The need to belong is not a new concept. Belonging is described in the human hierarchy as a psychological need that must be met following basic essentials like safety and physiology (Maslow, 1943), and it is generally agreed that sense of belonging is a key factor in psychological well-being (Hagerty et al., 1992; Strayhorn, 2019). The concept of belonging first appeared in the higher education literature in the 1990s when colleges and universities began to focus on how their actions as an institution impact a student’s sense of feeling part of their community. Although this scope of research has developed over the last three decades within higher education, sense of belonging can be seen more prominently in other fields and is “more closely associated with explaining alterations in physical and mental health, such as psychology, psychiatry, and nursing” (Hoffman et al., 2002, p. 229). In more current higher education studies, researchers have studied belonging at the university level and various sub-levels (Duran et al., 2020; Freeman et al., 2007; Knekta et al., 2020; Krafona, 2014; Leach et al., 2008). Our research is unique because it studies belonging at a specific sublevel—campus residential communities—and the impact that being a residential student leader may have on an individual’s sense of belonging.
Sense of Belonging: History and Measures
Emerging in the 1990s, the topic of sense of belonging has become increasingly important in higher education literature, though the definition and terms used to convey its meaning have evolved. Scholars have distinguished between the terms sense of belonging and sense of community to discuss the phenomenon (Spanierman et al., 2013; Strayhorn, 2019). The sense of community in an educational setting came first in the discussion, primarily due to research by the Carnegie Foundation; their report, Campus Life: In Search of Community (1990), posited six principles for defining community in a higher education context: “purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, celebrative” (p. 7). This was the first time that sense of community was recognized as an important component of the collegiate experience, and the authors urged that these principles be adopted as a means of decision making at the university level.
Subsequently, other scholars have elaborated on the topic and further investigated the phenomenon in a school setting; Goodenow (1993a), for example, studied sense of belonging at the K–12 level and defined it as a “student’s sense of being accepted, valued, included, and encouraged by others (teacher and peers) in the academic classroom setting and of feeling oneself to be an important part of the life and activity of the class” (p. 25). This definition is unique because it outlines roles and responsibilities for individuals within a belonging relationship. Since then, after Strayhorn (2019) established sense of belonging as a fundamental human need, the conversation has advanced within higher education literature.
In terms of college, sense of belonging refers to students’ perceived social support on campus, a feeling or sensation of connectedness, and the experience of mattering or feeling cared about, accepted, respected, valued by, and important to the campus community or others on campus such as faculty, staff, and peers. (p. 4)
This definition encompasses the various elements that impact a student’s sense of belonging, specifically in a higher education context. Additionally, terms used within this definition differ from those in previous example due to the research conducted by Strayhorn (2019). Beck and colleagues (2021) posited a new definition, understanding sense of belonging as “the resident journey shaped by active leadership, inspired within a physical and experiential environment, result[ing] in strong connections to people and place” (p. 40). Although these definitions for community and belonging vary, they have the same goal of describing similar feelings of students within a particular entity or group.
The tools researchers used to measure sense of belonging have varied from one study to another. Utilizing Boyer’s (1990) research on community, Janoski (1991), as cited in Cheng (2004), validated what is referred to as the Campus Community scale, aimed at learning more about sense of community and “one of very few comprehensive instruments based on Boyer’s principles” (p. 220). Cheng utilized parts of this scale to develop one that measures community. Multiple factors can lead to a student feeling that they belong—or do not belong—to a community. This includes “feelings of being cared about, treated in a caring way, valued as an individual, and accepted as a part of community” (Cheng, 2004, p. 216), factors that allow individuals to enjoy the benefits associated with belonging.
The Collegiate Psychological Sense of Community (PSC) scale developed by Lounsbury and DeNeui (1996) can be used to measure belonging in a college environment. This scale was developed specifically with a higher education context to measure community at specific colleges and universities. Researchers “sought to develop a measure of what we term here collegiate PSC which produces variance between-people, displays internal consistency reliability, and demonstrates replicability of reliability results across settings” (Lounsbury & DeNeui, 1996, p. 382). In addition, studies could also use “a repeated measures design to investigate whether PSC is stable and how it changes as a function of college experiences and activities” (Lounsbury & DeNeui, 1996, p. 392). Their study also revealed that personality traits such as extroversion may impact a student’s sense of community, and there are external factors beyond the context or actions an individual takes that need to be considered.
Some researchers have utilized the idea of belonging and applied corresponding scales to an educational setting. Such scales include Goodenow’s (1993b) Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM), which was developed and used to measure psychological sense of belonging in K–12 schools; studies utilizing this scale concluded that “psychological membership is seen here neither as a purely personal intrapsychic phenomenon nor as entirely the function of the school environment, but rather as arising from the person within a particular school environment” (1993b, p. 87). Goodenow also noted that “an important constraint limiting research on belonging has been the absence of psychometrically sound measures of the construct” (1993b, p. 81). Researchers have differed on the usage of terms like community or belonging, but findings support the assertion that reliable measures and scales are needed to “develop, test, and further refine a sense of belonging instrumentation that could be used more fully to understand why students persist in or withdraw from college” (Hoffman et al., 2002, p. 230). More recently, the Multicomponent In-Group Identification scale developed by Leach and colleagues (2008) served as an additional instrument to measure belonging by examining how individuals identify within a group.
The PSC and PSSM scales both apply the idea of community and sense of belonging to a school setting and emphasize the importance of context in measuring the effect of a location or place on the sense of belonging or affiliation. These scales fall short, however, when examining belonging in the context of a specific experience, such as being part of a residential community. The PSSM asks students to “focus on a particular academic class context rather than on school in general” (Goodenow, 1993a, p. 27), and the PSC focuses on the overall college community rather than individual experiences within the collegiate experience. Thus, further research is needed for higher education professionals to understand how residents develop belonging within a residential facility that is part of a college or university campus. Understanding how belonging is formed in a residential community can later be established in more macro entities like the college or institution as a whole.
Benefits of Belonging
The desire to belong can manifest itself in numerous ways for college students, from declaring a major or joining a research project, club, or team: actions demonstrating that an individual desires to belong to something larger than themselves. There are many positive benefits to feeling part of a community; students tend to perform better academically, are more highly motivated and engaged in learning, and are more committed to school (Freeman et al., 2007; Gopalan & Brady, 2019; Osterman, 2000; Pittman & Richmond, 2008; Strayhorn, 2019), but when they lack a sense of community or belonging they may feel less engaged and less interested in continuing their collegiate experience (Brazzell, 2001; Osterman, 2000; Strayhorn, 2019).
The positive effects of social belonging can also be seen outside of the classroom in the form of friendships and involvement (Strayhorn, 2019), but when students lack a sense of community or belonging they may feel less engaged and less interested in continuing their collegiate experience
The unique aspects of a student’s college experience can also impact their overall sense of belonging. Those who reside on campus, for example, had higher levels of engagement, as shown in their having “significantly higher Psychological Sense of Community (PSC) scores than students who reported that they lived off-campus” (Lounsbury & DeNeui, 1996, p. 391). Cheng (2004) identified a student’s residential experience as one of the six main factors for building a community, and, in a follow-up study, established that students felt that “residence halls are the most important place for them to create a sense of community” (2005, p. 4). Sense of community within a residential setting as a microcosm was also evaluated by Spanierman and colleagues (2013), leading to work by Beck and colleagues (2021) to understand the process of how students define a residential sense of belonging and how it is impacted by activities within residential communities. Despite the fact that sense of belonging is a fundamental need (Maslow, 1943), higher education institutions have still not taken significant steps to study this and to explore the myriad other factors that can impact it. Our current study looked at one of those other factors, student leadership, to better understand how residential leaders describe their sense of belonging
Leadership and Belonging
The experience of leadership has a positive impact on students’ overall collegiate experience, and their discussions of this revealed three themes: people, action, and organization (Logue et al., 2005). Being part of a team helped them find their niche, and this involvement resulted in higher group attachment (France et al., 2010). In other studies, however, researchers found that being part of a student group does not foster a sense of community by itself (Cheng, 2004). Mere membership in a group is not a precursor; there must also be active membership or leadership investment. Irwin and colleagues (2019) highlighted the unique context of residential leaders and how these students learn and grow within their residential community.
Previous studies have documented the critical relationship between a residential community and sense of belonging. Space—especially the unique context of a residential building—is an important factor (Samura, 2016), which highlights the “need for planners, university policymakers, and program staff to work collaboratively to more effectively facilitate student interactions and, subsequently, student belonging” (p. 99).
Leadership can take many different forms within a residence hall, and leaders can emerge both formally and informally (Gogliotti & Ruben, 2017). Many students take on formal leadership roles within a residential community, serving as a resident assistant (RA) or resident hall association president, and these positions come with explicit job responsibilities, are often compensated, and have positional authority within the community. Residents can also take on leadership roles in an informal way by sharing their own knowledge of the community culture or simply leveraging the respect and admiration that they already have from residents. Although these informal leadership roles have no positional authority, they can often be an important influence on the community.
Sense of Belonging Within the Context of Residential Communities
For the purposes of our study, we elected to use sense of belonging as a means of contextualizing our research. This decision was made after carefully reviewing prior research, definitions, and existing valid and reliable scales to determine what accurately aligned with our desire to measure several composite constructs of sense of belonging in a residential environment, as well as established scales previously used in a higher education environment. Although a few studies utilized instruments examining the sense of belonging within a larger university community, fewer have studied the topic in the context of a campus residential community being a microcosm of the larger university community (Beck et al., 2021; Spanierman et al., 2013). More research needs to be done in this area: “Further investigation of the impact of living-learning activities or residential requirements is necessary to understand better its unique contribution to students’ perceived sense of campus community” (Elkins et al., 2011, p. 118).
Our study examined sense of belonging within college residential communities and how it is impacted by residential student leadership. This is important because “the few studies that have examined the development of student belonging in residence halls have recommended that further research be conducted on students’ experiences in the halls, particularly as it relates to their belonging” (Samura, 2016, p. 91). We were interested in examining how the residential leadership experiences for those who serve as residential assistants, community council leaders, and similar positions may influence a student’s sense of belonging.
The population gap within the literature (Robinson et al., 2011) was addressed by this study. We compared the sense of belonging of students holding a recognized residential student leadership position to that of residents not serving as leaders. Although it is generally understood that a high level of engagement contributes to sense of belonging and other positive outcomes, the same cannot necessarily be said about the impact of belonging that student leaders may feel, especially in a residential setting.
METHODS
The present study examined responses to two research questions in order to understand the impact of serving in a residential leader position (e.g., as a positional leader) on the self-reported sense of belonging to a residential community:
Research Question 1: How do first-year and upper-division residential leaders rate their sense of belonging to their residential community compared to residents?
Research Question 2: How, if at all, is a residential sense of belonging different between residents and residential leaders by academic classification?
To answer these questions, we employed a descriptive, cross-sectional, nomothetic research study design (Pajo, 2018) informed by a positivist paradigm (Creswell, 2014). The research site was a midsized private liberal arts college in the southern United States, and the Institutional Review Board approved this research and associated protocols at the research site.
Recruitment, Data Sources, and Data Collection
This study was part of a larger longitudinal study about residential sense of belonging, which utilized a roster method (Marsden, 1990) to recruit all 10,684 undergraduate on-campus residents at the time of survey administration: during the fall 2020, spring 2021, fall 2021, and spring 2022 semesters at the research site. Due to the students’ relationship with the research site, the research team was able to embed some institutional data maintained in the student information system (data about gender, reported ethnicity, academic classification such as first-year or upper-division, and student leadership position).
The survey was distributed to 10,684 residents (n = 2,514 in fall 2020; n = 2,504 in spring 2021; n = 3,041 in fall 2021; and n = 2,625 in spring 2022) electronically through Qualtrics using their campus email addresses. Respondents interacted with the survey tool online. The survey was distributed at the start of the fall semester (late August) and the end of the spring semester (late April/early May). Two email reminders were sent to those who had not previously responded. The survey closed approximately two weeks after opening. All respondents participating in the survey provided electronic consent, and all those who completed the survey were entered to win one of nine raffle items (a coffee maker, headphones, a streaming player, a semester parking pass, or five $50 airline gift cards). Incentive values ranged from $25 to $350.
In total, 3,051 responses were completed (n = 942 in fall 2020, with a completion rate of 31% n = 675 in spring 2021, with a completion rate of 22% n = 815 in fall 2021, with a completion rate of 26.80%; and n = 619 in spring 2022, with a completion rate of 20.2%, resulting in a completion rate average of 28.70%. Residential leaders were identified within the sample based on three academic-year leadership rosters maintained by the residence life and housing department. A gatekeeper provided the research team with a list of the rostered student leaders, which enabled 223 unique students to be identified as residential leaders (counting only the student responses, even if multiple leadership positions were held): n = 234, 2019–20 academic year; n = 240, 2020–21 academic year; and n = 208, 2021–22 academic year. Therefore, 22% of the sample (n = 3,051) were residential leaders.
Instrumentation
We utilized two previously created scales to measure residential sense of belonging: the Revised Sense of Belonging scale (Hoffman et al., 2002) and the Multicomponent In-Group Identification scale (Leach et al., 2008). The research team decided to utilize both scales, since they had been developed for a college student population and had been established as valid and reliable (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Hoffman and colleagues (2002) first introduced their Sense of Belonging scale in 2002. The scale utilized two measures to assess the sense of belonging to the institution: the first measure consisting of 50 items regarding student/peer relationships and the second measure consisting of 35 items regarding student/faculty relationships. Student/peer relationships consisted of the subscales social support, academic support, and classroom comfort, while student/faculty relationships consisted of the subscales perception of faculty, perception of values, and support and comfort. We utilized a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (completely untrue) to 5 (completely true). High scores indicated a high sense of belonging, while low scores indicated a lack of belonging. Four dimensions were created consisting of the two measures utilized by Hoffman and colleagues (2002) during the factor loading process: perceived classroom comfort (x items, α = .90); perceived isolation (x items, α = .82); perceived academic support (x items, α = .77); and perceived social support (x items, α = .84).
This scale was adapted to fit the needs of the current research study. Though the scale was originally created to measure sense of belonging to the institution, not to a residential community within an institutional context, we believe that it is applicable to an institutional residential setting since the majority of questions were transferable and the original study included living-learning communities (Hoffman et al., 2002). Survey items were slightly edited to reflect a residential setting without changing the underlying content. For example, the original question “I invite people I know from class to do things socially” as part of the perceived peer support factor was reworded to say “I invite people I know from my [name of residential community] to do things socially.” Additionally, questions were removed that did not translate to a residential environment. For example, the research team omitted the perceived classroom comfort subscale since those questions were not transferable to a residential setting. This subscale contained items such as “I feel comfortable asking a question in class.” Only perceived peer support (six items, α = .93), perceived isolation (four items, α = .90), and perceived faculty support (two items, α = .71) were posed to respondents of this study.
The second scale utilized by the research team was the Multicomponent In-Group Identification scale (Leach et al., 2008), which utilizes five unique components that are organized into two dimensions: self-investment and self-definition. The scale utilizes a 7-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). A higher self-reported score indicates a higher sense of belonging. Self-investment comprises three components: solidarity (3 items; α = .87), satisfaction (four items; α = .78), and centrality (three items; α = .68). Self-definition comprises two components: individual self-stereotyping (two items; α = .78) and in-group homogeneity (two items; α = .62).
We reviewed questions and inserted the residential community name where the scale called for the in-group’s name. No other edits were made to the scale. Our final instrument included self-investment, which comprises three components: solidarity (3 items; α = .923), satisfaction (4 items; α = .954), and centrality (3 items; α = .939). Self-definition comprises two components: individual self-stereotyping (2 items; α = .923) and in-group homogeneity (2 items; α = .923).
Variables
Variables of interest for Research Question 1 included the dependent variable of sense of belonging and the independent variable of residential leader versus resident. The variables of interest for Research Question 2 also included the independent variable of academic classification (first-year or upper-division). The dependent variable of residential sense of belonging was examined with the two pre-established scales: the Multicomponent In-Group Identification (Leach et al., 2008) and the Revised Sense of Belonging scale (Hoffman et al., 2002).
The independent variable of residential leadership was operationalized to mean any student holding a formal, rostered leadership role within the residential community at the time of the survey administration. Examples of formal leadership roles included in the study were resident assistant, community council leader (e.g., president, vice president, etc.), and peer leader roles (e.g., community service leader, academic peer leader, spiritual life leader, etc.). These leadership positions are both paid (e.g., resident assistant, community service leader) and unpaid (e.g., academic peer leader, community council leader) at the research site. Academic classification was operationalized to show first-year residents or upper-division students, with the admit type (first-year, transfer) used to code participants.
Participants
A total of 3,051 participants completed the survey throughout the four implementations, which equaled 29% of respondents. Table 1 displays the demographic characteristics of the population compared to the sample demographics response rate. The on-campus population sums the demographic variable across the four implementations.
The demographic information of the sample was consistent with that of the typical college undergraduate population and the research site.
Hypotheses
The research hypothesis (H1) and null hypothesis (H0) were developed a priori to the research questions. The research hypothesis stated that student leaders will have a higher residential sense of belonging than do residents across all subscales. The null hypothesis stated that residential student leaders show no statistically significant difference in residential sense of belonging compared to residents.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was accomplished by exporting the 3,051 responses from Qualtrics into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 25th software edition. To answer both research questions, an independent sample t-test was used to determine if a statistically significant difference exists between the independent groups on the dependent variable of residential sense of belonging. The independent variable groups in the first research question were residential leader and resident; the independent groups in the second research question were first-year residential leader, first-year resident, upper-division residential leader, and upper-division resident.
The independent sample t-test was applicable, since belonging is a continuous variable; the independent variable is composed of two separate and unique categorical groups, and we had independence of observation. Levene’s test for equality of variances was implemented with a .05 confidence level to assess the homogeneity of the variance. The equal variance was assumed for significance levels below .05 and not assumed for significance levels above .05. All subscales, excluding perceived peer support (p = .004), displayed homogeneity of variance. A Bonferroni correction was used to account for multiple t-tests being run simultaneously. The correction was calculated by dividing the original p value by the number of subscales (eight), resulting in the Bonferroni adjusted p value of .01. Bonferroni correction reduces the chance of a Type I error (Jafari & Ansari-Pour, 2019).
Cronbach’s alpha established the reliability of each subscale. This test was applicable because each subscale utilized an identical Likert scale, with each question of the subscale holding equal weight (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Each scale had a high level of internal reliability, ranging from .714 (perceived faculty support) to .954 (satisfaction).
RESULTS
Research Question 1
The first research question sought to understand how residential leaders and residents report their residential sense of belonging. We conducted an independent sample t-test utilizing Levene’s test for equality of variances. Table 2 displays the results of the independent sample t-test, including sample size, mean, standard deviation, significance level, degrees of freedom/t-score, and p values (an asterisk indicates significance). Satisfaction had the highest mean score among residential leaders (6.31) and residents (5.54). (See Table 2.) Only statistically significant subscales are further discussed below.
Centrality. Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .018; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean centrality scores between residential leaders and residents, t(324.977) = −10.653, p < .001. Residential leaders were more likely to report a higher centrality score than did residents.
Satisfaction. Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of < .001; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean satisfaction scores between residential leaders and residents, t395.421) = −10.062, p < .001. Residential leaders were more likely to report a higher satisfaction score than did residents.
Solidarity. Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a level of < .001; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean solidarity scores between residential leaders and residents, t(387.868) = −14.293, p < .001. Residential leaders were more likely to report a higher solidarity score than did residents.
In-group homogeneity. Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .075; thus, equal variance was assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean in-group homogeneity scores between residential leaders and residents, t(1478) = −3.289, p = .001. Residential leaders were more likely to report a higher in-group homogeneity score than did residents.
Self-stereotyping. Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .002; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean self-stereotyping scores between residential leaders and residents, t(345.128) = −6.086, p = < .001. Residential leaders were more likely to report a higher self-stereotyping score than did residents.
Perceived faculty support. Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .004; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean perceived faculty support scores between residential leaders and residents, t(332.334) = −8.240, p = < .001. Residential leaders were more likely to report a higher perceived faculty support score than did residents.
Perceived peer support. Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of < .001; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean perceived peer support scores between residential leaders and residents, t(445.819) = −14.092, p = < .001. Residential leaders were more likely to report a higher perceived peer support score than did residents.
Perceived isolation. Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of < .001; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean perceived isolation support scores between residential leaders and residents, t(352.88) = 10.483, p = < .001. Residential leaders were more likely to report a lower perceived isolation score than did residents.
Research Question 2
For the second question, we sought to understand the possible difference between residential leaders and residents by academic classification. We ran an independent sample t-test utilizing Levene’s test for equality of variances. Equal variances were assumed for significance levels below .05 and not assumed for significance levels above .05. Table 3 shows the sample size, mean, standard deviation, significance level, degrees of freedom/t score, and p values (an asterisk indicates significance).
Centrality. When examining first-year residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .751; thus, equal variance was assumed. There was not a statistically significant difference in mean centrality scores between first-year residential leaders and residents, t(757) = −1.060, p = .289. First-year residential leaders were not more likely to report a higher centrality score than did their fellow first-year residents.
When examining upper-division residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .002. Thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean centrality scores between upper-division residential leaders and residents, t(411.150) = −10.586, p < .001. Upper-division residential leaders were more likely to report a higher centrality score than did fellow upper-division residents.
Satisfaction. When examining first-year residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .113; thus, equal variance was assumed. There was not a statistically significant difference in mean satisfaction scores between first-year residential leaders and residents, t(757) = −1.552, p = .121. First-year residential leaders were less likely to report a higher satisfaction score than did their fellow first-year residents.
When examining upper-division residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of <.001; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean satisfaction scores between upper-division residential leaders and residents, t(550.98) = −9.424, p = < .001. Upper-division residential leaders were more likely to report a higher satisfaction score than did fellow upper-division residents.
Solidarity. When examining first-year residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .108; thus, equal variance was assumed. There was not a statistically significant difference in mean solidarity scores between first-year residential leaders and residents, t(757) = −1.917, p = .056. First-year residential leaders were not more likely to report a higher solidarity score than did their fellow first-year residents.
When examining upper-division residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of < .001; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean solidarity scores between upper-division residential leaders and residents, t(538.071) = −13.231, p = < .001. Upper-division residential leaders were more likely to report a higher solidarity score than did their fellow first-year residents.
In-group homogeneity. When examining first-year residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .183; thus, equal variance was assumed. There was not a statistically significant difference in mean in-group homogeneity scores between first-year residential leaders and residents, t(757) = −.973, p = .331. First-year residential leaders were not more likely to report a higher in-group homogeneity score than did their fellow first-year residents.
When examining upper-division residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .145; thus, equal variance was assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean in-group homogeneity scores between upper-division residential leaders and residents, t(718) = −3.856, p = < .001. Upper-division residential leaders were more likely to report a higher in-group homogeneity score than did their fellow first-year residents.
Self-stereotyping. When examining first-year residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .108; thus, equal variance was assumed. There was not a statistically significant difference in mean self-stereotyping scores between first-year residential leaders and residents, t(757) = −1.154, p = .249. First-year residential leaders were not more likely to report a higher self-stereotyping score than did their fellow first-year residents.
When examining upper-division residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of <.001; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean self-stereotyping scores between upper-division residential leaders and residents, t(447.014) = −6.703, p = < .001. Upper-division residential leaders were more likely to report a higher self-stereotyping score than did their fellow upper-division residents.
Perceived faculty support. When examining first-year residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .108; thus, equal variance was assumed. There was not a statistically significant difference in mean perceived faculty support scores between first-year residential leaders and residents, t(757) = .760, p = .448. First-year residential leaders were not more likely to report a higher perceived faculty support score than did their fellow first-year residents.
When examining upper-division residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of < .001; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean perceived faculty support scores between upper-division residential leaders and residents, t(433.301) = −8.564, p = < .001. Upper-division residential leaders were more likely to report a higher perceived faculty support score than did their fellow upper-division residents.
Perceived peer support. When examining first-year residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .004; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean perceived peer support scores between first-year residential leaders and residents, t(23.935) = −3.224, p = .004. First-year residential leaders were more likely to report a higher perceived peer support score than did their fellow first-year residents.
When examining upper-division residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of < .001; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean perceived peer support scores between upper-division residential leaders and residents, t(575.987) = −12.367, p = < .001. Upper-division residential leaders were more likely to report a higher perceived peer support score than did their fellow upper-division residents.
Perceived isolation. When examining first-year residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of .839; thus, equal variance was assumed. There was not a statistically significant difference in the mean perceived isolation scores between first-year residential leaders and residents, t(757) = 1.429, p = .154. First-year residential leaders were not more likely to report a higher perceived isolation score than did their fellow first-year residents.
When examining upper-division residential leaders and residents, Levene’s test for equality of variances provided a significance level of <.001; thus, equal variance was not assumed. There was a statistically significant difference in mean perceived isolation scores between upper-division residential leaders and residents, t(405.852) = 10.042, p = < .001. Upper-division residential leaders were more likely to report a higher perceived isolation score than did their fellow upper-division residents.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
We sought to answer two primary research questions in order to gather information about how residential leaders and residents report their residential sense of belonging and the possible difference between residential leaders and residents by academic classification. To achieve comprehension, we combined and adapted two unique established sense of belonging scales. Our work therefore extends the relevant literature on sense of belonging and adapts it to a collegiate residential environment.
Leaders’ and Residents’ Sense of Belonging
Our study revealed that residential student leaders report statistically significant results across all sense of belonging subscales. The greatest mean difference of 1.28 between leaders and residents can be observed within the solidarity subscale. Leach and colleagues (2008) define solidarity as the “investment of the self in coordinated activity with those to whom one feels committed” (p. 147). Residential leaders may feel more of a heightened sense of solidarity than do their resident counterparts because of the leadership team approach often implemented by housing and residential life staff; as a result of performing their work, residential leaders may develop higher solidarity scores. The least pronounced mean difference of .4 can be observed within in-group homogeneity. Satisfaction is the highest mean score for residents (M = 5.54) and residential leaders (M = 6.31), which supports the long-established finding by Astin (1993) that students who are more involved on campus demonstrate higher satisfaction with college.
Our results further support research published by Logue and colleagues (2005), France and colleagues (2010), and Cheng (2004). We herein document the positive impacts of residential leadership as it relates to sense of belonging within a residential community. Residential life and housing professionals should note that residential student leadership is associated with a self-reported residential sense of belonging that is higher than that for residents. Further research can explore whether or not these gains are more pronounced for certain residential leadership positions (e.g., presidents vs. vice presidents) and if all leaders experience the same gains.
Describing Upper-Division Sense of Belonging
When further examined by academic classification, upper-division residential leaders reported a statistically significant score across all sense of belonging subscales. The most pronounced mean difference of 1.54 was observed within the centrality scores between upper-division leaders and their non-leader counterparts. This finding suggests that upper-division student leaders identify more with their community than do upper-division residents. The most minor mean difference of .61 can be observed within perceived faculty support, suggesting that variables other than faculty support are important when evaluating sense of belonging in a residential community.
Faculty-in-residence programs provide increased opportunities for faculty-student interactions, resulting in increased student success (Grabsch et al., 2023). We recommend further marketing and communication efforts from faculty-in-residence or from those in faculty-embedded program that can increase perceived faculty support within the residential environment. Upper-division residential leaders reported the highest sense of belonging in the satisfaction category, averaging 6.34. Satisfaction “is likely to be associated with a wide range of group-related phenomena, including psychological attachment to the in-group and coordination with other group members” (Leach et al., 2008, p. 147). A high satisfaction score aligns with this understanding, since leaders within a residential community spend much more extended time with one another than do their residential counterparts. This result is likely due to leaders often being members of the in-group they lead. These findings support the social identity theory of leadership, wherein group prototypicality often emerges into the leadership roles of the group (Grabsch et al., 2021; Hogg, 2001).
Describing First-Year Sense of Belonging
When further examined by academic classification, first-year residential leaders reported a statistically significant difference only in perceived peer support. This difference may be explained by the peer network established by the leadership team within a residential community. The most considerable mean difference when comparing first-year residential leaders and residents can be noticed within the solidarity category, with a mean difference of .61. Our results thus may provide insight into how residential life programs, and residential environments more generally, can support peer relationships and networks via leadership experiences to bolster sense of belonging. This network may prove a fertile group for emergent leadership programs offered by leadership centers that partner with residence life programs for first-year students who are selected for residential leadership positions.
Implications for Practice
Sense of belonging has many positive benefits for all students, increasing their involvement on campus and their academic achievement and retention. Our study further highlights that residential collegiate leaders, especially upper-division ones, experience a higher self-reported sense of belonging scores than do other residents.
In addition to the previous recommendations for practice, we offer these additional proposals.
Staff should increase leadership opportunities, especially for first-year students. As the present study demonstrates, holding a residential leadership position results in higher residential sense of belonging. Staff could increase the number of student leadership positions for first-year students or could share information about identified clear pipelines for leadership that are accessible to first-year students. In such cases, more students can directly benefit from being a residential student leader and feel a greater sense of belonging to their community.
Future studies should consider positional student leaders and non-leaders when measuring sense of belonging on a college or university campus. Additional studies should also include emergent, non-positional leaders (Grabsch et al., 2021) within the residential environment, though emergent leaders can be difficult to identify because they are likely non-rostered members. However, residential life and student housing staff and live-in faculty have intimate knowledge of residential students who may be emerging as leaders ahead of holding a titled position or of students who may not seek titled responsibilities in the community. Backed by our results, we suggest that campus residence life and housing programs continue to invest in and train student organization advisors to boost leadership programs, advising, and opportunities and to continue their investment in increasing the percentages of staff position descriptions for advising residential leadership groups.
Limitations
While our research contributes to the field regarding the issue of collegiate sense of belonging, there are three limitations to note: a single research site, only two years of data collection, and the varying types of positional leadership. The research site was a Predominantly White Institution in a large urban city in a southern state. The research site operationalizes a two-year live-on requirement for undergraduate students, and the student demographics and residential college model may limit the transferability of our results. Future research should explore the residential sense of belonging and its relationship to student leadership in other institutional types with traditional and untraditional housing operations (e.g., public-private partnerships, upper-division housing, etc.).
Data collection occurred from August 2021 to May 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have impacted residential sense of belonging and might be considered a lurking variable. More data over a more extended period—rather than four administrations of the cross-sectional survey design—are suggested for further research.
Our independent variable of residential student leaders encompasses only formal leadership positions within the residential community. This definition does not account for various forms of non-positional or emergent leaders within residential communities. Furthermore, due to small sample sizes, this research design does not parse out the different formal leadership roles (e.g., resident assistant, community councils) to measure belonging within the various residential leadership positions. We recommend that other residential institutions of higher education implement a similar research design to measure and compare the sense of belonging in residential student leaders and non-leaders.
Conclusion
Sense of belonging has known benefits for the collegiate experience (Beck et al., 2021; Grabsch et al., 2021; Strayhorn, 2019). Results of our study show that student leaders, especially upper-division ones, experience a higher residential sense of belonging than do their non-leader resident counterparts. Additionally, first-year student leaders share more of a heightened level of perceived peer support than do their non-leader first-year counterparts. Student affairs professionals should continue to identify ways to increase leadership opportunities for first-year students and also take a critical look at the non-leader experience. Scholars should continue to study sense of belonging and its relationship to student leader status (e.g., emergent or positional leadership) in order to better understand the leadership activities that contribute to higher levels of belonging. We also suggest that future studies of longitudinal sense of belonging consider different leadership levels (e.g., member, president).