Peer Mentoring, Belonging and Anxiety

Social identity theory says people derive self-esteem from group membership and favour their in-group. Being paired with a high-achieving second-year mentor creates a comparison: the new student belongs to the "newcomer" group but is reminded of the successful "senior" group. Belonging can rise because the scheme gives a group identity and a named ally, while anxiety can rise because the comparison highlights what the student lacks. Social cognitive theory adds observational learning and self-efficacy: mentors model coping, but if mentees believe they should already cope, the gap between model and self can lower self-efficacy. The focus-group reports fit this: mentees do not disclose problems to avoid seeming ungrateful, which is impression management within the relationship.

The two findings are not contradictory; they measure different things. Belonging is a positive evaluation of the group, while anxiety reflects perceived failure to meet the group's norms. The translation issue and limited mentor training also matter, because mentors may unintentionally model a "coping perfectly" script.

Limitation 1: the survey is a self-report Likert scale with no pre-registered definition of belonging. A rise from 3.1 to 3.8 may be a response shift or social desirability, not a real change. There was no control group, so term-time effects such as students settling in could explain it. Limitation 2: the translation was done by a student volunteer, not a professional, so semantic equivalence is unknown. Items such as "I feel I belong" may not translate directly.

The focus groups help by showing the mechanism behind the numbers and by allowing students to use their own words. They also have limits: participants were self-selected, the coordinator may have been present, and group norms can suppress disclosure. A better design would use independent translators and back-translation, a comparison group of non-mentored students, and individual interviews with assurances of confidentiality. Triangulation of survey, interviews and counselling records would strengthen the evaluation, provided counselling data are aggregated and anonymised.

One change is to supervise the mentoring relationship as a structured, reciprocal role rather than a "senior expert" model. Train mentors to share their own difficulties and set boundaries, and give mentees a choice of mentor and an opt-out. This is justified by social cognitive theory: self-efficacy grows through vicarious experience, mastery experience and verbal persuasion, not through upward comparison alone. A "buddy" label rather than "mentor" reduces the status difference.

Culturally, the programme should not assume that disclosure is equally easy for all students. In cultures with stronger collectivist norms or high respect for seniority, a student may be less willing to reveal weakness to a senior. A collectivist framing ("supporting the group") may fit better than an individual help-seeking framing. The change should be evaluated with a controlled comparison and qualitative interviews, measuring both belonging and anxiety so that a rise in one is not mistaken for overall success.