Youth Initiated Mentoring and Epistemic Trust
An explorative qualitative study of epistemic trust in youth with a Youth Initiated Mentor.
Master Thesis Forensische Orthopedagogiek University of Amsterdam
Juliette Kwa (10659412) Amount of words: 9501 Supervisor: E. Kornelis Second superviser: L. van Dam/G.J Stams Amsterdam, December 2018
Abstract
This qualitative study explored if youths with a Youth Initiated Mentor (YIM) experienced epistemic trust in relationships with their YIM and care worker. Semi-structured interviews about epistemic trust were conducted with four triads, each consisting of a youth, a care worker, and a YIM. The present study revealed that there are multiple signs indicating that youths with a YIM experience epistemic trust. The results indicated that epistemic trust was present, that youth experienced a positive relationship with both care workers and YIMs, and youths were open to their advice. These results can be used to design future research on the presence and role of
epistemic trust in Youth Initiated Mentoring. For the operationalisation of the concept of epistemic trust it will be necessary to further explore the specific link between attachment and epistemic trust, between general trust and epistemic trust, and between being able to listen to someone’s advice and epistemic trust.
Keywords
1. Introduction
Approximately one million under-aged children in the European Union are not taken care of by their parents and are placed out of home. However, this number is not too accurate since a lot of alternative care is not registered, which means that the actual number could even be a higher (Bruning & van der Zon, 2013). Under-aged children are supposed to be at home with their parents or caregivers, according to the UN convention on the Rights of the Child (IVRK in Dutch). Unfortunately, this is not always possible. In some cases, parents experience problems with taking care of their child (Bruning & van der Zon, 2013). When the child’s safety and well-being are in danger, a child can be placed out of home (Smits, 2012). The family can decide voluntary (Wouters, 2005) or the judge decides that it is better for a child to place the child out of home, which means that the child will be placed into an institution or with a foster family. This can be either temporarily or for a longer period of time.
Placing a child out of home is traumatic for the both child and family. As a consequence of being taking care of in residential care, the following characteristics apply to the youths: abandoned, not having parents capable of taking care of them and taken away from a family environment. A lot of children have a negative view of residential care, which has a negative effect on their wellbeing. The negative label can have a negative effect on the future identity (Calheiros, Garrido, Lopes & Patrício, 2015). Also, being a foster child has a negative influence on school grades compared to non-foster children (Stone, 2007). Therefore, during the last few years the focus in the UN-guidelines shifted more towards the prevention of placing children out of home. According to the International Convention on the Rights of the child, residential care should be the last option, only to be given in case there is no other suitable intervention possible (Bruning & van der Zon, 2013).
Youth Initiated Mentoring (YIM) is an approach designed to prevent
residential care (Van Dam et al., 2017). YIM is a form of natural mentoring, which is expected to be a successful way of helping youths because it is using the social network of the youths itself. Epistemic trust is to be expected a very important element for a YIM to be successful. Since the network of the youth is being used as strength, the already existed trust is very important. Without epistemic trust, the YIM approach could not be successful. What epistemic trust is exactly will be explained more fully later. Not enough research has been done to be able to state whether
epistemic trust is present or not. Therefore, the goal of this study is to examine whether youths experience epistemic trust.
Duboi and Karcher (2014) describe mentoring as follows: “Youth-mentoring is the practice of using program-sponsored relationships between identified youth and older volunteers (or paraprofessionals) as a context for prevention-focused activities and experiences” (p. 37). In the traditional way the mentor is a non-familiar person. YIM is a form of natural mentoring, which means that the mentor is a person who is already part of the youth’s social network. For example: a friend, a teacher or family member. The YIM cannot be a parent of the youth (Schwartz, Rhodes, Spencer, & Grossman, 2013). According to Spencer et al. (2016) the YIM has to be at least 21 years old. A YIM can, together with the professional, help youths who experience severe behavioral and psychological difficulties. A YIM focuses on the strengths of the family, and on the characteristics that can be used to help the child or adolescent. The youth’s social network can become stronger by working together with a natural mentor (Van Dam et al., 2017). The YIM concept is customizable for different situations and populations. The amount of support needed from the professional depends on the amount of complexity of the situation (Fonagy, Luyten, Allison, & Campbell, 2017).
The YIM concept has four phases, which takes around six to nine months to fulfill. In the first phase, the focus is on ‘whom’. The professional discusses with the youth and its family which person in the social network would be suitable to become the YIM. When it has been decided who is going to become the YIM, the possible YIM will be informed about the concept: position and agreements regarding privacy, what kind of help the YIM is going to be and termination. After the youth has
identified the specific adult to be his/her YIM, the YIM program provides a
screening- and training program and supports the nominated adult through the process (Schwarts & Rhodes, 2016). For the second phase, the focus is on ‘what’. Everyone’s view on the current situation and the desired outcome is being discussed. During the third phase, the focus is on ‘how’. How the different participants are able to work together and make a plan, which hopefully leads to the agreed desired outcome. The fourth phase focuses on ‘adaptivity’: ‘the degree to which the current informal pedagogical alliance can meet new challenges’ (Van Dam et al., 2017).
As already mentioned, a YIM is a natural mentor. The following is known about natural mentorship. First, having a natural mentor is associated with positive
youths outcomes according to a recent meta-analysis performed by Van Dam et al. (2018). Natural mentors can help ‘normally’ developing youths with their goals, difficulties and their identity development. They can also help youth at-risk in a way that it can reduce risks on at the individual and contextual level (Greeson & Bowen, 2008). A natural mentor has a positive effect on youth’s vocational and academic functioning, physical health, social-emotional development and psychosocial problems (Van Dam et al., 2018). Second, the youth’s social network can be
stabilized through a natural mentor (Keller & Blakeslee, 2014). Natural mentors are often in the same places as the youths, like school or a sports club. Therefore, they have the opportunity to encourage the youths to interact with more people and organizations, which has a positive effect on their health (Dubois & Silverthorn, 2005).
Mentor-mentee relationships that are formed through a formal program and that end prematurely have a great chance of having no effect or even a negative effect due to another disappointing experience (DeWit et al., 2016; Grossman, Chan,
Schwarts, & Rhodes, 2012). If youths choose their own mentors, the already trusted mentor-mentee relationship has a greater chance of success (Spencer, Gowdy, Drew, & Rhodes, 2018). Last, lots of youths have experienced difficulties with putting trust in people and building new relationships, because their caregivers have maltreated them in the past (Geenen & Powers, 2007). In general, building a relationship based on trust takes time, let alone for youths with a history of negative experiences (Mennen & O’keefe, 2005). The quality of the relationship and the frequency of contact are important to bring about change (Spencer et al., 2016). Trust (general), respect and empathy may be the result of a relationship with a high frequency of support (Eby et al., 2013). When youths already have an emotional bond with the mentor, they could be more open towards advice (Hurd & Sellers, 2013).
Deciding whether information or advice from someone should be accepted or not is called epistemic trust (Fogany & Allison, 2014). Epistemic trust is a specific kind of trust, related to accepting information or advice from someone who is personally relevant (Fonagy & Allison, 2014; Fonagy, Luyten & Allison, 2015). Epistemic trust is to be expected a very important element for a YIM to be successful. YIMs have to be able to adjust their approach. It is therefore important for YIMs to work with youths who have epistemic trust or to know that epistemic trust has to be
(re-)established, since youth are not able to learn from others if epistemic trust is not present (Fonagy & Allison, 2014).
It is expected that youths already have a certain amount of trust towards their YIM; otherwise they would not have chosen that specific person to be their YIM. However, at this point it is not possible to estimate whether youths have epistemic trust or not or under what conditions youths can develop epistemic trust if it is gone. Also, is it not know yet if having a YIM can contribute epistemic trust, since this has not been investigated yet. There is simply no instrument that can tell us if epistemic trust is present or not. Therefore, this qualitative study is the first to examine whether youths with a YIM might epistemic trust.
There are a couple of elements that are assumed to play a role in the development epistemic trust. The presence of these elements could be a sign of epistemic trust. These elements will be discussed in the following order: attachment, rigid kind of communication, unable to learn from others, accepting information from someone with a specific background, accepting information from someone who is considered to be trustworthy, not accepting information from someone when told that the person is a liar, and social information processing.
Attachment is very important in order to trust people and for the child to believe information offered to it (Courriveau et al., 2009). Trust is an essential part of secure attachment (Mikulincer, 1998). During an experiment, securely attached children showed a preference towards the information given by the mother. However, when the information from the mother was not believable, they relied on their own knowledge. Children who were insecure-avoidant did not trust their mother and had a preference for the information given by the stranger. Insecure-resistant children were not able to trust the stranger, even when the information their mother provided to them was not believable. Finally, insecure-disorganized children did not trust the information given by both mother and stranger, but also did not rely on their own instinct. Attachment avoidance could lead to epistemic mistrust. Disorganized attachment could lead to epistemic hypervigilance (Courriveau et al., 2009).
Based on the information on attachment from Courriveau et al. (2009), Fonagy and Allison (2014) argued that being securely attached is a key step for epistemic trust. It seems to be that attachment is the mediator for a trustworthy transferral of information from the parent to the child. Based on the information of Russel (1940), Fonagy and Allison (2014) argued that when ostension, which is described as “the
signaling of communicative intent”, is used by the caregiver in the relationship with the child, the child will believe that the caregiver is a trustworthy source of
information. Ostensive cues make a secure attachment happen, as well as epistemic trust. Calling someone’s name, making eye contact, using specific types of voice tones and ‘turn-taking contingent reactivity’ are examples of ostensive cues. When ostensive cues are used, the conversationist acknowledges the listener. By receiving special attention and being seen as an agent, the listener will experience epistemic trust (Fagony et al., 2015).
When epistemic trust is not present and epistemic mistrust and hypervigilance are the case for an individual, the absence is noticeable in the way that it creates a rigid kind of communication; there is no space for exchange. The person who lost epistemic trust is (temporarily) unable to learn from anyone (Fonagy & Allison, 2014) or from social experiences (Courriveau et al. 2009).
It is known that epistemic trust is based on past experiences. Due to past experiences people know who to trust automatically in the future. Children often do not have a lot of past experiences to base their opinion on (Koenig & Harris, 2007), and therefore building epistemic trust is a challenge for children (Shafto, Eavas, Navarro & Perfors, 2012). However, different researchers have demonstrated that four year olds are able to decide whom they should ask for the best possible advice when given a choice out of two (Corriveau & Harris, 2009; Koenig & Harris, 2005;
Pasquini et al., 2007). They are aware of the fact that some people know more about a specific subject than other people do. They understand, for example, that a doctor knows less about cars than a mechanic does. Furthermore, young children are aware of the fact that the doctor will not only know more about human bodies, but also more about animals than the mechanic does (Lutz & Keil, 2002). When children receive information about an object, their own background knowledge and their intuition also play an important role in accepting or rejecting the information offered. Children often reject information that is contradictory to what they already know about the subject or what they actually see in front of them (Lane, Harris, Gelman, & Wellman, 2014). However, the fact that a child is able to decide whom to trust better is not yet enough to establish epistemic trust. To know what the intentions of the informant are, is important too (Shafto et al, 2012). The results of an experiment showed that four year olds do not listen to the informant if they are being told that the informant is a
liar (Mascaro & Sperber, 2009). This shows that four year olds are able to show signs of epistemic trust (Shafto et al., 2012).
A lot of research has pointed out that different individuals process social information in a different way (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011). “Social information processing refers to the mental processes involved in an individual’s perceptions of and reactions to other individuals in his or her social environment” (p. 580) (King et al., 2009). It is important to be aware of the differences between people, since the social information processing is dependent on the social and emotional development. Secure attached individuals can flexibly and almost completely process information important to the attachment. Insecure attached individuals, however, are not able to process all information. They exclude important attachment information linked to specific attachment figures and specific attachment moments, which may cause feelings of pain (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011). Multiple studies show that compared to nonaggressive children, aggressive children process social information in a different way. They make a decision based on incomplete information and they assume that the intention of the other person is hostile. They react to this kind of social problems in an aggressive way instead of a social competent way (King et al., 2009). Different
answers of the youths, the YIM, and the care worker on the same topic could be a sign of a different way of information processing, which could be a possible sign for insecure attachment. If aggressive children process and interpret information differently, they might not be able to receive the ostensive cues. Without ostensive cues, epistemic trust is not possible (Fonagy & Allison, 2014).
At this point, it is not known under what conditions youths can develop
epistemic trust if it is gone and if having a YIM can contribute, since this has not been investigated yet. This study tries to explore indications that might suggest that youths with a YIM have epistemic trust. Since no research has investigated what kind of effect a YIM can have on the absent or presence of epistemic trust, this will be an explorative study to see if and how this can be investigated in the future.
This all taken into account, the main research question is: ‘Are there indications that youths with a YIM experience epistemic trust?’
Sub-question 1: ‘What are the indications in the experiences from the three different participant groups, that is, YIMs, care workers and youths?’ It is expected that there are indications that youths are able to experience epistemic trust towards their YIM because they already have a relationship with their YIM. Therefore, it is expected that
the youths have a positive relationship with their YIM, which could be an attachment relationship. It is not possible to see if the care workers and/or YIMs use ostensive cues. However, the intensity of their contact and the conversations subjects could be a sign for a close relationship, since it could show that the youths think the care workers and or the YIMs are trustworthy persons. The absence of a stiff kind of
communication could be a self-contained sign for the presence of epistemic trust. Also, it is expected that the youths will be open to advice from the YIMs. Accepting information from someone with a specific background and not accepting information when it is contradictory to what the persons knows, could be signs of epistemic trust. It is expected not to find a clue about rejecting information as a consequence of someone saying the information provider is a liar. The reason for this is that no one would say this about the participants. Sub-question 2: ‘What are the indications in the context of differences and similarities between the participant groups?’ It is expected that the youth and the YIM will agree on their feelings about the relationship and the attitude of the youth to being open for advice. There is no specific expectation regarding the youth and the care worker.
2. Method
This study is an explorative qualitative research with a semi-structured interview in which four triads (youth, care worker and YIM) have been asked questions about their experiences regarding the presence of a YIM and the possible presence of epistemic trust. The interviews have been done individually.
2.1 Participants
The research group has been recruited by approaching care workers of youth care institutions. The care workers asked the youths if they wanted to join the research. The care workers and the youths are involved with one of the five youth organizations in Rotterdam: Humanities, FUTURO, Enver (jeugd en opvoedhulp), Stichting JOZ and wmo radar. The approached care workers, YIMs and youths could only participate if the others of their own triad wanted to participate as well.
The participants included 4 social care workers between the age of 27 and 64, 4 YIM’s between the age of 20 and 66 and 4 youths between the age of 17 and 24. A fifth triad was interviewed but this data has not been included in the research because the YIM cannot be a parental adult and in this case the mother was the YIM. Of all
participants (N = 12), 50% is Dutch, 33% has two nationalities and 1 person is Syrian. All youths are going to school: 75% is going to intermediate vocational education (MBO in Dutch) and 25% is going to preparatory secondary vocational education (VMBO in Dutch). All YIMs had a different relation to the youths: Ex-stepmother, language buddy, best friend and mother from friend.
All participants received a letter with information about the research and they all signed a formed consent before the interview started. The YIMs and the youths received 10, - euro compensation for participating.
2.2 Procedure
When all three people of the triad agreed with participating in the research, agreements were made about the time and place of the interview. In some cases it was not possible to interview the three people of the same triad on the same day. The interviews took place from the beginning of February till the beginning of March. All interviews took place in Rotterdam, most of them in a building of youth organization Enver. Journalists did the interviews and two students asked a couple of questions at the end of the interview. Also, the students were able to ask more questions if they thought they participants did not give enough information. The research leader explained the journalist how they should ask the questions. They did not receive a special training. Before the interview started, the journalist explained that the information received from the interview had two purposes: an article in a magazine and a research done by students from the University of Amsterdam.
Every participant has been interviewed individually to prevent any influences from other people in the triad. In total four journalists and two students did the interviews. During an interview there was one journalist and one student. However, for two interviews there was only a journalist. The interview existed out of 21 questions for the care workers, 25 questions for the YIMs and 24 open questions for the youths. At the end of the interview the participants were asked if there was anything they wanted to add to their story. When this part of the interview was done, the participants were asked demographic questions and a couple of rating questions. The total duration of the interviews was between 30 and 50 minutes depending on the answers of the participants. The interviews have been recorded and transcribed. The entire transcription has been send to the participant to give him or her the possibility to make adjustments and to approve. All the participants approved the transcription.
2.3 Measures
The interview focused on mind mindedness and epistemic trust. For this specific research, the focus is on epistemic trust. However, the used questionnaire, which was developed by Van Dam (2018), focused on both mind mindedness and epistemic trust.
Because of the semi-structured interview, some of the questions have been adjusted to the previous answers of the participants. Also not all question have been asked because the journalist simply forgot and the student did not correct it. When this happened, the overall conclusion is not based on four participants but on less.
The open questions that were important for this research were about the contact with the other people of the triad and epistemic trust. ‘How often do you see each other and what do you discuss?’ is an example of a question about the contact. ‘Are you open to the advice of the YIM?’ is an example of a question about epistemic trust. The demographic information (name, gender, age, nationality, etc.) was
collected after the open questions. The demographic questions included three rating questions for the youths and YIMs and four for the social care workers. Two
questions were about the collaboration relationship and one question was about advising others to take a YIM. For the social care workers the questions about advising existed out of two questions as well.
2.4 analyses
All interviews have been recorded. The interviews were literally transcribed and coded (Boeije, 2005). By recording the interviews and transcribing it afterwards, the journalist and student did not have to make notes during the interview. Coding the interviews existed of different steps. The first step was in this case, deciding which questions were important to answer the research question. For the care worker,
instead of 21 questions, 8 questions were coded. For the YIM, instead of 25 questions, 10 questions were coded. For the youths, instead of 24 questions, 11 questions were coded. In some cases, the student had asked an extra question to receive a more specific answer. These chosen questions of the interview were coded. The entire interview had been read before deciding which questions should be coded and which not. When the information was not given as a response to the coded question, but it was given as a response to the non-coded questions, this information is used to answer the research questions. The information stayed un-coded because there was not
Through open coding, the answers of the participants receive different labels. Afterwards, the interviews have been coded axially. By axially coding, the relevant information has been selected. First, information about the YIM requirements have been collected and coded to check if the YIMs perform their YIM according to the description of the method. Then, according to the expectations, the results belonging to the research questions were arranged.
3. Results
The results are divided into six different components: background information (1), collaboration (2), youths about the contact with the YIM (3), care worker and YIM about the contact with the youths (4), reaction regarding to advice (5) and conformity (6). Within each component, every individual is analyzed separately, except for the segments regarding background information (1) and conformity (6). The different triads are recognizable by the letter A, B, C or D.
Table 1
Background information
Background
information Youth A Youth B Youth C Youth D
Situation Beaten by dead Refugee Problems at home
& pregnant Does not want to go to school How they met the
YIM Ex-stepmother Language buddy Best friend Friends mother
Reason to start a YIM (Care worker point of
view)
YIM photo-shoot
request Had been told about YIM concept, therefore told youth
YIM is able to know the specific reasons behind the actions of the youth
X
Reason to start a YIM (YIM’s point of view)
X To get the youth
back to school X Started thinking about YIM because the woman was already involved Reason to start a YIM (youth’s point of view) X
Care worker was
3.1 Background information
During the interviews all youths (n=4) informed the interviewer on why they need help by social care.
Youth A said that she had a very difficult relationship with her father. She was beaten up by him a lot and when she got pregnant he forced her to have an abortion. The mother of youth A was a drug addict and was not able to fulfil her role as a mother. The youth and the YIM met each other when the YIM got involved with the youth’s father. The YIM has two kids with him. Even though the YIM is not in a relationship with the father anymore, the YIM treats the youth as her own child. The youth and the YIM did not give any reason why the youth and the care worker started working together with a YIM. According to the care worker, the reason they started working with the YIM concept was due to the YIM photo shoot request. Therefore, the YIM only officially received the YIM label a couple of days before the interview.
Youth B did not say anything about his situation in the coded part of the interview. However, in another part of the interview he did tell that he fled to The Netherlands as a refugee. He met his YIM because she started as the Language Buddy of his mother, then she also became his language buddy and now she is his YIM. The YIM said that the reason for her to become his YIM was to get youth B back to school. The youth reasoned her role as his YIM because the care worker was going to stop. Contrasting, the care worker said the YIM came in the picture because he had been told about the YIM concept and then told about the concept to the youth. Youth C also did not say anything about her situation in the coded part of the interview. However, she did tell about her home being an unstable environment and therefore she started moving from friend to friend. Subsequently, she stopped going to school and got pregnant. From that point on social care became involved. The youth and the YIM met at school. They went walking on the beach during an introduction activity. Soon they became best friends. This youth and the YIM both did not give a specific reason why the youth and the care worker decided to start working with a YIM. However, according to the care worker the reason to start with a YIM was because a YIM is able to know more about the specific reasons behind the actions of the youth.
Youth D also did not say anything about her situation in the coded part of the interview. She did mention that she had a problem regarding school in another part of the interview. The youth and the YIM met after the youth and the YIM’s daughter
became friends at school. The youth and YIM both did not mention a specific reason why the youth and the care worker decided to work with a YIM. However, the care worker said that since the YIM was already involved, it felt like the obvious choice to choose her as the YIM. This care worker is currently not the official care worker anymore.
3.2 Collaboration
This section informs on whether the participants lived by the YIM 'rules' they are supposed to follow.
3.2.1 Care workers.
Care worker A and C discussed a plan of action with the YIM. Care worker B said that he talked with the YIM about the tasks. Care worker D said what his tasks were: reachable, contact with school and the school attendance officer.
3.2.2 YIM’s.
YIM C and D said that they discussed with the care worker how they were going to work together. YIM A did not receive the original question. She was only asked if there were cooperation agreements regarding conflicts. YIM B stated that no agreements were made.
3.2.3 Youths.
Youth A and C said that cooperation agreements were discussed. Youth B said that no agreements were made. Youth D mentioned a natural interaction without discussing specific agreements.
3.3 Youths about the contact with the YIMs
Both care workers and youths received a question about the contact with the YIM. Since the answers of the care workers do not help to answer the research questions, they are not being discussed.
Table 2
Contact with YIM from youth point of view
Contact with
YIM Youth A Youth B Youth C Youth D
Amount of
contact X See each other twice per week Speak to each other every day See each other at irregular moments Conversation
subjects About almost everything X About almost everything About almost everything
Feeling *Relation has
been better after YIM label *YIM takes her under her wings
X Trust the knowledge of the YIM
Relation is the same after YIM label
Relation is the same after YIM label
Reachable X
Did always go to
the YIM for help When the YIM comes by Speak to each other every day Can call anytime 3.3.1 Youths.
Youth B and D answered the question how many times they see their YIM. Youth B sees the YIM twice per week and the youth D sees the YIM on irregular moments. Youth A did not receive this question. Youth C did not tell how often she and the YIM see each other. However, she did inform the interviewer that they call or FaceTime each other every day.
Youth A, C and D said that they are able to talk to their YIM about almost anything. Youth B did not specifically say that he could speak to his YIM about anything.
All youths answered the following question: ‘What do you think of the fact that the YIM, whom was already familiar to you, suddenly interfered in your life?’ However, this question was asked differently by the interviewers. Youth C and D said that the contact with the YIM has been the same after the YIM received this official. Youth A said that their contact/relationship is progressing. However, the YIM only received the official label a couple of days before the interview. Youth B did not answer this question in the same way as the others did. He said that he trusted the knowledge of the YIM. The reason for his different answer could be caused by difficulty with the Dutch language.
Youth B, C and D said specifically how they are able to reach their YIM. Youth B said that he only speaks to the YIM when she comes to his house since he does not own a phone. Youth C said that she talks to her YIM every single day, either
through Facetime or through calls. Youth D said that she is able to call her YIM anytime. Youth A did not mention anything specifically about their usual way of contact. However this youth stated in a different part of the interview that she always went to her YIM when she needed help. Therefore, it is possible to say that all youths know how the get in touch with their YIM.
Youth A, C and D said something about their feelings of the relationship with the YIM. Youth A said that her YIM takes her under her wings, like mothers do. Youth C said that her relationship with the YIM is functioning normally. Youth D said that it does not feel like her YIM is interfering in her life but now and then some tensions is build up. She also says that her YIM is conscious of the youth’s
frustrations and that she is able to tell the YIM when she is frustrated. Nevertheless, she trusts her YIM and according to her they have a mother-daughter connection. Youth B did not say something specifically about their relationship. However, he did say in an un-coded part of the interview that he liked the ability of choosing your own mentor because this way youth are able to choose someone they trust. This suggests that he trusts his YIM.
3.4 Care worker and YIM about the contact with the youth
Both care workers and YIM’s received a question about their contact with the youths. Since the answers of the care workers and the youths differ significantly, they will be showed separately.
Table 3
Care worker about contact with the youth
Contact with the
youth Care worker A Care worker B Care worker C Care worker D
Amount of contact Talks to the youth multiple times per week
* See each other
once a week *Phone
conversation once a week
*See each other once in two weeks
Conversation
subjects About personal and practical information
About school About everything About personal and practical information
Feeling Special
3.4.1 Care workers.
Care workers C and D were questioned on how often they see the youth. Care worker C said that they see each other once per three weeks, which is according to plan. They also speak to each other through the phone once a week. Care worker D said that they saw each other once in two weeks. However, he is not the current care worker anymore and therefore he is officially not involved. Care workers A and B were not asked this question. However, care worker A did say that he talks to the youth multiple times a week.
All care workers had positive feelings towards the contact with the youths. Care worker A did not specifically answer the question with ‘good’ or ‘positive’. He said that he and the youth have some sort of special connection. It almost felt like he was a father figure to her. He also said that he has a lot of understanding towards the situation of the youth and therefore he adjusts his interaction with the youth. Care worker B said that he was able to connect well with the youth. He also said that it is important to stay in contact with the youth. The reason he said this is because he was planning on being more in the background following the arrival of the YIM. Care worker C said she experienced open and honest contact. Care worker D said that there were ups and downs. The youth did not appreciate his direct attitude all the time, but she did appreciate his open attitude.
Care workers A and D specifically said that they talk with their youths about personal information. They also talk about practical information or explain the youth why certain advise is given. Care worker B mostly talks about the things that need to be done in order to get the youth back to school. Care worker C said that they are able to talk about everything.
Table 4
YIM about contact with the youth
Contact with the
youth YIM A YIM B YIM C YIM D
Amount of contact See each other at
irregular moments See each other twice a week Speak to each other every day
X Conversation
subjects X About refugee experiences About almost everything X
Feeling Very close
relationship *Youth is polite *Trust is present Relationship did not change (still best friends)
*Perfect *Sometimes difficult contact *Knows the youth very well
3.4.2 YIMs.
The YIMs did not have to answer the question about how often they see or speak the youths according to the official interview questions. In two cases however, the interviewer did ask this question. YIM A answered in an un-coded part of the interview that she and the youth see each other at irregular moments. YIM B said in a un-coded part of the interview that she visits the youth twice a week. The other two were not asked this question. However YIM C did say that she speaks to the youth every day. YIM D did not say anything about the amount of contact.
All YIMs did have a positive feeling towards the contact with the youths. Three out of four YIMs literally said they had ‘good’ or ‘perfect’ contact with the youths. YIM A did not literally say the contact was ‘good’ or ‘positive’. This is because the question was asked differently. She said that her relationship with the youth is very close and that the youth is like family, also because her children are the youth’s half siblings. YIM B said that the youth is very polite towards her and that he shows her respect. She also said that there was one moment that he told a very
personal story about his experiences being a refugee. This moment proved her that he trusts her. YIM C said the relationship between her and the youth did not change after becoming her YIM. YIM D said it was perfect but also said that the contact
sometimes could be a little difficult. The youth sometimes does not listen, does not show up on appointments and is distracted easily. However, the YIM also said in an un-coded part of the interview that whenever the youth is sick, the youth is in need of an adult when making appointment or has a fight with her grandma, she then calls the YIM.
The YIMs were not asked about conversation topics with the youths. However, YIM B and C did say something in the context of conversation subjects. YIM B said that the introvert youth suddenly discussed his refugee experiences. YIM C said that she could talk with the youth about anything. YIM A said that she and the youth sometimes cook and have dinner together. YIM D said that she knows the youth very well to know how to start a confronting conversation, but the youth can still be really though to handle. YIM A and D did not say what kind of topics they discuss.
The YIM’s were not asked the question about possible differences
experienced since they got the YIM label. However, YIM C did say that everything remained the same after she got the label.
3.5 Reaction regarding advice
Care workers, YIM’s and the youths were asked questions regarding the advice of the care workers and the YIM’s. Since all answers are important to discuss, they will be reviewed separately.
Table 5
Youth’s reaction regarding advice according to the care workers
Youth’s reaction
regarding advice Care worker A Care worker B Care worker C Care worker D Accept advice *Yes
*Patience *Yes *Appreciation *Yes *Does not always listen
*Able to consider which advice to let go
*Yes
*Does not always listen
Bad advice No experiences No experiences No experiences Tricky situation about place to live
Action when bad
advice is given X Intervene Ask for an explanation X
3.5.1 Care workers.
All care workers said that the youths are willing to accept their advice. Care worker A said that the youth does listen to his advice but that you have to be patient because if she is not informed on the reason for particular advice, she can get bad tempered. Care worker B knows that the youth is willing to accept advice since he said that he and his mom appreciate what the care worker advises. Care worker C said that the youth is able to listen to advice. While the youth does not always take her advice, she does listen to advice regarding her rent debt and planning appointments. According to this care worker the youth is able to consider which advice to listen to and which advice to let go. Care worker D said that the youth listens to his advice about meeting up with her grandpa, having a conversation with her grandma and having some household rules. However, she did not listen to all the advice regarding her grandpa. She also did not listen to the advice about going to school.
Care worker A, B and C did not have any experience with bad advice from the YIM’s. Care worker D once experienced a tricky situation regarding the opinion of the YIM. The YIM thought it would be a good idea for the youth to live with her instead of grandma, but grandma did not agree on this. It was hard to estimate what would be the right thing to do because not everyone could evenly benefit in this situation
Two of the care workers were asked the question what they would do if bad advice had been given. Care worker B would intervene if it would happen and care worker C would ask for an explanation.
Table 6
Youth’s reaction regarding advice according to the YIMs
Youth’s reaction
regarding advice YIM A YIM B YIM C YIM D
Accept advice *Able to listen * Could be stubborn *Able to listen *Accepts help regarding homework *Able to listen *Youth sometimes asks advice *Able to listen *Sometimes does not listen Bad advice No experiences No experiences *Care workers
does not need to give much advice *Her way of giving advice are better *Advice from care worker is good *Disagreements regarding IQ results Action when bad
advice is given X Share opinion about the advice X X
3.5.2 YIMs.
All YIM’s said that the youths are able to listen to their advice. YIM A said that the youth is able to listen to certain tips but that she could also be too stubborn and do whatever she wants, which frustrates the YIM. Luckily, in some cases the youth ends up following the advice anyway. According to YIM B the youth is able to accept help regarding homework and even though he does not respond a lot with words, he did respond to advice regarding taking an admission test. YIM C said that the youth sometimes asks for advice herself. The YIM also said that it is up to the youth what she will end up doing with the given advice. According to this YIM, the youth is only able to accept advice from her and another friend and becoming a YIM, did not make any changes regarding the youth accepting advice from anybody else. YIM D also immediately said that the youth sometimes does not follow her advice. The youth sometimes would not even listen at all. Especially when it comes to advice regarding school. This answer matches with the answer of the care worker. However, she does listen to smaller advice but the YIM did not give an example of that.
All YIMs were asked the question on how they determine if the advice given by the care worker was good for the youth. YIM A and B said they did not experience bad advice from the care worker. YIM C answered this question by saying that the
care worker did not need to give that much advice because the youth’s situation was moving in a positive direction. She did say that she thought her way of giving advice was better since it was not as formal and she knows the youth better than de care worker does. YIM D said that the advice from the care worker was good. However, there seems to be a disagreement with the care worker regarding the IQ results of the youth. Unfortunately, it is not completely clear what she wants to say due to her poorer understanding of the Dutch language.
One of the four YIM’s was asked the question what they would do if bad advice would be given. YIM B said that she would share her opinion about the advice with the care worker.
Table 7
Reaction regarding advice from the care worker according to the youth
Youth’s reaction
regarding advice Youth A Youth B Youth C Youth D
Accept advice *Open to advice
*Good feedback *Open to advice *Advice is good *Open to advice *Open to advice from anybody
X
Difference
between advice Advice care worker tighter than YIM
Probably no difference but no experiences
No differences Advice care worker more direct than YIM Bad advice Experienced one
conflict due to disagreement
Sometimes not able to judge when advice is good X Imagines following the advice before taking it Action when bad
advice is given X X X Would tell if the advice is bad
Table 8
Reaction regarding advice from the YIM according to the youth
Youth’s reaction
regarding advice Youth A Youth B Youth C Youth D
Accept advice *Open to advice
*Advice is good *Open to advice *Advice is good *Open to advice *Open to advice from anybody
*Open to advice *Does not follow the advice all the time
Difference
between advice Advice care worker tighter than YIM
Advice care worker more direct than YIM
Bad advice X Share opinion
about the advice X X
Action when bad
3.5.3. Youths.
All youths were asked the question if they are open to the advice from the care worker and the YIM. All youths answered that they are open to the advice of the YIM. Three out of four youths said that they are open to advice from the care worker. Youth A was not asked the question regarding the care worker but she did say in the un-coded part of the interview that the care worker is like an uncle to her. He also gives her advice and is able to give her good feedback. She also said that the advice from the YIM is good and she accepts advises from her. Youth B said that both care worker and YIM give the same advises and that he thinks the advice from both, YIM and care worker, is good. He also said that the reason he trusts his YIM is because she lived her whole life in The Netherlands and she knows how the country is organized. Youth C said that she is open towards the advice from the care worker as well as the advise from the YIM. She also said that she is open towards advice from anybody, which is all appreciated by here. This does not match with the answer of the YIM since she said that the youth only accept advice from her and one other friend. Youth D said that she does not follow advice all the time. She does inform the YIM
whenever she will not follow the YIM’s advice. This youth was not asked the question whether she is open to advice from the care worker or not.
All youths answered the question if there was a difference between the advices from the care worker and from the YIM’s. Youth A and D said that they experienced differences. Youth A said that the advice of the care worker was tighter than de advice of the YIM. Youth D said that the advice from the care worker was more direct. Youth B said that there would probably not be a difference between the advices since he did not experience it yet. Youth C said there is no difference between the advice from the care worker and the YIM.
Youth A, B and D were asked the question on how they estimate if the advice is good or not. Youth A reacted that she had a conflict with the YIM once because of a different opinion regarding raising children. However, it was their first and only conflict. Youth B said that he sometimes is not able to judge when advice is good or not. Youth D said that she imagines herself following the person’s advice, before actually taking the advice.
Youth C and D were asked the question what they would do if they would receive bad advice. Youth C answered by saying that she does not follow every advice that her YIM gives her. For this youth, the question is only asked about the
YIM. Youth D said that she would tell the care worker or the YIM if it would be bad advice.
Table 9
Attitude regarding advice from care worker and YIM
Advice Triad A Triad B Triad C Triad D
Youth – C W Open Open Open X
Youth - YIM Open Open Open Open
Care worker Open Open Open Open
YIM Open Open Open Open
Difference No No No X
Table 10
Opinion regarding relationship between youth and care worker and YIM
Advice Triad A Triad B Triad C Triad D
Youth – C W Close Positive Positive X
Youth - YIM Close Positive Close Close
Care worker Close Positive Positive Open
YIM Close Positive Close Open
Difference - C W No No No X
Difference - YIM No No No No
3.6 Conformity
All care workers, YIM’s and youths agreed on having a positive relationship with each other. Some of the triads had (very) close relationships and also then they agreed. All the care workers and YIM’s said that the youths are willing to accept advice. All youths said that they are open to advice from the YIM. Three out of four said that they are open to the advice from the care worker. Youth D was not asked this question and did not say anything about it in another part of the interview. Besides this one, they all agreed on the youths being able to listen and follow the advice from the care worker and the YIM.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this explorative study is to see if it is possible to investigate whether epistemic trust is present in youths by searching for indications of epistemic trust. Thus, in this case the presence of epistemic trust in youths who are being helped by a YIM. When epistemic trust is not present, it would be important to discover if a YIM is able to establish epistemic trust. The main research question of the current study is as follows: ‘Are there indications that youths with a YIM experience epistemic trust?’ To fully answer this question, two sub-questions were formulated. Sub-question 1: ‘What are the indications in the experiences from the three different participant groups?’ Sub-question 2: ‘What are the indications in the context of differences and similarities between the participant groups?’
Firstly, information regarding the YIM requirements will be discussed. As said before, the YIM cannot be a parent (Schwartz et al., 2013). Since none of the YIMs is a parent of the youths, all triads meet this requirement. The youngest YIM (C) is 20 years old. For these triads the age line was at 18 years old and therefore this requirement is met as well. Not all participants discussed what they were supposed to according to ‘YIM’ rules. An example of a non-discussed topic concerns process. When the triads do not conform to the rules of YIM, it becomes harder to know if a YIM can have any influence on the presence of epistemic trust, since we do not know if the results are attributed to the youths having a YIM or because of other reasons. Overall, the following indications for the presence of epistemic trust are found:
attachment because of close relationships with high contact intensity and being able to talk about a lot of conversation subjects (A, B, C, D), the absence of a stiff kind of communication (A), trust, (B, D) open towards advice/able to learn from others, accepting information based on knowledge (A) and rejecting information due to contradictory knowledge (C). The presences of these signs were all expected to find. All the indications that were expected to be found have been found. There is one important element that was not expected to be found. All youths were open to the advice from the care workers and the YIMs. However, the youths also being open to the advice from the care workers was not specifically expected. The questions to be asked are: did the YIM do anything to make the youths to be more open to the advice of the care workers? And what does this say about the generalizability? The expected indications will be further discussed below.
All youths describe having a positive relationship with the care workers and YIMs. Some of them are very close. These could be signs of securely attached relationships and an absence of hypervigilance. Hypervigilance creates a stiff way of communication (Fonagy & Allison, 2014) and that seems not to be the case.
Hypervigilance is a sign of the absence of epistemic trust. Contrasting, attachment is important for epistemic trust to occur (Courriveau, 2009; Fonagy & Allison, 2014). According to Fonagy and Allison (2014), attachment seems to be a mediator of epistemic trust. Does this mean that attachment is a mediator? In the case of a direct link, the presence of secure attachment means the presence of epistemic trust. If secure attachment were to be a condition for epistemic trust to be present, it would be important to know if there are other conditions and, if so, what the other conditions are. Being informed about a person’s background/personal life can help to trust the person. Youth B said he trusts the knowledge of the YIM because she has lived in The Netherlands her entire life, and she knows how this country is organized. This is in line with the example of Lutz and Keil (2002) about rather accepting information regarding animals from a doctor than from a mechanic. The youth realises that the YIM knows a lot about the specific subject. Therefore, it could be a sign of epistemic trust.
All youths who received the question about advice answered that they were open to advice from the care worker and YIM. This is a sign of the youths being able to learn from others. When epistemic trust is not present, people are unable to learn from others (Fonagy & Allison, 2014). For youth D there were some signs of
hypervigilance, which would mean the absence of epistemic trust (Fonagy & Allison, 2014). However, not enough has been asked to be able to state this. It would be interesting to know if there is a direct link between youths being able to listen to advice and epistemic trust. If that would be the case, then for this youth epistemic trust would be present.
Youth A also talked about a conflict with the YIM regarding a different opinion about raising kids. This is in line with the research outcomes from Lee et al. (2014), information that is contradictory to what someone knows will often be rejected and is not prove for the absence of epistemic trust.
Youth C said that she is open towards the advice from anyone and that she really appreciates receiving advice. However, according to the YIM the youth is only able to listen to advice from her and another friend. No research has been done to the
possible difference between general and specific epistemic trust. Therefore, it is not possible to say that experiencing epistemic trust to someone from the triad is a sign of general epistemic trust. Nevertheless, there is a sign of trusting the advice of the YIM, which could be a sign of epistemic trust.
Epistemic trust meaning being able to listen to advice from others does not mean that the person always has to listen to advice, whatever the advice is about (Fonagy & Allison, 2014). Care worker C said that the youth is able to consider which advice to listen to and which advice to let go. This could be a sign of epistemic trust (Fonagy & Allison, 2014). However, it is not known what the reason is that the youth decides not to listen to the given advice. Being able to discriminate between good and bad advice to listen to, means that you have to be able to estimate which advice is good or bad. When the reason is not “legitimate”, this would be a sign for the possible absence of epistemic trust. This requires exploration on how to decide of the reason is legitimate or not. However, since the care worker did say it in a complimented way, it tends more towards a grounded way of deciding if advice is good for her or not. Therefore, this could be a possible clue for epistemic trust.
Care workers and YIMs agreed with the youths about having a positive relationship and being open towards advice. This could mean that the three people of the triad process information in a similar way, which could be a sign of a secure attached relationship (Dykes & Cassidy, 2011), which could eventually mean epistemic trust (Courriveau, 2009; Fonagy & Allison, 2014).
To answer the first research question, there are multiple indications that suggest that youths with a YIM experience epistemic trust: attachment because of close relationships with high contact intensity and being able to talk about a lot of conversation subjects, the absence of a stiff kind of communication, trust, open towards advice/able to learn from others, accepting information based on knowledge and rejecting information due to contradictory knowledge. These signs were all expected to be found.
Possibly, almost all the participants process information about the relationship between the youth and the care worker and YIM and acceptance of advice the same, since they agree with each other. This could be a sign of a secure attachment
relationship. Youths who are insecurely attached are not able to receive important attachment information. When the excluded attachment information concerns ostensive cues, epistemic trust may not be present (Fagony et al., 2015). Therefore,
the answer to the second research question is: the similarities between the answers of the individual participants are signs of possible indications for epistemic trust. It was expected that the youth and the YIM would agree on both elements.
5. Limitations
The current research has some limitations. First, the interviewers and students should have known more about the concept (epistemic trust and mind mindedness) to know when to ask more or what to ask specifically. Second, the interviewers did not ask some of the questions that they were supposed to ask. Therefore, there could have been more meaningful results. Third, the interviewers could have asked more
questions as a reaction to the answers to know what the reasons were behind
accepting or rejecting advice. Therefore, it is unknown if youths actually followed the advice when they said so in the interview. Fourth, participating in this research was voluntarily. Therefore, only data of youths who were willing to tell their story have been investigated. This could possibly deliver an incomplete image. Fifth, three participants experienced difficulties answering all the questions due to the fact that the interview questions were asked in Dutch. These three participants did not speak Dutch as their first language, and sometimes had a hard time understanding or
answering the question. Possibly, the participants would have been able to tell more if the questions were asked in English. Finally, there could be more indications that were not able tot detect by using interviews.
6. Recommendations
The recommendations regarding future research will be about epistemic trust, and also about epistemic trust and YIM. Four recommendations regarding future research about epistemic trust will be discussed.
First, the specific link between attachment and epistemic trust, general trust and epistemic trust and being able to listen to someone’s advice and epistemic trust should be explored. It would be important to know what kind of link is present. When there is not a direct link between for example attachment and epistemic trust, it is important to know when someone has epistemic trust or not. This could for example be investigated comparing two groups, one group with youths who are securely attached and one group of youths who are not. If the link is direct, than the youths
who are securely attached are also able to learn from others, and the group who is not securely attached are not able to learn from others.
Second, it is important to investigate if the reason is legitimate when someone decides not to listen to advice. If it is not a legitimate reason to ignore the advice, there is no question of epistemic trust.
Third, when it is possible to state that someone is able to experience epistemic trust towards a person, it is important to investigate if that automatically means this person is able to experience epistemic trust towards everyone or that specific epistemic trust exists. This could be investigated by interviewing participants first. The most important questions are the following two: ‘Do you listen to the advice your mentor/YIM gives you? and ‘When the mentor/YIM gives you advice, what do you do?’ After the interview, the youth and the mentor/YIM will participate in an experiment in which they will work together on a project. All youth-mentor/YIM pairs will do the same project to eliminate the influence of external factors or internal motivation for personal goals. When epistemic trust is present, the youth should be able to learn from the mentor/YIM. In the other phase of the experiment, the youth would work on a project with a stranger. If the youth is able to learn from the
stranger, general epistemic trust is present, whereas if the youth only learns from the YIM, the epistemic trust is established by the relation with the mentor/YIM. These two phases of the experiment will be counter-balanced.
Fourth, when this has been studied, it is possible to further explore if a YIM is able to establish epistemic trust when no form of epistemic trust is present.
7. Finale
Although this study did have a couple limitations, it did provide specific information that can be used to design future research on the presence and role of epistemic trust in Youth Initiated Mentoring. Most importantly, the present study revealed that there are multiple signs indicating that youth with a YIM experience epistemic trust.
8. References
Boeije, H. R. (2005). Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek: denken en doen. Boom Koninklijke Uitgevers.
Bruning, M. R., & van der Zon, K. A. M. (2013). Out of home, out of right? Rechten van minderjarigen bij uithuisplaatsing. NJCM Bulletin, 38, 15.
Calheiros, M. M., Garrido, M. V., Lopes, D., & Patrício, J. N. (2015). Social images of residential care: How children, youth and residential care institutions are portrayed?. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 159-169. doi: org .10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.06.004
Corriveau, K., & Harris, P. L. (2009). Choosing your informant: Weighing familiarity and recent accuracy. Developmental science, 12, 426-437. doi: 10.1111/j.1467 -7687.2008.00792.x
DeWit, D. J., DuBois, D., Erdem, G., Larose, S., Lipman, E. L., & Spencer, R. (2016). Mentoring relationship closures in Big Brothers Big Sisters community mentoring programs: Patterns and associated risk
factors. American journal of community psychology, 57, 60-72. doi: org /10.1002/ajcp.12023
DuBois, D.L., & Karcher, M.J.J. (2014). Youth mentoring in contemporary
perspective. The handbook of youth mentoring. 2, 3-13. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Natural mentoring relationships and
adolescent health: Evidence from a national study. American journal of public
health, 95(3), 518-524. doi: org/10.2105/AJPH.2003.031476
Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: theory and evidence. Psychological
bulletin, 137, 19. doi: 10.1037/a0021367
Eby, L. T. D. T., Allen, T. D., Hoffman, B. J., Baranik, L. E., Sauer, J. B., Baldwin, S., Morrison, M. A., Kinkade, K. M., Maher, C. P., Curtis, S., & Evans, S. C. (2013). An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring.
Psychological bulletin, 139, 441. doi: 10.1037/a/0029279
Fonagy, P., & Allison, E. (2014). The role of mentalizing and epistemic trust in the therapeutic relationship. Psychotherapy, 51, 372.doi: 10.1037/a0036505
Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Allison, E., & Campbell, C. (2017). What we have changed our minds about: Part 2. Borderline personality disorder, epistemic trust and the developmental significance of social communication. Borderline
Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 4. doi:10.1186/s40479-017 -0062-8
Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., & Allison, E. (2015). Epistemic petrification and the restoration of epistemic trust: A new conceptualization of borderline personality disorder and its psychosocial treatment. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 29(5), 575.
Geenen, S., & Powers, L. E. (2007). “Tomorrow is another problem”: The experiences of youth in foster care during their transition into
adulthood. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1085-1101.doi: org/10 .1016/.childyouth.2007.04.008
Greeson, J. K., & Bowen, N. K. (2008). “She holds my hand” The experiences of foster youth with their natural mentors. Children and Youth Services
Review, 30, 1178-1188.doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.03.003
Grossman, J. B., Chan, C. S., Schwartz, S. E., & Rhodes, J. E. (2012). The Test of Time in School‐Based Mentoring: The Role of Relationship Duration and Re‐ Matching on Academic Outcomes. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 49, 43-54. doi: 10.1007/s1046-011-9435-0
Hurd, N. M., & Sellers, R. M. (2013). Black adolescents' relationships with natural mentors: Associations with academic engagement via social and emotional development. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19, 76.
doi: 10.1037/a0031095
Keller, T. E., & Blakeslee, J. E. (2014). Social networks and mentoring. In Dubois D.L., & Karcher, M. J. (Eds.) Handbook of youth mentoring, (pp.129-142). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
King, S., Waschbusch, D. A., Pelham Jr, W. E., Frankland, B. W., Andrade, B. F., Jacques, S., & Corkum, P. V. (2009). Social information processing in elementary-school aged children with ADHD: Medication effects and
comparisons with typical children. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 37, 579-589. DOI 10.1007/s10802-008-9294-9
Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76, 1261–1277. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624 .2005.00489.x
Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2007). The basis of epistemic trust: Reliable testimony or reliable sources?. Episteme, 4, 264-284. doi: 10.1037/0012 -1640.43.5.1216
Lane, J. D., Harris, P. L., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2014). More than meets the eye: Young children’s trust in claims that defy their perceptions.
Developmental Psychology, 50, 865. doi: 10.1037/a0034291
Lutz, D. J., & Keil, F. C. (2002). Early understanding of the division of cognitive labor. Child development, 73(4), 1073-1084.
Mascaro, O., & Sperber, D. (2009). The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception. Cognition, 112(3), 367-380. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012
Mennen, F. E., & O'Keefe, M. (2005). Informed decisions in child welfare: The use of attachment theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 577-593. doi: org /10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.11.011
Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment working models and the sense of trust: An exploration of interaction goals and affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1209-1224. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.5.1209
Pasquini, E. S., Corriveau, K. H., Koenig, M., & Harris, P. L. (2007). Preschoolers monitor the relative accuracy of informants. Developmental
psychology, 43, 1216. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.5.1216
Russell, B. (1940). An inquiry into meaning and truth. London, UK: Allen & Unwin
Shafto, P., Eaves, B., Navarro, D. J., & Perfors, A. (2012). Epistemic trust: Modeling children’s reasoning about others’ knowledge and intent. Developmental
science, 15, 436-447. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.02235.x
Schwartz, S. E., & Rhodes, J. E. (2016). From treatment to empowerment: New approaches to youth mentoring. American journal of community
psychology, 58, 150-157. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12070
Schwartz, S. E., Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). Youth initiated mentoring: Investigating a new approach to working with vulnerable
adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 155-169. doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9585-3
Smits, M. L. (2013). Redenen voor uithuisplaatsing: de argumenten van
hulpverleners in de jeugdzorg (Master thesis).
Spencer, R., Gowdy, G., Drew, A. L., & Rhodes, J. E. (2018). “Who Knows Me the Best and Can Encourage Me the Most?”: Matching and Early Relationship Development in Youth-Initiated Mentoring Relationships with System-Involved Youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, doi: 10.1177
/0743558418755686
Spencer, R., Tugenberg, T., Ocean, M., Schwartz, S. E., & Rhodes, J. E. (2016). “Somebody Who Was on My Side” A Qualitative Examination of Youth Initiated Mentoring. Youth & Society, 48, 402-424. doi: 10.1177
/0044118X13495053
Stone, S. (2007). Child maltreatment, out-of-home placement and academic vulnerability: A fifteen-year review of evidence and future
directions. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 139-161. doi: 10.1016 /j.childyouth.2006.05.001
Van Dam, L.., Neels, S., de Winter, M., Branje, S., Wijsbroek, S., Hutschemaekers, G., Dekker, A., Sekreve, A., Zwaanswijk, M., Wissink, I., & Stams, G. J. (2017). Youth initiated mentors: Do they offer an alternative for out-of-home placement in youth care?. The British Journal of Social Work, 47, 1764-1780. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcx092
Van Dam, L., Smit, D., Wildschut, B., Branje, S. J. T., Rhodes, J. E., Assink, M., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2018). Does Natural Mentoring Matter? A Multilevel Meta‐analysis on the Association Between Natural Mentoring and Youth Outcomes. American journal of community psychology. doi: 0.1002/ajcp .12248
Wouters, J. (2005). Uithuisplaatsing in Nederland en Zweden. Een vergelijkend
