EXAMINING PERSON-CENTERED SUPPORT AND SELF …

THROUGH MENTORING

EXAMINING PERSON-CENTERED SUPPORT AND SELF-DEVELOPMENT

Master of Science

In

Psychology: Industrial/Organizational

A thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the Degree

by

Wesley Howell Hale

San Francisco, California

May 2019

Copyright by

Wesley Howell Hale

2019

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

I certify that I have read Examining Person-Centered Support and Self-Development Through

Mentoring by Wesley Howell Hale, and, that in my opinion, this work meets the criteria for

approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree, Master of

Science in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at San Francisco State University.

Kevin Eschleman, Ph.D.Associate Professdr^of Psychology

Diana-Sanchez, Ph.D.Assistant Professor of Psychology

EXAMING PERSON-CENTERED SUPPORT AND SELF-DEVELOPMENT THROUGH

MENTORING

Wesley Howell Hale San Francisco, California

May 2019

Social support has been shown to play a crucial role in employee health and well-being. Support

in the workplace is commonly measured in terms of emotional and instrumental support.

Existing measures of support are not rooted in clinical understandings of supportive

relationships. The present paper presents the results of two studies that were conducted to

develop and validate a measure of Person-Centered Support (PCS). PCS is a humanistic support

scale based on Carl Rogers’ Person-Centered Approach and the three necessary conditions of a

supportive relationship. These conditions are empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive

regard. We evaluated the PCS scale in the context of a career mentoring program. Our findings

demonstrate the 9-item PCS scale is a reliable and valid measure that converges with existing

measures of support (i.e. emotional and instrumental support) and significantly predicts and

correlates with core self-evaluation, flow, self-actualization, satisfaction, and intent to continue a

mentoring relationship. Overall, our findings suggest that the PCS is a valid instrument that

could benefit organizations looking to identify and cultivate relationships that can contribute to

fully functioning employees.

I certify that the abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis

A k u . 7. a 14____

Chair, Thesis Committee Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Eschleman for his vision and guidance and my parents, Melly Howell

and Greg Hale, for providing me with a lifetime of support. I am grateful for the opportunity to

work alongside my co-researcher Sydney Ching and for my secondary reader Dr. Diana Sanchez.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables.........................................................................................................................vii

List of Appendices..................................................................................................................viii

Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1

Study 1 - Method.....................................................................................................................20

Study 1 - Results......................................................................................................................23

Study 2 - Method......................................................................................................................30

Study 2 - Results.......................................................................................................................34

Discussion.................................................................................................................................. 42

Limitations and Future Research................................................. 46

Reference................................................................................................................................... 51r

Appendices................................................................................................................................. 66

LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Confirmatory Factor Analyses Comparing 1-Factor versus

3-Factor Models of Support for Samples 2 - 8 .................................................. 59

2. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Variables

in Samples 2 through 5............................................................... ; .......................60

3. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Variables

in Samples 6 through 8......................................................................................... 61

4. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Variables in Sample 9..............62

5. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Variables in Sample 9

(Continued)............................................................................................................. 63

6. Regression Analyses Examining the Incremental Validity of

Person-Centered Support in Sample 9 .................................................................64

7. Regression Analyses Examining the Incremental Validity of

Person-Centered Support in Sample 9 (Cont.).................................................... 65

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

1. Person-Centered Support Scale

1

Introduction

Social support has been demonstrated to be one of the most critical factors linked to

mental and physical health (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). Meta-analytic results have shown a

positive connection between social support and job satisfaction, job involvement, and

organizational commitment (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Different types of support have been

shown to uniquely predict workplace outcomes such as engagement, career agency, and job

satisfaction (Ducharme & Martin, 2000; Jenkins & Jeski, 2017). Research continues to grow that

demonstrates the importance of the interpersonal quality of the relationships in the workplace

(Colbert, Bono, & Purvanova, 2016; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Ragins & Dutton, 2007). There

has been a repeated call for researchers to explore the types of interactions through which social

support can improve physical and psychological well-being (Thoits, 1982; Thoits, 2011).

Seminal studies looking at support in the workplace were based on observations of

helping behaviors and not rooted in clinical understandings of the importance of relationships for

helping individuals grow and develop. These studies conceptualized and evaluated social support

as a resource for reducing and buffering stress (Caplan, Cobb, & French, 1975; Cobb, 1976;

Cohen & Wills, 1985). This has led to a lack of research examining the types of support that can

lead to personal development and peak experiences.

With the growing number of articles being published on positive psychology and human

potential, it is vital that there exists a scale that captures the dimensions of support linked to

individuals reaching their peak. Within the field of humanistic psychology, Rogers has been

2

instrumental in identifying the necessary conditions for supporting an individual to reach their

full potential.

Humanistic Roots of the Person-Centered Approach

Rogers was one of the most significant figures from the humanistic psychology

movement and helped shape the modem outlook on personal growth and development. One of

the major contributions from Rogers’ was his Person-Centered Approach to therapy and helping

relationships. This theory is needs-based and outline the importance of individuals fulfilling

basic needs in order to grow and reach their full potential. Rogers theory focused on specific

conditions that must be met in relationships for constructive personality change and growth to

occur.

The needs-based, Person-Centered Approach to helping relationships overlaps with

existing theories of social support. Social support is the availability and quality of helping

relationships (Leavy, 1983). One theory that is frequently used to describe and explain the

mechanism through which social support impacts workers and the workplace is the conservation

of resource theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 1990). COR theory suggests that individuals

are driven by a fundamental need to retain, protect, and build resources. Individuals experience

stress when they experience an actual or perceived threat to these resources. Resources can

include personal or environmental characteristics that are valued by the individual, serve to help

the individual obtain, or protect something of value. Job resources may be social, physical,

psychological, or organizational in nature. These resources help individuals meet the demands

3

and challenges of their role, as well as promote growth and development. Social support is one

type of resource that helps individuals function in their environment.

Person-centered support provides individuals with personal and social resources that help

facilitate healthy changes to one's self-concept and helps promote personal growth. Person-

centered support meets the social and psychological needs of individuals and provides

individuals with necessary resources that allow for individuals to strive to obtain more resources.

COR theory describes this enhanced capability of individuals possessing resources to obtain

subsequent resources as gain spirals (Hobfoll, 2001). Individuals low in resources are vulnerable

to subsequent losses through the process of loss spirals. From the COR perspective, personal and

social resources contribute to an individual’s overall sense of identity (Hobfoll et al., 1990).

Rogers describes three conditions of the therapeutic or supportive relationship that are

necessary for constructive personality change to occur. These three conditions are the degrees to

which the therapist (or individual providing support) displays empathy, genuineness, and

unconditional positive regard in the relationship (Rogers, 1957). These conditions allow for a

relationship that is deeply personal and make up the person-centered or client-centered approach

(Rogers, 1965). When these conditions are met the process of constructive personality change

can occur. Rogers describes constructive personality change as a shift in the individual towards

greater integration, effective living, and maturity (Rogers, 1957). Rogers describes individuals

that embody these characteristics as fully-functioning. Fully-functioning persons are

characterized as being adaptable, open, and self-aware (Rogers, 1965). The fully-functioning

4

person trusts in his or her own behavior and abilities to meet the demands of the present moment

and experiences greater harmony with one's self and with others.

Empathy. Empathy is one of the essential qualities of Rogers' supportive relationship

and is the ability of the therapist to clearly perceive the client’s emotions and private world

without losing his or her own self-awareness (Rogers, 1957). This quality is characterized by the

ability of the therapist to sense the client’s emotional state and condition (i.e. anger, fear) as if it

was his or her own but without losing the “as i f ’ quality (Rogers, 1961). This means that the

therapist is able to communicate his or her perceptions of the client’s state without getting bound

up in the perceived emotions. The therapist client relationship is just one form of helping

relationship in which empathy can be conveyed.

A career mentor that exhibits empathy would be one that demonstrates awareness of the

mentee’s feelings and helps the mentee connect with his or her feelings. This could be a career

mentor that sees a mentee in distress about his abilities for a job and helps the mentee connect

and open up about these feelings. This career mentor might say, “I can see that you are feeling

upset about your job. Would you like to talk about that?”

Empathy in supportive relationships is commonly represented in other support variables,

such as emotional support (Zellars & Perewe, 2001). Leadership assessments, for

transformational leadership particularly, contain some items relevant to emotional support. For

example, as a self-report measure, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, contains 78 items

to measure various factors of transformational leadership. Idealized influence can translate into

emotional support in that it assesses perceptions of how the leader personally sacrifices, deals

5

with challenges, and exudes self-confidence (Kanste, Miettunen, & Kyngas, 2007). Inspirational

motivational represents empathy in terms of understanding another’s goals (Kanste, Miettunen,

& Kyngas, 2007). Intellectual stimulation assesses the amount of acceptance of new ideas and

encouragement of varying concepts (Kanste, Miettunen, & Kyngas, 2007). Individualized

consideration measures how much the leader treats others as individuals, rather than as part of a

group (Kanste, Miettunen, & Kyngas, 2007). Collectively, the items capture empathy in terms of

understanding another person’s unique perceptions.

Genuineness. Genuineness is the degree to which an individual is freely and deeply

himself or herself and actual experience is represented by his or her self-awareness (Rogers,

1958). Another way to describe genuineness is that it is an awareness of one’s own feelings and

attitudes and a willingness to express this reality to the other person (Rogers, 1961). Rogers

emphasizes the importance of being genuine with the client even if the feelings and attitudes do

not seem conducive to a good relationship (1961). By the client experiencing genuineness from

the therapist, he or she can come into contact with the actual reality within himself or herself

(Rogers, 1961).

In a workplace relationship, an example of genuineness could be when a career mentor

expresses enthusiasm for a mentee’s success, and the mentor genuinely feels this emotion and is

consciously aware of it. Another example could be a career mentor that sees an area where a

mentee is struggling and openly and honestly shares feedback about this area. Rogers states that

with such people we know exactly where they stand moment-to-moment (1961).

6

The concept of genuineness in the supportive relationship has influenced modem

conceptualizations of authenticity (Kemis & Goldman, 2006). Authenticity is defined as the

unobstructed operation of one’s core-self in one’s daily activities (Kemis, 2003). Research has

shown that authentic functioning is an antecedent of work engagement (Leroy et al., 2013).

Authentic leadership converges with the condition of genuineness described by Rogers and is

demonstrated by one’s self-awareness and self-regulatory processes that contribute to authentic

relationships (Avolino & Gardner, 2005). Authentic leadership consists of self-awareness,

unbiased processing, authentic behavior, and relational authenticity and is proposed to relate to a

follower’s positive emotional state and level of self-realization (lies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang,

2005).

Unconditional positive regard. Unconditional positive regard is a form of acceptance

that is characterized by caring for the other as a separate person with their own unique feelings

and experiences (Rogers, 1957). This aspect of person-centered therapy involves accepting the

client as a person in the process of becoming in order to actualize his or her potentialities

(Rogers, 1961, p. 51). In other words, unconditional positive regard is a non-possessive warmth

displayed toward the client in their process of becoming a fully functioning person (Rogers,

1961). Rogers describes this aspect of Person-Centered Therapy as a warm regard for the client

as a person of unconditional self-worth (Rogers, 1965).

In the workplace, an example of unconditional positive regard could be when a career

mentor displays a warm regard for his or her mentee despite the positive or negative behaviors

and attitudes exhibited by the mentee. Rogers describes an example of this in terms of a therapist

7

that feels as much acceptance for his client’s negative feelings as for his or her positive feelings

(1961).

A career mentor that promotes unconditional positive regard would be one that accepts

the strengths and weaknesses of the mentee and provides the mentee with the freedom and

acceptance to be himself or herself. Another way that this could be seen in the context of career

mentoring is when a mentee shares that being fired from a job. The career mentor exhibiting

unconditional positive regard would in this case see the mentee as an individual growing and

learning, still deserving of self-worth despite the mistakes made along the way. In this instance,

the self-worth of the mentee is still warmly regarded, and he or she can be advised on how to

learn and grow from the experience without the fear of personal judgement.

We can see a conceptual overlap between Rogers’ unconditional positive regard and

more recently researched constructs, such as psychological safety. Kahn (1990) defines

psychological safety as the feeling’s individuals have towards their ability to display and employ

themselves without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status or career. Psychological

safety represents an interpersonal climate that is characterized by the presence of trust, respect,

and care (Edmondson, 1999). Meta-analytic results have shown that psychological safety is

positively related to employee engagement, task performance, satisfaction, and commitment

(Frazier et al., 2017). Whereas unconditional positive regard refers to acceptance of the person

provided from a counselor or support source, psychological safety refers to the general

environmental climate of acceptance and openness.

8

Applications of the person-centered approach. Rogers defines a helping relationship as

a relationship in which one individual or group has an intention of promoting growth and

improved functioning in the other (1958). Rogers’ theory has been applied in educational,

vocational, and healthcare settings (1958). The Person-Centered Approach has taken root in

these settings and with this approach we can see an emphasis in the importance of Rogers1 three

essential conditions for constructive change. Empathy, genuineness, unconditional positive

regard, along with Rogers’ non-directive approach have influenced the field of education and the

development of the learner-centered approach to teaching (Cornelius-White, 2007).

The most common application of person-centered therapy is in the field of mental health.

Research has demonstrated that therapists providing high amounts of empathy, genuineness, and

unconditional positive regard had reported higher amounts of patient improvements (Barrett-

Lennard, 1962; Truax et al., 1966). Patients that received the necessary relationship components

(empathy, genuineness, unconditional positive regard) during sessions with therapists

demonstrated greater indices of constructive personality change. Rogers theory has continued to

influence the clinical field as healthcare facilities have adopted the Person-Centered Approach as

a model of care (Brownie & Nancarrow, 2013; Edvardsson & Innes, 2010).

The evaluation of the person-centered approach has led several to develop scales to

within the clinical and medical settings, such as the Relationship Inventory (Barrett-Lennard,

2015). Participants are asked to rate how strongly he or she feels a statement is true or untrue by

indicating a -1, -2, -3 for how untrue and a 1, 2, 3 for true. Example items include rating the

therapist on empathy (e.g., “I feel that my therapist does not understand me”) as well as himself

9

or herself (e.g., “I can’t understand or make sense of my whole complicated self’), rating the

therapist on genuineness (e.g., “I feel that my therapist is genuine with me”) as well as himself or

herself (e.g., “I think I am open and genuine in the way I relate to myself’), and rating the

therapist on unconditional positive regard (e.g., “No matter what I say about myself, my therapist

likes (or dislikes) me just the same”) as well as himself or herself (e.g., “I don’t think that

anything I find myself saying or doing changes the way I inwardly feel toward myself as a

person”; Barrett-Lennard, 2015). The answers are then coded into empathy, genuineness, and

unconditional positive regard, with the addition of “congruence,” a reflection of security and

integration of oneself (Barrett-Lennard, 1962; 2015). Additionally, the A-B scale was developed

to assess self-exploration from those suffering with schizophrenia (Scott & Kemp, 1971). Due to

therapeutic conditions from empathy, genuineness, and warmth, in other words, unconditional

positive regard, people with schizophrenia developed a stronger sense of self, resembling a core

self-evaluation (Scott & Kemp, 1971). Higher ratings of empathy, genuineness, and

unconditional positive regard exhibited by the therapist led to higher patient improvement. That

is, 90% as opposed to 50% of patients improved if the therapist demonstrated higher empathy,

genuineness, and unconditional positive regard (Truax et al., 1966). These scales are limited in

that the item content is relevant to clinical settings and may not be applicable to all workers.

Development of the Person-Centered Support Scale

Limitations of Current Measures of Support. In the current studies, we seek to

validate a person-centered support scale from multiple sources. The person-centered support

scale will address several limitations of prior support scales used to study support in

10

organizations and occupations. First, as explained above, prior scales of support were not

developed with Rogers theory as the underlying theoretical framework and did not consider

clinical research demonstrating the necessary conditions of a supportive relationship. Although

Rogers’ work was not directly referenced, the content of popular existing support scales

emphasize socio emotional resources, which are very similar to that of empathy, genuineness,

and regard.

Existing measurements of support are also limited in that they often include items for

support received (e.g., my supervisor values my opinion) and availability of support (e.g., my

supervisor would help me if I needed it). An example would be the perceived organizational

support scale (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Support received describes a

resource already exchanged, whereas availability of support describes the potential for future

resources. These forms of support have likely different constructs and should be measured

separately (e.g., Mathieu et al., 2018; Roy & Steptoe, 1994). The current study seeks to develop

a scale of exclusively support received (resources exchanged) items.

Third, researchers lack consistency in the support scale used to measure support from

different sources. There have been few attempts to develop and validate a support scale for

various sources of support. The current study seeks to develop a scale that can be used for a wide

range of support sources such as others in the organization, supervisor, coworkers, subordinates,

customers / clients, family / friends, and mentor. The more commonly researched support

sources are organization, supervisor, coworkers, family, friends, and mentor. However, less

research has been conducted on support from subordinates and customers / clients. In addition,

11

valid measurements for mentor support are particularly limited (Brodeur et al., 2015). The

development of a validated scale for all the aforementioned sources of support will help further

the research on the less commonly studied sources of support.

Convergent and Divergent Validity

Support can be defined as helping behaviors that provide valuable socioemotional and

task-relevant resources, directly affecting well-being and indirectly assisting in addressing

demands (Viswesvaran et al., 1999). Most studies cite from the same researcher for definitions of

support (Caplan, Cobb, & French, 1975). Nevertheless, recently, researchers have disentangled

support into a wide range of topics under the umbrella of social support in the workplace:

support seeking, instrumental support, psychosocial emotional support, and perceived

organizational support (Viswesvaran et al., 1999). We focus on types of support resources

received and not when they happen in the future, or one’s motivation to acquire the resources as

in the case of support seeking. The new scale most closely resembles emotional support, adding

Rogers’ theory to the equation.

Other types of support scales that we measured were instrumental and emotional.

Instrumental and emotional support are very strongly correlated (Eschleman et al., 2018).

However, instrumental support is evaluated by category and by how many supportive actions

(Morelli, Lee, Amn, Zaki, & Desteno, 2015). Instrumental support can be quantified by the

number of emotional disclosures heard by the provider and tangible assistance. In the case of a

student, emotional disclosures are the number of positive events, such as acing an exam, and

negative events, such as arguing with a friend (Morelli et al., 2015). Hearing emotional

12

disclosures does not necessarily require emotional support. Therefore, it is an instrumental

behavior. Thus, emotional support is less quantifiably measured by empathy or emotional

responsiveness that the mentee can feel from the caregiver (Morelli et al., 2015). Empathy,

genuineness, and unconditional positive regard are considered voluntary and, hence, an effective

form of support under Rogers’ Person-Centered Approach (Morelli et al., 2015). It does not

reflect a quantifiable, quid pro quo relationship, where the mentor and mentee are keeping score.

Thus, it is more similar to emotional than instrumental support.

Hypothesis 1: PCS will be positively correlated with an emotional support scale.

Hypothesis 2: PCS will be positively correlated with an instrumental support scale.

Hypothesis 3: PCS will be more strongly correlated with an emotional support scale

compared to an instrumental support scale.

Predictive Validity

Peak well-being. We measured two forms of peak well-being: flow and self-

actualization. Flow represents a period of “optimal experience” that a person feels at his or her

best, genuinely and deeply engaged in a state of pleasurable consciousness (Csikszentmihalyi,

1990). There are three defining characteristics of flow that we can use to measure it: absorption,

enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation (Bakker, 2008). Absorption represents immersion into an

activity and total concentration on an activity, where time seems to fade (Bakker, 2008).

Enjoyments means that someone experiences happiness while working and easily expresses their

work as high quality (Bakker, 2008). Intrinsic motivation refers to carrying out a work-related

activity for the inherent pleasure of it. Those who are intrinsically motivated can sustain interest

13

in an activity for a prolonged period (Bakker, 2008). Person-Centered Support relates to flow in

that there are several stages that a mentor puts a mentee through that can transform a mentee

from rigid to flowing (Rogers, 1958). A more integrated process can develop for a mentee in

which there is more ownership and control over one’s actions and emotions to increase overall

well-being (Rogers, 1958). A sense of peak experience or flow often relate to one another as a

measure of internal locus of control, intertwining the two theories of Rogers and Maslow to a

core self-evaluation (Taylor, Schepers, & Crous, 2006). Rogers contended that letting feelings

flow will result in less fear to give and receive all that life has to offer (Rogers, 1980). In other

words, Person-Centered Support facilitates openness to learn (Rogers, Lyon, & Tausch, 2014).

If empirical evidence shows that prior scales of emotional support are related to flow and

affective well-being, then well-being will be correlated with support when support is measured

with other scales similar to Person-Centered Support. As a form of social support, mentoring can

be valuable in that mentees are more emotionally committed as well as show heightened

performance, reduced absenteeism, and less turnover (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen,

1997; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982).

Hypothesis 4a: PCS will be positively correlated with flow characteristics.

Hypothesis 4b: PCS will explain unique variance in flow characteristics while

controlling for emotional support and instrumental support.

Self-actualization is healthy self-realization on the path to self-transcendence, meaning

that rather than a focus on basic needs, one is motivated by growth and love of humanity

(Kaufman, 2018). It is composed of ten characteristics that collectively represent the building

14

blocks (Kaufman, 2018).

(1) Continued Freshness of Appreciation (e.g., “I can appreciate again and again, freshly

and naively, the basic goods of life, with awe, pleasure, wonder, and even ecstasy,

however stale these experiences may have become to others.”),

(2) Acceptance (e.g., “I accept all of my quirks and desires without shame or apology ”),

(3) Authenticity (e.g., “I can maintain my dignity and integrity even in environments and

situations that are undignified.”),

(4) Equanimity (e.g., “I tend to take life’s inevitable ups and downs with grace,

acceptance, and equanimity.”),

(5) Purpose (e.g., “I feel a great responsibility and duty to accomplish a particular

mission in life.”),

(6) Efficient Perception of Reality (e.g., “I am always trying to get at the real truth about

people and nature.”),

(7) Humanitarianism (e.g., “I have a genuine desire to help the human race.”),

(8) Peak Experiences (e.g., “I often have experiences in which I feel new horizons and

possibilities opening up for myself and others.”),

(9) Good Moral Intuition (e.g., “I can tell ‘deep down’ right away when I’ve done

something wrong.”), and

(10) Creative Spirit (e.g., “I have a generally creative spirit that touches everything I

do.”)

Hypothesis 5a: PCS will be positively correlated with self-actualization characteristics.

15

Hypothesis 5b: PCS will explain unique variance in self-actualization characteristics

while controlling for emotional support and instrumental support.

Self-concept. To assess quality of mentor support, we examined students’ core self-

evaluations (CSE), as a form of self-concept, toward their careers. A career anchor is one’s self-

concept, consisting of perceived talents and abilities, values, motives, and needs (Scnein & Van

Maanen, 2016). Due to our sample’s focus on career mentoring, we examined these concepts in

the context of career beliefs rather than life in general. A core self-evaluation is composed of (1)

self-efficacy, (2) self-esteem, (3) emotional stability, and (4) locus of control (Judge, Erez, Bono,

& Thoresen, 2003). Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in his or her ability to engage in

behaviors necessary to achieve specific outcomes (Bandura, 1977). It reflects confidence in

control over one’s environment, influencing the likelihood of attaining one’s goals. Self-esteem

means the value that one regards oneself as a person (Judge et al., 2003). Emotional stability is

how a person processes emotion to develop an integrated and balanced way of perceiving

problems (Chaturvedi & Chander, 2010). Finally, a locus of control (LOC) is how a person

attributes situational outcomes to personal behavior (Taylor, Schepers, & Crous, 2006).

According to humanistic theory, if perceptions of one’s ideal self and actual self are

congruent with each other, a person is healthier (Barrett-Lennard, 1962). Our support scale is

related to congruence in one’s core self-evaluation. When a mentor is willing and open to share

his or her experience with genuineness and accepts the mentee with empathy and unconditional

positive regard, it reduces incongruity for the mentee (Rogers, 1963). The mentee appears as an

existential being emerging from experience, rather than structure imposed onto the self.

16

Genuineness is considered the most basic component of Rogers’ theory (Rogers, 1963).

At its heart is authenticity, encouraging the mentee to be himself or herself and achieve

congruence (Truax, 1967). Mentors can provide mentees with a realistic understanding of how to

address their problems by being genuine, promoting a strong core self-evaluation.

A mentee trusts in himself or herself to do the right thing, is unafraid of feelings and

living in the moment, and develops a rational and balanced way of thinking (Rogers, 1963). A

supportive relationship promotes maturity and the ability to cope with life’s challenges (Rogers,

1958). When a mentee achieves congruence, it is the hypothetical endpoint, where the mentee

develops a locus of evaluation within himself or herself (Rogers, 1963). The mentee becomes

self-actualized in that he or she lives within the culture provided by the mentor, similar to how an

employee would adapt to the organizational culture of a company.

The concept of self-actualization, conceived by Abraham Maslow, a fellow founder of

humanistic psychology, relates to Rogers’ theory of congruence. Self-actualization represents

feelings of fulfillment, becoming the person one is meant to be (Kaufman, 2018). Similarly,

Rogers believed that when one’s ideal and actual self align with one another, a person reaches

full health.

Nevertheless, self-actualization measures more of an overall feeling in life versus a state

that one can achieve (Kaufman, 2018). Self-actualization was tied to higher levels of stability

and controlling impulses to protect one’s goals, relating to emotional stability and a locus of

control as part of a core self-evaluation (Kaufman, 2018). In terms of organizational psychology,

self-actualization predicted higher work satisfaction and performance as well as higher self-

17

reported measures of creativity from sports to sciences (Kaufman, 2018). Ultimately, self-

actualization stemmed more from a motivation for growth and for love of humanity than to

satiate basic needs, leading to greater life satisfaction, self-acceptance, positive relationships, and

purpose in life (Kaufman, 2018).

In a parent and child study, a more acceptant-democratic parental style facilitated the

most growth for the child with the child demonstrating more emotional security and more control

(Rogers, 1958). Conversely, a more rejecting parental style developed aggressive, rebellious, and

unstable children (Rogers, 1958). If a parent was more consistently congruent in his or her

actions and words, a child also benefited from a stronger self-concept, in this case emotional

stability and locus of control (Rogers, 1958).

In a pilot study with lay people as volunteers in a hospital, inspired by Rogers’ teachings,

researchers found the volunteers could be trained to be equally empathetic and genuine (Truax,

1967). The volunteers not only demonstrated as much unconditional positive regard as mental

health counselors, but also earned even better results in who improved versus who deteriorated in

health (Truax, 1967). Furthermore, there was improved emotional stability and interpersonal

relationships with clients developing more positive personalities overall (Truax, 1967). Even if

the interactions were small, over the course of a few hours, as in the case of our study, a mentor

can have a positive impact on a mentee.

We measured core self-evaluation with a career specific scale, termed a core self-

evaluation with an “S.” to assess positive career development changes. Thus, mentees who report

higher levels of both emotional and instrumental support in association to the Person-Centered

18

Support Scale will possess stronger core self-evaluations. If empirical evidence shows that prior

scales of emotional support are related to core self-evaluation, then core self-evaluation will be

correlated with support when support is measured with other scales similar to the Person-

Centered Approach.

Hypothesis 6a: PCS will be positively correlated with career-oriented core self-

evaluations.

Hypothesis 6b: PCS will explain unique variance career-oriented core self-evaluation

while controlling for emotional support and instrumental support.

Attitudes. We had two variables to address attitudes: mentor satisfaction and intent to

continue mentorship meetings. Support is generally positively related to positive attitudes of

satisfaction among other positive outcomes, namely reduced emotional exhaustion and an

increased sense of personal accomplishment (Shefer et al., 2017). Our concept of support is

better at predicting attitudes due to its unique predictions from other theories and sources of

support.

A Person-Centered Approach relates to mentor satisfaction and intent to continue

mentorship meetings in that if a mentor earns higher ratings of empathy, genuineness, and

unconditional positive regard from his or her mentee, the mentee will be more satisfied and

intend to continue meeting with his or her mentor in the future. If empirical evidence shows that

prior scales of emotional support are related to these attitudes, then these attitudes will be

correlated with support when support is measured with other scales similar to the Person-

Centered Approach.

19

Intent to continue meetings, as part of mentor satisfaction, was operationalized

individually as, “I intend to continue meeting with my mentor in the future.” Person-Centered

Support relates to intent to continue meetings. In one study, a Relationship Inventory between

therapist and client found that empathic understanding was the strongest intercorrelated variable

for both therapists and clients over time (Barrett-Lennard, 1962). A person's congruence was the

primary factor determining potential for understanding the other (Barrett-Lennard, 1962). Joint

perceptions of both therapist and client were most telling, possessing more predictive value than

separate perceptions, whereas willingness to be known predicted more change and improvement

(Barrett-Lennard, 1962). With more time to interact, the mentor and student mentee can deepen

their understanding of one another.

Hypothesis la: PCS will be positively correlated with attitudes (i.e., satisfaction with

mentor, intent to continue mentorship).

Hypothesis 7b: PCS will explain unique variance in attitudes (i.e., satisfaction with

mentor, intent to continue mentorship) while controlling for emotional support and

instrumental support.

Study 1 (Scale Development)

Study 1 includes the development and selection of scale items for seven different sources

of support: organization, supervisor, coworkers, subordinates, customers / clients, family /

friends, and mentor. Initial psychometric properties and predictive validity are evaluated.

Study 1 - Method

Participants and Procedure

20

Samples 1 - 8 . Sample 1 was used to evaluate the initial items that were written to assess

person-centered support and reduce the number of items into a 6-item scale. Samples 2 through 8

were used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the scale with the source of support varied

within each sample. Participants for each sample were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk

(MTurk; https://requester.mturk.com/). MTurk and other crowdsourcing services are a popular

means of recruiting research participants (Landers & Behrend, 2015). Each sample was based on

an initial 225 participants who were paid $0.25, but participants were removed if they failed to

successfully complete two attention check questions (e.g., “Mark strongly disagree”; see Huang,

Liu, & Bowling, 2015; Meade & Craig, 2012).

Sample 1 evaluated all initial support items generated for scale development with 170

workers. All items targeted the organization support (i.e., “others in the organization”) as the

source of support. The sample identified as 58% male, 75% Caucasian / White, 9% Asian, 8%

African American / Black, and 6% Latino / Latina. The average participant was 36 years old, had

6 years organizational tenure, and worked 40 hours per week.

Sample 2 evaluated the organization support version of the scale with 179 workers. The

sample identified as 63% male, 73% Caucasian / White, 10% Asian, 11% African American /

Black, and 3% Latino / Latina. The average participant was 35 years old, had 6 years

organizational tenure, and worked 40 hours per week.

Sample 3 evaluated the supervisor support version of the scale with 188 workers. The


https://requester.mturk.com/

21



Sample 4 evaluated the coworker support version of the scale with 193 workers. The




Sample 5 evaluated the subordinate support version of the scale with 171 workers. The




Sample 6 evaluated the customer / client support version of the scale with 186 workers.

The sample identified as 44% male, 87% Caucasian / White, 3% Asian, 11% African American /



Sample 7 evaluated the family / friend support version of the scale with 170 workers. The




Sample 8 evaluated the mentor support version of the scale with 170 workers. The


22



Measures

Person-Centered Support. Person-centered support was assessed within each of the

samples, but with varying sources of support. The final scale with participant and administrator

instruction is provided in Appendix A. Person-centered support with nine items. Empathy,

genuineness, and regard were calculated with the average of 3 items each. The total scale score

was calculated with the average of all items. All items were on 7-point Likert scale ranging from

1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The source of support evaluated varied in each

sample: organization (Samples 1 and 8), supervisor (Sample 2), coworkers (Sample 3),

subordinates (Samples 4), customers / clients (Sample 5), family / friends (Sample 6), and

mentor (Samples 7 and 9). Coefficient alphas for the person-centered support scale in samples 2-

8 ranged between .83 to .92.

Flow. Flow was assessed using the 13-item Work-Related Flow Inventory (WOLF)

developed by Bakker (2008). The scale includes 3 factors that were measured separately:

absorption (4 items), enjoyment (4 items), and intrinsic motivation (5 items). Items were on 7-

point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). An example absorption item is, “When I

am working, I think about nothing else.” An example enjoyment item is, “I feel happy during my

work.” An example intrinsic motivation item is, “I get my motivation from the work itself and

not from the reward for it.” Coefficient alphas for absorption, enjoyment, and intrinsic

motivation scales in samples 2-8 ranged between .87 to .97.

23

Study 1 - Results

Item Development and Scale Construction (Sample 1)

We followed the item development process established by other researchers who sought

to develop a scale of established interrelated psychological phenomenon (c.f., Core-Self

Evaluation Scale development by Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003). In developing the

Person-Centered Support Scale, we developed a pool of 27 items. These items were written

based the works of Rogers (e.g., 1961) and a review of seminal assessments of Roger’s person-

centered approach within a counseling setting (Carkhuff & Truax, 1965; Lin, 1973). In addition,

we closely examined the items of existing measures of similar constructs, such as workplace

support (e.g., Caplan, Cobb, & French, 1975; Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson,

2009) and empathy (e.g., Hogan, 1969; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). Where possible, we based

our wording choices on the items from existing measures. The items were generated to cover the

range of person-centered support as indicated by the three core characteristics. Specifically,

items were written that involved empathy (e.g., “My supervisor helps me connect with my inner

thoughts,” “My supervisor treats me like an object”), genuineness (e.g., “My supervisor

acknowledges his/her own weaknesses,” “My supervisor has a nidden agenda”), and regard (e.g.,

“My supervisor values my unique personal experiences,” “My supervisor is impatient with me”).

An equal number of items were written to capture empathy, genuineness, and regard. This was

done with the intent to measure person-centered support as three highly interrelated

characteristics so that practitioners could choose between measuring support at the factor-level

(e.g., empathy), or use a total scale score representing overall person-centered support. Both

24

positively and negatively worded items were generated in the item development stage.

Sample 1 was used to choose the scale items by applying several criteria. First, the items

needed to adequately represent the person-centered support content domain represented by the

three characteristics. Second, items needed to be worded so that they could be applicable to

various sources of support and occupational settings. Third, we chose items significantly

correlated with each other to ensure reliability. Fourth, we selected items that demonstrated

predictive validity with flow (absorption, enjoyment, intrinsic motivation) because peak well

being is an expected byproduct of person-centered support. We excluded items that had

unexpected or weak correlations with these criteria. Finally, the scale had to be short enough so

that it could useful in various applied settings where multiple sources of support are evaluated

within a single survey. These steps led to a 9-item scale of positively worded items. Negatively

worded items were excluded due to reliability concerns. The psycho-metric properties of this

scale were tested in the next 7 samples using different sources of support for each sample.

Psychometric Properties (Samples 2 - 8 )

Reliability coefficients, descriptive statistics, and correlations are reported in Table 2

(samples 2 through 5) and Table 3 (samples 6 through 8). The total person-centered support scale

and facet scales demonstrated acceptable reliability in all instances with a Cronbach alpha of .72

or greater across samples 2 through 8. The descriptive statistics also indicate a psychometrically

sound scale. Specifically, variability in support scale responses were found within each sample;

the standard deviations ranged from .80 to 1.57. In addition, there was significant variability in

the scale means between samples, which indicates that the scale is sensitive to the measurement

25

of different sources of support. For example, total person-centered support was more frequently

reported ( t = 12.37 ,p < .01) from the source of mentor ( M = 5.76, SD = 0.80) compared to the

source of customers / clients (M= 4.52, SD = 1.06). Similarly, person-centered support was more

frequently reported (t = 12.37, p < .01) from the source of family / friends (M= 5.36, SD = 1.11)

compared to the source of organization (M= 4.60, SD = 1.44).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted for each source of support using

Samples 2 through 8 (see Table 1) using structural equation software (MPlus 5.1; Muthen &

Muthen, 2008). Fit for each model was evaluated using cutoffs recommended by Hu and Bentler

(1999) for the comparative fit index (CFI> .95) and standardized root mean square residual

(SRMR < .08), but the chi-square and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) are

also reported. For all sources of support, the 3-factor model fit the data well (CFI> .97; SRMR <

.04). Chi-square difference tests with 3 degrees of freedom indicated that the fit for the 3-factor

model was significantly (p < .01) better than the fit for the 1-factor model in all 7 samples (46.38

< AX1 > 95.26).

Although the 3-factor model fits the data better than a 1-factor model, the CFA results

indicated the three support facets are strongly interrelated. For instance, the average correlation

between empathy, genuineness, and regard was .66 and ranged between .49 to .78. The

combination of the confirmatory factor analyses and strong interrelationships between facets

indicates that practitioners may consider calculating either a total scale score or scores for each

facet, depending upon if information is needed at the factor level.

Predictive Validity (Samples 2 - 8 )

26

Consistent with Hypothesis 4a, person-centered support had a consistent positive

correlation with the flow characteristics across all samples. Correlations and descriptive statistics

for Samples 2 through 5 are reported in Table 2. Correlations and descriptive statistics for

Samples 6 through 8 are reported in Table 3.

Sample 2 tested the relationships between support from others in the organization and

flow. Overall, person-centered support variables had significant positive correlations with flow

characteristics in 12 of 12 analyses with an average correlation of .47. Specifically, total person-

centered support had a positive correlation with absorption (r = .37, p < .01), enjoyment (r = .69,

p < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r = .55, p < .01). Empathy had a positive correlation with

absorption (r = .38,p < .01), enjoyment (r = .64, p < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r = .58, p <

.01). Genuineness had a positive correlation with absorption (r = .32, p < .01), enjoyment (r =

.58, p < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r = .46, p < .01). Regard had a positive correlation with

absorption (r = .31, p < .01), enjoyment (r = .65, p < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r = .45, p <

Sample 3 tested the relationships between support from one’s immediate supervisor and




p < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r = .42, p < .01). Empathy had a positive correlation with

absorption (r = .23, p < .01), enjoyment (r = .54, p < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r = .43, p <


27


absorption (r = .16, p < .05), enjoyment (r = .46), and intrinsic motivation (r = .31,p < .01).

Sample 4 tested the relationships between support from one’s coworkers and flow.

Overall, person-centered support variables had significant positive correlations with flow


centered support had a positive correlation with absorption (r = .28,p < .01), enjoyment (r = .53,

p < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r - .37, p < .01). Empathy had a positive correlation with

absorption (r = .34,p < .01), enjoyment (r = .50,p < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r = A \ ,p <



absorption (r = .21, p < .01), enjoyment (r = .48), and intrinsic motivation (r = .30, p < .01).

Sample 5 tested the relationships between support from one's subordinates and flow.



centered support had a positive correlation with enjoyment (r = .40,/? < .01) and intrinsic

motivation (r = .22, p < .01), but a nonsignificant relationship with absorption (r = .13, p - .08).

Empathy had a positive correlation with absorption (r = . 15, p < .05), enjoyment (r = .32, p <

.01) . and intrinsic motivation (r = . 2 l , p< .01). Genuineness had a positive correlation with

enjoyment (r = .38, p < .01) and intrinsic motivation (r = .21,p < .01), but a nonsignificant

relationship with absorption (r = .09, p = .26). Regard had a positive correlation with enjoyment

(r = .32, p < .01) and intrinsic motivation (r = .15,p < .05), but a nonsignificant relationship with

28

absorption (r = . 11, p = . 14).

Sample 6 tested the relationships between support from one’s customers / clients and




p < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r = .46,/? < .01). Empathy had a positive correlation with

absorption (r = .32,p < .01), enjoyment (r = .43,/? < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r = .48,/? <

.01). Genuineness had a positive correlation with enjoyment (r - .38,p < .01) and intrinsic

motivation (r = .30, p < .01), but a nonsignificant relationship with absorption (r = .11,/?= .15).

Regard had a positive correlation with enjoyment (r = .32,/? < .01) and intrinsic motivation (r =

.35,/? < .01), but a nonsignificant relationship with absorption (r = .11,/? = .15).

Sample 7 tested the relationships between support from one’s family / friends and flow.



centered support had a positive correlation with enjoyment (r - .31,/? < .01) and intrinsic

motivation (r = .26, p < .05), but a nonsignificant relationship with absorption (r = . 10, p = . 18).

Empathy had a positive correlation with enjoyment (r = .34,/? < .01) and intrinsic motivation (r

= .29,/? < .05), but a nonsignificant relationship with absorption (r - .13,/? = .08). Genuineness

had a positive correlation with enjoyment (r = .24,/? < .01) and intrinsic motivation (r = .20, p <

.05), but a nonsignificant relationship with absorption (r = .04,/? = .59). Regard had a positive

correlation with enjoyment (r = .21,/? < .01) and intrinsic motivation (r = .19,/? < .05), but a

29

nonsignificant relationship with absorption (r = .09, p = .25).

Sample 8 tested the relationships between support from one’s mentor and flow. Overall,

person-centered support variables had significant positive correlations with flow characteristics

in 10 of 12 analyses with an average correlation of .32. Specifically, total person-centered

support had a positive correlation with absorption (r = .23, p < .01), enjoyment (r = .41, p < .01),

and intrinsic motivation (r = .30, p < .01). Empathy had a positive correlation with absorption (r

= .32,p < .01), enjoyment (r = .38, p < .01), and intrinsic motivation (r = .35, p < .01).

Genuineness had a positive correlation with enjoyment (r = .32, p < .01) and intrinsic motivation

(r = . 18, p < .05), but a nonsignificant relationship with absorption (r = . 10, p = . 18). Regard had

a positive correlation with enjoyment (r = .36, p < .01) and intrinsic motivation (r = .22, p < .01),

but a nonsignificant relationship with absorption (r = .14, p = .07).

Overall, total person-centered support and support factors had significant positive

correlations with flow characteristics in 73 of 84 analyses with an average correlation strength of

.36 across samples 2 through 8. Relationship strength did vary across the flow characteristics,

such that the person-centered support variables were most strongly correlated with enjoyment

(average r = .43) and intrinsic motivation (average r = .33), whereas weaker correlations were

found with absorption (average r = .20).

Study 2 (Scale Validation)

Study 2 extends the validation effort of the person-centered support scale in several ways.

First, we analyze one source of support (mentor) thoroughly within a realistic setting (a career-

development exercise for college students). Second, we include ratings of support from both the

30

mentee (support received) and mentor (support provided) to combat for common method bias

(c.f., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Spector, 2006).

Third, we included preexisting support measures of emotional support and instrumental support

to test for convergent / divergent validity. Fourth, we expanded the list of outcomes variables to

include other forms peak well-being (self-actualization), evaluations of one’s self concept

(career-oriented core self-evaluations), and attitudes (i.e., satisfaction with mentor, intent to

continue mentorship).

Study 2 - Method

Participants and procedure

Study 2 consisted of 453 students and included students from two different stages of their

career development. Our sample consisted of students exploring a major and students about to

enter the workforce after college graduation. Using students from two different stages in their

academic and career development allowed us to increase the generalizability of the findings.

Students participated in a mentorship program developed as a part of their course

curriculum. The mentorship task involved meeting with a mentor three times throughout the

semester. The students self-selected their own mentors and were instructed not to choose a

professor or fellow student as a mentor. Instead, students were instructed to select someone who

was ahead of them in their career journey and could provide guidance. The mentor could have

been an individual from any career field. The average length of each mentor meeting was 44

minutes. Students met with their mentors for an average of 3 times. The majority of students

(85%) knew their mentor prior to the task.

31

Students were provided with instructions, a set of meeting tasks, and potential questions

to ask for each mentor meeting. Questions and tasks were provided to help ensure that the

meetings were career focused and to facilitate dialogue between the mentor and the mentee.

After the students completed the three assigned mentor meetings (one per month), the students

and their mentors were administered our survey. Students and mentors could elect not to share

their data for research purposes. We only reported the percentage of participants that agreed to

share their data.

Measures

Person-Centered Support. Empathy, genuineness, unconditional positive regard, and

overall support were assessed in both samples with the Person-Centered Support Scale developed

using Sample 1 from Study 1 (see Appendix A for full scale). Empathy, genuineness, and

unconditional positive regard are calculated with the average of three items each. Overall support

is calculated with the average of all nine items. All items were on 7-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). See Appendix for complete list of Person-

Centered Support items. The source of support evaluated was the mentor ratings of support given

to the mentees. Coefficient alphas for the three subscales of person-centered support (i.e.

empathy, genuineness, regard) ranged from .70 to .74.

Emotional Support. Emotional support was assessed using 5 items from a 14-item scale

developed by Zellars and Perrewe (2001). The scale consisted of 5 items on a 5-point Likert-type

scale. Values ranged from 1 being never, to 5 being always. A sample item for the scale includes

32

“My mentee and I shared personal information about our backgrounds and families.” The

emotional support scale yielded an alpha reliability of .77.

Instrumental Support. Instrumental support was assessed with 4 items adapted from

Ducharme and Martin’s (2000) 5-item scale. The scale consisted of 4 items on a 7-point Likert-

type scale. Values ranged from 1 being strongly disagree, to 7 being strongly agree. A sample

item for the scale includes “I taught the student how to search for future job options.” The

instrumental support scale yielded an alpha reliability of .83.

Flow. Flow was assessed using a Study-Related Flow Inventory (WOLF-S) developed by

Bakker, Ljuben, and Rijaveck (2017). The scale consisted of 13 items on a 9-point Likert-type

scale. Values ranged from 1 never, to 9 always. We measured flow as separate three factors as

the authors recommended, divided into absorption, enjoyment and intrinsic motivation. A sample

item for absorption in the scale includes, “When I am learning, I forget everything else around

me.” Coefficient alphas for absorption, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation scales ranged

between .72 to .84.

Self-actualization. Self-actualization was assessed using the Characteristics of Self-

Actualization Scale (CSAS; Kaufman, 2018). The scale consisted of 30 items on a 7-point

Likert-type scale. Values ranged from strongly disagree, to strongly agree. A sample item for the

scale includes “I often have experiences in which I feel new horizons and possibilities opening

up for myself and others.” We measured self-actualization as ten separate factors, divided into

appreciation, acceptance, authenticity, equanimity, purpose, reality, humanitarianism, peak

33

experiences, moral intuition, and creative spirit. Coefficient alphas for self-actualization ranged

from .67 to .83.

Career-oriented core self-evaluation. Career-oriented core self-evaluation was assessed

using a scale adapted from the core self-evaluation scale developed by Judge, Bono, and

Thoresen (2003). The scale consisted of 12 items on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Values ranged

from 1 strongly disagree, to 7 strongly agree. A sample item for the scale includes “I am

confident I get the success I deserve in my career.” The career-oriented core self-evaluation scale

yielded an alpha reliability of .88.

Attitudes. Mentor satisfaction was assessed using a 1 item measure adapted from the

MAOQ (Bowling & Hammond, 2008). Mentorship satisfaction consisted of 1 item on a 7-point

Likert-type scale. Values ranged from 1 strongly disagree, to 7 strongly agree. A sample item for

mentorship satisfaction includes “I feel satisfied with my mentor.” The alpha reliability for

mentor satisfaction was .83.

Intent to continue with mentorship meetings was assessed using a 1 item measure

developed by the researchers. Intent to continue mentorship consisted of 1 item on a 7-point

Likert-type scale. Values ranged from 1 strongly disagree, to 7 strongly agree. A sample item for

intent to continue mentorship includes “I intend to continue meeting with my mentor in the

future.”

Study 2 - Results

Psychometric Properties (Sample 9)

Reliability, descriptive statistics, and correlations for variables in sample 9 are reported in

34

Table 4 and Table 5. The total person-centered support scale and facet scales demonstrated

acceptable reliability in all instances with a Cronbach alpha of .70 or greater in sample 9.

Interrater agreement was also calculated to evaluate reliability. As expected, there was a positive

correlation for mentor-mentee ratings of total person-centered support (r = .34 ,/? < .01), empathy

(r = .27, p < .01), genuineness (r = .32,p < .01), and regard (r = .35, p < .01). The descriptive

statistics also indicate a psychometrically sound scale. Specifically, variability in support scale

responses were found in each sample; the standard deviations ranged from .45 to .77. Scale

means indicate very favorable ratings for the person-centered support, which is expected given

the mentee’s chose their mentor and activities were provided for during the mentorship meetings

that promoted person-centered support.

Separate confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for the person-centered support

items using either the mentor ratings (support provided) or mentee ratings (support received). A

1-factor model fit the data poorly for the mentor ratings, CFI= .86; SRMR = .07; AX\df) =

237.74(27),/? < .01, but fit the data well for mentee ratings, CFI= .93; SRMR - .04; AX2{df) -

207.23(27),/? < .01 A 3-factor model fit the data well for both the mentor ratings, CF1= .95;

SRMR = .04; AX\dJ) - 93.46(24),/? < .01 and mentee ratings, CFI= .98; SRMR = .02; AX\df) =

62.80(24),/? < .01. In addition, the 3-factor model fit was significantly (p < .01) better than the 1-

factor model fit for both the mentor ratings, AX2(df) = 144.28(3),/? < .01 and mentee ratings,

A X \df)= 144.43(3),/? <.01.

Similar to Study 1, the three person-centered support facets were strongly interrelated

despite loading onto a 3-factor model. The average correlation between empathy, genuineness,

35

and regard was .62 and ranged between .44 to .75. The combination of the confirmatory factor

analyses and strong interrelationships between facets indicates that practitioners may consider

calculating either a total scale score or scores for each facet, depending upon if information is

needed at the factor level.

Convergent / Divergent Validity (Sample 9)

Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 predicted whether person-centered support would converge /

diverge with other conceptualizations of support. Correlation analysis was used to test

Hypotheses 1 and 2 whereas a Steiger (1980) Z-test for dependent correlations was used to test

Hypothesis 3. Consistent with Hypothesis 1 and 2, total person-centered support was positively

correlated both emotional support (mentor-rated r = .52, p < .01; mentee-rated r = .48, p < .01)

and instrumental support (mentor-rated r = .30, p < .01; mentee-rated r = .38 ,p < .01) for both

mentor and mentee ratings (see Table 4). Support was found for Hypothesis 3, such that total

person-centered support was more strongly correlated with emotional support than instrumental

support for both mentor ratings of support provided (mentor-rated z-score = 4.93, p < .01;

mentee-rated z-score = 2.38,p < .01).

Predictive Validity (Samples 9)

Predictive validity was tested using correlation analyses between person-centered support

and the outcome variables (Table 4 and Table 5). In addition, we used regression analyses to test

for the unique effects of total person-centered support on the outcome variables while controlling

for other forms of support (Table 6 and Table 7).

36

Flow. Support was found for Hypothesis 4a, which predicted person-centered support

would be correlated with flow characteristics. Support was found for Hypothesis 4b, which

predicted person-centered support would be related with flow characteristics after controlling for

other forms of support. Ratings from both the mentor (support provided) and mentee (support

received) were considered when testing the hypotheses.

Support provided (mentor-rated). Overall, person-centered support provided variables

had significant positive correlations with flow characteristics in 9 of 12 analyses with an average

correlation of .09 (see Table 4). For example, total person-centered support provided had positive

correlations with enjoyment (r = .15,p < .01) and intrinsic motivation (r = .\4 ,p < .01), but a

nonsignificant relationship with absorption (r = .04, p = .44).

Unique effects of total person-centered support provided when predicting flow

characteristics are reported in Table 6. Total person-centered support provided (average AR2 =

.02) explained significant unique variance while controlling for both emotional support provided

and instrumental support provided in 2 of 3 analyses predicting flow characteristics. In

comparison, emotional support provided (average AR2 < .001) explained significant unique

variance in 0 of 3 analyses predicting flow characteristics. Instrumental support provided

(average AR2 < .001) explained significant unique variance in 0 of 3 analyses predicting flow

characteristics.

Support received (mentee-rated). Overall, person-centered support received variables

had significant positive correlations with flow characteristics in 11 of 12 analyses with an

average correlation of .19 (see Table 4). For example, total person-centered support received had

37

positive correlations with absorption (r = .\2 ,p < .05), enjoyment (r = 21, p < .01), and intrinsic

motivation (r = .24,p < .05).

Unique effects of total person-centered support received when predicting flow

characteristics are reported in Table 6. Total person-centered support provided (average AR2 =

.03) explained significant unique variance while controlling for both emotional support received

and instrumental support received in 3 of 3 analyses predicting flow characteristics. In

comparison, emotional support received (average AR2 < .001) explained significant unique

variance in 0 of 3 analyses predicting flow characteristics. Instrumental support received

(average AR2 < .001) explained significant unique variance in 0 of 3 analyses predicting flow

characteristics.

Self-actualization. Support was found for Hypothesis 5a, which predicted person-

centered support would be correlated with self-actualization characteristics. Support was found

for Hypothesis 5b, which predicted person-centered support would be related with self-

actualization characteristics after controlling for other forms of support. Ratings from both the

mentor (support provided) and mentee (support received) were considered when testing the

hypotheses.


had significant positive correlations with self-actualization characteristics in 37 of 40 analyses

with an average correlation of .16 (see Table 4). For example, total person-centered support

provided had positive correlations with all self-actualization characteristics: appreciation (r -

.22,p < .01), acceptance (r = A l ,p < .01), authenticity (r = .24,p < .01), equanimity (r = .09,p <

38

.05), purpose (r = .19,p < .01), reality (r = .21,/? < .01), humanitarianism (r = .17,/? < .01), peak

experiences (r = .12,/? < .05), moral intuition (r = .24,/? < .01), and creative spirit (r = .15,/? <

Unique effects of total person-centered support provided when predicting self-

actualization characteristics are reported in Table 6 and Table 7. Total person-centered support

provided (average AR2 = .03) explained significant unique variance while controlling for both

emotional support provided and instrumental support provided in 10 of 10 analyses predicting

self-actualization characteristics. In comparison, emotional support provided (average AR2 <

.001) explained significant unique variance in 0 of 10 analyses predicting self-actualization

characteristics. Instrumental support provided (average AR2 < .001) explained significant unique

variance in 1 of 10 analyses predicting self-actualization characteristics.

Support received (mentee-rated). Overall, person-centered support received variables

had significant positive correlations with self-actualization characteristics in 39 of 40 analyses


provided had positive correlations with all self-actualization characteristics: appreciation (r =

.28,/? < .01), acceptance (r = .23,p < .01), authenticity (r = .33,/? < .01), equanimity (r = .13,/? <

.01), purpose (r = .27,/? < .01), reality (r = .28,/? < .01), humanitarianism (r = .25,/? < .01), peak

experiences (r = .18,/? < .01), moral intuition (r = .25, p < .01), and creative spirit (r = .22, p <

.01).

Unique effects of total person-centered support received when predicting self-

actualization characteristics are reported in Table 6 and Table 7. Total person-centered support

39

received (average AR2= .03) explained significant unique variance while controlling for both

emotional support received and instrumental support received in 9 of 10 analyses predicting self-

actualization characteristics. In comparison, emotional support received (average AR2 < .001)

explained significant unique variance in 1 of 10 analyses predicting self-actualization

characteristics. Instrumental support received (average AJ?2= .01) explained significant unique

variance in 8 of 10 analyses predicting self-actualization characteristics.

Self-concept. Study 2 included career-oriented core self-evaluations as a self-concept

variable. Support was found for Hypothesis 6a, which predicted person-centered support would

be correlated with career-oriented core self-evaluations. Support was found for Hypothesis 6b,

which predicted person-centered support would be related with attitudes after controlling for

other forms of support. Ratings from both the mentor (support provided) and mentee (support



had significant positive correlations with career-oriented core self-evaluations in 4 of 4 analyses

with an average correlation o f . 18 (see Table 4). For example, total person-centered support

provided had a positive correlation with career-oriented core self-evaluations (r = .20, p < .01),

Unique effects of total person-centered support provided when predicting career-oriented

core self-evaluations are reported in Table 7. Total person-centered support provided (AJ?2= .04,

p < .01) explained significant unique variance while controlling for both emotional support

provided and instrumental support provided. In comparison, neither emotional support provided

40

(AR2 < .001,/? = .74) nor instrumental support provided (AR2 < .001 ,p = .83) explained

significant unique variance predicting career-oriented core self-evaluations.

Support received (mentor-rated). Overall, person-centered support received variables

had significant positive correlations with career-oriented core self-evaluations in 4 of 4 analyses


received had a positive correlation with career-oriented core self-evaluations (r = .20 ,p < .01),

Unique effects of total person-centered support received when predicting career-oriented

core self-evaluations are reported in Table 7. Total person-centered support received (AR2 - .03,

p < .01) explained significant unique variance while controlling for both emotional support

received and instrumental support received. In comparison, emotional support received AR2 <

.001, /? = .74) failed to explain significant unique variance predicting career-oriented core self-

evaluations. Instrumental support received (AR2 = .02, /? < .01) explained significant unique

variance predicting career-oriented core self-evaluations.

Attitudes. Study 2 included satisfaction with mentor and intent to continue mentorship as

attitude variables. Support was found for Hypothesis 7a, which predicted person-centered

support would be correlated with attitudes. Support was found for Hypothesis 7b, which

predicted person-centered support would be related with attitudes after controlling for other

forms of support. Ratings from both the mentor (support provided) and mentee (support



had significant positive correlations with attitudes in 8 of 8 analyses with an average correlation

41

of .29 (see Table 4). For example, total person-centered support provided had positive

correlations with satisfaction with mentor (r = .34,p < .01) and intent to continue mentorship (r

= 3 2 ,p < .01).

Unique effects of total person-centered support provided when predicting attitudes are

reported in Table 7. Total person-centered support provided (average AR2 = .06) explained

significant unique variance while controlling for both emotional support provided and

instrumental support provided in 2 of 2 analyses predicting attitudes. In comparison, emotional

support provided (average AR2 < .001) explained significant unique variance in 0 of 2 analyses

predicting attitudes. Instrumental support provided (average AR2 < .001) explained significant

unique variance in 0 of 2 analyses predicting attitudes.

Support received (mentee-rated) . Overall, person-centered support received variables

had significant positive correlations with attitudes in 8 of 8 analyses with an average correlation

of .41 (see Table 4). For example, total person-centered support received had positive

correlations satisfaction with mentor {r = .46, p < .01) and intent to continue mentorship (r = .44,

P < -01)-

The unique effects of total person-centered support received when attitudes is reported in

Table 7. Total person-centered support received (average AR2= .06) explained significant unique

variance while controlling for both emotional support received and instrumental support received

in 2 of 2 analyses predicting attitudes. In comparison, emotional support received (average AR2 =

.04) explained significant unique variance in 2 of 2 analyses predicting attitudes. Instrumental

42

support received (average AR2 = .03) explained significant unique variance in 2 of 2 analyses

predicting attitudes.

Discussion

Within the semester long period, both mentees who were new psychology majors and

early in career psychology majors were able to experience the unique, positive outcomes of

person-centered support. Studies of physicians show as little as four months of contact to obtain

the benefits, similar to the four-month semester (Truax et al., 1966). Additionally, counselors

who trained within a 40-hour program increased in empathy, despite variation in whether

counselors were initially high or low in empathy (Truax et al., 1971). Furthermore, when an

experiential approach was taken to develop graduate students in clinical psychology and hospital

personnel as therapists, positive outcomes from therapist empathy and positive regard lead to

more congruence and self-exploration occurred for patients. Trainees could commensurate to

those of more experienced therapists in less than 100 hours of training (Truaz et al., 1971). Thus,

the results demonstrate that substantial gains in person-centered support can be achieved with

program support in a matter of months.

The results of Study 1 demonstrate the psychometric properties of the Person-Centered

Support scale. Sample 1 was used to conduct an item-analysis and reduce the 27-item pool for

person-centered support down to a 9-item measure with 3 separate factors. A confirmatory factor

analysis was conducted to demonstrate that empathy, genuineness, and regard represent separate

factors for person-centered support. Samples 2-8 evaluated the psychometric properties of

43

person-centered support from multiple sources and showed that total person-centered support

and support facets demonstrated a significant relationship with flow characteristics.

The results of study 2 support the convergent, divergent, and predictive validity of the

Person-Centered Support scale. The 9-item scale displayed acceptable internal consistency

reliability with a coefficient alpha for the three subscales of empathy, genuineness, unconditional

positive regard, ranging from .70 to .74. Confirmatory Factor Analyses demonstrate that the 9-

items load onto the three separate factors of empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive

regard. As expected, the person-centered support facets were strongly interrelated. As predicted

and consistent with our hypotheses, we saw that the Person-Centered Support scale converged

with existing measures of support (i.e. emotional and instrumental support.) As predicted,

person-centered support converged more strongly with emotional support than instrumental

support.

The difference in the relationship between person-centered support and the pre-existing

scales of support is likely due to the content of the support scales. Person-centered support more

closely resembles emotional support. For example, empathy is often a component of emotional

support and is also a necessary condition of Rogers’ person-centered support. The moderate

correlation between person-centered support and emotional support was not strong enough to

suggest that the scales were measuring the same construct.

Additional support for the convergent validity of the Person-Centered Support scale was

found by observing significant correlations between person-centered support and outcomes

relevant to Rogers’ theory of constructive personality change. Mentees receiving greater amounts

44

of person-centered support also reported greater core self-evaluations, mentor satisfaction, intent

to continue meeting, flow at school, and higher ratings of self-actualization. The pattern of

relationships with the theoretically relevant criteria helped us to establish convergent and

divergent validity and the nomological network for our Person-Centered Support scale.

Predictive validity was established by examining the extent to which the Person-Centered

Support scale explained unique variance in our criteria while controlling for other types of

support. Person-centered support explained a significant amount of unique variance in core self-

evaluations, mentor satisfaction, intent to continue meeting, flow at school, and self-actualization

while controlling for emotional and instrumental support.

Collectively, our findings provide support for the assertion that the Person-Centered

Support scale is a unique instrument for capturing relationship qualities that are linked to

individuals being at their peak. Emotional support and instrumental support demonstrated weak

correlations with core-self evaluations, flow, and self-actualization. The Person-Centered

Support scale demonstrated significant correlations and predicted these outcomes above and

beyond the existing measures of support. When individuals receive support that contains

empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard these individuals are more likely to

have positive self-concepts and reach states of peak well-being. We found that mentees receiving

person-centered support expressed a greater tendency toward self-actualization and peak states.

These individuals were satisfied with their mentor and intended to continue meeting. Their intent

to continue the relationship beyond the confines of this study suggests that they were motivated

45

to obtain subsequent support resources to continue their resource gain spiral on their path of

growth and development (Hobfoll et al., 1990).

We analyzed mentor ratings of support with mentee ratings of outcomes to minimize

common method variance. CMV is a methodological concern in behavioral science and one way

to help reduce the amount of error gathered from self-report measures is by analyzing data from

multiple sources (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We implemented a mentorship program for students

new to the psychology major and students that were approaching graduation. Collecting data

from students at two distinct points in their academic and career journey allowed us to increase

the generalizability of our findings. This data aligns with Rogers’ theory that person-centered

support is essential for peak well-being, self-growth, and developing the best helping

relationships.

Study 1 provides a theoretical lens and valid measure for assessing when individuals are

receiving empathy, genuineness, unconditional positive regard in an interpersonal relationship.

Study 2 provides initial support for the theory that individuals receiving these three conditions

will move towards greater self-actualization and constructive change.

Person-centered support has proven to be most helpful in medical and counseling

settings, such as strengthening sense of self for those with schizophrenia (Scott & Kemp, 1971).

A counseling/mentoring setting with the context of a core self-evaluation focused on career

development compliments what the students need the most.

The scale means for person-centered support were consistently favorable. In some cases,

such as Sample 9, the ratings very favorable, with the average response ranging from agree to

46

strongly agree (means above 6.00). Given that the scale is designed to assess factors predictive of

peak well-being, the item content may be subjective to social desirability bias. In other words,

raters may have bias to endorse the items that would be viewed favorably. If social desirability

bias were the explanation for the high ratings, then we would only see these very favorable

scores for self-ratings. The results of Sample 9, however, indicate very favorable ratings for both

mentor and mentee. A more likely scenario for very favorable ratings within sample 9 is the

meeting activities promoted these person-centered support experiences.

The prep work instructions, meeting tasks, and potential questions to ask provided to

mentees encouraged such experiences. Mentors and mentees were encouraged to share their

career goals, passions and interests, aiding with empathy, by providing a foundation for them to

relate to one another. Genuineness also became part of the process in having both parties set

clear expectations of how the meetings would look like and providing honest feedback on

progress. Additionally, unconditional positive regard was included in the program with

discussing not only strengths, but also weaknesses in order to find a career that fits. Furthermore,

mentors and mentees were able to explore not only achievements, but also struggles over the

months of the program. With the guidelines of the program to f acilitate empathy, genuineness,

and unconditional positive regard from the mentor, mentees could experience the power of

person-centered support.

Limitations and Future Research.

Although our findings suggest the Person-Centered Support scale is a valid measure of

social support, several limitations should be noted. First, our sample of mentees was not

47

randomly selected and consisted of university students within the field of psychology. Research

examining person-centered support in applied workplace contexts would enhance the predictive

validity of our measure. Additionally, our study only examined social support in the context of a

career mentoring program. Additional support for the ecological validity of our measure could be

gathered by examining support as it naturally occurs in workplace relationships. We attempted to

mitigate this confound by structuring the program to allow mentees the autonomy to select their

own mentor. Second, we only gathered concurrent data to establish the criterion validity of the

Person-Centered Support scale. With gathering data at one point in time, it is possible that self-

actualization and peak well-being of the mentees caused the person-centered support from the

mentors. Future research should examine person-centered support and criterion ratings at

multiple time points to provide evidence for the directionality of the relationship and the

predictive validity of our measure.

As a quasi-experiment, Study 2 was limited in that there was no control group. However,

the number of mentors being rated by the number of students as well as the replication over

semesters with comparable groups helped combat the limitation. Additionally, a control group is

unnecessary because it is not a program evaluation and more so a scale validation study.

Although, we are measuring satisfaction and intent to continue to assess the mentorship program.

Other limitations include the degree to which mentors are exposed to mentors can vary, despite

each student saying they interacted at least three times a semester. Furthermore, the participant

information was self-reported. Relying on self-report data can increase the possibility of social

desirability and common method bias (Ensher et al., 2001). Nevertheless, self-report data is

48

regarded as acceptable for affective experiences or individual’s self-perception, especially for

career research, and social desirability bias was less likely in that the constructs measured were

not highly sensitive (Ensher et al., 2001).

Another limitation was that data was collected once at the end of the semester in a cross-

sectional design. To avoid family wise error, for each hypothesis, we developed a stringent

significance level criteria as well as collected from multiple sources to combat against common

method bias and type 1 error. Nevertheless, alternative sources of data could be more behavioral

or observational and longitudinal.

Our findings add to the support literature and demonstrate the value of Rogers’ Person-

Centered Approach. Empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard from mentors are

an integral part of how to strengthen core self-evaluation for students. Some speculations exist.

For example, Rogers’ theory was developed through his personal philosophy.

A future direction for research would be expanding to mentorships in the workplace. Evaluating

person-centered support through workplace mentorships could provide behavioral and

performance data to assess the predictive utility of person-centered support in organizational

contexts. A more longitudinal study with other outcomes could demonstrate stronger predictive

validity as well, specifying exactly how many meetings are needed in order to establish strong

person-centered support. Finally, person-centered support could be evaluated at an organizational

level to identify the impact of person-centered support across an organization on organizational

culture and peak well-being.

Applications

49

There are many benefits to having a valid measure of social support that is rooted in

Rogers’ person-centered theory and humanistic psychology. Rogers’ Person-Centered Approach

has been applied in a variety of contexts, such as education, nursing, and mental health, but the

theory has not been studied in organizational contexts.

This study is important for advancing science and bettering society in that it will

contribute to the humanistic theory and support literature. Person-centered support can improve

mentorship programs by enhancing opportunities for empathy, genuineness, and unconditional

positive regard. The findings could be implemented in course curriculum for students to better

understand career development and support. Additionally, we could use the person-centered

support model and scale in organizations. Organizations may promote person-centered support

through empathy in performance appraisals, genuineness in selection processes, and

unconditional positive regard in training.

Empathy is helpful during performance appraisals due to performance appraisals causing

a considerable amount of stress for both employees and supervisors. High-quality feedback, in a

structure such as a feedforward interview, combined with empathetic concern improves positive

affect as well as perceptions of the leaders’ feedback-giving effectiveness (Young, Richard,

Moukarzel, Steelman, & Gentry, 2017). Employees will be more responsive to a supervisor who

understands the challenges of the job with empathy. Genuineness, as mentioned, resembles

authentic leadership and has been linked to organizational outcomes, such as fairer decisions

(Burke & Cooper, 2006). If supervisors are genuine, then employees experience higher levels of

trust and positive emotion (Agote, Aramburu, & Lines, 2016). Promoting and selecting more

50

genuine leaders could yield employees with higher motivation and levels of creativity due to the

openness and active listening of the leaders (Rogers & Farson, 2015; Van den Bosch & Taris,

2014). Unconditional positive regard from supervisors could benefit employees as well in

enhancing overall well-being and job performance (Shefer et al., 2017). Empathy, genuineness,

and unconditional positive regard can be powerful performance factors.

Conclusions

The present study provides initial evidence for the construct and criterion validity of a

support measure that is rooted in Rogers’ Person-Centered Approach and linked to criteria

theoretically relevant to the growth and constructive change of the individual. Our main findings

suggest the Person-Centered Support scale is a reliable 3-factor instrument that is distinct from

emotional and instrumental support scales. Our studies demonstrated the nomological network of

the Person-Centered Support scale and the predictive utility of our instrument. Namely, Person-

Centered Support was positively related to core self-evaluations, flow, self-actualization, mentor

satisfaction, and intent to continue with the relationship. Person-Centered Support accounted for

unique variance in these criteria above and beyond existing measures of support. We hope that

the Person-Centered Support scale can be a resource for organizations seeking to identify and

promote relationship conditions that contribute to the peak well-being and the fully functioning

of workers and workforces.

51

References

Agote, L., Aramburu, N., & Lines, R. (2016). Authentic leadership perception, trust in the

leader, and followers’ emotions in organizational change processes. The Journal o f

Applied Behavioral Science, 52(1), 35-63.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Amazon Mechanical Turk. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://requester.mturk.com/

Avolino, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root

of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.

Bakker, A. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation of the

WOLF. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 72, 400-414.

Bakker, A., Ljubin Golub, T., & Rijavec, M. (2017). Validation of the study-related flow

inventory (WOLF-S). Croatian Journal o f Education, 19, 147-173.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1962). Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in

therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 7(5(43), 1-36.

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (2015). The Relationship Inventory: A complete resource and guide.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Bowling, N. & Hammond, G. D. (2008). A meta-analytic examination of the construct validity of

the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale.

Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 73, 63-77.

http://requester.mturk.com/

52

Brodeur, P., Larose, S., Tarabulsy, G., Feng, B., & Forget-Dubois, N. (2015). Development and

construct validation of the mentor behavior scale. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in

Learning, 25(1), 54-75.

Brownie, S., & Nancarrow, S. (2013). Effects of person-centered care on residents and staff in

aged-care facilities: A systematic review. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 8, 1-10.

Burke, R. J., & Cooper, C. (2006). Inspiring leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., & French, J. R. (1975). Relationships of cessation of smoking with job

stress, personality, and social support. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 60(2), 211-219.

Carkhuff, R. R., & Truax, C. B. (1965). Training in counseling and psychotherapy: An

evaluation of an integrated didactic and experiential approach. Journal o f Consulting

Psychology, 29(4), 333-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022187

Chaturvedi, M. & Chander, R. (2010). Development of emotional stability scale. Industrial

Psychiatry Journal, 19(1), 37-40.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357.

Colbert, A. E., Bono, J. E., & Purvanova, R. K. (2016). Flourishing via workplace relationships:

Moving beyond instrumental support. Academy o f Management Journal, 59(4), 1199-

1223. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0506

Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A

meta-analysis. Review o f Educational Research, 77(1),113-143.

https://doi.org/! 0.3102/003465430298563

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022187

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0506

https://doi.org/

53

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Ducharme, L. J., & Martin, J. K. (2000). Unrewarding work, coworker support, and job

satisfaction: A test of the buffering hypothesis. Work and Occupations, 27, 223-243.

Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.). (2007). LEA's organization and management series.

Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research

foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high-quality connections. In K. Cameron

and J. Dutton (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new

discipline, (pp. 262-278). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Edvardsson, D., & Innes, A. (2010). Measuring person-centered care: A critical comparative

review of published tools, The Gerontologist, 50(6), 834-46.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

Ensher, E., Thomas, C., & Murphy, S. (2001). Comparison of traditional, step-ahead, and peer

mentoring on proteges’ support, satisfaction, and perceptions of career success: A social

exchange perspective. Journal o f Business and Psychology, 15(3), 419.

Eschleman, K., Mathieu, M., & Cheng, D. (2018). Meta-Analytic and multi-wave

comparison of emotional support and instrumental support in the workplace. Journal o f

Occupational Health Psychology, Advance online publication.

http://dx.d0i.0rg/l 0.1037/ocp0000135

Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017).

http://dx.d0i.0rg/l

54

Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology,

70(1), 113-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.llll/peps.12183

Hammer. L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009).

Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive

supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal o f Management, 3.5(4), 837-856.

Hobfoll, S. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress

process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Journal o f Applied Psychology,

50(3), 337-421.

Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 53(3), 307.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

Huang, J. L., Liu, M., & Bowling, N. A. (2015). Insufficient effort responding: Examining an

insidious confound in survey data. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 100, 828-845.

Hies, R., Morgeson, F. P. & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic

well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3),

373-394. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.002

Jolliffe, D. & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy

Scale. Journal o f Adolescence, 29(4), 589-611.

http://dx.doi.org/10.llll/peps.12183

http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.002

55

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale

(CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303-331.

Kanste, O., Miettunen, J., & Kyngas, H. (2007). Psychometric properties of the multifactor

leadership questionnaire among nurses. Journal o f Advanced Nursing, 57(2), 201-212.

Kaufman, S. B. (2018). Self-actualizing people in the 21st century: Integration with

contemporary theory and research on personality and well-being. Journal o f Humanistic

Psychology, Advance online publication, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167818809187

Kemis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity:

Theory and research. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology,

(Vol. 38, pp. 283-357). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient trust: Arbitrary distinctions between

organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 1-38.

Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Dimitrova, N. G.. & Sels, L. (2013). Mindfulness, authentic functioning,

and work engagement: A growth modeling approach. Journal o f Vocational Behavior,

82(3), 238-247.

Lin, T. T. (1973). Revision and validation of the Truax-Carkhuff relationship

questionnaire. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 6, 82-86.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,

and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-

194.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167818809187

56

Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data.

Psychological Methods, 17, 437-455.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Model of Organizational Commitment: Measurement issues.

Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 6, 7-25.

Morelli, S., Lee, I., Amn, M., Zaki, J., & Desteno, D. (2015). Emotional and instrumental

support provision interact to predict well-being. Emotion, 75(4), 484-493.

Mowday, R., Porter, L. & Steers, R. (1982). Employee—organization linkages: The Psychology

o f commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2008). Mplus User’s Guide (7th Edition). Los Angeles, CA:

Muthen & Muthen.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and

prospects. Journal o f Management, 12, 531-544. doi: 10.1177/014920638601200408

Rogers, C., & Farson, R. E. (2015). Active Listening Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino

Publishing.

Rogers, C. (1958). A process conception of psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 13(4),

142-149.

Rogers, C. (1980). A Way o f Being. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Rogers, C., Lyon, H. C., & Tausch, R. (2014). On becoming an effective teacher:

57

Person-centered teaching, psychology, philosophy and dialogues with Carl R. Rogers

and Harold Lyon. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. (1958). The characteristics of a helping relationship. Personnel and Guidance

Journal, 37(1), 2-16.

Rogers, C. (1963). The concept of the fully functioning person. Psychotherapy : Theory,

Research & Practice, /( l) , 17-26.

Rogers, C. (1957). The necessary and therapeutic conditions of therapeutic personality

change. Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 60, 827-832.

Roy, M. P., & Steptoe, A. (1994). Daily stressors and social support availability as predictors of

depressed mood in male firefighters. Work & Stress, 8(3), 210-219.

Schein, E. H., & Van Maanen, J. (2016). Career anchors and job/role planning: Tools for career

and talent management. Organizational Dynamics, 45(3), 165-173.

Scott, R. W., & Kemp, D. E. (1971). The A-B scale and empathy, warmth, genuineness, and

depth of self-exploration. Journal o f Abnormal Psychology, 77(1), 49-51.

Shefer, N., Carmeli, A., & Cohen-Meitar. (2017). Bringing Carl Rogers back in: Exploring the

power of positive regard at work. British Academy o f Management, 29(1), 63-81.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Computer-assisted research design and

analysis (Vol. 748). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend?

Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284955

58

Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological

Bulletin, 57,245-251.

Taylor, C. M., Schepers, J. M., & Crous, F. (2006). Locus of control in relation to flow. Journal

o f Industrial Psychology, 32(3), 63-71.

Thoits, P. A. (1982). Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical problems in studying social

support as a buffer against life stress. Journal o f Health and Social Behavior, 23(2), 145-

159.

Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental

health. Journal o f Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145-161.

Truax, C. B., Wargo, D. G., Frank, J. D., Imber, S. D., Battle, C. C., Hoehn-Saric, R., Nash, E.

H., & Stone, A. R. (1966). Therapist empathy, genuineness, and warmth and patient

therapeutic outcome. Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 30, 395-401.

Truax, C. B. (1967). The training of nonprofessional personnel in therapeutic interpersonal

relationships. American Journal o f Public Health, 57(10), 1778-1791.

Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of

work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 54, 314-334.

Young, S. F., Richard, E. M., Moukarzel, R. G., Steelman, L. A., & Gentry, W. A. (2017). How

empathic concern helps leaders in providing negative feedback: A two-study

examination. Journal o f Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(4), 535-558.

Zellars, K. L., & Perrewe, P. L. (2001). Affective personality and the content of emotional social

support: Coping in organizations. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 86, 459-467.

59

Table 1.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses Comparing I-Factor versus 3-Factor Models o f Support fo r Samples 2 - 8

Source N CFA C FI SR M R RM SEA P P

Organization 179 1-factor .93 .04 .14 118.95 (27) .013-factor .98 .03 .06 47.71 (24) .01 71.24(3) .01

Supervisor 188 1-factor .92 .05 .14 120.08 (27) .013-factor .97 .03 .06 54.41 (24) .01 65.67 (3) .01

Coworkers 193 1-factor .85 .07 .15 137.92(27) .013-factor .97 .04 .06 50.12(24) .01 87.80 (3) .01

Subordinates 171 1-factor .92 .05 .12 84.77 (27) .013-factor .98 .03 .06 38.39 (24) .03 46.38 (3) .01

Custom ers / Clients 186 1-factor .86 .07 .14 115.58 (27) .013-factor 1.00 .04 .02 25.12(24) .04 90.46 (3) .01

Family / Friends 170 1-factor .90 .06 .15 122.72 (27) .013-factor 1.00 .03 .03 27.46 (24) .28 95.26 (3) .01

M entor 170 1-factor .87 .07 .15 122.24 (27) .013-factor .98 .03 .06 37.75 (24) .04 84.49 (3) .01

60

Table 2.

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics fo r Variables in Samples 2 through 5

Support Source (Sample) Variable N M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Organization 1 Person-Centered Support Total 159 4.60 1.44 (.90)(Sample 2) 2 Empathy

3 Genuineness4.194.69

1.571.50

.90**

.92**(.90).73" (.88)

4 Regard 4.78 1.47 .90” .69” .75” (.84)5 Absorption (Flow) 3.71 1.43 .37” .38" .32" .31” (.92)6 Enjoyment (Flow) 4.10 1.53 .69” .64" .58" .65** .56” (.96)7 Intrinsic Motivation (Flow) 3.33 1.51 .55” .58" .46" .45” .6 4 " .76” (.88)

Supervisor 1 Person-Centered Support Total 188 4.99 1.24 (.92)(Sample 3) 2 Empathy


1.351.38

00

4̂ SO (.83)

.76" (.88)4 Regard 5.16 1.31 .9 0 " .66” .78” (.83)5 Absorption (Flow) 3.84 1.39 .23” .23” .23” .16* (.91)6 Enjoyment (Flow) 4.33 1.49 .55” .54” .49** .46" .61” (.97)7 Intrinsic Motivation (Flow) 3.35 1.56 .42” .43” .40” .31” .56” .75" (.92)

Coworkers 1 Person-Centered Support Totai 193 5.06 0.98 (.84)(Sam ple 4) 2 Empathy


1.251.04

.90"

.93"(.82).74” (.85)

4 Regard 5.24 1.06 .90" .69” .78” (.73)5 Absorption (Flow) 3.67 1.25 .2 8 " .3 4 " .21" .2 1 " (.90)6 Enjoyment (Flow) 4.22 1.43 .53” .50” .45” .48” .55” (94)7 Intrinsic Motivation (Flow) 3.22 1.41 .3 7 " .41" .29” .30” .5 2 " .71" (.90)

Subordinates 1 Person-Centered Support Total 174 4.92 0.95 (.87)(Sam ple 5) 2 Empathy


1.071.11

.8 2 "

.87”(.72).58” (.85)

4 Regard 5.11 1.21 .89” .59” .67” (.82)5 Absorption (Flow) 4.03 1.26 .13 .15* .09 .11 (.88)6 Enjoyment (Flow) 4.61 1.33 .4 0 " .32” .38** .32” .4 9 " (.95)7 Intrinsic Motivation (Flow) 3.69 1.38 .22” .22” .21” .15* .5 5 " .75" (.88)

*p < .05, **p < .01.Note. M = Mean. SD - Standard Deviation. CSE = Core self-evaluation. Italicized items along the diagonal are the reliability values.

6 1

Table 3.

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics fo r Variables in Samples 6 through 8

SupDorx Source (Sample) Variable N M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Custom ers / Clients 1 Person-Centered Support Total 186 4.52 1.06 (.83)(Sample 6) 2 Empathy 3.91 1.29 .83** (.77)

3 Genuineness 4.94 1.06 .79” .49** (.76)4 Regard 4.41 1.31 .8 6 " .55” .55” (.77)5 Absorption (Flow) 3.77 1.29 .22** .32” .11 .11 (.87)6 Enjoyment (Flow) 4.31 1.38 .46** .43” .38" .32” .50” (.95)7 Intrinsic Motivation (Flow) 3.27 1.38 .4 6 " .48” .30" .3 5 " .53” .76” (.89)

Family / Friends 1 Person-Centered Support Total 169 5.36 1 11 (.90)(Sample 7) 2 Empathy 5.16 1.28 .88** (.87)

3 Genuineness 5.48 1.09 .89** .68” (.84)4 Regard 5.35 1.28 .87" .62” .69” (.83)5 Absorption (Flow) 3.84 1.38 .10 .13 .04 .09 (.90)6 Enjoyment (Flow) 4.60 1.36 .31** .34” .24” .2 1 " .61” (.95)7 Intrinsic Motivation (Flow) 3.67 1.35 .26** .29” .20* .19* .59” .73” (.89)

M entor 1 Person-Centered Support Total 170 5.76 0.80 (.89)(Sample 8) 2 Empathy 5.41 1.05 .8 5 " (.83)

3 Genuineness 5.93 0.81 .8 4 " .51” (.76)4 Regard 5.88 0.86 .8 9 " .60" .70” (.77)5 Absorption (Flow) 3.86 1.29 .2 3 " .32" .10 .14 (.89)6 Enjoyment (Flow) 4.62 1.46 .41” .38** .32” .36” .61” (.96)7 Intrinsic Motivation (Flow) 3.65 1.45 .30” .35" .18* .22” .59” .73” (.90)

*p < .05, **p < .01.Note. M = Mean. SD = Standard Deviation. CSE = Core self-evaluation. Italicized items along the diagonal are the reliability values.

62

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations fo r Variables in Sample 9

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Support Provided (Mentor-rated)

1 Person-Centered Support Total 6.51 0.45 (.84)2 Empathy 6.26 0.63 .81 (.70)3 Genuineness 6.64 0.50 .87 .52 (.73)4 Regard 6.63 0.51 .83 .44 .69 (.74)5 Emotional Support 4.37 0.53 .52 .50 .45 .37 (.77)6 Instrumental Support 5.94 0.93 .30 .30 .21 .23 .41 (.83)

Support Received (Mentee-rated)7 Person-Centered Support Total 6.39 0.63 .34 .24 .30 .30 .21 .08 (.91)8 Empathy 6.16 0.77 .28 .27 .22 .19 .22 .10 .88 (.80)9 Genuineness 6.49 0.69 .30 .16 .32 .29 .19 .07 .90 .67 (.87)10 Regard 6.52 0.66 .33 .21 .29 .35 .14 .05 .89 .66 .75 (.80)11 Emotional Support 4.30 0.56 .32 .32 .30 .16 .48 .17 .48 .47 .40 .40 (.91)12 Instrumental Support 5.99 0.86 .24 .21 .23 .14 .21 .43 .38 .36 .32 .33 .48 (.78)

Well-being (Mentee-rated)13 Absorption (Flow) 3.08 0.67 .04 .09 ' A O O A o o .03 .04 .12 .14 .07 .10 .11 .08 (.83)14 Enjoyment (Flow) 3.55 0.78 .15 .13 .13 .12 .03 -.01 .27 .27 .21 .24 .12 .14 .54 (.72)15 Intrinsic Motivation (Flow) 3.76 0.76 .14 .11 .12 .11 .05 .01 .25 .24 .22 .20 .13 .13 .48 .76 (.84)16 Appreciation (Actualization) 6.00 0.82 .23 .16 .22 .19 .10 .08 .28 .23 .24 .28 .22 .25 .13 .34 .39 (.68)17 Acceptance (Actualization) 5.59 1.09 .17 .14 .17 .12 .07 .06 .23 .19 .19 .23 .18 .19 .21 .37 .37 .5218 Authenticity (Actualization) 6.03 0.77 .24 .17 .21 .22 .08 .15 .33 .25 .30 .33 .23 .28 .17 .38 .41 .5319 Equanimity (Actualization) 5.02 1.14 .09 .11 .07 .03 .01 -.05 .13 .08 .12 .14 .06 .10 .22 .31 .34 .2920 Purpose (Actualization) 5.92 1.05 .19 .13 .20 .16 .04 .04 .27 .21 .25 .26 .14 .18 .25 .42 .45 .4921 Reality (Actualization) 5.85 0.85 .21 .17 .19 .17 .03 .06 .28 .23 .25 .27 .16 .20 .25 .35 .36 .4822 Humanitarianism (Actualization) 5.84 0.93 .17 .13 .17 .14 .08 .06 .25 .22 .24 .20 .19 .20 .25 .39 .37 .4523 Peak Experiences (Actualization) 5.14 1.00 .12 .15 .09 .04 .08 .05 .18. .19 .15 .13 .20 .22 .28 .35 .35 .4324 Moral Intuition (Actualization) 5.91 0.86 .24 .21 .17 .21 .08 .10 .25 .20 .22 .24 .23 .26 .27 .30 .31 .3925 Creative Spirit (Actualization) 5.52 1.12 .15 .16 .11 .09 .08 .07 .22 .19 .19 .21 .24 .28 .19 .29 .34 .43

Self-Concept and Attitudes (Mentee-rated)26 Career-oriented CSE 4.97 0.93 .20 .16 .16 .19 .04 <.001 .28 .24 .22 .27 .22 .27 .22 .43 .36 .4127 Satisfaction with Mentor 6.57 0.74 .34 .32 .24 .29 .23 .17 .46 .38 .34 .47 .43 .41 .12 .12 .10 .2128 Intent to Continue Mentorship 6.18 1.14 .32 .26 .27 .26 .23 .14 .44 .40 .33 .42 .41 .38 .53 .18 .20 .16

Note. N = 453. M = Mean. SD = Standard Deviation. CSE = Core self-evaluation. Correlations stronger than +/- .09 are significant a tp < .05. Correlations stronger than +/- .12 are significant at/? < .01. Italicized items along the diagonal are the reliability values.

63

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations fo r Variables in Sample 9 (Cont.)

__________________________________________17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Support Provided (Mentor-rated)

1 Person-Centered Support Total2 Empathy3 Genuineness4 Regard5 Emotional Support6 Instrumental Support

Support Received (Mentee-rated)7 Person-Centered Support Total8 Empathy9 Genuineness10 Regard11 Emotional Support12 Instrumental Support

Well-being (Mentee-rated)13 Absorption (Flow)14 Enjoyment (Flow)15 Intrinsic Motivation (Flow)16 Appreciation (Actualization)17 Acceptance (Actualization) (.77)18 Authenticity (Actualization) .63 ( .77)19 Equanimity (Actualization) .49 .51 I{.16)20 Purpose (Actualization) .47 .51 .39 ( .89)21 Reality (Actualization) .44 .54 .40 .56 (.73)22 Humanitarianism (Actualization) .46 .47 .32 .59 .59 (.78)23 Peak Experiences (Actualization) .34 .33 .29 .46 .45 .50 ( .67)24 Moral Intuition (Actualization) .40 .57 .36 .46 .51 .40 .34 (,,78)25 Creative Spirit (Actualization) .39 .42 .36 .39 .45 .40 .46 .40 (,.83)

Self-Concept and Attitudes (Mentee--rated)26 Career-oriented CSE .46 .48 .41 .41 .38 .33 .22 .39 .3627 Satisfaction with Mentor .17 .31 .10 .19 .19 .15 .14 .31 .1628 Intent to Continue Mentorship .19 .17 .23 .07 .18 .23 .17 .21 .23

Note. N = 453. CSE = Core self-evaluation. Correlations stronger than +/- .09 are significant a tp < .05. Correlations stronger than +/- .12 are significant d ip < .01. Italicized items along the diagonal are the reliability values.

64

Table 6.

Regression Analyses Examining the Incremental Validity o f Person-Centered Support in Sample 9

Support Provided Support Received(Mentor-rated) (Mentee-rated)

C riteria Pred ictors P AR 2 R 1 P AJ?2 R 1Absorption (Flow) Emotional Support .01 <.001 .06 <.001

Instrumental Support .04 <.001 .02 <.001Person-Centered Support Total .02 <.001 <.001 .08 .01 .02*

Enjoyment (Flow) Emotional Support -.03 <.001 -.02 <.001Instrumental Support -.05 <.001 .07 <.001Person-Centered Support Total .17" .02" .0 3 " .25" .05*' .07"

Intrinsic Motivation (Flow) Emotional Support .01 <.001 .01 <.001

Instrumental Support -.04 <.001 .05 <.001

Person-Centered Support Total .14" .02* .02" .22" .04" .06"

Appreciation (Actualization) Emotional Support -.02 <.001 .07 <.001Instrumental Support .02 <.001 .14" .02"Person-Centered Support Total .23" .04" .05" .19" .03** .10"

Acceptance (Actualization) Emotional Support -.03 <.001 .05 <.001Instrumental Support .02 <.001 .11* .01*Person-Centered Support Total .17" .02" .03" .16" .02** .07"

Authenticity (Actualization) Emotional Support -.09 <.001 .04 <.001Instrumental Support .11* .01* .18" .02"Person-Centered Support Total .24" .04** .06" .25" .05** .14"

Equanimity (Actualization) Emotional Support -.01 <.001 -.02 <.001Instrumental Support -.08 <.001 .08 <.001Person-Centered Support Total .11" .01" .01** .11" .01* .02"

Purpose (Actualization) Emotional Support -.09 <.001 -.02 <.001Instrumental Support .01 <.001 .11* .01*Person-Centered Support Total .23** .04** .04** .24" .04" .08"

Reality (Actualization) Emotional Support -.10 <.001 <.001 <.001Instrumental Support .03 <.001 .11* .01*Person-Centered Support Total .26" .05" .05** .24" .04" .09"

Humanitarianism (Actualization) Emotional Support -.02 <.001 .06 <.001Instrumental Support .02 <.001 .11* .01*Person-Centered Support Total .17" .02" .03" .18’* .02** .08"

> < .0 5 , * > < .0 1 .Note. N = 453. /? = Standardized regression coefficients when all predictors are included in the regression equation. AR2 = Unique variance explained by each predictor. R2 = Total variance explained by all predictors. CSE = Core self-evaluation.

65

Table 7.

Regression Analyses Examining the Incremental Validity o f Person-Centered Support in Sample 9 (Cont.)

Support Provided (Mentor-rated)

Support Received (Mentee-rated)

Criteria Predictors P AR1 R1 P AR1 R2Peak Experiences (Actualization) Emotional Support .03 <.001 .10 .01

Instrumental Support .02 <.001 .14" .02"Person-Centered Support Total .09" .01” .01” .08 .01 .07”

Moral Intuition (Actualization) Emotional Support -.08 <.001 .10 .01Instrumental Support .06 <.001 .17” .02”Person-Centered Support Total .26" .05” .06" .14" .02” .10”

Creative Spirit (Actualization) Emotional Support -.01 <.001 , i r .01'Instrumental Support .03 <.001 .19" .03"Person-Centered Support Total .15" .02" .02" .12’ .01* .10"

Career-oriented CSE Emotional Support -.06 <.001 .05 <.001Instrumental Support -.04 <.001 .18” .02"Person-Centered Support Total .22" .04" .04" .18” .03" .11"

Satisfaction with Mentor Emotional Support .05 <.001 .20" .04"Instrumental Support .07 <.001 .21" .03"Person-Centered Support Total .29” .06” .12" .29" .06" .31”

Intent to Continue Mentorship Emotional Support .08 <.001 .20" .04"Instrumental Support .03 <.001 .18" .03”Person-Centered Support Total .26” .05" .10". .28" .06" .27"

> < .0 5 , * > < .0 1 .Note. N = 453. /? = Standardized regression coefficients when all predictors are included in the regression equation. AR2 = Unique variance explained by each predictor. R2 = Total variance explained by all predictors. CSE = Core self-evaluation.

66

Appendix

Appendix A. Person-Centered Support Scale

Administrator InstructionsItems should be presented in random order when possible. Empathy is calculated with an average of items 1, 2, and 3. Genuineness is calculated with an average of items 4, 5, and 6.Unconditional Positive Regard is calculated with an average of items 7, 8, and 9. A total score for Person-Centered Support is calculated with an average of all nine items.

The support scale can be used for seven different sources of support. Adjust all items to the desired source of support and the appropriate subject - verb agreement. Sources include: Organization (e.g., Others at my organization are aware of the effect they have on me.)Supervisor (e.g., My supervisor is aware of the effect he/she has on me.)Coworkers (e.g., My coworkers are aware of the effect they have on me.)Subordinates (e.g., My subordinates are aware of the effect they have on me.)Customers / Clients (e.g., My customers / clients are aware of the effect they have on me.)Family / Friends (e.g., My family / friends are aware of the effect they have on me.)Mentor (e.g., My mentor is aware of the effect he/she has on me.)

Participant InstructionsPlease think about your supervisor during the past 30 days. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements using the 7-point rating scale shown below. Write the number corresponding to your response on the line in front of each statement.

Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither agree Slightly Agree Stronglydisagree disagree nor disagree agree agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. My supervisor deeply understands my perspective.2. My supervisor is aware of the effect he/she has on me.3. My supervisor connects with me about the way I feel.4. My supervisor is genuine when communicating with me.5. My supervisor is open to sharing new experiences with me.6. My supervisor provides honest feedback to me.7. My supervisor accepts all aspects of who I am as a person.8. My supervisor allows me to be myself.9. My supervisor is patient with me.

EXAMINING PERSON-CENTERED SUPPORT AND SELF …

Documents

Transcript of EXAMINING PERSON-CENTERED SUPPORT AND SELF …