View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Supporting the Supporters: How Peer Mentoring Engagement Reduces Citizenship Fatigue for Sophomores in Universities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Supporting the Supporters: How Peer Mentoring Engagement Reduces Citizenship Fatigue for Sophomores in Universities
Language: English
Authors: Lin Ma, Yanan Dong (ORCID 0000-0002-9414-4974), Haowen Jiang, Xin Wu, Huiwen Wang
Source: British Educational Research Journal. 2025 51(3):1538-1558.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Peer Teaching, Mentors, Citizenship, Fatigue (Biology), Undergraduate Students, Student Attitudes, Foreign Countries, Self Disclosure (Individuals), Psychological Patterns, Mental Health
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1002/berj.4139
ISSN: 0141-1926
1469-3518
Abstract: Abstract Although peer mentoring has been widely adopted in universities, in which sophomores serve as mentors to help freshmen quickly adapt to university life, less attention has been given to the effect of these programmes on mentors. To address this gap in the literature, the impact of mentors' engagement in peer mentoring on citizenship fatigue in Chinese universities was investigated and framed within the conservation of resources theory. We collected data from 401 peer mentors across two survey waves and explored how and when engagement in peer mentoring affects mentors' citizenship fatigue. The results showed that higher engagement in peer mentoring significantly enhanced mentors' perceived meaningfulness, which in turn reduced citizenship fatigue. Additionally, mentor self-disclosure strengthened the positive relationship between engagement in peer mentoring and perceived meaningfulness. These findings highlight the importance of psychological resources in reducing mentors' citizenship fatigue and suggest that universities should support mentors by providing mental health resources and encouraging open communication to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of peer mentoring programmes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1475264
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGucARRmNtrdr3HC7T5hIEwAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLfxXVSLT5ZT5NagwgIBEICBmu-9CZd-JqxojZtchlQosvab_h893uaWo2yGeyXVoE1SC8zIut0kfujjHuk8FLTIkGi5i-9_b7ao8801vpF5N2d3iCCXMjrpeGQRgRX0D3mBO21XEYtL07kd6WuMU4AOGEqEhcnlmdednmOOPzqP23GPu1Ba4_Iu9Y28IfBEUgecrm67hZmYfcjTrLCPshYoaFQZ9Rul3RZfeu8=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186252693;bed01jun.25;2025Jul01.05:03;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186252693-1">Supporting the supporters: How peer mentoring engagement reduces citizenship fatigue for sophomores in universities </title> <p>Although peer mentoring has been widely adopted in universities, in which sophomores serve as mentors to help freshmen quickly adapt to university life, less attention has been given to the effect of these programmes on mentors. To address this gap in the literature, the impact of mentors' engagement in peer mentoring on citizenship fatigue in Chinese universities was investigated and framed within the conservation of resources theory. We collected data from 401 peer mentors across two survey waves and explored how and when engagement in peer mentoring affects mentors' citizenship fatigue. The results showed that higher engagement in peer mentoring significantly enhanced mentors' perceived meaningfulness, which in turn reduced citizenship fatigue. Additionally, mentor self‐disclosure strengthened the positive relationship between engagement in peer mentoring and perceived meaningfulness. These findings highlight the importance of psychological resources in reducing mentors' citizenship fatigue and suggest that universities should support mentors by providing mental health resources and encouraging open communication to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of peer mentoring programmes.</p> <p>Keywords: citizenship fatigue; conservation of resources theory; peer mentoring; perceived meaningfulness; self‐disclosure</p> <p>Key insights What is the main issue that the paper addresses?Many universities, particularly in China, adopt peer mentoring programmes where sophomores mentor freshmen to help them quickly adapt to university life. However, limited research has explored the effects of such programmes on mentors themselves. This study investigates how mentoring engagement impacts mentors' citizenship fatigue in this context. What are the main insights that the paper provides?The findings reveal that mentors' engagement in peer mentoring programmes at universities enhances their perceived meaningfulness, which reduces citizenship fatigue. Self‐disclosure further strengthens this relationship, highlighting the importance of supporting mentors through psychological resources to ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of such programmes in higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Peer mentoring, where volunteers of the same background and age support their peers to achieve educational or training objectives (Kim, Liden et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref1">46</reflink>]; Wanberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref2">87</reflink>]), is becoming more common in university education. When high school students transition to university after the college entrance examination, they face a completely new and independent life. For example, they are away from their hometown and away from their parents, and their way of learning is entirely different from high school. Under such conditions, many universities, especially in China, adopt peer mentoring programmes in which sophomores mentor freshmen so that they quickly adapt to university life. In university peer mentoring programmes, sophomores tend to serve as mentors (Giordana & Wedin, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref3">22</reflink>]; Krause & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref4">49</reflink>]). Compared with juniors or seniors, sophomores are more likely to be selected as peer mentors because they have just experienced the transition from high school to university and are not as busy as juniors or seniors with their academic studies and internships. Therefore, they strike a good balance between being close in experience to freshmen and having enough time to engage in peer mentoring. As peer mentors are both students and mentors, their similar age, learning experience and academic background with mentees make it easier for them to communicate and interact with mentees (Collings et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]; Kim, Liden et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref6">46</reflink>]). Mentees are more willing to confide and share their experiences or feelings with peer mentors, contributing to better psychosocial and performance outcomes in students (Collings et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref7">15</reflink>]; Kim, Liden et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref8">46</reflink>]). The presence of mentors can better address the interpersonal interactions of incoming freshmen and facilitate their integration into the learning and living environment in universities (Carragher & McGaughey, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>]; Jeffreys, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref10">37</reflink>]; Kim, Liden et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref11">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the significance of peer mentoring in university education and the abundant research on the effectiveness of peer mentoring, several gaps in the literature remain. First, although universities widely encourage peer mentoring (Carragher & McGaughey, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>]; Dunne & Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref13">19</reflink>]; Venegas‐Muggli et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref14">85</reflink>]), peer mentors may have different levels of engagement in such activities due to the voluntary nature of peer mentoring. Identifying how different engagement levels contribute to different outcomes would be important. Second, studies have mainly focused on the effect of mentors on mentees (e.g., Ross, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref15">72</reflink>]; Venegas‐Muggli et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref16">85</reflink>]; Wanberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref17">87</reflink>]), whereas the effect of peer mentoring on mentors has not received enough attention. Because peer mentors in universities are important providers of activities and opportunities that directly impact a student's integration into university life, it would be important to investigate the experiences and reactions of mentors (Curtis et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref18">16</reflink>]). Peer mentoring, as a voluntary and meaningful coaching activity for student mentors (Terrion & Leonard, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref19">84</reflink>]), may either occupy mentors' rest time, resulting in fatigue, or, conversely, provide additional psychological resources, thereby reducing the sense of strain. Therefore, we investigated how and when peer mentoring engagement affects mentors.</p> <p>To delve into the psychological mechanisms and boundary contexts in which mentors' engagement in peer mentoring affects mentors, this study relied on Hobfoll's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref20">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref21">32</reflink>]) conservation of resources (COR) theory. COR theory posits that individuals tend to conserve and accumulate physical, social or psychological resources that benefit their physical and mental health. Accordingly, this study explored perceived meaningfulness as the gain of resources, which refers to an individual's perceived sense of value and purpose in behaviour (Soane et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref22">79</reflink>]; Zhong et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref23">95</reflink>]). A high level of participation in peer mentoring activities can increase various resources, such as a sense of achievement, personal development and deeper social connections, which enhances perceived meaningfulness (Allan, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>]; Fredrickson, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]; Zhong et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref26">95</reflink>]). This enhanced sense of meaningfulness would help reduce citizenship fatigue by quickly replenishing their energies. Citizenship fatigue is the emotional, mental or physical exhaustion experienced by individuals in community engagement and execution of citizenship responsibilities (Bolino et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref27">9</reflink>]; He et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Meanwhile, according to COR, the degree to which an individual can obtain resources depends on an individual's manner of access to resources (Hobfoll, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref29">32</reflink>]). In the context of peer mentoring, how mentors behave serves as an important factor that influences the quality of the mentor–mentee relationship and the outcomes of peer mentoring (Grant‐Vallone & Ensher, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref30">26</reflink>]; Leidenfrost et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref31">53</reflink>]; Wanberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref32">88</reflink>]). Therefore, we explored the moderating role of self‐disclosure, which refers to the extent to which individuals share personal information, feelings and thoughts in their interactions (Kim, Liden et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref33">46</reflink>]; Leite et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref34">54</reflink>]) in the relationship between peer mentoring and perceived meaningfulness. We argue that when mentors engage in a high level of self‐disclosure during peer mentoring, the relationship between peer mentoring engagement and perceived meaningfulness becomes stronger as self‐disclosure improves the relationship between mentor and mentee as well as the alignment between mentors themselves and the purpose of peer mentoring. This model is shown in Figure 1.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BED/01jun25/berj4139-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="berj4139-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The hypothesised model." /> </p> <p></p> <p>This study significantly expands the literature on the field of peer mentoring by constructing a moderated mediator model, and its main contributions are reflected in the following three aspects. First, this paper expands the research in the field of peer mentoring by exploring the impact of peer mentoring participation on the mentors themselves. Previous studies have focused more on the effect on mentees (e.g., Krause & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref35">49</reflink>]; Ross, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref36">72</reflink>]; Venegas‐Muggli et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref37">85</reflink>]; Wanberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref38">87</reflink>]). Hence, our study enriches the perspectives and outcomes of peer mentoring research. Second, it was found that instead of increased citizenship fatigue, mentors who were highly engaged in peer mentoring activities gained additional psychological resources, such as enhanced meaningfulness, effectively reducing citizenship fatigue. This counterintuitive result provides new perspectives for understanding the positive impact of volunteering. Third, by examining the mediating and moderating effects, we reveal how peer mentoring engagement reduces citizenship fatigue through enhanced meaningfulness perceptions and the facilitating role of self‐disclosure, providing practical guidance for increasing mentor engagement and mitigating potential fatigue.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-4">THEORY AND HYPOTHESES</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186252693-5">Peer mentoring engagement and COR theory</hd> <p>Job engagement refers to 'the simultaneous investment of an individual's physical, cognitive, and emotional energy in active, full work performance' (Rich et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref39">70</reflink>], p. 619). It is a psychological state in which individuals fully immerse themselves in their work and represents the harmonious integration of positive emotions and high motivation in the workplace (Maslach et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref40">58</reflink>]; Weiss & Zacher, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref41">89</reflink>]). Incorporating the concept of peer mentoring, which typically involves experienced individuals (mentors) providing guidance and support to less experienced individuals (mentees) in their professional or academic endeavours (Kim, Liden et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref42">46</reflink>]; Terrion & Leonard, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref43">84</reflink>]), we defined peer mentoring engagement as the involvement of mentors in peer mentoring activities, which encompasses physical, cognitive and emotional investments in the mentoring process with mentees. The physical dimension involves the mentor's bodily presence in peer mentoring sessions, reflecting direct participation in supporting learning and developmental activities (Weiss & Zacher, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref44">89</reflink>]). The cognitive dimension includes the mentor's intellectual involvement in planning, problem‐solving and decision‐making processes, essential aspects of the mentoring role. Effective use of cognitive resources can enhance the strategic aspects of mentoring, thus optimising educational outcomes (Law et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref45">52</reflink>]; Weiss & Zacher, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref46">89</reflink>]). The emotional dimension focuses on the affective interactions between the mentor and the mentee, including establishing trust and empathy, which are crucial for motivating and supporting mentees. Emotional engagement also involves a genuine concern for mentees' personal and professional development, which can significantly affect their sense of belonging and motivation (Kanfer, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref47">43</reflink>]; Weiss & Zacher, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref48">89</reflink>]).</p> <p>COR theory posits that individuals strive to protect and accumulate tangible, psychological or social resources (Hobfoll, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref49">31</reflink>]). The appropriate resource investment, such as time, energy and emotional support, can lead to resource gain, enhancing individuals' health and well‐being. In the context of peer mentoring, we suggest that peer mentoring engagement can be regarded as a resource investment, while perceived meaningfulness is a kind of resource gain. In peer mentoring, mentors with higher engagement invest personal resources, such as time, emotional energy and cognitive effort, to support their mentees. Their engagement could yield important resources, including a sense of fulfilment, stronger social relationships and personal growth, resulting in a heightened sense of meaning. For example, mentors may feel a sense of accomplishment from seeing their mentee improve or succeed in the transition from high school to university, which reinforces the perceived value and meaning of their involvement in peer coaching. According to COR theory, these resources gained could then help enhance their health and well‐being (Hobfoll, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref50">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref51">32</reflink>]), in which citizenship fatigue is an important precursor to health and well‐being (Queiroz et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref52">68</reflink>]). Furthermore, individuals differ in their way of investing resources, which greatly influences the outcomes of resource investment. In the current study we introduce the concept of mentor self‐disclosure as the way that influences how mentors interact with mentees. During the mentoring process, whether mentors share their authentic and deepest thoughts and feelings could influence the quality of their interactions and the gain of the various resources. In all, we suggest that COR theory provides a valuable lens through which we can understand why peer mentoring engagement could help reduce citizenship fatigue by enhancing mentors' perceived meaningfulness of peer mentoring as well as the conditions of mentor self‐disclosure.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-6">The mediating role of mentor perceived meaningfulness</hd> <p>Based on COR theory, we propose that peer mentoring engagement could serve as a way to facilitate mentors' resource gain (Blanco‐Donoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref53">8</reflink>]; Fredrickson, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref54">21</reflink>]; Soane et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref55">79</reflink>])—perceived meaningfulness, that is, the feeling that work activities are worthwhile, useful and valuable (Kahn, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref56">42</reflink>]; May et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref57">59</reflink>]; Zhong et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref58">95</reflink>]). Meaningfulness at work includes feelings of achievement, autonomy, satisfaction and the ability to learn (Rosso et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref59">73</reflink>]; Zhong et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref60">95</reflink>]).</p> <p>By fully engaging in peer mentoring, mentors are more likely to improve mentees' adaptability as they begin their academic career at a university (Hillman et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref61">29</reflink>]; Schaufeli et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref62">76</reflink>]; She et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref63">77</reflink>]), which contributes to a sense of accomplishment and therefore peer mentoring meaningfulness. In addition, within the peer mentoring context, mentors' investment aids the growth of mentees and elevates their growth and development (Knight et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref64">48</reflink>]). Higher engagement in peer mentoring activities fosters professional development and knowledge renewal, for example, through mentees' feedback or mentors' observation and learning (Bakker, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref65">6</reflink>]; Hackman & Oldham, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref66">27</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref67">47</reflink>]; Knight et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref68">48</reflink>]). This contributes to their sense of the value and worth of peer mentoring activities and enhances the perceived meaningfulness of mentoring (Afota et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>]; Kahn, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref70">42</reflink>]; Lin et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref71">57</reflink>]). Furthermore, intensive engagement in peer mentoring strengthens social interactions among mentors and mentees (Kanfer, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref72">43</reflink>]), leading to the establishment of trust and belongingness, which would increase the sense of meaningfulness. Therefore, we hypothesise the following:</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-7">H1</hd> <p>Mentor engagement in peer mentoring is positively related to mentor perceived meaningfulness.</p> <p>Meaningfulness is currently recognised as an important resource gain (Blanco‐Donoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref73">8</reflink>]; Fredrickson, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref74">21</reflink>]; Soane et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref75">79</reflink>]), which can help overcome frustrations at work (Soane et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref76">79</reflink>]). The benefits of perceived meaningfulness also include increased job and life satisfaction, enhanced work engagement and improved employee well‐being and organisational performance (Michaelson et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref77">60</reflink>]; Nazir et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref78">63</reflink>]; Steger et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref79">81</reflink>]; Zhong et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref80">95</reflink>]). In the current study, building on COR theory, we examined how peer mentoring engagement enhances mentors' perceived meaningfulness, which in turn reduces citizenship fatigue, that is, the fatigue, weariness and boredom individuals experience from expending excessive energy while engaging in organisational citizenship behaviours (e.g., peer mentoring) (Bolino et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref81">9</reflink>]; He et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref82">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Based on COR theory, the accumulation and preservation of resources are central to an individual's mental and physical well‐being, and the gain of resources helps reduce stress (Afota et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>]; Hobfoll, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref84">31</reflink>]). When peer mentors find their engagement in peer mentoring is meaningful, they tend to experience gains in various resources, such as a sense of accomplishment, personal growth and stronger social bonds. These resources serve as important protective factors, replenishing their emotional and mental energy and therefore reducing the likelihood of resource depletion and citizenship fatigue. For example, social connections can be a valuable resource in the face of stress, providing emotional support and reducing feelings of isolation or burnout. In support of our arguments, Blanco‐Donoso et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref85">8</reflink>]) showed that the meaningfulness of nurses' work helped to reduce feelings of exhaustion.</p> <p>Additionally, mentors with high perceived meaningfulness tend to have a pervasive and enduring feeling of confidence and view external demands as challenges that are worthy of investment and commitment (Blanco‐Donoso et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref86">8</reflink>]). This sense of confidence would help mentors adapt to the demands of their environment, such as the challenges in peer mentoring activities (Hobfoll, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref87">32</reflink>]). They tend to develop a positive evaluation regarding the worth and value of peer mentoring activities, which then serve as building blocks of stress resilience (Glazer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref88">23</reflink>]; Judge et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref89">40</reflink>]). Therefore, meaningfulness can be regarded as a personal resource that helps mentors manage or cope with the challenges associated with peer mentoring activities, thereby reducing the risk of citizenship fatigue. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-8">H2</hd> <p>Mentor‐perceived meaningfulness is negatively related to mentor citizenship fatigue.</p> <p>Combining H1 and H2, we further hypothesise that perceived meaningfulness mediates the relationship between peer mentoring engagement and mentor citizenship fatigue. Greater engagement in peer mentoring would enhance mentors' perceived meaningfulness because engagement can help them acquire different resources, such as a sense of achievement, personal growth and stronger social capital. Higher perceived meaningfulness would lead to lower levels of citizenship fatigue because these important resources help the mentor cope with the potential stress associated with mentoring. Therefore, we hypothesise the following:</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-9">H3</hd> <p>Perceived meaningfulness mediates the relationship between peer mentoring engagement and mentor citizenship fatigue.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-10">The moderating role of mentor self‐disclosure</hd> <p>According to COR theory, individuals acquire resources strategically (Hobfoll, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref90">31</reflink>]), which suggests that individuals differ in how they gain resources. Although engagement in peer mentoring could help mentors gain resources such as perceived meaningfulness, the extent to which it works depends largely on how mentors behave in peer mentoring. Previous research has shown that different peer mentoring styles or behaviours could impact the effectiveness of peer mentoring programmes (Leidenfrost et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref91">53</reflink>]). In this study, we investigated self‐disclosure as a moderator that influences the relationship between engagement in peer mentoring and perceived meaningfulness. Self‐disclosure refers to the extent to which individuals in a relationship relate experiences, emotions, beliefs, fears, failures and successes to each other (Hinde, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref92">30</reflink>]; Kim, Liden et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref93">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>When mentors in peer mentoring programmes share their experiences in a way that is relevant to the mentee's challenges, it can help the mentee feel more connected and understood (Wanberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref94">88</reflink>]). For example, a sophomore who talks about their own struggles with homesickness might help a freshman who has a similar experience feel less alone. Self‐disclosure can, therefore, enhance the relationship between mentors and mentees by fostering trust, empathy and rapport, which could then help mentors feel the value and worth of their peer mentoring activities. In addition, sharing their own experiences and challenges with mentees makes the mentoring experience more authentic (Hinde, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref95">30</reflink>]; Kim, Liden et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref96">46</reflink>]). When mentors engage in self‐disclosure, they also often reflect on their own experiences, including their growth and challenges, which can deepen their understanding of both themselves and the purpose they serve in the mentoring relationship (Hinde, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref97">30</reflink>]; Kim, Liden et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref98">46</reflink>]; Leite et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref99">54</reflink>]). Researchers on the perceived meaningfulness of work have suggested that perceived meaningfulness stems from the alignment between self‐awareness and the purpose of the work (Allan et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref100">4</reflink>]), and the realisation view suggests that the meaning of work arises from self‐realisation (Lepisto & Pratt, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref101">55</reflink>]). Therefore, by demonstrating higher self‐disclosure in peer mentoring activities, mentors are more likely to develop a stronger sense of meaningfulness (Grandey et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref102">24</reflink>]; Robertson et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref103">71</reflink>]). Providing indirect support for our argument, De Boeck et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref104">17</reflink>]) showed that allowing employees to display their 'true' authentic selves is beneficial in forming a positive perception of their task.</p> <p>Conversely, when mentors exhibit low levels of self‐disclosure in peer mentoring activities, they may be unable to express and share their personal experiences and feelings fully. Consequently, they might feel that they cannot fully participate in their role as a peer mentor or cannot realise themselves in peer mentoring, leading to a diminished sense of meaningfulness of peer mentoring (Erickson & Ritter, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref105">20</reflink>]; Morris & Feldman, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref106">61</reflink>]). Additionally, due to the lack of deep personal connections with mentees, mentors' sense of involvement and satisfaction may be restricted, affecting the meaningfulness perceived from their mentoring role (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref107">74</reflink>]). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-11">H4</hd> <p>Mentor self‐disclosure moderates the positive relationship between peer mentoring engagement and mentor perceived meaningfulness, such that the relationship is stronger when mentor self‐disclosure is higher rather than lower.</p> <p>Furthermore, mentors' self‐disclosure directly enhances the relationship between peer mentoring engagement and meaningfulness and moderates the indirect path from peer mentoring engagement to citizenship fatigue through perceived meaningfulness. When mentors' self‐disclosure is high, peer mentoring engagement reduces citizenship fatigue through enhanced perceived meaningfulness. Thus, combining H3 and H4, we propose the following hypothesis:</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-12">H5</hd> <p>The negative indirect effect of peer mentoring engagement on mentor citizenship fatigue via mentor perceived meaningfulness is moderated by mentor self‐disclosure, such that the negative effect is stronger when mentor self‐disclosure is higher rather than lower.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-13">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186252693-14">Sample and procedure</hd> <p>We collected data from peer mentors who were in their second (sophomore) year at a university in Beijing, China. This university provides peer mentoring for students in their first (freshman) year, and sophomores volunteer to serve as peer mentors. After contacting the undergraduate counsellor at the university, we explained the aim and significance of the study. With the assistance of the undergraduate counsellors, an electronic questionnaire was distributed to sophomore students. They were informed of the voluntary nature of their participation and the confidentiality of their responses. Data were collected at two time points. The first survey (T1) was conducted after the midterm examination for freshmen, by which time the peer mentoring programme was already well underway. This timing was specifically chosen because, prior to the midterm examination, mentors and mentees had participated in several key activities that fostered meaningful interaction and engagement. Notably, two major events had taken place: the 'Icebreaking Activity', designed to help mentors and mentees build rapport and establish initial connections, and the 'Mid‐Autumn Festival Family Dinner', a large‐scale celebration where all mentors and mentees gathered to strengthen their bonds in a relaxed and festive environment. In addition to these organised activities, mentors had also initiated informal but significant interactions with their mentees during this period. These included campus tours to help mentees familiarise themselves with university facilities, pre‐midterm study sessions where mentors provided knowledge reviews and shared exam preparation tips, as well as general experience‐sharing discussions to guide mentees through academic and personal challenges. By this point, mentors and mentees had developed a solid understanding of each other, and mentors had engaged deeply in their roles. Conducting the first survey after this period allowed us to capture mentors' general engagement in the programme and their levels of self‐disclosure. A total of 415 mentors participated in the first survey. The participants completed measures of engagement in peer mentoring and self‐disclosure.</p> <p>The second survey (T2) was conducted after the final exams, 2 months after T1. We conducted the second survey at this time for the following reasons. A 2‐month time lag was chosen to reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref108">66</reflink>]). Podsakoff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref109">66</reflink>]) note that the choice of time lag should be neither too short nor too long. If the time lag is too short, memory effects may artificially inflate the relationships between variables. If the time lag is too long, certain factors (e.g., strong response attrition and leadership development programmes) may mask the existing relationships between variables (Ployhart & Vandenberg, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref110">65</reflink>]). Furthermore, research has shown that a 2‐month interval could adequately capture the changes brought about by mentoring programmes (She et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref111">77</reflink>]; Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref112">90</reflink>]; Yuan et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref113">92</reflink>]). Pragmatically, selecting the time lag (after the final exams) gives mentors more time and energy to reflect on their emotions and experiences, leading to more accurate responses. In addition, this period provided mentors and mentees with opportunities to engage in a series of meaningful activities, such as museum visits, cultural park tours, appreciation of fine arts, visits to historical residences of notable figures and collective study or tutoring sessions. Notably, the programme culminated in a large‐scale event, the 'Zhizhen Starry Night Gala', held before the final exams. These activities allowed mentors to fully immerse themselves in their roles, fostering deeper reflection on their experiences. The participants rated their perceived meaningfulness and citizenship fatigue in the second survey, and 401 responded, with a response rate of 96.62%.</p> <p>Among the participants, 66.67% were men. The average age was 18.92 years old (SD = 0.27). Most were from the School of Economics and Management (44.09%), 22.58% of them were from the School of Mathematics and the rest were from other schools, such as the School of Physics and the School of Chemistry. Each mentor leads a team with three to six members, with an average team size of 4.5 (SD = 0.88).</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-15">Measures</hd> <p>The original scales used in the study were all in English. We translated the scales into Chinese following Brislin's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref114">10</reflink>]) back‐translation procedure. All items were responded to using a seven‐point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree unless otherwise indicated.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-16">Mentor engagement in peer mentoring</hd> <p>Mentors rated their engagement in peer mentoring using the 18‐item scale from Rich et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref115">70</reflink>]). This scale was originally developed to measure individuals' engagement in general work. We adapted this scale slightly to evaluate mentors' engagement in peer mentoring activity. Sample items included 'I exert my full effort to peer mentoring' and 'I feel energetic at my peer mentoring'. Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.97.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-17">Mentor perceived meaningfulness</hd> <p>Perceived meaningfulness was assessed using a three‐item scale (<emph>α</emph> = 0.93) from Spreitzer ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref116">80</reflink>]) that assessed the degree to which mentors perceive peer mentoring as meaningful. Example items included 'Peer mentoring is very important to me' and 'The peer mentoring I engage in is meaningful to me'. Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.93.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-18">Mentor self‐disclosure</hd> <p>Mentor self‐disclosure was assessed using a six‐item scale developed by Wanberg et al. ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref117">88</reflink>]). Example items included 'I disclosed information, feelings and thoughts to my mentees (e.g., telling my mentee about my work‐related experiences, emotions, beliefs, fears, failures and successes)' and 'I disclosed my true feelings and emotions to my mentees'. Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.91.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-19">Citizenship fatigue</hd> <p>Mentors evaluated their perceptions of citizenship fatigue with the six‐item scale (<emph>α</emph> = 0.92) developed by Bolino et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref118">9</reflink>]). We adapted this scale slightly by applying these items in the context of peer mentoring activities. Example items included 'Because of going the extra mile for peer mentoring, I feel "on edge" about various things' and 'Doing so much for peer mentoring leaves me mentally or physically exhausted'. Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.92.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-20">Control variables</hd> <p>We controlled for the mentor's gender and team size. Previous research found that women engaged in more mentoring behaviour than men (Ye et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref119">91</reflink>]). We controlled for team size because mentors with larger teams might have to expend more effort on mentoring.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-21">Analytical strategy</hd> <p>We used Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref120">62</reflink>]) to test our hypothesised model. Following Hofmann and Gavin ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref121">34</reflink>]), all the continuous predictors were grand‐mean centred, and the interaction term was created by multiplying the centred variables of mentor engagement in peer mentoring and perceived meaningfulness (Anand et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref122">5</reflink>]; Hu et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref123">35</reflink>]). To estimate the conditional indirect effects (moderated mediation), we adopted Monte Carlo simulation methods (5000 repetitions) using <emph>R</emph> software to calculate the bias‐corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (Preacher et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref124">67</reflink>]). We chose this method because it did not require compound terms, such as indirect and moderation effects, to follow a normal distribution and could produce asymmetric 95% CIs applied to the skewed sampling distributions.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-22">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186252693-23">Preliminary analysis</hd> <p>Before hypothesis testing, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses with Mplus 7.4 via maximum likelihood estimation to examine the distinctiveness of the key variables (i.e., peer mentoring engagement, perceived meaningfulness, self‐disclosure and citizenship fatigue).</p> <p>We parcelled the scale of mentor engagement in peer mentoring, as a large number of items decreases the sample size‐to‐parameter estimate ratio, which 'can cause parameter instability related to the presence of multiple solutions, correlated residuals and cross‐loadings, and increased standard errors, especially in a small sample' (Grant & Berry, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref125">25</reflink>], p. 84). Specifically, we parcelled mentor engagement in peer mentoring into three indicators based on its three theoretical dimensions. As shown in Table 1, the five‐factor model had a good fit to the data: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 213.71, df = 138, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.98, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.97, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.04, standardised root mean square residual (SRMR)<subs>within</subs> = 0.01, SRMR<subs>between</subs> = 0.07. The five‐factor model had CFI and TLI values greater than 0.90, SRMR less than 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref126">36</reflink>]) and RMSEA with an acceptable fit value of less than 0.10 (Browne & Cudeck, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref127">11</reflink>]; Sung et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref128">82</reflink>]). The fit indices were comparable to those in other studies (e.g., Chong et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref129">14</reflink>]; Hoffman et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref130">33</reflink>]). We also compared the fit indices of the five‐factor baseline model with those of alternative models. The five‐factor model showed better fit indices than the competing models. The results indicated that the key variables were distinctive.</p> <p>1 TABLE Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Models</th><th align="left"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="left">df</th><th align="left">χ<sup>2</sup>/df</th><th align="left">Δ<italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="left">CFI</th><th align="left">TLI</th><th align="left">RMSEA</th><th align="left">SRMR<sub>within</sub></th><th align="left">SRMR<sub>between</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Five‐factor model</td><td align="left">213.71</td><td align="left">138</td><td align="left">1.55</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">0.98</td><td align="left">0.97</td><td align="left">0.04</td><td align="left">0.01</td><td align="left">0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Four‐factor model: MEPM and self‐disclosure combined</td><td align="left">275.56</td><td align="left">141</td><td align="left">1.95</td><td align="left">61.85**</td><td align="left">0.96</td><td align="left">0.95</td><td align="left">0.15</td><td align="left">0.01</td><td align="left">0.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Three‐factor model: MEPM and self‐disclosure combined; perceived meaningfulness and citizenship fatigue combined</td><td align="left">415.64</td><td align="left">143</td><td align="left">2.91</td><td align="left">140.08**</td><td align="left">0.92</td><td align="left">0.91</td><td align="left">0.07</td><td align="left">0.01</td><td align="left">0.19</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Two‐factor model: Mentee‐rating measures and mentor‐rating measures combined separately</td><td align="left">681.96</td><td align="left">143</td><td align="left">4.77</td><td align="left">266.32**</td><td align="left">0.84</td><td align="left">0.81</td><td align="left">0.10</td><td align="left">0.11</td><td align="left">0.20</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: CFI, comparative fit index; MEPM, mentor engagement in peer mentoring; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardised root mean residual; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index. **<emph>p</emph> < .01 (two‐tailed).</p> <p>Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities) of the study variables. Mentor engagement in peer mentoring was significantly positively correlated with perceived meaningfulness (<emph>r</emph> = 0.52, <emph>p</emph> = 0.00) and significantly negatively correlated with citizenship fatigue (<emph>r</emph> = −0.39, <emph>p</emph> = 0.00). The correlational findings provided some initial support for the hypotheses that were proposed.</p> <p>2 TABLE Mean, standard deviation, reliabilities and correlations among the study variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Mean</th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. Mentor gender</td><td align="left">0.33</td><td align="left">0.47</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Team size</td><td align="left">4.44</td><td align="left">0.80</td><td align="left">0.15</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Mentor engagement in peer mentoring</td><td align="left">6.10</td><td align="left">0.73</td><td align="left">0.07</td><td align="left">0.06</td><td align="left">(0.97)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Self‐disclosure</td><td align="left">5.67</td><td align="left">0.86</td><td align="left">0.09</td><td align="left">0.15</td><td align="left">0.58<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="left">(0.85)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Perceived meaningfulness</td><td align="left">6.25</td><td align="left">0.77</td><td align="left">−0.03</td><td align="left">0.15</td><td align="left">0.52<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="left">0.52<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="left">(0.88)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Citizenship fatigue</td><td align="left">2.30</td><td align="left">1.02</td><td align="left">−0.13</td><td align="left">−0.02</td><td align="left">−0.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="left">−0.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="left">−0.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="left">(0.95)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>N</emph> = 401. The reliabilities are in parentheses. For sex: 0 = man, 1 = woman.</item> <item>3 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01 (two‐tailed).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186252693-24">Hypothesis testing</hd> <p>The results of hypothesis testing are presented in Table 3. H1 proposed that mentor engagement in peer mentoring was positively related to perceived meaningfulness. The relationship between mentor engagement in peer mentoring and perceived meaningfulness was significantly positive (<emph>B</emph> = 0.55, SE = 0.10, <emph>p</emph> = 0.00), supporting H1. H2 suggested the negative relationship between mentor‐perceived meaningfulness and citizenship fatigue. Mentors perceived that meaningfulness was significantly negatively related to citizenship fatigue (<emph>B</emph> = −0.45, SE = 0.15, <emph>p</emph> = 0.00), supporting H2.</p> <p>3 TABLE Results of Mplus analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left">Perceived meaningfulness</th><th align="left">Citizenship fatigue</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Mentor sex</th><th align="left">−0.09 (0.17)</th><th align="left">−0.15 (0.15)</th><th align="left">−0.17 (0.14)</th><th align="left">−0.29 (0.23)</th><th align="left">−0.32 (0.21)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Team size</td><td align="left">0.16 (0.10)</td><td align="left">0.13 (0.09)</td><td align="left">0.13 (0.08)</td><td align="left">0.01 (0.14)</td><td align="left">0.08 (0.13)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">MEPM</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">0.55<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /> (0.10)</td><td align="left">0.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /> (0.12)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">−0.17 (0.16)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐disclosure</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">0.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /> (0.10)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">MEPM self‐disclosure</td><td align="left">0.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /> (0.11)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perceived meaningfulness</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">−0.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /> (0.15)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="left">0.03</td><td align="left">0.29</td><td align="left">0.39</td><td align="left">0.02</td><td align="left">0.19</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph>: Unstandardised coefficients are reported and standard errors are in parentheses. MEPM = mentor engagement in peer mentoring.</item> <item>5 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>6 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01 (two‐tailed).</item> </ulist> <p>We used the Monte Carlo simulation procedures recommended by Preacher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref131">67</reflink>]) to calculate the indirect effect of mentor engagement in peer mentoring on citizenship fatigue via mentor‐perceived meaningfulness. The results indicated that mentor‐perceived meaningfulness mediated the relationship between mentor engagement in peer mentoring and citizenship fatigue (estimator = −0.25, 95% CI [−0.46, −0.09] excluding 0). The CI did not contain zero, indicating that the mediated effect was significant. Thus, H3 was supported.</p> <p>To test H4, we included the main effects of mentor engagement in peer mentoring and mentor self‐disclosure and an interaction effect formed by multiplying mentor engagement in peer mentoring with mentor self‐disclosure in our model (as shown in Table 3). The results indicated a significant coefficient for the interaction term (<emph>B</emph> = 0.23, SE = 0.11, <emph>p</emph> = 0.03). We plotted the interaction effect (Figure 2) and conducted simple slope tests (Aiken et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref132">2</reflink>]). The results indicated that the relationship between mentor engagement in peer mentoring and mentor perceived meaningfulness was non‐significant when mentor self‐disclosure was low (−1 SD; simple slope = 0.23, SE = 0.12, <emph>p</emph> = 0.07), but this positive effect was strengthened to a significant level when mentor self‐disclosure was high (+1 SD; simple slope = 0.69, SE = 0.19, <emph>p</emph> = 0.00). Thus, H4 was supported.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BED/01jun25/berj4139-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="berj4139-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 The moderating effect of mentor self‐disclosure on the relationship between mentor engagement in peer mentoring and perceived meaningfulness." /> </p> <p></p> <p>To test our full model, we used the Monte Carlo simulation procedures recommended by Preacher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref133">67</reflink>]) to calculate the conditional indirect effects of mentor engagement in peer mentoring on citizenship fatigue via perceived meaningfulness for each level of self‐disclosure. The results revealed that mentor engagement in peer mentoring had a negative effect on citizenship fatigue via perceived meaningfulness when mentor self‐disclosure was high (+1 SD; indirect effect = −0.31; 95% CI [−0.54, −0.07] excluding 0), and a non‐significant effect when mentor self‐disclosure was low (−1 SD; indirect effect = −0.10; 95% CI [−0.36, 0.03] including 0). Therefore, H5 was supported.</p> <p>To ensure the robustness of our findings, we removed the control variables to examine whether the hypotheses were still supported. Results showed that mentor engagement in peer mentoring was positively related to perceived meaningfulness (<emph>B</emph> = 0.55, SE = 0.10, <emph>p</emph> = 0.00), which was then significantly negatively related to citizenship fatigue (<emph>B</emph> = −0.42, SE = 0.15, <emph>p</emph> = 0.01). In addition, mentor self‐disclosure significantly moderated the relationship between mentor engagement in peer mentoring and perceived meaningfulness (<emph>B</emph> = 0.21, SE = 0.10, <emph>p</emph> = 0.04). The above results demonstrated that after eliminating the control variables, all the hypotheses were still supported.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-26">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Based on COR theory, we developed a moderated mediator model on the relationship between mentors' engagement in peer mentoring and their citizenship fatigue, with perceived meaningfulness as a mediator and self‐disclosure as a moderator. We collected data from a university across two time periods to examine the model. We found that mentors' engagement in peer mentoring was positively associated with perceived meaningfulness, which in turn had a negative relationship with citizenship fatigue. Moreover, mentors' self‐disclosure moderated the relationship between engagement and perceived meaningfulness, strengthening the indirect relationship between engagement and citizenship fatigue via perceived meaningfulness. The results have both theoretical and practical implications.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-27">Theoretical implications</hd> <p>First, this study revealed the effect of peer mentoring engagement on mentors, expanding the research perspective beyond its typical focus on mentees. Previous studies have primarily emphasised the effect of peer mentoring on mentees, such as improved academic performance, development of career skills, enhanced social adaptability and decreased academic stress (Douglass et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref134">18</reflink>]; Jones & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref135">38</reflink>]; Kim, Liden et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref136">46</reflink>]; Kreiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref137">50</reflink>]). However, peer mentoring has positive effects on mentors as well. According to She et al. ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref138">77</reflink>]), coaching enhances mentors' self‐efficacy but may also increase role overload and job fatigue. Building on and extending previous research, our study found that peer mentoring engagement significantly improved mentors' perceived meaningfulness, reducing citizenship fatigue. By analysing mentors' self‐investment in peer mentoring, we not only uncover how it contributes to accumulating personal resources but also demonstrate how this investment reduces fatigue, thereby improving work efficiency and quality of life. In addition, this finding challenges the traditional view that high involvement in voluntary, non‐mandatory peer mentoring activities would consume mentors' study and rest time, thereby increasing fatigue (Netemeyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref139">64</reflink>]). On the contrary, our study demonstrated that engaging in peer mentoring provides mentors with an additional resource (i.e., meaningfulness) to effectively reduce fatigue. Therefore, this study not only provides a novel resource‐based perspective for understanding the effect of peer mentoring engagement but also reveals the positive role of peer mentoring engagement in reducing fatigue through enhancing meaningfulness.</p> <p>Second, this study, grounded in COR theory, provides a novel explanatory perspective on the impact of peer mentoring engagement from a resource‐based view. Previous studies have generally focused on the antecedents of increased job engagement (Jung et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref140">41</reflink>]; Weiss & Zacher, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref141">89</reflink>]; Yuan et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref142">93</reflink>]). Studies on the effects of job engagement have highlighted the positive effects of job engagement, such as increased job satisfaction, organisational commitment and enhanced performance (Bakker & Demerouti, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref143">7</reflink>]; Schaufeli et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref144">76</reflink>]). These studies generally adopted theoretical frameworks such as the job demands–resources model and social exchange theory, which involves mediating variables like job satisfaction, organisational commitment and job burnout (Bakker & Demerouti, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref145">7</reflink>]; Schaufeli et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref146">76</reflink>]). Based on COR theory, our study considers peer mentoring engagement as a means of resource investment and perceived meaningfulness as the gain of resources. We find that peer mentoring engagement reduces citizenship fatigue by increasing the mentor's sense of meaningfulness, providing a new theoretical foundation for understanding the relationship between peer mentoring engagement and fatigue.</p> <p>Third, this study examined the moderating role of mentor self‐disclosure, exploring the conditions under which peer mentoring engagement is more likely to increase perceived meaningfulness, thereby reducing citizenship fatigue. Previous studies have shown that self‐disclosure, as a key communication method, can enhance trust and teamwork in the workplace (Grandey et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref147">24</reflink>]; Jourard & Lasakow, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref148">39</reflink>]). Correspondingly, this study clarified the moderating role of mentor self‐disclosure in peer mentoring engagement, further enriching the literature on moderating factors of job engagement (De Boeck et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref149">17</reflink>]; Robertson et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref150">71</reflink>]). Previous research on job engagement generally focuses on the moderating role such as cultural differences (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref151">56</reflink>]; Rattrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref152">69</reflink>]), generational characteristics (Generation Y or X; Jung et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref153">41</reflink>]) and co‐worker support (Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref154">78</reflink>]). Building on and extending this line of research, we focus on the role of mentor self‐disclosure in impacting the effect of peer mentoring engagement on perceived meaningfulness and citizenship fatigue. This moderator provides a more proactive way in which peer mentors could actively determine their interactions with mentees, yielding more practical insights on the interventions of peer mentoring.</p> <p>Finally, this study enriches our understanding of the context of application and the boundary conditions of COR theory. COR theory has generally been adopted to explain the process of resource accumulation or loss in the area of leadership (Tabor et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref155">83</reflink>]), socioeconomic status (Wanberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref156">86</reflink>]) and fear of COVID‐19 (Chen & Eyoun, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref157">13</reflink>]). Advancing this line of research, our study extends COR theory to the education area and adopts it to explain the effect of peer mentoring engagement on mentors' perceived meaningfulness and citizenship fatigue. This helps to expand the applicability of COR theory and provides more novel perspectives to explain the effect of peer mentoring engagement. Moreover, our study supplements and refines the boundary conditions of COR theory, which emphasises the strategic investment of individual resources (Hobfoll, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref158">31</reflink>]). Existing research tends to focus on individuals' stable characteristics or organisational contexts in impacting the resource investment process and outcomes, such as employee mindfulness (Chen & Eyoun, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref159">13</reflink>]), dark traits (Lata & Chaudhary, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref160">51</reflink>]) and perceived health climate (Kim, Jiang et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref161">45</reflink>]). By examining the moderating role of self‐disclosure, this study confirms the importance of individual agency in resource‐gaining activities. Specifically, when mentors exhibit high levels of self‐disclosure in peer mentoring activities, this behaviour increases their perceived meaningfulness of the activities and effectively reduces their citizenship fatigue. This finding provides empirical support for enhancing individuals' positive organisational engagement to optimise resource management.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-28">Practical implications</hd> <p>Our study provides important practical insights into peer mentoring programmes in universities. First, given that peer mentoring engagement has significant impact on mentors themselves, universities adopting mentoring programmes should not only attend to the needs of mentees but also those who serve as mentors. Schools can provide regular mental health check‐ups, counselling services and specialised training courses to help mentors effectively manage the stress and challenges encountered during mentoring. Second, as our findings show that mentors' self‐disclosure strengthens the role of peer mentoring engagement in enhancing perceived meaningfulness and then reducing citizenship fatigue, schools should train mentors to express themselves more openly and authentically during mentoring activities, sharing personal experiences and feelings to improve trust and empathy with the mentee. This not only enhances mentors' perceived meaningfulness but also reduces their fatigue. Third, our study finds that perceived meaningfulness is an important mechanism for mitigating the negative effect of peer mentoring engagement on citizenship fatigue. This suggests that schools should publicise the importance of peer mentoring to increase awareness of the positive impact of the mentoring activities on mentees as well as mentors, which would contribute to the perception of the programme's meaningfulness. For example, universities could communicate how mentoring contributes to both the mentee's development and the broader university community. When mentors understand the tangible and intangible outcomes of their efforts (e.g., fostering academic success and building a supportive campus culture), they are more likely to perceive their involvement as meaningful. Universities could also help mentors connect the goals of peer mentoring to their personal values and long‐term goals (e.g., leadership development, helping others and building professional networks). This connection can make the experience more meaningful.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-29">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>First, this study collected data using self‐report methods. Although the measurement variables were distributed across two time points to reduce common method bias, causal relationships cannot be determined using this research design (Sajons, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref162">75</reflink>]). Future studies should use experimental and longitudinal designs to determine the causal relationships among the variables.</p> <p>Second, while we explored the mediating role of perceived meaningfulness and the moderating role of self‐disclosure, other potential mediators and moderators may affect the relationship between engagement in peer mentoring and citizenship fatigue. For example, a mentor's psychological capital or social support from schools may influence their sense of meaningfulness related to peer mentoring activities (Allan et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref163">4</reflink>]; Lepisto & Pratt, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref164">55</reflink>]). Future research can investigate these variables to better understand the psychological mechanisms involved in peer mentoring.</p> <p>Lastly, the participants in the study were from a single university in China, which limits the generalisability of the findings (Kim & Nam, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref165">44</reflink>]; Zhao et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref166">94</reflink>]). Different cultural backgrounds and educational systems might contribute to differences in the results. Therefore, future studies should include participants from diverse countries and educational institutions to test the generalisability and transferability of the results.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-30">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>We sincerely thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback and constructive suggestions, which have significantly contributed to the refinement and improvement of our paper.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-31">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref167">72</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib472" id="ref168">472</reflink>,009; 72,021,001; 72,<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref169">102</reflink>,009) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-32">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-33">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <hd id="AN0186252693-34">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study, and their confidentiality and anonymity were ensured throughout. The study complies with ethical guidelines and raises no ethical concerns.</p> <ref id="AN0186252693-35"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref69" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Lin Ma and Yanan Dong have contributed equally to this work.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186252693-36"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Afota, M. C., Provost Savard, Y., Léon, E., & Ollier‐Malaterre, A. (2024). Changes in belongingness, meaningful work, and emotional exhaustion among new high‐intensity telecommuters: Insights from pandemic remote workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97 (3), 817 – 840. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref132" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref24" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allan, B. A. (2017). Task significance and meaningful work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 174 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref100" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Allan, B. A., Bott, E. M., & Suh, H. (2015). Connecting mindfulness and meaning in life: Exploring the role of authenticity. Mindfulness, 6, 996 – 1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671‐014‐0341‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref122" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Anand, P., Nair, H. B., Sung, B., Kunnumakkara, A. B., Yadav, V. R., Tekmal, R. R., & Aggarwal, B. B. (2010). Design of curcumin‐loaded PLGA nanoparticles formulation with enhanced cellular uptake, and increased bioactivity in vitro and superior bioavailability in vivo. Biochemical Pharmacology, 79 (3), 330 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2009.09.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref65" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence‐based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (4), 265 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref143" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13 (3), 209 – 223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref53" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Blanco‐Donoso, L. M., Garrosa, E., Moreno‐Jiménez, B., de Almeida, E. C., & Villela‐Bueno, S. M. (2017). Social job resources as sources of meaningfulness and its effects on nurses' vigor and emotional exhaustion: A cross‐sectional study among Spanish nurses. Current Psychology, 36, 755 – 763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144‐016‐9463‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref27" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015). Well, I'm tired of tryin'! Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (1), 56 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brislin, R. W. (1986). A culture general assimilator: Preparation for various types of sojourns. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10 (2), 215 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147‐1767(86)90007‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136 – 161). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carragher, J., & McGaughey, J. (2016). The effectiveness of peer mentoring in promoting a positive transition to higher education for first‐year undergraduate students: A mixed methods systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews, 5, 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643‐016‐0245‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, H., & Eyoun, K. (2021). Do mindfulness and perceived organizational support work? Fear of COVID‐19 on restaurant frontline employees' job insecurity and emotional exhaustion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chong, S., Huang, Y., & Chang, C. H. D. (2020). Supporting interdependent telework employees: A moderated‐mediation model linking daily COVID‐19 task setbacks to next‐day work withdrawal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105 (12), 1408 – 1422. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000843</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collings, R., Swanson, V., & Watkins, R. (2014). The impact of peer mentoring on levels of student wellbeing, integration, and retention: A controlled comparative evaluation of residential students in UK higher education. Higher Education, 68, 927 – 942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734‐014‐9752‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curtis, E., Nguyen, H. T. M., Larsen, E., & Loughland, T. (2024). The positioning tensions between early career teachers' and mentors' perceptions of the mentor role. British Educational Research Journal, 50 (3), 1327 – 1349. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3974</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Boeck, G., Dries, N., & Tierens, H. (2019). The experience of untapped potential: Towards a subjective temporal understanding of work meaningfulness. Journal of Management Studies, 56 (3), 529 – 557. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Douglass, A. G., Smith, D. L., & Smith, L. J. (2013). An exploration of the characteristics of effective undergraduate peer‐mentoring relationships. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 21 (2), 219 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2013.813740</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunne, E., & Bennett, N. (1997). Mentoring processes in school‐based training. British Educational Research Journal, 23 (2), 225 – 237. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192970230208</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erickson, R. J., & Ritter, C. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does gender matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64 (2), 146 – 163. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden‐and‐build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 218 – 226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.56.3.218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giordana, S., & Wedin, B. (2010). Peer mentoring for multiple levels of nursing students. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31 (6), 394 – 396.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glazer, S., Kozusznik, M. W., Meyers, J. H., & Ganai, O. (2014). Meaningfulness as a resource to mitigate work stress. Contemporary Occupational Health Psychology: Global Perspectives on Research and Practice, 3, 114 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118713860.ch8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is 'service with a smile' enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96 (1), 38 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.08.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (1), 73 – 96. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.59215085</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant‐Vallone, E. J., & Ensher, E. A. (2000). Effects of peer mentoring on types of mentor support, program satisfaction, and graduate student stress. Journal of College Student Development, 41 (6), 637 – 642.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (2), 159 – 170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> He, P., Zheng, W., Zhao, H., Jiang, C., & Wu, T. J. (2024). Citizenship pressure and knowledge hiding: The mediating role of citizenship fatigue and the moderating role of supervisor–subordinate guanxi. Applied Psychology, 73 (2), 565 – 598. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12490</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillman, A. J., Nicholson, G., & Shropshire, C. (2008). Directors' multiple identities, identification, and board monitoring and resource provision. Organization Science, 19 (3), 441 – 456. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44 (3), 513 – 524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.44.3.513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50 (3), 337 – 421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464‐0597.00062</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman, B. J., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F., & Sutton, A. W. (2011). Person–organization value congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (4), 779 – 796. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.64870139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24 (5), 623 – 641. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, J., Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., Jiang, K., Liu, S., & Li, Y. (2015). There are lots of big fish in this pond: The role of peer overqualification on task significance, perceived fit, and performance for overqualified employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (4), 1228 – 1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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), 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeffreys, M. R. (2001). Evaluating enrichment program study groups: Academic outcomes, psychological outcomes, and variables influencing retention. Nurse Educator, 26 (3), 142 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006223‐200105000‐00017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, R., & Brown, D. (2011). The mentoring relationship as a complex adaptive system: Finding a model for our experience. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19 (4), 401 – 418. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2011.622077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jourard, S. M., & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in self‐disclosure. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56 (1), 91 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043357</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self‐concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11 (2–3), 167 – 187. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.1998.9668030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jung, H. S., Jung, Y. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2021). COVID‐19: The effects of job insecurity on the job engagement and turnover intent of deluxe hotel employees and the moderating role of generational characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102703</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33 (4), 692 – 724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 75 – 130). Consulting Psychologists Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, J. Y., & Nam, S. H. (1998). The concept and dynamics of face: Implications for organizational behavior in Asia. Organization Science, 9 (4), 522 – 534. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.4.522</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, T. W., Jiang, L., Duhachek, A., Lee, H., & Garvey, A. (2022). Do you mind if I ask you a personal question? How AI service agents alter consumer self‐disclosure. Journal of Service Research, 25 (4), 649 – 666. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705221120232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, T. Y., Liden, R. C., Liu, Z., & Wu, B. (2022). The interplay of leader–member exchange and peer mentoring in teams on team performance via team potency. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43 (5), 932 – 945. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2590</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, W., Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 12 (3), 248 – 276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312461635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2019). Work engagement interventions can be effective: A systematic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28 (3), 348 – 372. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1588887</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krause, A. J., & Moore, S. Y. (2022). Creating an online peer‐to‐peer mentoring program: Promoting student relationships, engagement, and satisfaction during the era of COVID‐19. College Teaching, 70 (3), 296 – 308. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.1925624</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006). Where is the me among the we? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (5), 1031 – 1057. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22798186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lata, M., & Chaudhary, R. (2021). Workplace spirituality and experienced incivility at work: Modeling dark triad as a moderator. Journal of Business Ethics, 174 (3), 645 – 667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐020‐04617‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. M. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23 (4), 741 – 755. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.1255636</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leidenfrost, B., Strassnig, B., Schabmann, A., Spiel, C., & Carbon, C. C. (2011). Peer mentoring styles and their contribution to academic success among mentees: A person‐oriented study in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19 (3), 347 – 364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2011.597122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leite, F. P., Pontes, N., & de Paula Baptista, P. (2022). Oops, I've overshared! When social media influencers' self‐disclosure damage perceptions of source credibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 133, 107274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lepisto, D. A., & Pratt, M. G. (2017). Meaningful work as realization and justification: Toward a dual conceptualization. Organizational Psychology Review, 7 (2), 99 – 121. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616630039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, P., Sun, J. M., Taris, T. W., Xing, L., & Peeters, M. C. (2021). Country differences in the relationship between leadership and employee engagement: A meta‐analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 32 (1), 101458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101458</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, L., Cai, X., & Yin, J. (2021). Effects of mentoring on work engagement: Work meaningfulness as a mediator. International Journal of Training and Development, 25 (2), 183 – 199. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 397 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77 (1), 11 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michaelson, C., Pratt, M. G., Grant, A. M., & Dunn, C. P. (2014). Meaningful work: Connecting business ethics and organization studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 77 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐013‐1675‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing emotions in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9 (3), 257 – 274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user's guide. Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nazir, O., Islam, J. U., & Rahman, Z. (2021). Effect of CSR participation on employee sense of purpose and experienced meaningfulness: A self‐determination theory perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46, 123 – 133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J., & Wirth, F. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer‐based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 57 (2), 209 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148‐2963(01)00303‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36 (1), 94 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 (1), 539 – 569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐psych‐120710‐100452</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15 (3), 209 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Queiroz, A. C., Lee, A. Y., Luo, M., Fauville, G., Hancock, J. T., & Bailenson, J. N. (2023). Too tired to connect: Understanding the associations between video‐conferencing, social connection, and well‐being through the lens of Zoom fatigue. Computers in Human Behavior, 149, 107968.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rattrie, L. T., Kittler, M. G., & Paul, K. I. (2020). Culture, burnout, and engagement: A meta‐analysis on national cultural values as moderators in JD‐R theory. Applied Psychology, 69 (1), 176 – 220. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12208</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (3), 617 – 635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson, K. M., O'Reilly, J., & Hannah, D. R. (2020). Finding meaning in relationships: The impact of network ties and structure on the meaningfulness of work. Academy of Management Review, 45 (3), 596 – 619. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross, J. G. (2019). Repetitive practice with peer mentoring to foster skill competence and retention in baccalaureate nursing students. Nursing Education Perspectives, 40 (1), 48 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1097/01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91 – 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 141 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sajons, G. B. (2020). Estimating the causal effect of measured endogenous variables: A tutorial on experimentally randomized instrumental variables. The Leadership Quarterly, 31 (5), 101348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross‐national study. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 33 (5), 464 – 481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> She, Z., Li, B., Li, Q., London, M., & Yang, B. (2019). The double‐edged sword of coaching: Relationships between managers' coaching and their feelings of personal accomplishment and role overload. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30 (2), 245 – 266. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21342</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, Y., Hur, W. M., & Choi, W. H. (2020). Coworker support as a double‐edged sword: A moderated mediation model of job crafting, work engagement, and job performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31 (11), 1417 – 1438.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soane, E., Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2013). The association of meaningfulness, well‐being, and engagement with absenteeism: A moderated mediation model. Human Resource Management, 52 (3), 441 – 456. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21534</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (5), 1442 – 1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20 (3), 322 – 337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sung, W., Woehler, M. L., Fagan, J. M., Grosser, T. J., Floyd, T. M., & Labianca, G. J. (2017). Employees' responses to an organizational merger: Intraindividual change in organizational identification, attachment, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 (6), 910 – 934. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000197</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabor, W., Madison, K., Marler, L. E., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2020). The effects of spiritual leadership in family firms: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 163 (4), 729 – 743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐019‐04379‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terrion, J. L., & Leonard, D. (2007). A taxonomy of the characteristics of student peer mentors in higher education: Findings from a literature review. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15 (2), 149 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260601086311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Venegas‐Muggli, J. I., Barrientos, C., & Álvarez, F. (2023). The impact of peer‐mentoring on the academic success of underrepresented college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 25 (3), 554 – 571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025121995988</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wanberg, C. R., Csillag, B., Douglass, R. P., Zhou, L., & Pollard, M. S. (2020). Socioeconomic status and well‐being during COVID‐19: A resource‐based examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105 (12), 1382 – 1396. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000831</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 39, 39 – 124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742‐7301(03)22002‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Kammeyer‐Mueller, J. (2007). Protégé and mentor self‐disclosure: Levels and outcomes within formal mentoring dyads in a corporate context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70 (2), 398 – 412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, M., & Zacher, H. (2022). Why and when does voice lead to increased job engagement? The role of perceived voice appreciation and emotional stability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 132, 103662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103662</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, X., Lyu, Y., Kwan, H. K., & Zhai, H. (2019). The impact of mentoring quality on protégés' organization‐based self‐esteem and proactive behavior: The moderating role of traditionality. Human Resource Management, 58 (4), 417 – 430. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21968</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ye, R., Wang, X. H., Wendt, J. H., Wu, J., & Euwema, M. C. (2016). Gender and managerial coaching across cultures: Female managers are coaching more. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27 (16), 1791 – 1812. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1075570</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yuan, C., Wang, Y., Huang, W., & Zhu, Y. (2019). Can coaching leadership encourage subordinates to speak up? Dual perspective of cognition–affection. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 40 (4), 485 – 498. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ‐01‐2018‐0009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yuan, Z., Ye, Z., & Zhong, M. (2021). Plug back into work, safely: Job reattachment, leader safety commitment, and job engagement in the COVID‐19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106 (1), 62 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000860</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao, H., Zhang, H., & Xu, Y. (2019). How social face consciousness influences corrupt intention: Examining the effects of honesty–humility and moral disengagement. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159 (4), 443 – 458. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148‐2963(01)00303‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhong, J., Chen, Y., Yan, J., & Luo, J. (2022). The mixed blessing of cyberloafing on innovation performance during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Computers in Human Behavior, 126, 106982. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000860</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lin Ma; Yanan Dong; Haowen Jiang; Xin Wu and Huiwen Wang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib472" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref169"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1475264
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Supporting the Supporters: How Peer Mentoring Engagement Reduces Citizenship Fatigue for Sophomores in Universities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lin+Ma%22">Lin Ma</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yanan+Dong%22">Yanan Dong</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9414-4974">0000-0002-9414-4974</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Haowen+Jiang%22">Haowen Jiang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xin+Wu%22">Xin Wu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Huiwen+Wang%22">Huiwen Wang</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Educational+Research+Journal%22"><i>British Educational Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 51(3):1538-1558.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Teaching%22">Peer Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mentors%22">Mentors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Citizenship%22">Citizenship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Fatigue+%28Biology%29%22">Fatigue (Biology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Disclosure+%28Individuals%29%22">Self Disclosure (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health%22">Mental Health</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/berj.4139
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-1926<br />1469-3518
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Abstract Although peer mentoring has been widely adopted in universities, in which sophomores serve as mentors to help freshmen quickly adapt to university life, less attention has been given to the effect of these programmes on mentors. To address this gap in the literature, the impact of mentors' engagement in peer mentoring on citizenship fatigue in Chinese universities was investigated and framed within the conservation of resources theory. We collected data from 401 peer mentors across two survey waves and explored how and when engagement in peer mentoring affects mentors' citizenship fatigue. The results showed that higher engagement in peer mentoring significantly enhanced mentors' perceived meaningfulness, which in turn reduced citizenship fatigue. Additionally, mentor self-disclosure strengthened the positive relationship between engagement in peer mentoring and perceived meaningfulness. These findings highlight the importance of psychological resources in reducing mentors' citizenship fatigue and suggest that universities should support mentors by providing mental health resources and encouraging open communication to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of peer mentoring programmes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1475264
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1475264
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/berj.4139
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 1538
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Peer Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mentors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Citizenship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Fatigue (Biology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Disclosure (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Supporting the Supporters: How Peer Mentoring Engagement Reduces Citizenship Fatigue for Sophomores in Universities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lin Ma
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yanan Dong
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Haowen Jiang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xin Wu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Huiwen Wang
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-1926
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-3518
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Educational Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1