Factor Focus: Sense of Belonging (Revisited)

The "Factor Focus" series is designed to review various noncognitive factors and their relevance to student success. We had previously written about Sense of Belonging in 2020. This post revisits the construct as part of our newly re-launched Factor Focus series.

I thoroughly enjoy asking people what they think makes a student successful in college. For those who work outside of education, the answers often fall in the motivational realm - hard work, commitment, interest in one’s major. Occasionally, someone will point to structural factors, such as family income, school quality, or parental involvement.

People who work within higher education, however, are more likely to talk about the social aspects of student success. Often, these responses are rooted in personal experience: a mentor, a peer, or a staff member who helped them navigate college and ultimately shaped their path into the profession. In many cases, that experience is also what motivates them to do this work - to be that supportive presence for future students.

This divide mirrors a broader tension in how we conceptualize student success. Our dominant systems - admissions criteria, accountability metrics, and assessments of “college readiness” - remain largely focused on individual academic ability and cognitive skills. Yet college is as much a social endeavor as it is an academic one. Students are not just learning content; they are entering a new social system and learning how to navigate it.

This is where Sense of Belonging becomes central.

What is Sense of Belonging?

If there is a founder of the modern student success era, most people would agree that it's Vincent Tinto. He really changed the way people thought about student attrition, and his foundational works (1979; 1987) have been cited tens of thousands of times (seriously - check Google Scholar). Ultimately, you can't really write a dissertation about student success without citing him.

Perhaps most notable about Tinto’s work is the concept that attrition is as much social as it is academic. His work - and a great deal more based upon it - supported the theory that students who do not feel integrated into an institution's social environment are less likely to feel commitment to that institution and their studies.

Several later studies have provided greater depth in understanding the process of social integration. Moreover, from a psychological perspective, I appreciate theories like the ones below because they give me a greater understanding of the process that leads to a characteristic like social integration, rather than merely an observation that its presence is correlated with success.

Again, keep in mind that social integration is incredibly complex. Moreover, it's likely to vary from student to student, and perhaps more importantly, function differently for students from traditionally underserved populations. All that said, here are a few studies that shed light on understanding students social progression in college:

• Bollen and Hoyle (1990) proposed the concept of “perceived cohesion” to explain an individual's attachment to a group. Their model included two factors: “feelings of morale,” which referred to a positive or negative attitude about the group as a whole, and “sense of belonging,” which referred to an individual's perceived relationships with members of the group.

• Elliot, Kao, and Grant (2004) proposed the construct of “mattering” to explain an individual’s relationship to a group. In their model, mattering consisted of three components: awareness (“I am the object of others’ attention”), importance (“I am the object of others’ concern”), and reliance (“Others look to me”).

• France, Finney, and Swerdzewski (2009) integrated these and other theories with a specific focus on the adjustment of college students. In defining “university attachment,” the authors referred to “group attachment” (affiliation with the college/university itself) and “member attachment” (affiliation with the people within the college/university).

So what do we learn from all this? I think there are a few key take-aways. As always, it's important to parse out the terminology. While you will find a lot of variance in the way terms are used, it's good to have some framework and understanding of the underlying similarities and differences of various phenomena.

For example, when I think of "social integration" (to use Tinto's term), it's really a broad process that includes attitudinal, behavioral, and emotional components. Certainly, it helps guide our thinking, but from an assessment perspective, it's a little too complex to examine in a single metric.

To me, "social engagement" refers to the behavioral aspect of social integration. When students interact with each other, participate in clubs and organizations, or even wear apparel from the institution, they are demonstrating social engagement. If we were building a survey tool, this might be the easiest to examine, but it probably comes last in the sequence of development. Yet it's likely a lagging indicator when it comes to retention. Sure, students who are socially engaged are likely to be socially integrated and thus more likely to persist, but by the time we observe a lack of social engagement, it might just be too late.

"Institutional commitment" (IC) is another common term used in this space. In my experience, IC is well-framed by the studies mentioned above. Certainly, students' feelings about the institution as a whole can impact their likelihood to persist, but this is quite different from thinking about a social process. After all, "social" refers to people, and separating the way a student feels about an institution versus the people within that institution helps specify the interpersonal element.

So this really brings us to the central question of, "what is sense of belonging?" Peraonlly, I've focused on sense of belonging as the feeling of relation to other people within the institution. It includes both positive feelings of similarity or being welcomed, as well as negative feelings such as exclusion or alienation.

As an example, I was once working with a school on sense of belonging, and one of the scales we were using contained the item, "I am like the typical student at [insert institution]," with which students would agree or disagree, with positive responses indicating greater sense of belonging. During the item review phase, a senior administrator asked me, "But what IS our typical student?" I replied that whatever the "typical" student looked like was unimportant - it was the respondent's perception of their similarity or difference to whatever they thought most other students to be.

As I write this, I'm considering that we might need a more nuanced understanding of sense of belonging to consider whether those social connections are established with students, faculty, and/or staff (which I'd wager has been explored in some aspect of research, though nothing of which I'm aware). I would hypothesize that these varying social connections could have differential impacts on student success (there's a dissertation idea for whomever needs it!).

How does Sense of Belonging impact success?

Meta-analytic work by Robbins et al. (2004) found that perceived social support and social involvement were significant predictors of first-year GPA and retention. At the same time, other large-scale reviews (e.g., Markle et al., 2013; Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012) have found weaker or inconsistent direct effects.

One explanation for these mixed findings is that Sense of Belonging may operate differentially across student populations. Research suggests that Sense of Belonging is especially salient for students from traditionally underserved backgrounds, including students of color, first-generation college students, and students from lower-income families (Johnson et al., 2007; Maestas et al., 2007; Rubin, 2012). For these students, feeling disconnected may be both more likely and more consequential. In this way, Sense of Belonging may function less as a universal predictor and more as a conditional or mediating factor, shaping how students experience academic challenges, seek support, and interpret setbacks.

For students who feel like they belong, engagement often follows naturally. They are more likely to ask questions, attend office hours, collaborate with peers, and participate in co-curricular activities. Conversely, students who feel they do not belong are less likely to engage socially or academically, less likely to seek help, and more likely to disengage quietly over time.

As Vincent Tinto’s work (and Michelle Obama's experience) made clear, disengagement rarely begins with a single decision to leave. Instead, it unfolds gradually, shaped by early experiences, perceptions of fit, and repeated social signals about whether one belongs.

Sense of Belonging and Equity. Sense of Belonging is particularly consequential for students from traditionally underserved populations. First-generation students may lack inherited knowledge about navigating college culture. Students of color may experience stereotype threat or underrepresentation. LGBTQIA+ students, students with disabilities, and students from low-income backgrounds may encounter structural or interpersonal barriers that signal exclusion.

Research by Strayhorn (2019) underscores that Sense of Belonging is not a “soft” outcome but a foundational condition for learning, persistence, and well-being. When students feel they belong, they are better positioned to engage fully with the academic and social dimensions of college.

How Can We Foster Sense of Belonging?

Because Sense of Belonging is fundamentally relational, institutional efforts should focus on creating consistent, meaningful points of connection across students’ academic journeys. These efforts are most effective when they are intentionally designed, embedded across systems, and sustained over time rather than left to chance or individual goodwill.

Built-In Connection Points. Establishing at least one intentional relationship early in a student’s enrollment - through advising, coaching, mentoring, or peer support - can provide a critical anchor for belonging. Institutions can strengthen this approach by ensuring continuity in these relationships across semesters and by equipping advisors or mentors with structured opportunities to discuss students’ experiences, challenges, and goals beyond course scheduling.

Inclusive Campus Culture. Institutions that visibly value diversity through hiring practices, curriculum design, and campus programming create environments in which more students can see themselves reflected and valued. Beyond symbolic efforts, inclusive culture is reinforced through everyday practices - such as inclusive communication, equitable policies, and consistent responses to bias - that signal who belongs and whose experiences matter.

Proactive Support Services. Counseling, mentoring, and academic support services are most effective when they are actively integrated into the student experience rather than passively available. Proactive outreach, early-term check-ins, and coordinated referral systems can help ensure that students encounter support as a normal and expected part of college life, rather than as a signal that they are struggling or do not belong.

Physical and Virtual Spaces. Shared spaces - both physical and online - play a critical role in fostering community and connection. Designing these spaces intentionally to encourage interaction, collaboration, and visibility of diverse student identities can reinforce belonging, particularly for students who may not naturally find their way into informal social networks.

What Can Faculty Do to Foster Sense of Belonging? While Belonging is often viewed as the purview of student affairs, faculty shape students’ day-to-day experiences of college more than almost any other group. As, in many cases, faculty are the primary or even sole connection point for students, small instructional choices can have profound social consequences. Effective practices include:

• Creating inclusive classroom environments that value diverse perspectives

• Learning and using students’ names

• Encouraging collaboration and peer interaction

• Providing clear, constructive feedback that communicates investment in students’ success

• Being accessible and approachable inside and outside the classroom

  
  

In online courses, intentional efforts to humanize instruction - such as brief video messages, introductory surveys, and relational feedback - can mitigate the isolating effects of distance learning (Walton & Cohen, 2011).

Conclusion

Sense of Belonging captures something both beautiful and tragic about higher education. It reflects the deeply human need to feel connected and valued - and the reality that many students leave college not because they lacked ability, but because they felt they did not belong.

Within ISSAQ, Sense of Belonging provides a way to surface this experience early and intentionally. By understanding and supporting Sense of Belonging, institutions can move beyond deficit explanations of attrition and toward more humane, relational, and effective approaches to student success. As one might say, failure is often a feeling long before it becomes an outcome. Sense of Belonging helps us understand - and intervene in - that feeling before it is too late.

References

• Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of priorities and practices in higher education. Jossey-Bass.

• Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/69.2.479

• Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castañeda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1993.11778419

• Elliott, G. C., Kao, S., & Grant, A. (2004). Mattering: Empirical validation of a social–psychological concept. Self and Identity, 3(4), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000119

• France, M. K., Finney, S. J., & Swerdzewski, P. J. (2009). Students’ group and member attachment to their university: A construct validity study of the University Attachment Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(5), 807–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332222

• Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Longerbeam, S. D. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0054

• Kuh, G. D., & Vesper, N. (1997). A comparison of student experiences with good practices in undergraduate education between 1990 and 1994. The Review of Higher Education, 21(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1997.0005

• Maestas, R., Vaquera, G. S., & Zehr, L. M. (2007). Factors impacting sense of belonging at a Hispanic-serving institution. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(3), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192707302801

• Markle, R., Olivera-Aguilar, M., Jackson, T., Noeth, R., & Robbins, S. (2013). Examining evidence of reliability, validity, and fairness for the SuccessNavigator assessment (ETS Research Report No. RR-13-12). Educational Testing Service.

• Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838

• Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261

• Rubin, M. (2012). Social class differences in social integration among students in higher education: A meta-analysis and recommendations for future research. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026162

• Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students (2nd ed.). Routledge.

• Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089

• Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago Press.

• Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364