Abstract
Social belonging interventions are one of the most evidence-based approaches to supporting student belonging in higher education, yet their execution varies widely. This scoping review synthesizes research on social belonging interventions within higher education to explore how these interventions have been designed, delivered, and evaluated. A systematic search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, was performed using keywords related to higher education, Wise Interventions, and social belonging. The review included 20 studies that examined different types of social belonging interventions, including classic attributional retraining, growth mindset, value-affirmation, difference-education, utility-value programs, and behavioral nudges. Results suggest that social belonging interventions can enhance academic performance, psychological well-being, and retention in higher education, although these findings can also vary depending on context, intervention type, and population. Over time, social belonging interventions have accumulated a strong evidence base, and this scoping review confirms their continued effectiveness.
Keywords
Social belonging interventions are a prominent approach to supporting student outcomes in higher education, yet studies evaluating these interventions draw from a broad range of designs, populations, and institutional contexts, which make it challenging to draw a coherent picture of the associated evidence base. These interventions, which are often structured and designed to help students reframe their attributions about belonging during academic transitions, have shown potential to improve academic performance, retention, and wellbeing in higher education populations (Walton & Cohen, 2011; Walton et al., 2023) and are among the most frequently used and tested intervention types for belonging available, despite the overall scarcity of rigorously tested interventions for belonging in the academic literature more generally (see Allen et al., 2022; Chrobak, 2024). However, despite their widespread implementation, no comprehensive synthesis exists that examines the full spectrum of social belonging intervention types, delivery formats, and their differential impacts across student populations in higher education. Given the varied methods that underpin their implementation and evaluation (Walton & Cohen, 2011; Walton et al., 2017), there is a need to consolidate and extend the existing body of research. This scoping review will address this gap by systematically examining the empirical studies of social belonging interventions in higher education to provide a clearer understanding of their impacts, outcomes, and reported strengths.
The Challenge of Belonging in Higher Education
Within higher education, students’ sense of belonging is a significant, yet often overlooked, factor in how it is fostered and maintained. Belonging, the feeling of being accepted, valued, and connected at university, has been found to have far-reaching implications, shaping students’ interpersonal experiences and also affecting their academic success, wellbeing outcomes, retention, social capital among diverse student populations, and persistence in studies (Allen et al., 2024; Slaten et al., 2016; Walton & Brady, 2017; Walton & Cohen, 2011; Walton et al., 2023). Despite research evidence showing the importance of belonging, not all students experience belonging and much research has focused on better understanding the experiences of historically underserved or traditionally marginalized groups (Chrobak, 2024; Kroeper et al., 2025). Inequitable belonging opportunities have been argued to emerge from systemic issues, structural racism, pervasive stereotypes, and institutional discrimination, as well as broader social inequalities (Allen et al., 2024; Bart-Plange et al., 2025; Crenshaw, 1991; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Stephens et al., 2014). As a result, some students experience isolation, belonging uncertainty, and challenges with transitional periods, such as moving from high school to university or progression within degree levels, and these experiences are linked with weaker academic outcomes, drop out, and reduced persistence in postsecondary settings (Allen et al., 2024; Fong et al., 2024; Stephens et al., 2014). In response to such challenges and needs, social belonging interventions hold the intention of facilitating successful transition, improving student perceptions of belonging, and promoting representation of historically or traditionally underrepresented groups (Walton & Cohen, 2011; Walton et al., 2017).
Social Belonging Interventions in Higher Education
For the purpose of this review, a social belonging intervention is defined as a structured program or practice aimed at improving students’ attributions about belonging within a particular educational setting (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Chrobak, 2024). These interventions generally help students understand that early feelings of not belonging are common, especially in times of transition, and that such feelings can lessen with time and be overcome (Walton, 2014a, 2014b; Walton & Cohen, 2011). It is important to note that these interventions are not primarily characterized by direct attempts to increase belonging per se, but by efforts to shift how students interpret belonging uncertainty. Many traditional interventions, including those developed by Walton and Cohen (2007, 2011), take an attributional approach. Their effects, however, may depend on whether the broader institutional climate offers genuine opportunities to belong. Scholars have noted that approaches based solely on students’ perceptions can overlook structural conditions that shape belonging, including institutionalized racism and limited cultural representation within the curriculum (Gray et al., 2020). Gray et al. argue that belonging vulnerability for historically underrepresented students stems from structural inequalities as much as from individual interpretations. For example, Covarrubias (2024) emphasizes how university cultural scripts communicate who is expected to be accepted on campus, which can shape personal and political facets of belonging for students from marginalized groups. Work on culturally grounded communal practices in Black education shows how belonging can also be strengthened when collective orientations stress shared responsibility and cultural affirmation beyond personal perceptions alone (Gray et al., 2022). Therefore, it is important to recognize that addressing the big picture of belonging in higher education requires attention to broader conditions, while at the same time recognizing that interventions that focus on how students make sense of (and perceive) belonging have a very important role within the range of supports offered to students.
Social belonging interventions are implemented across a wide range of educational and organizational settings (Binning et al., 2020; Bruehlman-Senecal et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2022). Some questions have also been raised about whether these interventions meet the needs of all individuals, given the heterogeneous effects across contexts and student groups (see What Works Clearinghouse Review, 2022). Difference-education interventions, as one example, were developed to help first-generation students better understand how backgrounds and social-class experiences can shape belonging perceptions at university (Brady et al., 2020; Stephens et al., 2014, 2015). Intersectionality scholars have argued that interventions focused on a single identity dimension, such as social class, may overlook the intersectional nature of students’ identities, including race, gender, and cultural background, which shape belonging experiences in educational contexts (Covarrubias, 2023, 2024; Crenshaw, 1991). There is also a broader question about power dynamics, including whether belonging interventions can 1) place too much responsibility on students and not enough on the people and structures that shape their belonging and 2) position students as the recipients of an intervention, rather than equal co-designers, which may obscure who holds the power to grant belonging (see Logel interviewed in Allen, 2025). Even though many interventions draw on student voice within their materials, and social belonging interventions have a long history of recognizing and elevating students’ lived experiences, a further question could be whether interventions should be developed with students from the ground up to allow for more sharing of the decision-making power and perhaps more buy-in.
Across the social belonging intervention literature, timing, delivery format, and intervention-focus vary widely. Some studies have delivered the intervention at the start of college and assessed outcomes after students matriculated (e.g., Broda et al., 2018; Yeager et al., 2016, Experiments 2 and 3), while others have adapted Walton and Cohen’s traditional intervention for different contexts by revising some of the language used (e.g., Murphy et al., 2020; Walton et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2016, Experiment 1). Delivery formats range from discussion-based groups (Binning et al., 2020) to online platforms (Walton et al., 2017). Interventions also differ based on emphasis (Brady et al., 2020; Broda et al., 2018; Marksteiner et al., 2019; O’Hara & Sparrow, 2019; Stephens et al., 2015), addressing a range of issues from academic probation (Brady, 2017) to students’ perceptions of office-hour use (Smith, 2020). The differences in timing, format, and focus illustrate the flexibility of social belonging interventions, yet also the challenge of evaluating them systematically. The heterogeneity of approaches, combined with ongoing debates about whether interventions should target individual psychological processes or structural change, demonstrates the need for a comprehensive review of existing social belonging interventions and their outcomes. While most higher education institutions are continually seeking ways to prioritize student belonging, navigating the research behind programs and initiatives may be challenging and time consuming due to this variation (e.g., Welsh, 2017; Yeager & Walton, 2011).
Critical Scholarship Perspectives
It is important to acknowledge how critical scholarship has helped show how traditional approaches to belonging may overlook the strengths and cultural assets students bring to higher education contexts. Work using Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth model shows how students draw on aspirational, familial, navigational, social, linguistic, and resistant forms of capital, which can reshape how belonging is understood and supported. Building on this work, several studies have shown how asset-based perspectives can broaden how belonging is understood and supported in university settings (Boettcher et al., 2022; Garriott, 2020; Grabsch et al., 2025). For example, Boettcher et al. (2022) designed the Emerging Scholar Program at Clemson University to support Black and Latinx students from rural communities. Guided by Community Cultural Wealth and CRT, the program uses counter-storytelling and group discussion to highlight the aspirational, familial, navigational, and social resources students draw on as they move through their learning environments. This approach directly reframes students’ experiences by rejecting assumptions that students of color enter university with cultural deficits. Garriott (2020) proposed a model to guide the academic and career development of first-generation and economically marginalized students. The model emphasizes the importance of structural and environmental conditions, along with intrapersonal processes such as social-emotional crossroads and career self-authorship, as key pathways to student success. Last, Grabsch et al. (2025) also adopted an asset-oriented stance. Drawing on interviews with Black and Latinx collegians, the study documented how students used resistant capital to manage both everyday challenges and anticipated opposition within a large land-grant institution. These accounts highlight the skills and strengths students employ to navigate university life. Collectively, these perspectives offer an important lens for thinking about belonging interventions. They point to the value of approaches that recognize students’ cultural resources and strengths.
Methodological Challenges in Social Belonging Research
Beyond theoretical considerations, several methodological factors also complicate our understanding of the effectiveness of social belonging interventions. One issue is the overlap in available data, with similar participant groups appearing across studies that report different outcomes or follow students over different timeframes. The What Works Clearinghouse (2022) Social Belonging Interventions Report applies strict evidence standards for the inclusion of studies (e.g., those studies aligning with What Works Clearinghouse standards version 4.0, and the Supporting Postsecondary Success topic area protocol version 4.0, see What Works Clearinghouse, 2022). Therefore, studies that do not meet these criteria lack methodological rigor, do not report adequate design standards, or do not produce outcomes that can be interpreted reliably within the WWC framework are excluded. For example, Yeager et al.’s (2016) Experiment 1 did not meet What Works Clearinghouse standards and was therefore excluded, even though it was designed to test effects on college outcomes. These exclusions signify broader challenges for this research area in terms of evaluating the evidence base due to the variability in the structure and design of social belonging interventions across different higher education institutions.
Furthermore, the testing and application of social belonging interventions are often conducted in conjunction with other psychosocial and cognitive approaches and interventions, such as growth-mindset programs and value-affirmation exercises (Marksteiner et al., 2019; Walton & Cohen, 2011; Welsh, 2017), complicating the isolation of their specific effects. For example, several studies (e.g., Broda et al., 2018; Bruehlman-Senecal et al., 2020; Chrobak, 2024; Yeager & Walton, 2011) incorporate elements of growth mindset to enhance the overall sense of belonging and academic resilience, effectively blending different intervention strategies to target various aspects of student adjustment and success. These multifaceted approaches, while potentially useful in addressing complex psychological needs, present challenges in clearly delineating the direct impact of social belonging interventions alone. Additionally, despite the interventions’ namesake, the direct measurement of belonging as a primary outcome remains relatively uncommon.
Other issues that further complicate the understanding of the overall impact of social belonging interventions include the mixed effects observed, which suggest inconsistent and sometimes unclear results, and the intricacy involved in delivering these interventions in diverse settings (e.g., Broda et al., 2018; LaCosse et al., 2020; Weaver et al., 2021; Yeager et al., 2016). These complex factors contribute to discrepancies in the deployment and impact of social belonging interventions (though Walton attempted to overcome this in the guidebook; see Walton et al., 2017), necessitating a high degree of understanding when interpreting the efficacy of such interventions.
While it is widely recognized that social belonging interventions influence student outcomes, the efficacy of such strategies across diverse student demographics might be contingent on the formats and designs employed in delivering these interventions (see DeWall & Pond, 2011; Matthews et al., 2014; Steger & Kashdan, 2009; Whillans & Chen, 2018; Wolf et al., 2017). Despite most research demonstrating positive implications of social belonging interventions within higher education (e.g., Brady et al., 2020; LaCosse et al., 2020; Marksteiner et al., 2019; Murphy et al., 2020; Van Herpen et al., 2020), there persists a necessity for a thorough synthesis and analysis of existing research on this topic. This examination will pinpoint the most effective techniques (i.e., delivery formats, design types), thereby offering a platform for proposing innovative ways to enhance the impact of social belonging interventions.
The different intervention delivery formats, design types, and varying student populations of social belonging intervention evaluations introduces a layer of complexity in how we understand them. This challenge reflects the intricate dynamics involved in implementing and assessing these interventions but also emphasizes that there is a real need for more systematic research to clarify the implications for these popular interventions.
The Current Study
Considering the broad (Walton et al., 2017) and narrow (e.g., Chrobak, 2024, only looked at RCTs) range of approaches in the study and implementation of social belonging interventions, and the varied results they have produced (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse, 2022; Yeager et al., 2016), there is a clear need for in-depth analysis and integration of the existing body of research broader than a specific methodology or subset of the literature (for example, Chrobak, 2024).
Research Question
Building on the existing literature concerned with social belonging interventions, a central question for this scoping review was formed: What empirical evidence exists for social belonging interventions within higher education institutions? To further explore the research in this domain, a set of subquestions were developed to assess the efficacy of these interventions, methods employed, reported findings, and existing research gaps:
What types and characteristics of social belonging interventions have been studied within higher education, and what methodologies have been used in these studies?
What impacts and outcomes of social belonging interventions within higher education have been reported in the empirical literature, including effects on student performance, wellbeing, and sense of belonging?
What are the reported strengths, limitations, and gaps in the current literature on social belonging interventions in higher education, and what directions are suggested for future research?
The previously mentioned questions guide our systematic examination of the evidence base on social belonging interventions and also frame our organization of the review that follows.
Method
This review adhered to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020) while exploring the empirical evidence about social belonging interventions in higher education.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
To systematically assess the effectiveness and scope of social belonging interventions in higher education, specific inclusion criteria were established based on the PICOS framework, guiding the selection of relevant studies for this review (Amir-Behghadami & Janati, 2020). Exclusion criteria were also delineated. No date restrictions were set, and records were searched until October 2022. The included studies ranged from 2002 to 2022.
Participants
This review considered studies involving university or college students. It excluded studies involving high school students or adults not currently enrolled in higher education institutions. For example, we excluded interventions such as the one described in Boettcher et al. (2022), as it was aimed at both high school and higher education students.
Concept
We focused on social belonging interventions among higher education students. The interventions could also include attributional retraining programs, growth mindset of intelligence programs, value-affirmation programs, difference-education programs, utility-value programs, and behavioral nudges programs (Walton et al., 2023).
Context
Any study conducted exclusively at a higher education institution worldwide was considered for this review. Higher education for the purpose of our study represents universities, colleges, and other institutions that award academic degrees or professional qualifications beyond secondary school.
Types of Sources
We included original studies published in peer-reviewed journals. All articles must be primary quantitative sources or original works. This could include studies that examine the association between social belonging interventions and student outcomes (e.g., social, health, academic). Studies using experimental designs, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials are also included in addition to primary observational studies with cross-sectional or prospective research methods. There must be an intervention component in selected studies. For example, a measure of the accumulated value of one or more activities that is interpretable as reflecting a social belonging practice (e.g., storytelling, social interactions, writing reflection) was required. Excluded sources were qualitative studies (such as Dost & Mazzoli Smith, 2023; Grabsch et al., 2025), dissertations, conference abstracts, case studies, commentaries, reviews, and other scholarly works with no reported data. All eligible studies were in English.
Literature Search
We carried out an exhaustive three-step search process as stipulated by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Peters et al., 2020). We identified potential search terms by screening titles, abstracts, and index terms of peer-reviewed papers following an initial limited search in databases like Scopus, PubMed, wiseinterventions.org, and Google Scholar. We conducted electronic searches using the following terms to identify relevant published articles: (“social belonging intervention” OR “students sense of connectedness” OR “student school belonging” OR “school belonging intervention” OR “wise intervention” OR “lay theory”) AND (“university” OR “college” OR “higher education” OR “university students”) AND (“wellbeing” OR “outcomes” OR “academic outcomes” OR “health outcomes” OR “health behaviours” OR “learning” OR “performance”). All conceivable combinations of keyword categories were used in the search.
The final database searches were completed on January 20, 2023, including all records up to the search date. In this phase, we systematically reviewed the reference lists of the primary articles included in the review, with the aim of identifying any pertinent studies that might have been missed. Furthermore, we reached out to researchers in the field, such as Yeager and Walton, to inquire about any additional published studies on social belonging interventions in higher education that our search might not have retrieved (this led to the addition of four more studies, i.e., Murphy et al., 2020; Stephens et al., 2014; Walton & Cohen, 2007; Walton et al., 2023).
Screening and Selection
We imported all retrieved studies into Covidence, removing duplicate records and then exported them to an Excel spreadsheet. The first author screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. We independently screened samples of the records and thus retrieved and screened the full-text records against the eligibility criteria, including examining reference lists of eligible studies for any overlooked articles meeting the inclusion criteria (see Table 1). Any disagreements at each stage were resolved via consensus.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Note. We included studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals with no date restrictions. Eligible designs included RCTs, quasi-experimental studies, pre-post intervention studies, and observational studies with an intervention component. Qualitative studies and nonintervention studies were excluded.
Data Extraction and Synthesis
The data extraction procedure followed the best practice guidelines (see Peters et al., 2020; Tricco et al., 2018). All the authors independently extracted relevant data into an Excel spreadsheet. Extracted information included publication details (i.e., lead author, year), context (i.e., country of origin, study purpose[s], study population[s]), research methodology (i.e., design, date[s] of data collection, sample size, age, and sex of participants), and primary results. After cross-checking the data, inconsistencies were resolved through discussion. The data from the included studies were tabulated and analyzed, grouping the studies based on the type of social belonging intervention.
Results
Search and Selection Process
Illustrated in Figure 1 flowchart is the methodical progression of studies through the scoping review process. The search across electronic databases from October 5, 2022, to January 20, 2023, initially retrieved 627 studies, including duplicates. After removing duplicates, 594 unique title-abstract records remained for screening. Screening of abstracts led to the exclusion of 576 articles that did not meet the study criteria (e.g., intervention not related to social belonging; outside of higher education). This left 18 full-text articles for review, of which two were excluded due to nonintervention designs, resulting in 16 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, four supplementary studies were sources from expert recommendations, bringing the total to 20 studies included in the review (see Figure 1).
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram of the selection process for social belonging interventions in higher education.
Study Characteristics
As summarized in Table 2, studies were published between 2007 and 2023 in a variety of journals. Several appeared in high-impact outlets including Science, Science Advances, Psychological Science, Social Psychological and Personality Science, and Journal of School Psychology, while others were published in field-specific journals such as the Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, and Studies in Higher Education.
Summary of selected studies on social belonging interventions
Note: Interventions were included in this review only if they met our operational definition of a social belonging intervention, which stipulates: “In the context of this review, a ‘social belonging intervention’ is a structured program or practice designed to improve students’ attributions about belonging within a particular educational context. The objectives of social belonging interventions typically encompass: 1) helping individuals understand that feeling like they do not belong is normal and common, particularly when associated with transition, and 2) reinforcing the idea that such feelings will diminish as time progresses” (Walton, 2014a, 2014b; Walton & Cohen, 2011). Additionally, all study variables examined were extracted to ensure a comprehensive analysis of overall study impacts.
The included studies were generally of high caliber. Fourteen of the 20 (71.43%) used experimental designs with distinct intervention and control conditions. Many of these were randomized controlled trials (e.g., Brady et al., 2020; Murphy et al., 2020), while the remaining studies employed quasi-experimental or observational designs with an explicit intervention component (e.g., De Clercq et al., 2019; Stephens et al., 2015). Sample sizes varied from 63 participants (Cheng et al., 2022) to 26,911 participants (Walton et al., 2023).
Most studies focused on underrepresented minority students in US higher education contexts (e.g., Binning et al., 2020; Brady et al., 2020; Broda et al., 2018; Hausmann et al., 2009; LaCosse et al., 2020; Logel et al., 2021; Walton & Cohen, 2011; Patterson Silver Wolf et al., 2021; Yeager et al., 2016). Other studies targeted first-year college students (e.g., LaCosse et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2021), specific ethnic groups (Walton & Cohen, 2007), and female students (e.g., Bruehlman-Senecal et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2022). A smaller number targeted English as a second language students (LaCosse et al., 2020), higher weight students (Logel et al., 2021), medical students (Cheng et al., 2022), and students with a migration background (Marksteiner et al., 2019).
Intervention Types & Formats
The studies employed psychological interventions incorporating growth mindset, value-affirmation, and social belonging. For instance, Broda et al. (2018) and Bruehlman-Senecal et al. (2020) implemented growth-mindset programs through peer mentoring and digital interventions, respectively. Marksteiner et al. (2019) employed a value-affirmation program, administered through classroom programs, to foster a sense of belonging and improve academic success among college freshmen. Difference-education programs were utilized in studies by Brady et al. (2020) and Cheng et al. (2022), targeting the unique challenges of transitioning to higher education and mitigating the effects of social isolation, respectively. Walton and Cohen (2011) implemented a utility-value program as an intervention to help students find purpose and meaning in their schoolwork, ultimately aiming to improve academic achievement and motivation. Lastly, O’Hara and Sparrow (2019) utilized a behavioral nudges program, delivered through digital interventions, to increase student success by addressing psychosocial barriers that might cause students to withdraw from college. These studies exemplify the diverse formats used to foster student success in academic settings, each addressing unique aspects of student psychology and contextual challenges.
These social belonging interventions were delivered in diverse formats, including in-person workshops (Walton & Cohen, 2007, 2011), online modules (Binning et al., 2020; Broda et al., 2018; LaCosse et al., 2020; Yeager et al., 2016), smartphone applications (Bruehlman-Senecal et al., 2020), and peer-based methods (Cheng et al., 2022; De Clercq et al., 2019; Patterson Silver Wolf et al., 2021). The duration ranged from single session (Walton & Cohen, 2007, 2011) to multisession initiatives (Cheng et al., 2022; Patterson Silver Wolf et al., 2021). These social belonging interventions also included various forms: 31.58% incorporated peer mentoring (e.g., Broda et al., 2018; Cheng et al., 2022; De Clercq et al., 2019), 42.11% utilized classroom programs (Broda et al., 2018; Cheng et al., 2022), 15.79% adopted digital interventions (Bruehlman-Senecal et al., 2020; O’Hara & Sparrow, 2019), and 10.53% applied difference-education programs (Brady et al., 2020; Marksteiner et al., 2019). Difference-education programs, while not a social belonging intervention per se, target similar outcomes related to student success and inclusion.
Effectiveness of Interventions
Approximately 81% of the studies reported positive outcomes, with 48% noting an increased GPA (e.g., Murphy et al., 2020; Stephens et al., 2014; Van Herpen et al., 2020; Walton & Cohen, 2007), and 43% reporting an enhanced sense of belonging (e.g., O’Hara & Sparrow, 2019; Van Herpen et al., 2020; Patterson Silver Wolf et al., 2021). These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of these interventions in improving academic performance and fostering a greater sense of belonging. For example, LaCosse et al. (2020) reported a significant increase in students’ anticipated change in belonging and academic outcomes among 12,411 first-year undergraduates. Ramirez et al. (2021) similarly observed significant GPA and academic load increase among 1,747 early-start students, which could also indirectly contribute to a sense of achievement and purpose. Not all studies reported significant effects, however, as Broda et al. (2018), with a sample of 6,529, found that a growth-mindset intervention had significant effects on GPA for Latino students, but not for all students, indicating variability in intervention impacts.
Discussion
This scoping review indicates that social belonging interventions can improve academic performance, psychological wellbeing, and retention in higher education, although the size and consistency of these effects vary according to intervention type, delivery format, and student population. Across the 20 studies included, interventions differed in how they were designed, the content they presented, and the modes through which they were delivered (see Table 2), yet most reported positive effects on at least one outcome. The variability of social belonging interventions is not a limitation, but it does make it difficult to build a clear and cumulative evidence base because interventions may share the one label (i.e., social belonging interventions) while differing at the same time in terms of aims, methods, and delivery. These findings support the promise of social belonging interventions and at the same time show the need to understand which approaches are most effective, for whom, and under which conditions. The flexibility of intervention design can be viewed as a strength, allowing adaptation to local needs, though it also signals that further work is required to identify those core features that reliably support belonging across higher education settings and those that make social belonging interventions most effective.
Types and Characteristics of Social Belonging Interventions
The diversity of social belonging interventions across the studies in our scoping review attests to the multifaceted nature of the concept of social belonging. Each intervention type brings its own set of advantages and challenges, and their effectiveness can depend on several factors, including the specific student population, the broader institutional context, and the way the intervention is implemented. For example, Walton and Cohen (2011) used a value-affirmation program, whereas Broda et al. (2018) employed a growth mindset of intelligence program. Other studies, such as O’Hara and Sparrow (2019), used behavioral nudges programs, and others still, such as Brady et al. (2020), used difference-education programs. Each intervention type comes with its unique strengths and challenges. Classic attributional retraining programs, 1 for instance, can foster resilience and improve academic outcomes by encouraging adaptive attributions for academic performance. However, they may be less effective for students who already possess adaptive attributions. Similarly, value-affirmation programs, like the one implemented by Walton and Cohen (2011), encourage students to reflect on their values and improve academic performance and health outcomes, particularly for minority students. However, the timing of the intervention and its relevance to the students’ lives are key factors for its effectiveness.
Growth-mindset programs, like the one used by Broda et al. (2018), seek to instill the belief that intelligence can be developed through effort, and such programs can improve academic outcomes and resilience. However, ensuring that the growth-mindset message is continuously reinforced is crucial for the program’s success. Behavioral nudges programs use subtle cues and messaging to encourage positive behaviors. For example, O’Hara and Sparrow (2019) found that a summer nudge campaign encouraged community college STEM students to re-enroll. These programs can be cost-effective and scalable, but they need to be based on a thorough understanding of students’ needs and preferences.
Difference-education programs, such as the one studied by Stephens et al. (2015), emphasize the value of diverse backgrounds in shaping students’ academic journeys. While effective and well-intentioned, it is possible that these types of programs can sometimes reflect the limitations of interventions that do not fully engage with the complexities of intersectional identities. The work of Stephens et al. (2014) shows that difference-education interventions, which acknowledge the impact of students’ diverse backgrounds on their academic experience, can reduce achievement gaps and foster a more inclusive educational environment. However, by not fully considering how race, gender, and other identity markers interact with social class, some interventions could risk perpetuating a deficit perspective. To enhance effectiveness, future research should prioritize co-creating interventions with marginalized communities, ensuring they leverage the cultural wealth these students bring to the educational environment.
Effectiveness Across Delivery Formats
The diversity in delivery formats of social belonging interventions provides unique opportunities and challenges, and understanding their implications requires a thorough examination of the studies conducted in this field. For instance, traditional in-person interventions such as classroom programs and peer mentoring, as used in studies by De Clercq et al. (2019) and Broda et al. (2018), have the advantage of providing immediate social interaction, which can be beneficial in fostering a sense of belonging. In the De Clercq et al. study, the use of classroom programs and peer mentoring allowed students to directly engage with the material and each other, potentially enhancing the sense of community. The Broda et al. study also showed the benefits of peer mentoring, demonstrating how direct social interaction can help foster growth mindsets and a sense of belonging. On the other hand, digital interventions, such as online courses or smartphone apps, offer flexibility and scalability. For example, Bruehlman-Senecal et al. (2020) implemented a digital intervention using a smartphone app to promote a growth mindset. This allowed for easy access to the intervention and the ability to reach a wider audience. Similarly, LaCosse et al. (2020) delivered a pre-matriculation social belonging intervention online, which enabled wide-scale implementation before students arrived on campus. Offering an intervention at this early point in the transition may support students as they enter university, although the extent of this support will depend on several factors. The effectiveness of different delivery formats, including those illustrated in this review, is likely shaped by the specific intervention content, the characteristics of the target student population, and the broader institutional setting. Digital interventions may be well suited to technologically confident student groups or to contexts where in-person interaction is limited, but they may not replicate the immediacy of in-person formats. In-person interventions can offer opportunities for direct social interaction, yet they may be harder to scale across large or dispersed student cohorts. Continued research is needed to examine how delivery formats function across different contexts and whether their effectiveness interacts with other features of the intervention or with characteristics of the target population. Such work can inform the design and implementation of social belonging interventions that are appropriate for diverse higher-education environments.
Challenges in Methodological Diversity
Having explored the effectiveness of different delivery formats, it is essential to consider the methodological approaches that underpin these findings. The diversity of methodologies used in these studies reflects the complexity of measuring social belonging and demonstrates the challenges of comparing results across different contexts. Experimental designs with control and intervention groups are a common methodology in this field, providing a rigorous way to establish causal relationships between interventions and outcomes. For example, Yeager et al. (2016) utilized a randomized control trial (RCT) design in a lab experiment to evaluate the impact of a brief social belonging intervention on college freshmen’s academic and health outcomes. This design allowed the researchers to isolate the effects of the intervention, controlling for other factors that could influence the outcomes. The use of control groups in these sorts of designs is a key strength, providing a baseline against which the intervention’s effects can be compared. On the other hand, pre-post follow-up designs, also prevalent in this field, offer valuable longitudinal data on the effects of interventions over time. Walton and Cohen (2011) used this design to study the long-term effects of a social belonging intervention on African American students’ college experiences. This approach provided insights into the intervention’s durability, showing that its effects persisted for 3 years. Pre-post designs, while not as robust as RCTs in establishing causality, offer a valuable perspective on how interventions unfold over time.
These methodologies offer important insights, yet their diversity introduces challenges when attempting to compare results across studies. Differences in research design, sample characteristics, and intervention implementation can all influence outcomes, making it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions. For example, the varying durations and intensities of interventions across studies could potentially influence their effects, making it challenging to compare a brief, one-time intervention to a more sustained, long-term program. Another critical issue is the risk of bias, which can be introduced through various sources such as participant selection, attrition, or measurement. To address this, future research should prioritize methodologies that minimize bias and enhance the validity of findings. This could include strategies such as randomization, blinding, and the use of reliable and valid measurement instruments. Lastly, it is worth noting that the use of diverse methodologies in this field speaks to the complex nature of social belonging as a construct. It underscores the necessity of adopting a multifaceted approach to studying social belonging interventions, one that accommodates the range of contexts in which these interventions are implemented and the multiple factors that can influence their effectiveness. This diversity in methodologies is a testament to the growing and dynamic nature of this research field.
Critical Transition Points
The transition to higher education is a critical period for students as they navigate new academic and social environments, making it an opportune time for interventions aiming to foster social belonging. Studies like those by LaCosse et al. (2020) and Ramirez et al. (2021) emphasize this point. LaCosse et al. implemented an online pre-matriculation social belonging intervention, aiming to establish a sense of belonging before students set foot on campus. This preemptive approach showed promise in positively influencing students’ academic outcomes, indicating the value of early intervention. Similarly, Ramirez et al. utilized an online intervention that allowed students to listen to testimonials from upper-class students about their transition experiences. By revealing that others had faced and overcome similar challenges, this intervention aimed to normalize the struggles of transition and foster a sense of shared experience and belonging. The results showed an increase in academic load and GPA, demonstrating the potential impact of such interventions on students’ academic performance.
Implications for Future Research and Practice
The various interventions reviewed highlight the potential for fostering a sense of belonging among students and the resulting positive outcomes, such as improved academic achievement, persistence, and overall wellbeing. One major implication of these findings is the importance of addressing the needs of underrepresented and marginalized students in higher education. Several studies, such as Walton and Cohen (2011), Brady et al. (2020), and LaCosse et al. (2020), demonstrate the effectiveness of social belonging interventions in enhancing academic and personal outcomes for minority students, including Black Americans and students who speak English as a second language. Additionally, interventions targeting underrepresented minority students, such as Patterson Silver Wolf et al. (2021), have shown promising results for retention.
Drawing on Yosso’s (2005) concept of community cultural wealth, future research could explore how interventions might leverage the existing cultural assets of marginalized students, rather than simply aiming to “include” them within dominant frameworks of belonging. The design and implementation of these interventions should be sensitive to the diverse experiences and backgrounds of students, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate or effective. For example, Delgado-Guerrero and Gloria (2025) found that Latinx students may benefit from having multiple culturally centered mentors throughout their educational journey who can facilitate developmental opportunities. By integrating these perspectives, we can better interpret our findings and recognize that effective interventions should leverage these forms of cultural wealth to create more inclusive and supportive educational spaces (Garriott, 2020; Grabsch et al., 2025). It is important to emphasize that simply implementing interventions is not enough and critically examining and transforming the institutional structures that impact student belonging is crucial.
When designing social belonging interventions, future researchers should be aware of potential biases. For instance, some interventions may inadvertently operate under the assumption that particular groups inherently lack a sense of belonging, which can be problematic and counterproductive. This perspective does not align with previous work that has shown that for some marginalized groups, their unique experiences and identities can serve as protective factors, fostering belonging (De Bortoli, 2018; Parker et al., 2022; Slaten et al., 2016). However, it does emphasize the notion that the effectiveness of interventions is highly contextual. While the interventions reviewed generally aimed to foster a sense of belonging, it is essential to evaluate whether these interventions align with or challenge the broader sociopolitical contexts that shape student experiences.
There is still a need for more comprehensive and methodically rigorous studies examining the effectiveness of diverse intervention types and their delivery formats. As seen in the study by De Clercq et al. (2019), classroom programs and peer mentoring can have a significant impact. At the same time, the research by LaCosse et al. (2020) and Bruehlman-Senecal et al. (2020) demonstrated the potential of digital interventions. To build on this, future investigations should actively seek to encompass a broad range of student populations and intervention methods. This is critical for strengthening research findings, thereby ensuring that results are not confined to specific cohorts but rather are generalizable to varied student demographics. Moreover, it is not sufficient to merely identify effective interventions; it is equally important to understand why and how these interventions work, under what conditions they are most effective, and for whom they work best. For example, the study by Logel et al. (2021) underscored the role of personalized interventions in improving outcomes, and this could be an area for further exploration. Practitioners should carefully consider the specific needs and contexts of their students when selecting and implementing social belonging interventions (see Ramirez et al., 2021). Thus, a tailored approach could help students navigate the challenges of transitioning to college and foster a sense of belonging early in their college experience. Lastly, both researchers and practitioners should pay particular attention to key transition points in students’ academic journeys, as these periods may offer particularly powerful opportunities to foster a sense of social belonging and improve student outcomes. The work of LaCosse et al. (2020) and Stephens et al. (2014) underscores this point by showing the benefits of interventions aimed at the transition to higher education. However, more research is needed to understand how to best support students during other critical transition points, such as moving from one academic year to another or transitioning from college to the workforce.
Limitations
While the present findings offer an overview of the social belonging research field, it is important to consider several limitations when interpreting the results. First, the heterogeneity of measurements and operational definitions of social belonging affects the comparability of findings across studies. In this review, some studies relied on self-reported belonging, whereas others used behavioral or academic outcomes as proxy indicators of belonging (e.g., Hausmann et al., 2009; Walton & Cohen, 2007). This variation makes it difficult to determine whether studies are assessing the same construct or capturing related but distinct outcomes. Greater clarity and consistency in the definition and measurement of social belonging would strengthen future research, even if flexibility in delivery formats remains appropriate.
Secondly, many of the social belonging interventions reviewed incorporated other approaches, such as growth-mindset activities or peer mentoring. This integration raises methodological challenges, as it becomes difficult to isolate the contribution of the social belonging component from the effects of the additional elements. From a practice perspective, combining approaches may be necessary to ensure that interventions are feasible and usable in higher education settings. While the review covers a broad range of intervention types, it is possible that newer or less established approaches are not yet represented in the published literature. Continued research will be important to track emerging designs and to assess how different components contribute to outcomes in higher education.
Last, the generalizability of the findings may be constrained by the specific contexts of the interventions. A significant portion of the studies were conducted in Western educational settings, predominantly focusing on first-year college students. Moreover, while Table 2 provides institutional details where available, many studies did not explicitly specify institutional type specifically, rather sample, and those that did revealed a narrow range were primarily traditional 4-year colleges and universities, with minimal representation from community colleges and international contexts. Notably absent are studies from vocational/technical schools and online universities. Consequently, the findings might not be universally applicable across diverse educational contexts or to students at varying stages of their academic journey (e.g., Marksteiner et al., 2019; O’Hara & Sparrow, 2019). However, it is worth noting that universal generalizability need not always be the primary aim, especially considering that the experience and dynamics of belonging are inherently contextual and can vary based on individual and environmental factors. Future research should intentionally expand the institutional contexts in which social belonging interventions are studied and implemented. Given the predominance of social belonging interventions in the school belonging literature, the field would benefit from systematic investigation across the full spectrum of educational settings.
Conclusion
This scoping review of social belonging interventions in higher education emphasizes the important role these interventions can play in improving academic and personal outcomes for students. With a diverse range of studies included in the review, the findings show that it is difficult to capture a single, clear picture of intervention effectiveness. This reflects the rich and evolving field that is using a variety of innovative approaches to foster belonging among students, particularly those from underrepresented or marginalized groups, and that is responsive to student needs, institutional practicalities, and new technologies as they arise. The studies reviewed show the effectiveness of different types of interventions, from classroom programs and peer mentoring to digital interventions like online courses and smartphone apps. They also collectively present in a way that emphasizes the importance of tailoring interventions to specific student populations, contexts, and transition points. However, the review also identified several areas that warrant further research, including the need to understand why and how these interventions work, under what conditions they are most effective, and for whom they work best. The potential of social belonging interventions to make a meaningful difference in students’ lives and contribute to supportive educational environments is clear from this review. More support is needed to ensure that these interventions, as well as other mechanisms that support belonging for all students, are widely known and used.
Footnotes
Notes
Authors
KELLY-ANN ALLEN is an associate professor and educational and developmental psychologist at Monash University, an ARC DECRA Fellow, a Fellow of the Australian Psychological Society, and a Fellow of the College of Educational and Developmental Psychologists. She is an Honorary Principal Fellow at the University of Melbourne and the University of Warwick. She is editor in chief of The Educational and Developmental Psychologist. Her research focuses on belonging across the lifespan with a strong emphasis on education.
AMANDA-LEE PITZER, EdD, is an assistant professor of educational psychology in the School of Education at Regent University and also teaches in the Trauma-Informed Education graduate program at Columbia College of South Carolina. Her scholarly work focuses on trauma, trauma-informed educational practice, and secondary traumatic stress among educators, with particular attention to how trauma influences teacher self-efficacy and classroom engagement. In addition to her academic work, she serves as the president of the Hampton Roads Chapter of Angels of America’s Fallen, supporting children of fallen military and first responders.
SHANNON G. KUSCHEL, PhD, is an assistant professor of psychology and the external practica coordinator at Regent University. She is an educational psychologist with specialized training in neuropsychology and special education. Her research interests include cognitive development, learning development and disorders, cognitive and learning interventions with diverse populations, neuropsychology, and its practical application to education.
LAN MA, PhD, is a senior lecturer at Sunway University Malaysia. Her research interests encompass a wide-ranging spectrum, encompassing students’ wellbeing, online education, educational consumer behaviors and digital marketing. Her diverse research portfolio underscores her commitment to advancing the field of education through a comprehensive understanding of students’ wellbeing, the integration of technology, and the complexities of educational consumer behaviors.
CHRISTOPHER D. SLATEN, PhD, currently serves as dean of the graduate school and associate provost for research at Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville. Dr. Slaten researches the issue of belonging and how it impacts student retention, psychosocial, and academic outcomes for youth and college students. Specifically, Dr. Slaten’s work is focused on students that have been marginalized by the educational system. Most recently, Dr. Slaten and his team have developed a measure to examine belonging in higher education. Dr. Slaten’s passion for this line of research has led to more than 40 peer-reviewed publications, national presentations, national press recognition (Wall Street Journal), international publications, and several invited lectures both domestically and internationally. Further, Dr. Slaten’s scholarly work has led to additional publications focusing largely on advocating for school counselors to conduct more mental health services in K–12 settings, specifically related to counseling interventions that have a strong emphasis on marginalized youth and social justice initiatives.
VICTOR COUNTED, PhD, is an associate professor of psychology and director of research and sponsored programs at Regent University. His research examines the science of wellbeing, specifically how the psychological dynamics of social, environmental, and spiritual processes contribute to human flourishing.