african-american students' early trust beliefs in work-based mentors

Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) 501–515

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

African-American students’ early trust beliefsin work-based mentors

Frank Linnehan,a,¤ Christy Weer,b and Josh Uhlb

a Drexel University, LeBow College of Business, 101 N. 33rd Street Academic Building Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

b Drexel University, LeBow College of Business, USA

Received 7 July 2003Available online 6 May 2004

Abstract

Using an experimental design with a sample of African-American high school students(n D 94), this study examines the determinants of students’ initial trust beliefs about adult men-tors. Consistent with the model of initial trust formation, results indicate that both structuralassurance beliefs and youth dispositions toward trust were positive, signiWcant predictors ofthe belief in an adult mentor’s benevolence, honesty, competence, and predictability. Mentorselection procedures were not related to any of the trust beliefs. Ethnic identity of the studentwas found to moderate the relation between two of these beliefs (competence and predictabil-ity) with racial similarity of the mentor and student. Contrary to expectations, African-Ameri-can students with low ethnic identity believed that a White adult mentor would be morecompetent and predictable than students with high ethnic identity. Implications for work-based, adult–youth mentoring programs and future research are discussed. 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Adult–youth mentoring; Trust; Ethnic identity; African-American

1. Introduction

Many school-to-work programs for US high school students rely on adult–youthmentoring relationships in the work place (Ganzel, 2000; Wentling, 2000). In fact,

¤ Corresponding author. Fax: 1-215-895-2891.E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Linnehan).

0001-8791/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.02.003

mail to : [email protected]

502 F. Linnehan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) 501–515

research is beginning to show that mentoring in the work place may be more eVectivefor youth than school or community-based mentoring (DuBois, Holloway, Valen-tine, & Cooper, 2002). Much of this research has focused on various outcomes of theadult–youth relationship. For example, studies have examined the relation betweenperceived similarity of the mentor and protégé to the protégé’s satisfaction (Ensher &Murphy, 1997), and the positive relation between work-based mentoring with stu-dent academic performance and behavior (Linnehan, 2001). While focusing on out-comes of these relationships is important, very little is know about the early stages ofan adult–youth mentoring partnership. The present study attempts to Wll this gap byexamining the antecedents of a protégé’s initial trust beliefs toward a mentor.

Given that students of color are overrepresented in the non-college bound popula-tion (relative to the general population) and in school-to-work programs in the US(Hulsey, Van Noy, & Silverberg, 1999; Lewis, Stone, Shipley, & Madzar, 1998), thisstudy focuses on African-American students’ pre-encounter trust beliefs towardadult mentors. Since trust is an essential element of the mentor–protégé bond (Kram,1985) and has been used to measure mentor functions and roles in past research(Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990), its development is likely to havean inXuence on the ultimate success or failure of the mentoring relationship.

Previous studies of mentoring have treated trust as both an antecedent (Koberg,Boss, & Goodman, 1998) and consequence of the relationship (Young & Perrewe,2000). Despite its importance to mentoring success, no studies were found that exam-ined the bases of early trust belief formation between a protégé and a mentor, partic-ularly within and across racial groups. Furthering our understanding of this processis of importance in a relationship that, by deWnition, spans age diVerences and, oftenby necessity, crosses racial boundaries.

2. Theory and hypotheses

We use the McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany (1998) model of initial trust for-mation (ITF), which focuses on the cognitive foundations of trust, to identify ante-cedents of early trust beliefs in a mentoring relationship. The model builds on pastresearch in organizational settings that sees such factors as dependability (McAllis-ter, 1995) and reliability (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982) as integral to the trust con-struct. In the ITF model, initial trust is deWned as the belief in the benevolence,honesty, competence, and predictability of another person; in turn, these beliefs areconsidered to be determinants of trust intentions. The model proposes three positivedeterminants of trust beliefs that have dispositional, cognitive, and institutionalsources.

While an individual’s disposition toward trust is positively related to pre-encoun-ter trust beliefs, the ITF model diVerentiates two dispositional factors, trusting stanceand faith in humanity (McKnight et al., 1998). This diVerentiation is based on thebelief that the former directly inXuences trust intentions and the latter inXuencestrust beliefs, a proposition that has been supported in previous research (Ridings,Gefen, & Arinze, 2002). Faith in humanity is predicated on the belief that one is

F. Linnehan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (2005) 501–515 503

generally able to rely on others across various situations. The ITF model proposesthat this generalized faith in others is a dispositional determinant of early trust beliefsand the present study is concerned with antecedents of these beliefs in adult mentors.

H1: A youth’s faith in humanity is positively related to the youth’s belief that amentor is benevolent, competent, honest, and predictable.

The ITF model also proposes that trust beliefs are positively related to structuralassurance beliefs. These beliefs stem from the view that someone’s expectations ofanother will be fulWlled due to the institutional structures or procedures that are inplace (Pavlou, 2002). For example, if it is known that an organization has propersanctions against a supervisor’s mistreatment of employees, it is likely that the subor-dinate will believe in the benevolence of a new supervisor or, if an individual knowsthe organization’s hiring practices are sound, that person is likely to believe a newlyhired coworker will be competent (McKnight et al., 1998).

Following this logic, selection practices in mentoring programs are also likely tobe related to structural assurance beliefs and to the protégé’s initial trust beliefs in thementor. This likelihood is consistent with the recommendation of establishing a com-prehensive process for selecting adult mentors in the planning and implementation ofadult–youth mentoring programs outside a work setting (DuBois et al., 2002;National Mentoring Working Group, 1991). Similar to a job applicant whose reac-tions are aVected by recruitment and selection processes (for a review, Ryan & Ploy-hart, 2000; Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991; Turban, Forret, & Hendrickson, 1998), itis reasonable to believe that a protégé’s structural assurance beliefs and initial trustbeliefs in a mentor will be positively related to the protégé’s perception of the mentorselection process. SpeciWcally, the more thorough the procedure, the more likely thestudent would believe in the mentor’s competence, honesty, benevolence, and predict-ability. Moreover, it is likely that if a youth knows that a thorough, comprehensiveprocess has been used to select qualiWed mentor candidates, the probability of a suc-cessful relationship will be enhanced.

H2a: There is a positive relation between the thoroughness of the mentor selectionprocess and a youth’s structural assurance beliefs.H2b: There is a positive relation between the thoroughness of the mentor selectionprocess and a youth’s belief in the benevolence, honesty, competence, and predict-ability of a mentor prior to interacting with the mentor.H3: Structural assurance beliefs are positively related to a youth’s belief that amentor is benevolent, honest, competent, and predictable.

The third factor in the model, which McKnight et al. (1998) term cognitive trust,includes processes such as stereotyping and categorizing individuals into groups.Individuals will hold stronger trust beliefs about similar, in-group members than dis-similar, out-group members (McKnight et al., 1998). This assumption is grounded insocial identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), relational demography (Tsui &O’Reilly, 1989), and the similarity-attraction hypothesis (Byrne, 1971). The latter


assumes that demographically similar individuals interact more frequently and expe-rience less stress from these interactions than demographically dissimilar individuals(Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). According to social identity theory, to maintain an individ-ual’s level of self-esteem, members of groups to which the individual belongs will beviewed more favorably than members of groups to which an individual does notbelong (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). As such, one would expect that African-Americanyouths will perceive African-American mentors more favorably than equally quali-Wed non-African-American mentors, and will have stronger, pre-encounter trustbeliefs in African-American than White adults.

However, evidence supporting this expectation has not been robust in previousresearch. While some studies have shown more psychosocial beneWts (Thomas, 1990)and instrumental support given to protégés in similar race dyads (Ensher & Murphy,1997), other studies have shown that racial similarity is not related to psychosocialbeneWts, or other outcomes such as providing protégé with challenging assignmentsor furthering the exposure of the protégé in the organization (Turban, Dougherty, &Lee, 2002). Germane to the present investigation, a study of minority youth who werein same and cross-race adult–youth mentor relationships reported that the racialconWguration of the mentor–protégé dyads was inconsequential to the relationships’outcomes (Rhodes, Reddy, Grossman, & Lee, 2002).

In this study, we draw from research on workforce diversity which has extendedthe focus on relational demographic eVects to cognitive processes that reach beyonddemographic similarity/dissimilarity (Linnehan, Konrad, Reitman, Greenhalgh, &London, 2004; Thomas, 1993). We explore the potential role ethnic identity plays inmoderating the relation between the racial similarity of the protégé and mentor, andthe protégé’s pre-encounter trust beliefs in the mentor.

Ethnic identity is deWned as the value and signiWcance placed on membership in aracial or ethnic group (Phinney, 1992). Individuals progress through various stages inthe formation of both ethnic and racial identity throughout the course of their lives(Cross, 1978; Helms, 1990). Although scholars disagree over the similarities anddiVerences between race and ethnicity (Helms & Talleyrand, 1996), there are strongparallels between racial and ethnic development theories. The development of racialidentity is similar to Phinney’s (1996) developmental model of ethnic identity forma-tion. In nigrescence theory of Black racial identity formation (Cross, 1991), phasesare distinguished by multiple stages of identity, ranging from initial assimilation andanti-Black identities to Black acceptance and activism (Vandiver, Cross, Worrell, &Fhagen-Smith, 2002). As Blacks progress through these stages, their attitudes towardmembers of their own racial group become more positive.

Similarly, Phinney’s (1996) model of ethnic identity development also allows forprogress through a series of stages. The latter stages are characterized by a greaterinvolvement with, and a more positive attitude toward, members of one’s own ethnicgroup. Since progression through these developmental stages is characterized bydiVerences in attitudes toward both in and out group members, it is likely that thestrength of African-American students’ identity will inXuence or moderate the rela-tion between racial similarity with an adult and the initial trust beliefs of the youthabout the mentor.


This moderating eVect of ethnic identity is consistent with the ITF model. Themodel assumes that any process that categorizes another person into a positive groupwill lead to higher levels of trust beliefs about that person (McKnight et al., 1998).According to racial and ethnic identity theories, the more closely African-Americansassociate with members of their own race, the more they will view African-Americansin a positive light, relative to Whites. As such, the more they identify with members oftheir own group, the stronger African American students’ initial trust beliefs of Afri-can-American adults will be, relative to the students’ beliefs in White mentors.

However, there is little relevance of race or ethnicity to one’s identity in the earlystages of identity formation in the Phinney (1996) model of ethnic identity develop-ment. In these early stages, when race or ethnicity is not relevant, students will not seethemselves as members of these groups. In self-categorization theory, relevance orsalience of group membership is dependent upon its relative accessibility, which ispartly a function of its importance to the individual (Oakes, 1987; Turner, 1985;Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, &McGarty, 1994). Thus, the less strongly individuals associate with their racial or eth-nic backgrounds, the more diYcult its accessibility, and the less salient race and eth-nicity become to their identity. If so, the race of the mentor will not be related to astudent’s early trust beliefs of the mentor.

H4: African-American youths with strong ethnic identities will have stronger trustbeliefs in the competence, honesty, benevolence, and predictability of an African-American mentor than of a White mentor. For African-American youths withweak ethnic identities, there will be no diVerence in their trust beliefs towardAfrican American and White mentors.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and procedure

Surveys were distributed to students participating in a summer work programadministered by a not-for-proWt agency that manages business–school partnershipsin a large city located in the northeastern section of the US. The respondents were ingrades 10 through 12 and attended Wve high schools in the city. A total of 132 surveyswere distributed and all were completed, 90 (68%) of which were from female stu-dents. Seventy-one percent (n D 94) of the respondents were African-American, 5%(n D 7) were Hispanic, 5% Latino, 2% Asian (n D 2), and 2% were Native American;14 indicated “other,” while six students did not indicate a race. Only the African-American respondents were used for the present study. ANOVAs (controlling for themanipulations) showed no signiWcant diVerences in demographics or the study vari-ables across the African-American student responses and the responses of the non-African-American students not used in the present study.

Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to examine how muchtrust a student would have in a mentor selected to work with them in a work-based


mentoring program. Students Wrst answered demographic questions and theirgeneral faith in people. They then read a description of the hypothetical program.This description indicated that the program required that they work in a chemicalcompany a few days a week and would be assigned to one of the company’s employ-ees who would act as their mentor. A mentor was deWned as someone who the stu-dent will work closely with, respects, and is older and more experienced.

Four versions of the survey were created and distributed at random to the studentsby administrators of the summer employment program. The surveys were distributedto small (10–15) groups of students during a regularly scheduled meeting held in theprogram’s administrative oYce; the students did not work with each other. Each sur-vey included a picture of either an African-American or White male adult with thesame background description. The adult was described as a staV chemist, working inthe company’s research department for 5 years. He was 30 years of age, had a collegedegree in Chemistry and was active in the American Chemical Society. In addition tothe diVerence in race of the adult, the description of the selection process used to selectthe adult varied across surveys. Each survey described one of two mentor selectionprocedures, one in which adults were chosen to participate through a multi-step selec-tion process and the other in which all adults who volunteered were selected. The morethorough procedure was based on the procedure used by the school district in itswork-based mentor programs. This procedure indicated that adults were chosen forthe program based on how well they did in a personal interview, only the best peopleinterviewed were selected and that the mentors went through training to help themprepare a plan to follow during the program. The description of the alternative proce-dure simply indicated that any adult who volunteered was selected for the program.After the surveys were completed, the students were debriefed by the administrator.

To initially select the photos to be used in the surveys, 99 undergraduate collegestudents from a public university in the northeastern region of the US rated picturesof 10 males (5 African American and 5 White) on Wve dimensions, attractiveness(Ugly–Good looking), intelligence (Stupid–Intelligent), disposition (Sad–Happy,Unpleasant–Nice), demeanor (Unprofessional–Professional), and age (seven age cat-egories were given). Paired comparisons were made between each White and African-American photograph. The two pictures that were selected were rated equivalent onall the dimensions with the exception of attractiveness; the White man was ratedas slightly more attractive than the African-American (mean diVerence of .30 on a7-point scale, t D 2.40, p 0 .05). Since people tend to associate attractiveness withintelligence (Langlois et al., 2000), and the two candidates were considered to appearequally intelligent and professional, we felt that the small diVerence in attractivenessbetween the two candidates would not confound the present study.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Trust beliefsBenevolence, honesty, competence, and predictability. Seventeen items were cre-

ated to develop multi-item measures of these beliefs. Responses to these questionswere made on a 6-point scale, 1, Strongly Disagree to 6 , Strongly Agree. Our items


were based on those used in the Gefen, Warkentin, Pavlou, and Rose (2001) valida-tion study. We conducted a principal axis, exploratory factor analysis using anoblique rotation on the 17 belief items. The sample size was just shy of that which isdeemed adequate (100) for an exploratory factor analysis of this type (Fabrigar,Wegener, MacCallum, & Straham, 1999). Four factors emerged, accounting for75.6% of the total variance. Factor correlations ranged from .52 to .61.

The means of the items loading on their respective factors were used to measurethe protégé trust beliefs. The mean of four items was used to measure student compe-tency beliefs in the mentor (�D .91). Sample items include: “I expect Mr. Johnson isgood at his job,” “I expect Mr. Johnson is good at his business.” Respondent beliefsin the mentor’s benevolence were measured as the mean of Wve items (�D .82). Sam-ple items include: “I expect Mr. Johnson would care about me,” “I expect Mr. John-son would put my interests above his own.” Predictability was measured as the meanof three items (�D 88). Sample items include: “I am quite certain about whatMr. Johnson would do as a mentor,” “I am quite certain about what to expect fromMr. Johnson.” Belief in the mentor’s honesty was also measured by the mean of threeitems (�D 84), sample items: “Mr. Johnson is likely to be honest and play by therules,” “I don’t doubt the honesty of Mr. Johnson.”

3.2.2. Faith in humanityThe Wve items used to measure this variable were taken from Gefen et al. (2001),

following McKnight et al.’s (1998) description. This construct is inXuenced by an indi-vidual’s experiences with others (McKnight et al., 1998). Sample items include: “I gen-erally have faith in all people,” and “Overall, I believe in all people’s goodness.” Themean of the Wve items was used and the responses to the items were made on a 6-pointresponse scale (1, Strongly disagree to 6, Strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for thisscale was .73, somewhat lower than that reported in Gefen et al.’s (2001) study (�D .86).

3.2.3. Structural assurance beliefsThese beliefs are a type of institution-based trust (McKnight et al., 1998). Six items

were created for the present study to measure structural assurance beliefs. In creatingthese items, we relied on McKnight et al.’s (1998) construct deWnition and Pavlou’s(2002) assertion that since this trust is situational, it is important to look at ‘speciWcconstructs’ that make up this type of trust (p. 221). As such, each item initiallyreferred to the selection process (as an institutional structure). Sample items include:“Given how the mentors were chosen, it’s likely that the volunteers selected would beexcellent mentors for students,” “The way used to choose mentors was very thor-ough” and “Based on the way used to choose mentors, I believe if I had a problem atany time, my mentor would help me Wx it.” The mean of these items was used to mea-sure structural assurance beliefs (�D .79). Responses were made on a 6-point scale(1, Strongly disagree to 6, Strongly agree).

3.2.4. Ethnic identityEthnic Identity was measured using the mean of the 7-item, Ethnic Identity

Achievement subscale of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) (Phinney,


1992), which has shown strong internal consistency in past research using both highschool and college students (Phinney, Cantu, & Kurtz, 1997). The measure assesseslevels of identity ranging from lack of exploration and commitment to evidence ofboth. Sample items include: “I have spent time trying to Wnd out more about my ownethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customs,” and “I have a lot of pridein my ethnic group and its accomplishments.” Responses were made on a 6-pointscale, ranging from 1, Strongly Disagree to 6, Strongly Agree (�D .76).

3.2.5. Other measuresBased on previous research that has shown diVerences in same and cross–gender

mentor relationships (Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Turban et al., 2002), gender of therespondent was controlled using a dummy variable (1, Female; 0, Male). Dummyvariables were also used to indicate the race of the mentor whose picture was shownin the survey (1, African-American; 0, White) and whether the survey described themore thorough selection procedure or whether no selection procedure was used(1, Full procedure; 0, No procedure).

Two items placed at the end of the survey were used as manipulation checks. Todetermine if the respondents could correctly identify the race of the mentor, theywere asked: “Erik Johnson’s (the mentor) race was (1) White or (2) African-Ameri-can.” To determine if the respondents could correctly identify the procedure used toselect the mentor, they were asked: From what you read, how were mentors selectedfor this program? “They volunteered and anyone who volunteered was taken” or“Not all volunteers were selected. Volunteers were interviewed and selected based onpersonal interviews. Those who were chosen were also given training, prepared plansand were assigned students based on similar interests.”

4. Results

ANOVAs were Wrst run on the manipulation checks to determine if the respon-dents were aware of the mentor’s race and the procedure used to select the mentorsfor the program. Both manipulation checks were signiWcant (race of the mentor:F83, 1 D 191.8, p 0 .001; procedure: F84, 1 D 17.1, p 0 .001). Table 1 shows descriptivestatistics and correlations between all variables. Contrary to H2a, which predicted apositive, signiWcant relation between structural assurance beliefs and thoroughness ofthe selection process, this correlation was not signiWcant. This was also true in theANOVA with the structural assurance beliefs and the selection procedure dummyvariable (F91, 1 D .05, p 1 .10).

The results of the regression models are shown in Table 2. Since all the hypotheseswere directional, one-tailed tests were used to determine signiWcance of the coeYcientestimates (Davis, 1991). Hypothesis 1, which predicted a positive, signiWcant relationbetween faith in humanity with each of the trust belief measures was fully supported,as its coeYcient was signiWcant in each regression model. Hypothesis 2b, however,was not supported since the thoroughness of the procedure was not signiWcantlyrelated to any of the trust beliefs. Hypothesis 3, which predicted a positive relation


between assurance beliefs and the trust beliefs, was fully supported, showing furtherevidence for the ITF model. Hypothesis 4, predicted an interaction eVect between astudent’s ethnic identity and the race of the mentor. The interaction term (EthnicIdentity £ Race of Mentor) was signiWcant for both predictability and competence ofthe mentor.

To analyze the nature of these interactions, plots were made using values repre-senting plus and minus one standard deviation from the mean (Cohen & Cohen,1983). Contrary to our expectations, the plots showed that students with low ethnicidentity (01 SD from the mean) evaluated the competency and predictability of aWhite adult higher than students with strong ethnic identities (11 SD from themean). Post hoc ANCOVAs were then used to compare the means (adjusted for

Table 1Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables (N D 93–94)a

a Correlations include Pearson, �, and point biserial coeYcients.b 1, Male; 0, Female.* p 0 .05.**p 0 .01.

Variable M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

(1) Genderb 1.72 .45(2) Faith in humanity 3.58 .84 .01(3) Black mentor .50 .50 ¡.01 ¡.15(4) Selection process .49 .50 ¡.10 ¡.15 .04(5) Ethnic identity 4.30 .81 ¡.06 .17 ¡.17 ¡.02(6) Assurance beliefs 4.59 .77 .00 .11 .06 .02 .13(7) Predictability 4.25 1.05 ¡.00 .24* ¡.09 .02 .08 .40**

(8) Competence 4.91 .91 ¡.15 .32** ¡.04 .06 .18 .43** .61**

(9) Honesty 4.43 .92 ¡.07 .29** ¡.01 ¡.01 ¡.01 .44** .54** .59**

(10) Benevolence 4.15 .88 ¡.09 .27** ¡.21* ¡.01 .15 .44** .67** .55** .65**

Table 2Regression analyses results

Note. N D 93. *p 0 .05, **p 0 .01 (one-tailed).a Coded as 1 (Female) or 0 (Male).b Coded as 1 (Black) or 0 (White).

Predictors Dependent variable

Competence Benevolence Honesty Predictability

B � SE B � SE B � SE B � SE

Gendera ¡.27 ¡.14 (.19) ¡.19 ¡.10 (.18) ¡.17 ¡.08 (.19) ¡.00 ¡.00 (.23)Faith in humanity .31 .29** (.10) .20 .19* (.10) .29 .27** (.11) .26 .21* (.12)Full Procedure .16 .09 (.17) .00 .00 (.16) .00 .01 (.17) .12 .06 (.20)Assurance beliefs .43 .37** (.11) .48 .43** (.11) .50 .42** (.11) .50 .36** (.13)Race of mentorb ¡.00 ¡.02 (.17) ¡.37 ¡.21* (.17) ¡.00 ¡.02 (.17) ¡.19 ¡.09 (.21)Ethnic identity ¡.12 ¡.11 (.15) .00 .02 (.15) ¡.18 ¡.16 (.16) ¡.26 ¡.20 (.19)Ethnic

identity £ Black mentor

.37 .24* (.21) ¡.00 ¡.00 (.21) .11 .07 (.22) .45 .25* (.26)

Model R2 .32 .29 .28 .24Adjusted R2 .27 .24 .22 .18


gender of the student, faith in humanity, structural assurance beliefs and the proce-dure used) of the beliefs across these two groups of students.

Contrary to Hypothesis 4, there were no signiWcant diVerences (using 90% conW-dence intervals) in the competence and predictability beliefs of students with strongethnic identities between African-American and White mentors (Competence: 5.40(Black mentor) vs. 5.07 (White mentor); Predictability: 4.76 (Black mentor) vs. 4.28(White mentor)). Although not hypothesized, however, African-American studentswith low ethnic identities rated a White adult’s predictability and competence signiW-cantly higher than African-American students with strong ethnic identities (Predict-ability: 5.44 (low identity) vs. 4.39 (high identity); Competence: 5.59 (low identity) vs.4.95 (high identity)). Additionally, students with high ethnic identities rated a Blackadult’s competence signiWcantly higher than Black students with low ethnic identities(Competence: 5.40 (high identity) vs. 4.95 (low identity)).

5. Discussion

The present study explored the antecedents of student’s early trust beliefs in adultmentors. As predicted by Hypothesis 1, there was a signiWcant, positive relationbetween youths’ dispositions to trust, as measured by the youths’ faith in humanity,and initial trust beliefs about adult mentors, i.e., benevolence, honesty, competence,and predictability. The present study has also presented evidence that structuralassurance beliefs are positively related to students’ initial trust in adult mentors.Additionally, ethnic identity was shown to moderate the relation between the racialsimilarity/dissimilarity of the adult–student dyad and the student’s initial beliefs ofthe adult’s competence and predictability. However, the nature of this interactionwas contrary and perhaps more complex than that predicted by Hypothesis 4. Con-trary to our prediction, for students with strong ethnic identities, race of the adultwas not related to the student’s belief in the adult’s competency and predictability.However, ethnic identity was related to student beliefs of the competence and pre-dictability of White and Black adults. Students with low ethnic identities believedthat White adults would be more competent and predictable than students with highethnic identities, while students with high ethnic identities believed that Black adultswould be more predictable than White adults.

Although contrary to our expectation, these Wndings are consistent with models ofracial identity development (Cross, 1991; Vandiver et al., 2002). African-Americansin the initial stage of identity development are thought to hold negative stereotypesabout members of the Black community and desire to be more closely aYliated withthe White community (Cross, 1991). Since predictability belief in the ITF model is ameasure of one’s certainty about what can be expected from another (McKnightet al., 1998), it may be likely that the students who reported low levels of ethnic iden-tity in the present study held the kind of stereotypes which led to uncertainty aboutwhat to expect from an African-American adult. In examining the range of ethnicidentity responses, 34% of the respondents had scores below the midpoint of the6-point response scale; an indication, perhaps, that some of the respondents were in


the early stages of their ethnic identity development. Future research might explorethe relation between African American student scores on more speciWc measures ofracial identity, such as the Pre-encounter Assimilation and Pre-encounter Miseduca-tion subscales of the Cross Racial Identity Scale to their beliefs about same anddiVerent race mentors (Vandiver et al., 2002).

Perhaps students with low ethnic identities in the present study held these negativestereotypes about African-Americans and, as a result, positively associated with theWhite community. This possibility is evidenced by the Wnding that these studentsbelieved a White adult mentor is more competent and predictable than a Black adultmentor, compared to students who strongly associated with their ethnicity. Previousresearch has shown that perceptions of the competence of people of color in organi-zations often reXect the belief in these negative stereotypes (Ilgen & Youtz, 1986).However, this may not suggest that same race, mentor–protégé relationships for Afri-can-American students with low ethnic identities are predisposed to fail. In therapeu-tic relationships, for example, credibility of the therapist depends upon both ascribedand achieved status (Sue & Zane, 1987). Since stereotypes are often inXuential inascribing credibility, Black high school students with low ethnic identity may initiallyascribe more status to White adult mentors than Black mentors. However, it is likelythat the ultimate success of the mentor will depend upon the extent to which theadult achieves credibility with the student over the term of their relationship (Sue &Zane, 1987).

Interestingly, ethnic identity did not moderate the relation between racial similar-ity of the student and mentor and what could be thought of as social or individual-based trust beliefs (benevolence and honesty). It may be likely that the origins of anynegative stereotypes held by the students about Black adult mentors were based ontheir observations of adults in the work environment (these students had participatedin other school-to-work activities sponsored by the school district). One of theseobservations may have been power diVerentials between Whites and Blacks in orga-nizations. Those who are perceived to hold power in organizations are members ofdominant groups, not members of those in the minority (Ragins, 1995, 1997). Assuch, African-American students with low ethnic identity may hold the stereotypethat White adults will be more powerful and more competent than Black adults, thusleading to stronger beliefs of competency and certainty about what to expect from aWhite mentor.

If so, this observation may have a basis in fact, as evidence for these stereotypes isfound in past research showing that White mentors add more value to Blackemployee’s compensation than Black mentors (Dreher & Chargois, 1998; Dreher &Cox, 1996). The students’ association with members of the White community whothey may see as possessing these characteristics in organizations may serve to main-tain the student’s own sense of self-esteem and self-worth.

Ethnic identity also made a diVerence in the competence and predictability beliefsfor students who were shown a picture of a Black mentor. Students with strong eth-nic identities believed that this adult would be more competent than students withlower identities. This is consistent with past research of older, African-Americancommunity college students who believed African-American faculty members are


more credible than European American faculty members (Grant-Thompson &Atkinson, 1997). From a practical standpoint, this Wnding, coupled with the previousresults, indicates that mentors to African-American students will face an initial chal-lenge, which is dependent upon the students’ sensitivity to their ethnic or racial back-grounds.

Although there was a signiWcant, positive relation between structural assurancebeliefs and the students’ trust beliefs about the mentor, using a thorough method toselect mentors for the program was not related to the structural assurance beliefs ofthe students. There may be a number of reasons for this. Since the scenario describeda formal, school district-administered program, the students may have assumed thatthis program would be beneWcial, regardless of how the mentors were selected. Inaddition, the mentor’s background description indicated that, as a staV chemist, hehad demonstrated ‘creativity and the ability to work independently in running labexperiments, had put in long hours to further the progress of his research and waswell known throughout the company.’ Perhaps, after reading these qualiWcations, thediVerences in the selection of the mentors no longer mattered in the students’ assess-ment of the probability that this adult–mentor program would be successful. If true,it may be beneWcial in future research to include a more ambiguous description of thementor’s background.

The Wndings of this study are limited by its experimental design and the size of thedata sample. The design and small sample restrict the applicability of the Wndingsbeyond students outside the respondents. Further research of this type should uselarger samples of students and collect data from students about their real mentorsbefore the relationships begin. The small sample size also led to using parsimoniousregression models, thus excluding other factors that may be related to the trust beliefs.

The fact that the interaction terms were signiWcant using less stringent, one-tailedtests may be considered another limitation of the study. However, respondents wereincluded in the data sample even if they had incorrectly identiWed the race of the can-didate and/or and the selection method used. When the models were run eliminatingthose who had either or both manipulations incorrect (a strategy used in other stud-ies with experimental designs, e.g., Fetherstonhaugh, Slovic, Johnson, & Friedrich,1997), the coeYcient estimates for the interaction terms were signiWcant using a morestringent two-tailed test (DV-Honesty, Identity £ Black mentor, � D .47, t D 2.51,p 0 .05; DV-Predictability, Identity £ Black mentor, �D .44, t D 2.09, p 0 .05).Accordingly, it is important for future researchers to solicit more respondents toobtain larger sample sizes.

Despite its limitations, this study has a number of strengths. Evidence was foundthat the ITF model may be relevant in gaining an understanding of the early determi-nants of trust in an adult–youth mentoring relationship. Additionally, the sample isrepresentative of low-income youth who work with adults in the many programs thathave been created to assist students in their transition to the workplace. Establishingthese adult–youth mentoring relationships is a common component across thesetypes of programs. The present study also adds to the body of the adult–youthmentoring literature by focusing on student perceptions of a mentor prior to theestablishment of the formal relationship. As trust is important to a successful men-


toring relationship, these perceptions may serve to ultimately inXuence the success ofthe interpersonal relationship between the adult and student. If so, taking into con-sideration student dispositions, as well as structural and cultural factors in selectingadults to mentor youths at work may prove to be extremely valuable to those admin-istering these types of mentoring programs.

References

Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Cross, W. E., Jr. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American identity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple

University Press.Cross, W. E., Jr. (1978). Models of psychological nigrescence: A literature review. Journal of Black Psy-

chology, 5, 13–31.Davis, G. (1991). Agents without principles. The spread of the poison pill through the inter-corporate net-

work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4(3), 583–613.Dreher, G. F., & Chargois, J. A. (1998). Gender, mentoring experiences and salary adjustment among grad-

uates of an historically Black university. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 401–416.Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. W. (1996). Race, gender and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment

and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297–308.DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). EVectiveness of mentoring programs

for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157–197.Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. A. (1997). EVects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor

relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460–481.Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Straham, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of explor-

atory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.Fetherstonhaugh, D., Slovic, P., Johnson, S. M., & Friedrich, J. (1997). Insensitivity to the value of human

life: A study of psychophysical numbing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 300–383.Ganzel, R. (2000). Reaching tomorrow’s workers. Training, 37(6), 70–75.Gefen, D., Warkentin, M., Pavlou, P. A., Rose, G. M., (2001). What Drives eGovernment Adoption? An

Antecedent Model of Intended Use of Online Public Services. In Americas Conference on InformationSystems (AMCIS), August 9–11, Dallas, Texas USA (pp. 569–576).

Grant-Thompson, S., & Atkinson, D. (1997). Cross-cultural mentor eVectiveness and African-Americanmale students. Journal of Black Psychology, 23, 120–134.

Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity. New York: Greenwood Press.Helms, J. E., & Talleyrand, R. M. (1996). Race is not ethnicity. American Psychologist, 52, 1246–1247.Hulsey, L., Van Noy, M., & Silverberg, M. (1999). The 1998 national survey of local school-to-work partner-

ships: Data summary. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research Inc.Ilgen, D. R., & Youtz, M. A. (1986). Factors aVecting the evaluation and development of minorities in

organizations. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource man-agement: A research annual (Vol. 4, pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. (1982). Measurement of speciWc interpersonal trust: Construction and valida-tion of a scale to assess trust in a speciWc other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1306–1317.

Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., & Goodman, E. (1998). Factors and outcomes associated with mentoringamong health-care professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 58–72.

Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: ScottForesman and Company.

Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims ormyths. A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.

Lewis, T., Stone, J., Shipley, W., & Madzar, S. (1998). The transition from school to work. Youth and Soci-ety, 29(3), 259–292.


Linnehan, F. (2001). The relation of a work-based mentoring program to the academic performance andbehavior of African-American students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 310–325.

Linnehan, F., Konrad, A., Reitman, F., Greenhalgh, A., & London, M. (2004). Behavioral goals for adiverse organization: The eVects of attitudes, social norms, and racial identity for Asian Americans andWhites. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(7), 1331–1358.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). AVect- and cognitive-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation inorganizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizationalrelationships. Academy of Management Review, 22, 473–490.

National Mentoring Working Group. (1991). Mentoring: Elements of eVective practice. Washington, DC:National Mentoring Partnership.

Oakes, P. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, &M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group a self-categorization theory. New York: BasilBlackwell.

Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Institution-based trust in interorganizational exchange relationships: The role ofonline B2B marketplaces on trust formation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 215–243.

Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean?. American Psycholo-gist, 51, 918–927.

Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176.Phinney, J. S., Cantu, C. L., & Kurtz, D. A. (1997). Ethnic and American identity as predictors of self-

esteem among African-American, Latino, and White Adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,26, 165–185.

Ragins, B. R. (1997). DiversiWed mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academyof Management Review, 22, 482–591.

Ragins, B. R. (1995). Diversity, power, and mentoring in organizations: A cultural, structural, and behav-ioral perspective. In M. M. Chemers, M. A. Costanzo, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Diversity in organizations:New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 91–132). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and womenin formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550.

Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relation-ships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321–339.

Rhodes, J. E., Reddy, R., Grossman, J. B., & Lee, J. M. (2002). Volunteer mentoring relationships withminority youth: An analysis of same- versus cross-race matches. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,32, 2114–2133.

Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and eVects of trust in virtual communi-ties. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 271–295.

Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: Acritical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565–606.

Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A diVerentway of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44, 487–521.

Sue, S., & Zane, N. (1987). The role of culture and cultural techniques in psychotherapy. A critique andreformulation. American Psychologist, 42, 37–45.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin(Eds.), Psychology and intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 38, 169–194.

Thomas, D. A. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relationships (mentor-ing and sponsorship): An intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 479–492.

Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A., Jr. (1989). Beyond simple demographic eVects: The importance of relationaldemography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402–423.

Turban, D. B., Dougherty, T. W., & Lee, F. K. (2002). Gender, race, and perceived similarity eVects indevelopmental relationships: The moderating role of relationship duration. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 61, 240–262.


Turban, D. B., Forret, M. L., & Hendrickson, C. L. (1998). Applicant attraction to Wrms: InXuences oforganization reputation, job and organizational attributes, and recruiter behavior. Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 52, 24–44.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behav-ior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes (2, pp. 77–121). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the socialgroup a self-categorization theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and socialcontext. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.

Vandiver, B. J., Cross, W. E., Jr., Worrell, F. C., & Fhagen-Smith, P. E. (2002). Validating the cross racialidentity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 71–85.

Wentling, R. M. (2000). School and workplace initiatives and other factors that assist and support the suc-cessful school-to-work transition of minority youth. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 37(2),5–30.

Young, A. M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). What did you expect? An examination of career-related and socialsupport among mentors and protégés. Journal of Management, 26, 611–632.

african-american students' early trust beliefs in work-based mentors

Documents