74

their mentors and were comfortable confiding in them as well. Over half of the mentors

were relatives. This finding is consistent with prior research (Rhodes et al., 1992, 1994;

Beam et al., 2002).

 Despite these general trends, when strict criteria were utilized to define quality

mentoring relationships, the sample size became quite a bit smaller. Fifty-five more

participant responses could not be used because of at least some missing data on the

quality factor items. There was no significant difference between those with a quality

mentoring relationship and the other adolescents. This finding has a high risk for a Type

II error because of the low observed power. Future research could answer this question

more confidently with a larger sample. Also, it is possible that the criteria were too strict

and excluded mentoring relationships that were potentially beneficial in some way.

 Those adolescents who reported the presence of a natural mentor did not have

better mental health functioning than those without a mentor. In contrast, they had higher

levels of adverse mental health symptoms than those without the presence of a mentor.

Although, the effect size was small and may be of little clinical significance, there are

some possible explanations for this finding.

 It is possible that adolescents experiencing adverse mental health symptoms may

seek out mentors to help them cope with these difficulties. The theory that mentors can

make up or compensate for problems that adolescents are experiencing is part of the basis

for mentoring programs and also for some of the research on natural mentors (Rhodes et

al., 1992, 1994). Beam and colleagues (2002) found that the presence of natural mentors

was normative and not indicative of problems. However, these adolescents did tend to

seek out support from their mentors when their relationship with their parents was high in

conflict.