahrens et al., 2011; Munson, Smalling,
Spencer, Scott, & Tracy, 2010; Spencer, 2006; Doty, Weiler, Mehus, &
McMorris, 2019; Lester, Goodloe, Johnson, & Deutsch, 2019). However,
empathy is a complex, multi-dimensional construct, and we know little
about what empathy within mentoring relationships looks like, the
specific aspects of empathy that may be at work in this context, and
how these may contribute to mentoring relationship quality and long-
evity.
Empathy has been identified as a key agent in the promotion of
effective working relationships in a number of different professions,
including psychotherapy (Bohart & Greenberg, 1997), medicine (Sulzer,
Feinstein, & Wendland, 2016), criminal justice (Wesely, Dzoba, Miller,
& Rasche, 2017), and occupational therapy (Abreu, 2011). Although
the precise definitions of empathy vary within and across these fields,
they are all rooted in the common notion of “walking a mile in an-
other’s shoes,” or actively working to understand someone else’s ex-
periences from their point of view. Some definitions emphasize the
cognitive aspects of these processes and focus on perspective taking,
whereas others focus more on the affective dimensions, or the attempts
to key in to the other person’s emotions, sometimes called empathic
concern (Cuff, Brown, Taylor, & Howat, 2016). However, most con-
temporary understandings of empathy incorporate both cognitive and
affective dimensions and recognize their interconnectedness (Cuff et al.,
2016; Davis, 2006; Knafo, Zahn-Waxler, Van Hulle, Robinson, & Rhee,
2008).
Progress is also being made toward explicating what is involved in
enacting the different dimensions of empathy. There is now strong
evidence that the act of perspective-taking involves connecting the

⁎
Corresponding author at: Boston University, School of Social Work, 264 Bay State Rd., Boston, MA 02215, United States.
E-mail address: rspenc@bu.edu (R. Spencer).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105043
Received 6 January 2020; Received in revised form 24 April 2020; Accepted 26 April 2020
Available online 30 April 2020
0190-7409/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Spencer, et al.
other person’s experiences to one’s own in some way (Davis, 2004).
When working to imagine another’s point of view, there is a tendency to
tap into what one’s own thoughts and feelings in that circumstance
might be, perhaps drawing from “reference points” (Hatcher et al.,
2005) or reflections on what may seem like similar past experiences. It
is thought that this activation of self-knowledge contributes to the
feelings of connection with the other person that empathy can foster
(Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005). Indeed, in the social psychological lit-
erature, perspective-taking has been found to lead to a “merging of the
self and the other,” such that the perspective-taker sees themselves as
more similar to the other person (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000, p. 709).
Some have even argued that these processes are rooted in our funda-
mental human need for belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) in that
perspective-taking strengthens social bonds (Galinsky et al., 2005).
Importantly, relating one’s own experiences to those of another in-
creases the perceptions of overlap in experiences, and can lead to re-
ductions in the activation of stereotypes and prejudices towards the
other person (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Vescio, Sechrist, &
Paolucci, 2003).
The more affective aspect of empathy, sometimes called empathic
concern (Davis, 2004) or empathic resonance (Watson & Greenberg,
2011), refers to the emotional reaction to the other person’s experience.
This can take the form of either sharing the other person’s emotional
state or experiencing some emotion in response to it, such as warmth,
compassion and concern for others (Davis, 1983; Davis, 2006). This
ability to “feel for and act on behalf of other people whose experiences
may differ greatly” has been cited as uniquely human ability (Decety &
Lamm, 2006, p. 1147). Affective empathy has been explored in men-
toring relationships in terms of “experiential empathy” (Lester et al.,
2019), described as “the process through which mentors connect with,
advise, and normalize the experiences of their mentees by sharing their
own relevant experiences” (p. 147). This process aids in developing a
mutual bond important for high quality mentor dyads (Lester et al.,
2019).
Both perspective-taking and empathic concern rest on the ability to
step outside of one’s own experiences in order to be open to those of the
other person (Dekeyser, Elliott, & Leijssen, 2011). Sometimes referred
to as “decentering” (Watson & Greenberg, 2011), these processes re-
quire a kind of suspension of judgment and setting aside of one’s own
values, beliefs and worldviews that Rogers (1975) wrote about in his
early work on empathy and positive regard in psychotherapy. Further,
many conceptualizations of empathy also tend to account for actions
taken in response to making connections with the other person’s ex-
perience, such as communicating a sense of understanding to the other
person (Jordan, 1997; Rogers, 1975), or engaging in prosocial helping
behaviors. In the mentoring literature, work by Pryce (2012) and col-
leagues (i.e., Pryce, Gilkerson, & Barry, 2018; Pryce & Deane, 2019;
Pryce & Deane, 2020) has explored this process of attuning to oneself in
order to attune to another, as exhibited in adult-youth partnerships and
through support of mentoring staff to matches. Work on the measure-
ment of attunement has considered how empathy may play a role, and
is currently in development. Preliminary insights indicate that the
concepts of attunement and empathy overlap in important ways in that
measures of both are associated with mentor reports of the quality of
the relationship bond and mentees' willingness to confide in mentors
(Pryce & Deane, 2020). However, neither concept seem to have an
impact on mentees' experience of enjoying time together. This suggests
that both attunement and empathy are important in building a strong
bond that involves comfort in personal disclosure (Pryce & Deane,
2020). Conceptually, attunement is conceived of as a process of reading
cues that translates to a direct, attuned response. Empathy, in contrast,
suggests a broader sense that one person “gets” the other, or can relate
to them.
It is thought that experiences of empathy in relationships, by un-
derstanding and being understood by the other, draw us closer, give us
the sense that we matter, and contribute to a sense of relational
2
Children and Youth Services Review 114 (2020) 105043
competence, or feeling effective in building relationships (Jordan,
2010, 1999). Empathy also may play an important role in the provision
of social support, one of the processes through which mentoring is
thought to contribute to positive youth outcomes (Brady, Dolan, &
Canavan, 2017; Spencer, Drew, Gowdy, & Horn, 2018; Sterrett, Jones,
McKee, & Kincaid, 2011), as perspective–taking has been found to be
positively associated with the provision of emotional support in close
relationships (Devoldre, Davis, Verhofstadt, & Buysse, 2010).
The present study sought to examine mentors’ expressions of em-
pathy in an effort to understand the processes that underpin empathy
and how these influence the development of youth mentoring re-
lationships. We focus here just on the empathic actor, and examine how
mentors perceive and understand their experiences of the mentoring
relationship. We explore their attempts to connect with their mentees in
order to begin to develop an understanding of how empathy is enacted
in youth mentoring relationships.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Participants.
Data for the current project were drawn from a larger longitudinal
study of youth mentoring relationship development, for which 67 pairs
of mentors and youth were recruited and participated in in-depth in-
dividual qualitative interviews at multiple time-points from the time
the match was made until up to 2 years later or the end of the match,
whichever came first (Spencer, Basualdo-Delmonico, Walsh, & Drew,
2017; Spencer, Drew, Walsh, & Kanchewa, 2018). Participants in the
larger study were recruited through two Big Brothers Big Sisters af-
filiated agencies in the Northeastern United States. These programs
match volunteer mentors with youth in one-to-one relationships. Par-
ticipating matches were in the community-based program, with the
mentor and youth arranging their own visits and activities and making
an initial commitment to meet for a minimum of 1 year. All participants
were recruited at the beginning of their match. In keeping with pro-
gram policies, all mentoring pairs were same-gender. One program
served only females and the other males and females, but only male
pairs were recruited from the latter for this study because a small
number of females were being served by this program at that time.
Included in this analysis were interviews collected from a total of 50
mentors (27 female) for whom complete data was available from at
least three time-points: (1) when the match was made, (2) 3-months
into the relationship, and (3) 6-months or when the math ended,
whichever had come first. This allowed us to draw from interviews at
multiple timepoints and ensured that we had three interviews for each
mentor, while still including matches that ended relatively early
(within the first 6 months). Mentors in this group were 20 to 55 years of
age (M = 27.7, SD = 7.16), with 76% identifying as White, 3% as
Black, 1% Hispanic/Latinx, 2% Asian/Pacific Islander and 5% multi-
racial or other backgrounds. One mentor did not provide a response. Of
the 50 mentoring relationships represented, 22% lasted 6–11 months,
another 20% ended at or just before the 1-year follow-up, 30% ended
between 12 and 23 months, and 28% lasted 24 months or longer. In the
full study sample (n = 67), 36% lasted 1–11 months, 8% ended at or
just before the 1-year follow-up, 28% ended between 12 and
23 months, and 28% lasted 24 months or longer.
2.2. Procedure
Longitudinal interview data obtained from volunteer mentors in
one-to-one community-based mentoring programs were utilized to ex-
amine different dimensions of empathy as described by mentors over
time. Participants completed an in-depth (Johnson, 2002), semi-struc-
tured (Seidman, 1991) interview at the beginning of the match and at
the follow-up time-points. If the match had ended by the time of the
follow-up interview, participants were asked to complete a final “match
R. Spencer, et al. Children and Youth Services Review 114 (2020) 105043

Table 1
Empathy codes, definitions, and examples.
Theme Sub-Codes Sub-Code Definitions Examples

Perspective- Relatability Mentor’s ability to relate to mentee’s experience, especially in the
Taking context of economic background, immigration status, racio-ethnic
background. May also be evident in enjoyment of shared activities.
Understanding Mentor actively working to connect with mentee and understand
mentee’s experiences, perspectives, frame of reference or worldview.
Adaptability Openness Mentor’s openness to mentee’s experiences from mentee’s point of
view
Flexibility Willingness and ability to change expectations, plans, views in
response to mentee’s needs and experiences; allowing space and time
for connection to develop at mentee’s pace
“I think it’s a good match for, for me because we have a lot of things
in common, like we both aren’t from America and we both, our
parents both weren’t born in America and, like, we both like the
same sports.”
“I think the biggest thing is ... adjusting to where she’s from and like
what she grew up in and .... the atmosphere she has versus what I
had when I was a teenager. Trying to see it through her [eyes].”
“I just have to acknowledge that the timing is different for every
child you know, every interaction.”
“I go with the flow. I cannot fight against it. I’ve learned not to with
the teenagers.”
“I’m not gonna force it.”

end” interview at that. Interviews were completed in-person or by tel-
ephone and participants received a $15 gift card for each completed
interview. All participants provided written consent to participate.
Interviewers used a semi-structured interview protocol addressing
the mentors’ experiences of the overall nature and quality of the men-
toring relationship. In the initial interviews, mentors were asked about
topics such as their reasons for volunteering and their expectations for
the relationship and for their role in the child’s life. The follow-up in-
terviews focused on topics such as the progression of the relationship,
frequency and nature of meetings and activities, and mentors’ sa-
tisfaction with the relationship. Interviews typically lasted around
40 min. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed with
transcriptions verified and de-identified before analysis. Our study
procedures were approved by the Boston University Institutional
Review Board (Protocol #1444E).
2.3. Data analysis
Included in this analysis were all of the cases in the sample from the
larger study for which there were mentor interviews from the three
initial data collection time-points (time of match, 3-months, and a third
interview at either 6-months or match end if the match had ended prior
to or at 6 months) (n = 50 mentors; 150 transcripts). Pseudonyms were
assigned to each case to protect participant identities and to aid in the
organization of case analysis. A primarily theoretical thematic analysis
(Braun & Clarke, 2006) was conducted, with the analysis informed by
conceptualizations of empathy in helping relationships as well as codes
derived from the data. One coder developed an initial codebook and
then the coder team engaged in theoretically informed initial coding of
the interviews with a sub-sample of six mentors, which was selected to
represent variation in relationship length (7–24 months). Instances
conveying both the presence and absence of empathy were coded. This
initial codebook was then further refined through the coding of inter-
views collected from six additional mentors, again in relationships of
varying lengths. Then all remaining interviews were coded. As more
cases were added to the analysis, the codebook continued to be refined
and previously coded interviews were re-coded. Eight coders conducted
this analysis but the interviews were coded by case such that a coder
read all three of the transcripts from a single mentor. One team member
(the fourth author) served as the master coder and reviewed all of the
coding to ensure consistency across cases. Coders also met monthly to
discuss the coding process, review and refine the codebook as needed
and to identify initial patterns in the data.
This resulted in the identification of three main dimensions of em-
pathy – openness, perspective taking, and adaptability, with each of
these broken down further into sub-categories. The openness code was
used to mark passages that indicated openness of the mentor to the
youth’s experiences and to the youth’s influence on the structure of the
relationship, taking the youth’s interests and needs into account.
Perspective-taking was conceptualized as the mentor’s efforts and
ability to step outside of their own perspective and attempt take the
youth’s point of view. Adaptability was defined as the mentor’s ability
to make changes in their approach, whether attitudinally or behavio-
rally, in response to their perceptions of the youth’s needs. For each of
these, passages that exemplified a lack of these dimensions, or negative
examples, were also coded. Once all data were coded, conceptually
clustered matrices (Miles & Huberman, 1994), or tables of the coded
excerpts from the transcripts, were constructed for each dimension of
empathy (openness, perspective taking and adaptability) and organized
by case. A separate matrix or table was constructed for each dimension
with each case in a row and the sub-codes in the columns.
Next, coding to explore elements within each dimension was un-
dertaken using the matrices. This process yielded 12 new codes that
were discussed with the larger research team and further refined.
Through analyzing the frequency of these codes as mapped onto the
original three themes, ultimately, the data were coded across three
themes. New codes were created, and then analyzed for frequency of
occurrence using NVivo software. The codes were again separated
based on prevalence in the themes of perspective taking, adaptability,
and openness.
We further explored empathy in action by analyzing mentors’ de-
scriptions of shared activities (i.e., dance, basketball, activities in
neighborhoods), and the ways in which mentors reported the matches
related to one another during these shared experiences. Through this
iterative analysis process, the codes within each dimension of empathy
were further refined. In the final round of analysis, the team collapsed
openness and adaptability as there was considerable overlap between
these dimensions. As a result, openness became a sub-code of adapt-
ability (see Table 1). All authors reviewed and agreed on these final two
dimensions and their corresponding codes. As a final step, the codes
were examined in relationship with one another to look at how the
dimensions of empathy worked together in mentors’ descriptions of
their experiences and interactions with their mentee.
3. Findings
Our examination of empathy at work in youth mentoring relation-
ships resulted in the identification of two main dimensions of empathy:
perspective-taking and adaptability (see Fig. 1). Perspective-taking was
marked by the mentors’ descriptions of their efforts to relate to the
youth’s experiences and to understanding things from the youth’s point
of view. As one mentor (Stephanie): “I think the biggest thing is…
adjusting to where she’s from and like what she grew up in and what
she’s … the atmosphere she has had versus what I had when I was a
teenager. Trying to see it through her [eyes].” Adaptability, on the
other hand, was conveyed through the mentors’ descriptions of their
openness to the wants, needs, and experiences of the youth and to their
ability to be flexible in the relationship and responsive to the youth.
This is exemplified in the reflections of another mentor, Sam, who
noted, “I might have some expectations but I can’t really say that it will

3
R. Spencer, et al.
Fig. 1. Dimensions of empathy.
happen like I want. So, I’m just waiting to see what’s going to happen
and kind of adapt to what I need to for [my mentee].”
Examination of the mentors’ descriptions of these dimensions in
their mentoring relationship revealed that while most mentors’ narra-
tives contained initial displays of perspective-taking and adaptability
(i.e., they planned or intended to see things from their mentee’s point of
view and respond to their individual needs), not all appeared able to
fully implement these intentions as the relationship progressed.
Mentors who were either more open-minded at the outset or more able
to let go of their initial expectations of the relationship and continually
work to understand their mentees’ experiences and expectations of the
relationship tended to be better able to adapt and respond to their
mentees’ needs, build stronger connections, and often expressed more
satisfaction with their relationships with their mentee.
Notable in the mentors’ narratives was also the role that consistency
played in these processes, as it created opportunities for ongoing ex-
changes that built a foundation of trust and deepening knowledge of the
other that developed over time. As Mariah said, “if I do not show up
consistently and if I do not follow through on my word, I cannot grow a
relationship to understand my mentee.” Others emphasized the im-
portance of being “a person of your word,” with one mentor, Chavise,
saying, “when I say I’m gonna do something and I do it, that’s how you
build trust over time.” Another noted how consistency can foster the
development of mutual understanding in the relationship, “The most
important is being consistent, and stay in contact with them. We need
to call them, and reassure them that, hey, we’re getting together, right?
We’re on board, we’re on the same page.” These mentors seemed to
understand that if they were going to get to know their mentee, they
needed to show up consistently. Cultivating this kind of relational
context seemed to create more opportunities for empathy to emerge and
even deepen over time.
3.1. Empathy in action: perspective taking and adaptability
Instances where mentors demonstrated empathy in their relation-
ship with their mentee were most evident in mentors’ descriptions of
the approach they were taking to the relationship and their accounts of
both everyday exchanges and more meaningful moments: “No matter
what, I just want to try to be a good listener” (Sarah). Such moments
revealed how mentors’ efforts at taking the perspective of their mentee
involved trying to understand things from the youth’s point of view,
and in some way relate it to their own experience: “We both come from
families not from the US, so some of the struggles she would talk
about…I get it” (Destinie).
Some mentors also described their efforts to be open to being im-
pacted by their growing knowledge of their mentee and to be re-
sponsive in ways took this knowledge and awareness into account. That
is, some mentors described being intentional in their efforts to under-
stand their mentee’s experiences from the mentee’s point of view and
4
Children and Youth Services Review 114 (2020) 105043
then actively using this knowledge in their efforts to be responsive in
ways intended to initially foster and then continue to build their re-
lationship with the mentee: “If I just be patient, I hope she’ll confide in
me…eventually. And that will strengthen the relationship.” (Janelle).
More specifically, some mentors described developing a sense of
their mentee’s emotional states and actively taking those into account.
According to Mary, “I just tried to notice how she was feeling.” Anton,
sensing that face-to-face conversations appeared to evoke some feelings
of anxiety for his mentee (i.e., perspective-taking) began to use email to
ease some of that anxiety for his mentee (i.e., adaptability). Anton also
described his efforts to actively nurture the connection with this mentee
while being mindful of pacing and making it playful at times: “I know
we’re still not fully comfortable so I’ll try not to push the issue and, and
say five things it’d take to open us both up and it can be a little hard
sometimes but it’s, it’s fun.” Alana described her efforts to manage the
pacing of her mentoring relationship by thinking about how things
could be experienced by her mentee (i.e., perspective-taking). Although
she was excited about the relationship with her mentee and wanted to
introduce the youth to her friends, she was mindful of how this might
take the focus off of her mentee in a way that could be unpleasant for
her (i.e., adaptability): “I’d like her to meet my friends, but it hasn’t
happened so far…I’m more hesitant…because I don’t want her to feel
left out.”
Some mentors described empathic exchanges with their mentee as
central to their understanding of their role with the mentee. As Mariah
said,
I just kinda want another friend for her, and not someone she thinks
might be judging her or might be telling her what she should or
shouldn’t do, like if she tells me she didn’t go to school today, I don’t
say anything …. I explain to her about me and how I like to go to
school and maybe that would influence her, but I don’t tell her it’s
right or wrong because I don’t want that to be my role…she prob-
ably has enough people telling her what’s right and wrong.
In Mariah’s’s description of “just being a friend” to her mentee, she
details her efforts to try to be open to and connect with what her
mentee’s experience of the relationship could be, and to be responsive
to this by drawing connections between their experiences (perspective-
taking), rather than offering advice or judgements.
Some expanded these efforts to also engage the youth’s family. One
mentor noted that she found value in spending time with the youth’s
mother and “kind of find[ing] out what’s going on in her world,” as this
contributed to her understanding of her mentee (i.e., perspective-
taking) by offering her insights into the larger relational context within
which she was situated. Another mentor endorsed this approach saying,
“I think that’s important too to get that understanding of, like, his en-
vironment … spend some time in that environment.” These efforts re-
flect mentors’ motivation to deepen their knowledge of the youth’s
world so that they could better understand the youth’s experiences from
the youth’s point of view.
Openness was critical for building perspective-taking and empathic
awareness of the youth’s needs and interests, and many mentors spoke
about actively working to show that they were willing to listen and be
amenable to what the youth wanted to do. Leora conveyed this when
comparing her current match to a previous one, noting her efforts to be
open to what her current mentee needs: “I just have to acknowledge
that the timing is different for every child, you know, every interac-
tion.” Others spoke about being open in the sense that they were
working to follow the youth’s lead. As James shared, “I mean, he’s a
great kid…he has all it takes, but I’m gonna just be there as a guide.”
Relating what they observed in their mentee to themselves and their
own experiences seemed to facilitate perspective-taking for some
mentors. One mentor who had been told that that his mentee was “kind
of shy” connected that to his own experience, stating that he “tend[s] to
be someone who’s [sic] might be a little slower to get to know
someone” and so “didn’t expect it to really go that quickly” with his
R. Spencer, et al.
mentee. This mentor then added, “it might take a little while, but that’s
fine.” Another mentor, Sean, said, “I can kind of see …. how his life is,
kind of reminds me, not really though, it doesn’t really remind me
exactly of mine but I can see some traits that remind me of how I was
brought up and that, that to me kind of makes me feel closer because I
can feel like I can relate a little bit but not completely.” Others also
described taking their mentee’s perspective by connecting with their
mentee’s experiences, even when there were differences between them.
As Cassandra said, “I think [backgrounds] were very similar, …we had
…. growing up, a little more money than they do. But …. I still had the
embarrassing like, didn’t have the best furniture and maybe there were
holes in the couch and we’d have friends over and you’d be embar-
rassed to bring them, you know. That sort of things, I think she probably
feels that way, too.”
Both perspective-taking and adaptability also seemed important for
avoiding the limitations, and at times dangers, of this approach, espe-
cially in cases when the mentor's experiences were quite different from
their mentee’s. As Jared shared, “I only know …. how I was brought up
and I handle things a certain way and … if I make an assumption that
everyone grew up the same as me … it could have us on two different
pages.” In these instances, some mentors spoke about having to work
harder to find common ground with their mentee while remaining
mindful of meaningful differences. Maria, reflecting on the struggles
her teenage mentee was encountering at school, said, “I remember
when I was in 7th grade…it was the worst grade…and I think the
biggest thing is …. adjusting to where she’s from and like what she grew
up in …. the atmosphere she has had versus what I had when I was a
teenager.”
Some mentors spoke about how they adapted to their mentee by
drawing on their own awareness of the developmental needs of youth
more generally. Sandra, reflecting on her efforts to connect with her
mentee on a more personal or emotional level, noted, “Sometimes she’s
a teenager and just doesn’t really want to talk much…she’s a teenager
who would rather spend her time in another fashion.” Recognizing that
the behavior she was experiencing in her relationship with her mentee
was typical for a young person of that age helped the mentor to not
personalize her mentee’s behavior or experience it as a negative com-
mentary on their relationship. Rather, the mentee’s quietness with her
and their challenges finding a time to meet were framed within an
understanding of the mentee’s strong desire to spend time with her
friends; thus, they were interpreted by this mentor as typical teenage
behavior, something to be accommodated and worked with for the
relationship to be successful.
Others drew on memories of their own experience in adolescence
and were guided by these in their efforts to get to know and connect
with their mentee. As Chante shared about her mentee, “I think she is
very independent and so she doesn’t need anything from anyone pretty
much—kind of like how I was when I was her age.” Clara, conveying
some skepticism about the wisdom of one of her mentee’s decisions,
harkened back to her own teenage self, which seemed to help her to
stay open to the potential for things to work out just fine and allowing
the mentee to find her own way: “I hope that goes well for her …. but
when I was 15, I was the same way as her.”
When mentors were able to adapt their understanding by taking the
perspective of their mentee, in part by drawing on their own knowledge
or experience of development, they also described being more open and
flexible in their responses in the relationship. One mentor, Rachel,
describing how her teenage mentee would unpredictably alternate be-
tween sometimes wanting to just sit and talk and at other times clearly
conveying a strong lack of interest in processing any internal feelings
said, “I go with the flow–I’ve learned to do that with teenagers.”
Another described how she managed her mentee’s apparent disen-
gagement during some outings by adapting and being patient: “There
were definitely times when she clearly didn’t want to be there. So, you
know, I just adjusted and let her drive the bus a bit until she was ready”
(Courtney).
5
Children and Youth Services Review 114 (2020) 105043
Actively working to be open and responsive to the youth’s needs and
interests was not always easy, especially when these were different
from or even at odds with what the mentor wanted. As one mentor said,
“So, I was a little disappointed with that, but, as I said, this isn’t for me,
it’s for her. So, I just have to think of other things that we can do to-
gether.” In some cases, youth communicated resistance to the men-
toring relationship. While the roots of this resistance differed, there
were several instances in which it seemed that the youth may not have
had adult role models who were consistent presences in their lives. As
one mentor stated, “I just don’t think she [mentee] has ever had an
adult be consistent with her, you know? It was like…she didn’t want to
waste time getting to know me.” Another mentor reflected on how her
mentee seemed rather shy and responded to this by taking it as a cue
that she needed to allow her mentee to set the pace of the relationship:
“She [mentee] is just real quiet and so I think she just isn’t quite ready
to really confide in me yet. So, I’m trying to just follow her lead.”
3.2. Empathic failures
In contrast, the narratives of some mentors conveyed a lack of
empathy for their mentee. They indicated awareness of the mentee’s
circumstances but seemed to find it difficult to step out of their own
experiences enough to see things from the mentee’s point of view.
Differences in lived experiences were described as posing challenges to
the relationship that were difficult to overcome. As one mentor, Allison,
said, “there’s also just differences in terms of how we’re brought up and,
and a challenge might be for me to relate sometimes. Like, sometimes I
really just don’t know if I’m a good fit because of [our differences].” In
this case, the mentor went on to describe how these differences
contrbuted to the relationship with the mentee feeling “too difficult.”
Some also characterized such differences as deficits in the mentee
and/or the mentee’s family. As another mentor (Shannon) said, “She
definitely comes from a lower income background [than I did], and…
her mom just hasn’t exposed her to everything she should.” Another
mentor was more explicitly judgmental of the mentee’s family for the
amount of time the youth was asked to care for her younger siblings:
“She [mentee] is always having to play ‘second mom’ to her younger
siblings…it just seems like her mom never really thought about letting
her be a kid. I feel like it’s my job to fill in and provide her with fun stuff
like I used to do.” In contrast to the examples in the prior section, these
mentors seemed to have greater difficulty taking the perspective of
their mentees and the mentees’ families and to see things from their
point of view.
Sasha’s interview offered a particularly striking example of strug-
gling to take the perspective of her mentee and the mentee’s family and
to be responsive to their experiences. In this case, Sasha met a local
police officer at a social gathering who informed her that the mentee’s
neighborhood had a high level of gang activity. This resulted in Sasha
feeling unsafe going to the mentee’s neighborhood to pick her up for
their mentoring visits. Sasha described herself as feeling “so disturbed”
by what she perceived to be a “whole awful scenario and environment
that [the mentee’] subjected to” that she feared for her own “safety.” At
the same time, she did not “want to leave this kid hanging’” and wanted
to continue their relationship. Her solution was to suggest to her
mentee’s guardian, which was the grandmother, that they determine a
“safer place” to meet, to which the mentor reported that the grand-
mother responded by saying, “I’m not gonna say that stuff doesn’t
happen around here, but I’ve raised all my kids on this block, and it’s
fine.” Rather than taking this as an opportunity to consider the situation
from the perspective of the grandmother, who was a long-time resident
of the neighborhood, the mentor experienced the grandmother’s re-
sponse as further evidence of her own negative perception of the
neighborhood, as she recounted thinking to herself, “she [the grand-
mother] raised her [the mentee’s] mother, who’s like, out to lunch!?’”
Similarly, Sasha also described relying almost exclusively on her
own school experience when engaging the mentee around her academic
R. Spencer, et al.
performance. In recalling her efforts to support her mentee she de-
scribed focusing on the mentee’s grades, noting that when she saw the
mentee’s report card she said to her, “I’m gonna work with you, like
these grades, you can do better than this. …. I’m keepin’ a photocopy of
his, and compare it next semester.” Although the mentor said that she
“like(d)” being a mentor, emphasizing that she “spend(s) a lot of time”
doing it, she also said that she was “annoyed” to see the mentee’s report
card as she thought “they’re makin’ this so easy” for the youth to “do
well.” This mentor also expressed that she thought the mother “should
be doing” was she had taken upon herself to do. Rather than using her
experience to find commonalities or to imagine how her own experi-
ence might be different if she had been situated within the mentee’s
context as a youth, this mentor drew comparisons between their ex-
periences in ways that resulted in the mentee and her family coming up
short in the mentor’s eyes: “Oh yeah, I grew up in a middle-class white
family. And this is black poverty. My Dad was away a lot for work, but
Mom wasn’t doin’ crack in the bedroom, and havin’ a million different
boyfriends. We weren’t on welfare, and I worked, I like babysat, worked
even when I was twelve years old—um, she’s [mentee] just in this
poverty-stricken cycle of, what I see in her family are a lot of, lotta
different babies from different guys…and very little work.“ In this case,
the mentor’s inability to step out of her own experience and her in-
clination toward negative attributions about the family’s circumstances
contributed to her growing frustration with the match and ultimately
led to her deciding to no longer mentor this child.
4. Discussion
This study sheds light on specific dimensions of empathy and how
they may contribute to mentoring quality and longevity. Drawing from
and informed by the psychotherapy and interpersonal relationship lit-
eratures on empathy (i.e., Cuff et al., 2016; Davis, 2006; Knafo et al.,
2008), the close examination of these mentors’ narratives led to the
explication of two dimensions of empathy, perspective-taking and
adaptability to the youth’s experiences, and some of the ways that these
processes worked together. Some mentors described active efforts to
relate to their mentee’s experiences and to understanding things from
the youth’s point of view. Such openness to understanding the wants,
needs, and experiences of the youth was evident in some mentors’
narratives, as were attempts to be flexible in the relationship and adapt
to the youth’s experiences. Other mentors struggled, some even migh-
tily, to step out of their own experiences and worldviews to genuinely
consider their mentee’s experiences and points of view. In the absence
of taking the mentee’s perspective, these mentors had difficulty
building meaningful connections with their mentees and tended to
become increasingly dissatisfied with the relationship over time, often
directing their frustration toward the mentee and/or the mentee’s fa-
mily.
The findings here are similar to descriptions of empathy found
within the psychotherapy literature (Bohart, Elliott, Greenberg, &
Watson, 2002). Considering these similarities may begin to offer ex-
planations for how empathy can contribute to the promotion of positive
outcomes for mentees. Mentors’ openness to youth created opportu-
nities for the mentor to see and acknowledge not only the youth’s
needs, but also their strengths and the contributions they made to the
relationship. Akin to the way Bohart et al. (2002) describes empathy in
the psychotherapeutic relationship as activating clients’ abilities to self-
soothe and heal, the instances described here suggest that empathy
expressed by mentors seemed to similarly illuminate and elevate
youths’ own strengths and capacities in ways that may make these more
evident to the youth themselves. Further, mentors’ ability to take the
youth’s perspective and be responsive to their interests and needs may
demonstrate to youth that their interests and preferences are important
and deserving of respect.
Importantly, examining perspective-taking and adaptability in
mentors’ descriptions of their mentoring relationships illuminated how
6
Children and Youth Services Review 114 (2020) 105043
differences in backgrounds can influence the mentoring process, joining
an emerging stream of research on ethnocultural empathy in youth
mentoring relationships (Leyton-Armakan, Lawrence, Deutsch, Lee
Williams, & Henneberger, 2012; Marshall, Lawrence, Williams, &
Peugh, 2015; Peifer, Lawrence, Williams, & Leyton-Armakan, 2016),
which addresses empathy occurring within cross-cultural contexts
(Wang et al., 2003). Although similar to general empathy, ethnocultural
empathy also explicitly addresses empathy between people from dif-
ferent cultures and has been defined as “feeling, understanding, and
caring about what someone from another culture feels, understands,
and cares about” (Rasoal, Eklund, & Hansen, 2011, p. 8). The marked
racial, ethnic and economic differences between the mentors and
mentees in this study are typical of many mentoring programs
(Garringer, McQuillin, & McDaniel, 2017). Taking a close look at em-
pathy points to the importance of how mentors understand and engage
with differences in backgrounds. As demonstrated here and in other
research examining mentors’ motivations and attitudes (Hughes, Welsh,
Mayer, Bolay, & Southard, 2009), many white middle class mentors
may enter into these relationships carrying negative biases toward
people of color and people living in poverty (Steele, 2010). Such re-
lationships can serve to reproduce, rather than reduce, inequalities in
mentoring relationships (Keller, Perry, & Spencer, 2019). The negative
judgements of the mentees and their families expressed by some men-
tors in this study also suggest that a lack of general and/or ethno-
cultural may contribute to early match closures, which can be a sig-
nificant problem in many formal youth mentoring programs (Rhodes,
2002; Spencer, Gowdy, Drew, McCormack, & Keller, 2019). Future re-
search should examine the relationship between general and ethno-
cultural empathy within youth mentoring, and the relative contribution
of each to relationship quality, duration, and effectiveness.
As noted at the beginning of the findings section of this paper, it was
observed that while most mentors entered the relationship intending to
be empathic with their mentee, not all described their relationships in
ways that indicated that they were actually able to accomplish this as
the relationship progressed. The mentors who were more successful at
achieving this intention were those who were either more open-minded
at the outset, or described themselves as having to let go of some of
their initial expectations of the relationship and actively work to dis-
cern their mentee’s expectations and needs.
The role of expectations in the unfolding of the relationship, and the
capacity for mentors to be empathic with their mentees, has implica-
tions for mentoring program practices, suggesting that ongoing support
of mentoring matches may be especially important, as these contacts
offer opportunities for coaching. Through conversations and relation-
ship support that can occur during regular check-ins, program staff can
help mentors consider the experiences of the mentee and their family,
and help mentors who may need to shift some of their own expectations
of the relationship to be more responsive to the youth’s needs and ex-
periences. These exchanges can also allow program staff to identify
when mentors are struggling with cultural differences between them-
selves and their mentees, and challenge implicit biases and negative
stereotypes that may be interfering with their ability to engage em-
pathically with their mentees. However, the success of such effort’s
rests on the skills and capacities of program staff to be able to engage in
such work, which speaks to the importance of training and support for
mentoring program staff as well (Sánchez, Colón, Feuer, Roundfield, &
Berardi, 2014). In particular, the capacity of staff to attune to the verbal
and non-verbal cues of match participants is important in responding to
match needs, and in facilitating repair when mentors are unable to
adapt or shift perspective based on their mentees experience (Pryce
et al., 2018). Adequate support of matches across the varied lifespan of
mentoring relationships (Pryce & Keller, 2012) also requires program
resources in allowing staff the time to build relationships with match
participants, and stay connected to match experience. Recent research
(Keller & DuBois, 2019) reinforces the importance of strong relation-
ships with mentoring staff, and highlights the critical role of staff in the
R. Spencer, et al.
mentoring system (Keller, 2005).
Empathy likely works in concert with other relational processes that
are beginning to be outlined in the youth mentoring literature. Lester
et al.’s (2019) understanding of mutuality in mentoring relationships
includes what they call “experiential empathy,” as well as a genuine
desire felt by mentor and youth to invest in the relationship. As men-
tioned above, mentor attunement, a process of self-regulating and
reading verbal and non-verbal cues, has been described as requiring
flexibility and adaptation in prioritizing the relationship and needs of
the other in the process of building connection (Pryce et al., 2018;
Varga & Deutsch, 2016). On the other hand, misattunement, or the
inability to respond with attunement, demonstrates as a powerful dis-
tinguisher between mentoring relationships that report low, versus
high, levels of relationship satisfaction (Varga & Deutsch, 2016). Future
relationship process research is well poised to further explore the ele-
ments of mentor approach most conducive to high quality relationships,
with an eye toward empathy and attunement, processes that may be
embedded, with empathy as a required aspect of an attuned response.
Further research on the role of mentor empathy in mentoring re-
lationship development is needed, in light of significant implications for
key program practices, including mentor recruitment, screening,
training and ongoing support. Findings from this study demonstrate the
use of empathy from the mentor’s perspective, as directed from the
mentor to the youth and/or family. This provides an important lens for
understanding what empathy looks like from the perspective of the
adults who have volunteered to help support youth through programs.
Mentoring research increasingly supports the importance of under-
standing relationship process from multiple perspectives across the
mentoring system. In particular, studies suggest that the interpersonal
experience intended or shared by the mentor may not be experienced
the same way by the mentee (Dutton, Deane, & Bullen, 2018; Varga &
Deutsch, 2016; Spencer, Gowdy, et al., 2019; Spencer, Keller, & et al.,
2019). Divergence within the reported experiences of the relationship
between participants in the dyad, may indicate a lack of authenticity
and/or empathy, or misattunement within the relationship (Varga &
Deutsch, 2016). Obtaining multiple perspectives of relationship quality
(including program staff, youth, and parents) can provide a more
nuanced understanding of the complexity of these relationships (Dutton
et al., 2018; Spencer et al., 2019). Including observational approaches
to support mentoring skills and match quality can also accommodate
multiple insights into match relationship process and the presence and
function of core components such as empathy (Pryce, Deane, Barry, &
Keller, 2020).
Future research should also consider what might be contributing to
the lack of empathy demonstrated by some mentors. Given that adults
display varying capacities for empathy (Cuff et al., 2016; Decety &
Jackson, 2004), some mentors may simply enter into these relationships
with less of a disposition toward empathy, and may be misreading
important cues from the mentee and family. There is also evidence that
both general and ethnocultural empathy can be improved through
training (e.g., Fleming, Thomas, Shaw, Burnham, & Charles, 2015;
Teding van Berkhout & Malouff, 2016), and some research indicates
that programs that include experiential components appear to be more
effective (Brunero, Lamont, & Coates, 2010). Understanding what
drives differences in mentor empathy would have implications for
mentoring program practices and could help to discern whether pro-
grams may be better served to focus on selecting mentors with a greater
capacity for empathy, invest in training mentors to enhance their skills
in this arena, or perhaps both.
5. Conclusions
This study lends further insight into specific relational processes at
work in mentoring relationships, and raises questions about whether
and how mentor empathy may contribute to the development of higher
quality mentoring relationships. Notably, mentors who conveyed more
7
Children and Youth Services Review 114 (2020) 105043
empathy in their descriptions of their relationships with their mentees
also seemed more satisfied with their relationships. This is not to say
that their relationships were problem-free; rather these mentors seemed
better able to weather the ups and downs in the relationship whereas
those who struggled to connect with the mentee expressed greater
frustration and disappointment with their relationships. Research on
psychotherapy has found empathy to be a critical element of evidence-
based helping relationships, cutting across different models and ap-
proaches (i.e., Norcross & Wampold, 2011). Some have even asserted
that a lack of empathy could be harmful to clients (Moyers & Miller,
2013). The results of the present study indicate that empathy may be
critical for effective mentoring relationships as well.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Renée Spencer: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Supervision, Funding acquisition. Julia Pryce: Conceptualization,
Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Johanna Barry: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing. Jill Walsh: Software, Formal analysis. Antoinette
Basualdo-Delmonico: Investigation, Data curation, Writing - review &
editing, Project administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by a William T. Grant Foundation Scholar
Award to the first author.
We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Emily Abrams,
Kayla Bograd-Denton, Margel DiMaggio, Alexandra Hass, Jessica
Houle, Francesca Nunziata, Apexa Patel, Julie Popolow, Lauren Ruvo,
and Janae Sernoffsky to the data analysis for this paper and to
Katherine Purcell for involvement in the initial framing of these ideas.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105043.
References
Abreu, B. C. (2011). Accentuate the positive: Reflections on empathic interpersonal in-
teractions (Eleanor Clarke Slagle Lecture). American Journal of Occupational Therapy,
65, 623–634.
Ahrens, K. R., DuBois, D. L., Garrison, M., Spencer, R., Richardson, L. P., & Lozano, P.
(2011). Qualitative exploration of relationships with important non-parental adults
in the lives of youth in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(6),
1012–1023.
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal at-
tachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497–529.
Bohart, A. C., Elliott, R., Greenberg, L., & Watson, J. C. (2002). Empathy. In J. C. Norcross
(Ed.). Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to
patients (pp. 89–108). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bohart, A. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (Eds.). (1997). Empathy reconsidered: New directions in
psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Brady, B., Dolan, P., & Canavan, J. (2017). ‘He told me to calm down and all that’: A
qualitative study of forms of social support in youth mentoring relationships. Child &
Family Social Work, 22(1), 266–274.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brunero, S., Lamont, S., & Coates, M. (2010). A review of empathy education in nursing.
Nursing Inquiry, 17(1), 65–74.
Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the
concept. Emotion Review, 8(2), 144–153.
R. Spencer, et al.
Davis, M. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multi-
dimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.
Davis, M. (2004). Negotiating the border between self and other. In L. Z. Tiedens, & C. W.
Leach (Eds.). The social life of emotions (pp. 19–42). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Davis, M. (2006). Empathy. In J. Stets, & J. H. Turner (Eds.). Handbook of the sociology of
emotions (pp. 443–466). Boston, MA: Springer Press.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy.
Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100.
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience.
The Scientific World Journal, 6, 1146–1163.
Dekeyser, M., Elliott, R., & Leijssen, M. (2011). Empathy in psychotherapy: Dialogue and
embodied understanding. In J. Decety, & W. Ickes (Eds.). The social neuroscience of
empathy (pp. 113–124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Devoldre, I., Davis, M. H., Verhofstadt, L. L., & Buysse, A. (2010). Empathy and social
support provision in couples: Social support and the need to study the underlying
processes. Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 259–284.
Doty, J. L., Weiler, L. M., Mehus, C. J., & McMorris, B. J. (2019). Young mentors’ re-
lationship capacity: Parent–child connectedness, attitudes toward mentees, empathy,
and perceived match quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(2),
642–658.
DuBois, S., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How
effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(2), 57–91.
Dutton, H., Deane, K. L., & Bullen, P. (2018). Distal and experiential perspectives of re-
lationship quality from mentors, mentees, and program staff in a school-based youth
mentoring program. Children and Youth Services Review, 85, 53–62.
Fleming, B. D., Thomas, S. E., Shaw, D., Burnham, W. S., & Charles, L. T. (2015).
Improving ethnocultural empathy in healthcare students through a targeted inter-
vention. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 22(2), 59–63.
Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap:
Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 109–124.
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype
expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724.
Garringer, M., McQuillin, S., & McDaniel, H. (2017). Examining youth mentoring services
across America: Findings from the 2016 National Mentoring Program Survey. Boston, MA:
MENTOR: The: National Mentoring Partnership.
Goldner, L., & Mayseless, O. (2009). The quality of mentoring relationships and men-
toring success. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(10), 1339.
Grossman, J., & Rhodes, J. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in
youth mentoring relationships. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 198–219.
Hatcher, S. L., Favorite, T. K., Hardy, E. A., Goode, R. L., Deshetler, L. A., & Thomas, R. M.
(2005). An analogue study of therapist empathic process: Working with difference.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice Training, 42(2), 198–210.
Hughes, C., Welsh, M., Mayer, A., Bolay, J., & Southard, K. (2009). An innovative uni-
versity-based mentoring program: Affecting college students' attitudes and engage-
ment. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(1), 69–78.
Johnson, J. M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, & J. A. Holstein (Eds.).
Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 103–119). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Jordan, J. V. (1997). Rational development through mutual empathy. In A. C. Bohart, & L.
S. Greenberg (Eds.). Empathy reconsidered: New directions in psychotherapy (pp. 343–
351). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Jordan, J. V. (1999). Toward competence and connection. Work in progress, No. 83.
Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College.
Jordan, J. V. (2010). Relational-cultural therapy. In M. Kopala, & M. Keitel (Eds.).
Handbook of counseling women (pp. 92–103). (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
Keller, T. E. (2005). A systemic model of the youth mentoring intervention. Journal of
Primary Prevention, 26, 169–188.
Keller, T. E., Perry, M., & Spencer, R. (2019). Reducing social isolation through formal
youth mentoring: Opportunities and potential pitfalls. Clinical Social Work Journal,
1–11.
Keller, T. E., & DuBois, D. (2019). Influence of program staff on quality of relationships in a
community-based youth mentoring program. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences Online first.
Knafo, A., Zahn-Waxler, C., Van Hulle, C., Robinson, J. L., & Rhee, S. H. (2008). The
developmental origins of a disposition toward empathy: Genetic and environmental
contributions. Emotion, 8(6), 737.
Lester, A. M., Goodloe, C. L., Johnson, H. E., & Deutsch, N. L. (2019). Understanding
mutuality: Unpacking relational processes in youth mentoring relationships. Journal
of Community Psychology, 47(1), 147–162.
Leyton-Armakan, J., Lawrence, E., Deutsch, N., Lee Williams, J., & Henneberger, A.
(2012). Effective youth mentors: The relationship between initial characteristics of
college women mentors and mentee satisfaction and outcome. Journal of Community
Psychology, 40(8), 906–920.
Marshall, J. H., Lawrence, E. C., Williams, J. L., & Peugh, J. (2015). Mentoring as service-
learning: The relationship between perceived peer support and outcomes for college
women mentors. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 47, 38–46.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (Eds.). (1994). Qualitative data analysis(2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moyers, T. B., & Miller, W. R. (2013). Is low therapist empathy toxic? Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 27(3), 878–884.
Munson, M. R., Smalling, S. E., Spencer, R., Scott, L. D., Jr, & Tracy, E. M. (2010). A
Children and Youth Services Review 114 (2020) 105043
steady presence in the midst of change: Nonkin natural mentors in the lives of older
youth exiting foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(4), 527–535.
Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). Evidence-based therapy relationships: Research
conclusions and clinical practices. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 98–102.
Parra, G. R., DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., Pugh-Lilly, A., & Povinelli, N. (2002). Mentoring
relationships for youth: Investigation of a process-oriented model. Journal of
Community Psychology, 30, 367–388.
Peifer, J. S., Lawrence, E. C., Williams, J. L., & Leyton-Armakan, J. (2016). The culture of
mentoring: Ethnocultural empathy and ethnic identity in mentoring for minority
girls. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(3), 440.
Pryce, J. (2012). Mentor attunement: An approach to successful school-based mentoring
relationships. Child & Adolescent Social Work, 29(4), 285–305.
Pryce, J., & Deane, K. (2019). Observational methods in developing and measuring attunement
in relationships across the mentoring system. Washington DC: Workshop presented at the
National Mentoring Summit.
Pryce, J., & Deane, K. (2020). Advances in attunement research: Measures, frameworks, and
training tools to support relationship connection. Washington, DC: Workshop presented
at the National Mentoring Summit.
Pryce, J., Gilkerson, L., & Barry, J. (2018). The mentoring FAN: A promising approach to
enhancing attunement within the mentoring system. Journal of Social Service
Research, 44(3), 350–364.
Pryce, J., Deane, K., Barry, J., & Keller, T. (2020). Understanding youth mentoring re-
lationships: Advancing the field with direct observational methods. Adolescent
Research Review Online first.
Pryce, J., & Keller, T. (2012). An investigation of volunteer-student relationship trajec-
tories within school-based youth mentoring programs. Journal of Community
Psychology, 40(2), 228–248.
Raposa, E. B., Rhodes, J., Stams, G. J. J., Card, N., Burton, S., Schwartz, S., ... Hussain, S.
(2019). The effects of youth mentoring programs: A meta-analysis of outcome stu-
dies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(3), 423–443.
Rasoal, C., Eklund, J., & Hansen, E. M. (2011). Toward a conceptualization of ethno-
cultural empathy. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 5(1), 1–13.
Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today's youth.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathy: An unappreciated way of being. Counseling Psychologist,
5(2), 2–10.
Sánchez, B., Colón, Y., Feuer, R., Roundfield, K. E., & Berardi, L. (2014). Race, ethnicity,
and culture in mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois, & M. J. Karcher (Eds.).
Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 145–158). (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Seidman, I. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Spencer, R. (2006). Understanding the mentoring process between adolescents and
adults. Youth & Society, 37(3), 287–315.
Spencer, R., Basualdo-Delmonico, A., Walsh, J., & Drew, A. L. (2017). Breaking up is hard
to do: A qualitative interview study of how and why youth mentoring relationships
end. Youth & Society, 49(4), 438–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14535416.
Spencer, R., Drew, A. L., Gowdy, G., & Horn, J. P. (2018). “A positive guiding hand”: A
qualitative examination of youth-initiated mentoring and the promotion of inter-
dependence among foster care youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 93, 41–50.
Spencer, R., Drew, A. L., Walsh, J., & Kanchewa, S. A. (2018). Girls (and boys) just want
to have fun: A mixed methods study of gender differences in youth mentoring re-
lationship duration. Journal of Primary Prevention, 39(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10935-017-0494-3.
Spencer, R., Gowdy, G., Drew, A. L., McCormack, M., & Keller, T. (2019). It takes a village
to break up a match: A systemic view of early endings in formal youth mentoring re-
lationships. Online First: Child and Youth Care Forum.
Spencer, R., Keller, T., Perry, M., Drew, A. L., Clark-Shim, H., Horn, J. P., ... McCormack,
M. (2019). How youth mentoring relationships end and why it matters: A mixed-methods,
multi-informant study. Annals of the New York Academies of Science Online first.
Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. New
York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Sterrett, E. M., Jones, D. J., McKee, L. G., & Kincaid, C. (2011). Supportive non-parental
adults and adolescent psychosocial functioning: Using social support as a theoretical
framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(3–4), 284–295.
Sulzer, S. H., Feinstein, N. W., & Wendland, C. L. (2016). Assessing empathy development
in medical education: A systematic review. Medical Education, 50(3), 300–310.
Teding van Berkhout, E., & Malouff, J. M. (2016). The efficacy of empathy training: A
meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
63(1), 32–41.
Varga, S. M., & Deutsch, N. L. (2016). Revealing both sides of the story: A comparative
analysis of mentors and protégés relational perspectives. Journal of Primary
Prevention, 37(5), 449–465.
Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice
reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4), 455–472.
Wang, Y. W., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K.
(2003). The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 221.
Watson, J. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (2011). Empathic resonance: A neuroscience perspec-
tive. In J. Decety, & W. Ickes (Eds.). The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 125).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wesely, J. K., Dzoba, N. P., Miller, H. V., & Rasche, C. E. (2017). Mentoring at-risk youth:
An examination of strain and mentor response strategies. American Journal of Criminal
Justice, 42(1), 198–217.