A Scoping Review of Social Belonging Interventions in Higher Education

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.

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:

1. What types and characteristics of social belonging interventions have been studied within higher education, and what methodologies have been used in these studies?

2. 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?

3. 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.

Table 1

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Category	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Participants	University or college students	High school students; nonenrolled adults
Concept	Social belonging interventions (e.g., mindset, affirmation, values)	Studies not targeting social belonging
Context	Higher education institutions globally	Non–higher education settings
Sources	Peer-reviewed primary quantitative studies	Qualitative studies, reviews, dissertations, non-peer-reviewed work
Design	Experimental, RCTs, case-control, observational with intervention component	Studies without an intervention; case reports; abstracts; non-English studies
Intervention	Must measure a practice interpretable as social belonging (e.g., storytelling, writing)	No clear social belonging practice or intervention component

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).

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.

Table 2

Summary of selected studies on social belonging interventions

Citation	Population (e.g., sample, age, gender, ethnicity)	N	Variables	Design	Delivery Format	Study Purpose and Context	Key Finding(s)
Binning et al. (2020)	Study 1: Group 1 (177 non-White; 431 White); Study 2: Group 2 (171 non-White, 436 White)	Group 1: n = 608 Group 2: n = 607	GPA	Classroom program	Ecological intervention program	By providing students an alternative narrative—one that holds adversity as both normative and surmountable—the aim was to render stereotypes unnecessary for understanding why underperformance occurs.	An ecological intervention designed to foster equity in college science classrooms was evaluated regarding the establishment of social norms that make stereotypes irrelevant in the classroom. The intervention group engaged in conversations with peers around the message that social and academic adversity is normative and that students generally overcome such adversity. Compared with the controls, intervention students had higher attendance, course grades, and 1-year college persistence. The intervention was especially impactful among historically underperforming students, such as improving course grades for ethnic minorities in introductory biology and for women in introductory physics. Regardless of demographics, attendance in the intervention classroom predicted higher cumulative grade point average 2 to 4 years later.
Brady et al. (2020)	Average age 27.42	n = 80	Career satisfaction, psychological wellbeing, community involvement and leadership.	One Hour Difference–education program with follow-up 3–5 years later	Social belonging intervention	In an effort to interrupt the self-fulfilling nature of belonging uncertainty, the social belonging intervention offers students a nonthreatening lens with which to make sense of common social and academic adversities in the transition to college	A long-term follow-up of a randomized social -belonging intervention delivered in the first year of college to potentially mitigate persistent worries about belonging among Black Americans was conducted. This 1-hour exercise represented social and academic adversity early in college as common and temporary. As previously reported in Science, the exercise improved Black students’ grades and wellbeing in college. The present study assessed the adult outcomes of these same participants. Examining adult life at an average age of 27, Black adults who had received the treatment (versus control) exercise 7 to 11 years earlier reported significantly greater career satisfaction and success, psychological wellbeing, community involvement, and leadership. Gains were statistically mediated by greater college mentorship. The results suggest that addressing persistent social-psychological concerns via psychological intervention can shape the life course, partly by changing people’s social realities.
Broda et al. (2018)	6,529 first-year students at a large Midwestern public university Latino (n = 193) African American (n = 318) White (n = 3,416)	Mindset n = 2,135 Belonging n = 2,172 Control n = 2,222	Growth mindset; sense of belonging; GPA	Peer mentoring; classroom programs	Online	While findings from previous interventions have demonstrated positive effects for racial and ethnic minority and first-generation students in small samples, few interventions have been implemented at a larger scale with more heterogeneous student populations.	Regarding the mindset treatment group, Latino/a students had significantly higher GPAs for both the fall semester and the spring semester, as well as higher cumulative GPA after their first year of classes. No significant differences in academic outcomes were found for African American students or for White students. Regarding the social belonging intervention, across all three subgroups and the full sample, no significant differences in academic outcomes were found between students in the treatment and control conditions.
Bruehlman-Senecal et al. (2020)	Young adults entering undergrad programs. 59% female White (n = 117) Latino (n = 30) Asian (n = 21) Black (n = 8)	Group 1 n = 100 Group 2 n = 121	Growth mindset for social connection and Loneliness	Growth mindset of intelligence programs	Digital intervention: smart phone app	Cognitive and behavioral interventions show promise for decreasing loneliness and can be widely disseminated through technology.	A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted to examine the initial efficacy, feasibility, and desirability of a smartphone app, Nod, which is designed to deliver cognitive and behavioral skill-building exercises to reduce loneliness during the transition to college. Analyses were used to compare the conditions of self-assessed loneliness, depressive symptoms, and other mental health and college adjustment outcomes at 4 weeks, controlling for baseline values on those variables. There were no significant condition differences in loneliness at week 4. However, there was a significant condition-by-baseline depression interaction to predict week-4 loneliness among control participants, but not among experimental participants, suggesting that Nod buffered participants with high baseline depression scores from experiencing heightened hindquarter loneliness. Similarly, there were no significant condition differences in other week-4 outcomes. However, moderation by baseline vulnerability was found for week-4 depressive symptoms, sleep quality, and indices of college adjustment.
Cheng et al. (2022)	Med-school students, years 1–4	n = 63	Social isolation, social connectedness, peer-based intervention		Peer mentoring; classroom programs	The build & belong intervention aimed to improve medical students’ social belongingness using a longitudinal observational study design.	The build & belong intervention aimed to improve medical student’s social belongingness, especially those from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. Social isolation scores significantly decreased from baseline to follow-up. Social isolation changes were evident regardless of sex, although males reported a greater reduction than females. Black/African American students had the largest reduction in social isolation. Social assurance and connectedness scores did not change significantly between baseline and follow-up. Medical students appeared to resonate with messages delivered by more experienced peers, particularly messages that normalized feelings of not belonging and strategies to reduce those feelings.
De Clercq et al. (2019)	Incoming undergraduate students	Group 1 n = 123;Group 2 n = 129	Persistence, self-affirmation	Wise intervention	Classroom programs; peer mentoring	This experimental study assessed the effects of two “wise” interventions in a student study program during the first week at university to hopefully increase student adjustment over time.	A group of 375 freshmen in psychology were randomly assigned to three conditions: control, social belonging, and self-affirmation. Following the intervention, students in the social belonging condition expressed less social apprehension, a higher social integration, and a stronger intention to persist one month later than the other participants. They also relied more on peers as a source of support when confronted with a study task. Students in the self-affirmation condition felt more self-affirmed at the end of the intervention but did not benefit from other lasting effects. The results suggest that some well-timed and well-targeted “wise” interventions could provide lasting positive consequences for student adjustment.
Hausmann et al. (2007)	First-year students;female 59%, male 41%;White 213, African American 142	n = 355	Belonging	Pre-matriculation social belonging intervention	Online reading and writing exercise with mailed gifts and written correspondence	The effects of sense of belonging and a simple intervention designed to increase sense of belonging are tested in the context of this model.	A simple intervention was designed to increase sense of belonging and persistence in White and African American first-year students. The intervention increased sense of belonging for White students, but not for African American students. However, sense of belonging had direct effects on institutional commitment and indirect effects on intentions to persist and actual persistence behavior for both White and African American students.
LaCosse et al. (2020)	Incoming first-year undergraduate students: 50.8% female, 49.4% male	Group 1 n = 2635 ESL students; Group 2 n = 9771 native English speakers	Social belonging intervention; STEM credits; GPA; anticipated change in belonging	Pre-matriculation social belonging intervention	Online reading and writing exercise	A pre-matriculation social belonging intervention delivered online before students arrived for college was designed to help STEM-interested ESL students anticipate a greater sense of belonging over time and increase STEM performance.	A social belonging intervention was implemented with ESL students in higher education designed to improve STEM outcomes. Anticipated changes were measured in belonging, STEM GPA, and proportion of STEM credits obtained in students’ first semester and year of college. Results revealed that the intervention increased ESL students’ anticipated sense of belonging. Additionally, students who received the intervention earned a significantly higher proportion of STEM credits at the end of the first term and the first year, and earned a significantly higher GPA than students in the control condition.
Logel et al. (2021)	22 colleges & 6823 college students 68.8% female25.81% underrepresented minority (Black, Hispanic, Native American), 13.60% Asian, 51.31% White, and 9.01% other racial categories.	n = 6823 college students	BMI; GPA	1. Online reading and writing exercise (pre-matriculation social belonging intervention).2. Post-intervention survey3. Follow-up survey (9 months after).	Delivered online involving stories portraying how students from different backgrounds reported diverse challenges to beginning in the transition to college and in time, came to feel they belong.	Psychological interventions can narrow college achievement gaps between students with higher body weights in the process of college transition.	A social belonging intervention was implemented pre-matriculation with higher body weight college students. Nine months post intervention, higher weight participants in a standard belonging treatment group had higher first-year GPAs than controls and maintained more stable weights, an indicator of physical wellbeing.
Marksteiner et al. (2019)	86 College freshmen; 34.9% academic background, 44.2 % nonacademic background, 20.9% migration background; Germany 92.5%, Turkey1.9%, Russia 0.9%, Kazakhstan 0.9%, other 4.7; 69.8% female, 29.2% male	Group 1 n = 43;Group 2n = 43	Sense of belonging; grades, depression symptoms	Classroom programs	Values-affirmation programs; difference-education programs	Investigate long-term effects of the social belonging intervention of students’ sense of belonging to their university, depression symptoms, emotional burden with studying, self-reported grades, and intentions to persist at a German university.	The main purpose of the study was to investigate long-term effects of the social belonging intervention on students’ sense of belonging to their university, depression symptoms, emotional burden with studying, self-reported grades, and intentions to persist at a German university. A pre-post follow-up randomized control study with 86 freshmen (34.9% academic background, 44.2% nonacademic background, 20.9% migration background) was conducted. The intervention had differential effects on sense of belonging and self-reported grades after the first semester: For students without a migration background, the intervention had lasting positive effects on belonging; for students with a migration background, the positive effect diminished over time. Further, compared to students without a migration background, students with a migration background reported worse grades in the control condition and similar grades in the intervention condition. In addition, the intervention had positive—but no differential—effects on depression symptoms: students in the intervention group experienced less fluctuation and lower levels of depression symptoms than in the control group. The intervention had no significant effects on intentions to persist and emotional burden after six months. In sum, when the presented brief psychological intervention is adapted for the students with migration background, it is effective but needs further customization to achieve positive and lasting outcomes.
Murphy et al. (2020)	1063 college freshmen; 606 minority students, 457 non-minority students;	Group 1: n = 521;Group 2: n = 542	Intervention, continuous enrollment	Reading and writing exercises delivered in all first-year required writing courses at the university	Two experiments tested how belonging uncertainty undermines the motivation and achievement of people whose group is negatively characterized in academic settings.	Randomized intervention aimed at bolstering sense of belonging for first year students and how it impacts college persistence	The intervention increased the likelihood that racial-ethnic minority and first-generation students maintained continuous enrollment over the next two academic years relative to multiple control groups. This two-year gain in persistence was mediated by greater feelings of social and academic fit 1-year post-intervention. Results suggest that efforts to address belonging concerns at broad-access, majority-minority institutions can improve core academic outcomes for historically disadvantaged students at institutions designed to increase college accessibility.
O’Hara and Sparrow (2019)	2759 first-year college students at three community colleges;38% men, 62% women; 72% White, 17% African American	Group 1n = 1367, Group 2 n = 1392	Psychosocial barriers, reenrollment	Wise intervention	Behavioral nudges programs to target the attitude, belief, or mindset	Investigate the effects of digital nudging to increase student success via behavioral science during a time when students typically discontinue or disengage from university programs	An intervention was implemented that addressed psychosocial barriers and a lack of belonging in community college students taking STEM courses. The intervention used “nudging” strategies as a part of a 7-week campaign to encourage reenrollment delivered via text message. The intervention increased overall fall reenrollment by 7 percentage points; the effect was primarily observed among STEM students (+10 percentage points) and students taking summer courses (+10 percentage points). Our results indicate that interventions that target psychosocial barriers experienced by community college STEM students can increase retention and should be considered alongside broader reforms.
Patterson Silver Wolf et al. (2021)	207 college freshmen; age: 18–40.4%, 19–26%, 20–25 17.3%, 26–61 16.3%; 59% female, 41% male; race: 13.3% White, 710.5% Black, 16.2% other/multiple	Group 1 n = 105,Group 2 n = 102	Intervention workshop, retention	Wise intervention	Difference-education programs (addressing group-specific challenges such as the challenge of being a first-generation university student); these sessions received social belonging theory–guided video that presented key messages.	To measure how social belonging impacted perseverance and ultimately, reenrollment	The results of this study suggest that social belonging interventions can contribute to the improvement of academic retention outcomes for minority students. The fall-to-spring reenrollment rate was 17.4% higher among students in the experimental cohort than those in the control cohort.
Ramirez et al. (2021)	First-year college students; 67% female, 33% male; 95% first-generation college students; 76% Latinx, 3% Black, 10% Asian, 3% White, 8% unknown or mixed race	Group 1 story + resources:n = 161; Group 1 resources only n = 569; Group 2n = 1414 served as comparison group	Story, resources, GPA	Wise intervention	Value-affirmation programs (providing students with adaptive lens from which to make sense of their social-identity issues in school); delivered online involving stories portraying how different backgrounds influenced their experiences. Then resources were highlighted	Investigates how social-class or cultural background affected their transition to college experience and pathways for overcoming such challenges	The untreated group showed a GPA of −.36 and −.40 below those students undergoing intervention for the fall, and −.30 and −.34 in the spring. First-generation students underperformed compared to continuing generation students by −.28 GPA points in the fall and −.30 GPA points in the spring.
Stephens et al. (2014)	First-year college students; 78 first-generation students, 90 continuing generation students; 69 female, 64 male; first generation: 42.86% White, 17.86% Asian or Asian American, 14.29% African American, 25% LatinoContinuing generation: 49.35% White, 24.68% Asian, 10.39% African American, 14.29% Latino	Group 1 n = 84,Group 2 n = 84	Intervention, hormone testing	In-person intervention with panelist questions, lab session for hormone readings	Difference-education programs (addressing group-specific challenges such as the challenge of being a first-generation university student	First-generation students earn lower grades and encounter more obstacles to success than do students who have at least one parent with a 4-year degree. A novel intervention was designed to reduce this social-class achievement gap.	Using senior college students’ real-life stories, a difference-education intervention was conducted with incoming students about how their diverse backgrounds can shape what they experience in college. Compared with a standard intervention that provided similar stories of college adjustment without highlighting students’ different backgrounds, the difference-education intervention eliminated the social-class achievement gap by increasing first-generation students’ tendency to seek out college resources (e.g., meeting with professors) and, in turn, improving their end-of-year grade point averages. The difference-education intervention also improved the college transition for all students on numerous psychosocial outcomes (e.g., mental health and engagement).
Van Herpen et al. (2020)	295 pre-first-year college students; 100 male, 195 female; 72% ethnic majority, 28% ethnic minority	Group 1 n = 58;Group 2 n = 237	Intervention workshop, higher measure of social belonging, GPA	Four-day intervention conducted in person with all participants	Difference-education programs (addressing group-specific challenges such as the challenge of being a first-generation university student); in-person intervention. Students journaled and internalized while taking part in the program that included 4/5 assignments per day in parts or groups.	This study focused on alerting participants to understanding how background, experiences, and perceptions can affect personal interaction, performance, and social belonging.	Intervention group did have higher cumulative GPA scores in the first year than those in the control group. Surveys showed higher interaction quality and belonging.
Walton and Cohen (2011)	92 students; first-year, second-semester students; 49 African American, 43 European American	Group 1: belonging treatmentn = 92; Group 2: no treatmentn = 1556	Intervention, achievement gap reduction	In-person intervention followed by online surveying	Utility-value programs (helping students to find purpose and meaning in school work with the aim of improving their academic achievement and motivation); intervention, daily surveys for 7 days after intervention, then end-of-college survey to assess long-term sense of belonging, health, and wellbeing.	This study was aimed at supporting college freshmen’s sense of social belonging and academic and health- related consequences over 3 years	Over the 3-year observation period the intervention raised African American’s GPA relative to multiple control groups and reduced the minority achievement gap by 52%. Additionally, the intervention improved African Americans’ self-reported health and wellbeing and reduced their number of doctor visits 3 years post-intervention.
Walton et al. (2015)	First-year engineering students; 92 women, 136 men; race: 38% White, 34% East Asian, 20% South Asian/Middle Eastern, 8% other or unknown	n = 228	Intervention, GPA	Online survey before and during programs.	Value-affirmation programs (providing students with adaptive lens from which to make sense of their social-identity issues in school); online surveys. First was preintervention survey measuring belonging, enjoyment, and self-efficacy. Second was a measure of prospects of succeeding, perceived potential of success relative to classmates. Third was identification with gender group, and fourth was about friendship groups. Finally, there was an assessment of women’s value in engineering	Investigates how social belonging and value-affirmation interventions allay concerns that arise from social context like gender disparities.	In a randomized controlled trial, two brief interventions designed to mitigate the effects of a “chilly climate” women may experience in engineering, especially in male-dominated fields, were implemented. Participants were students entering a selective university engineering program. The social belonging intervention aimed to protect students’ sense of belonging in engineering by providing a nonthreatening narrative with which to interpret instances of adversity. The affirmation-training intervention aimed to help students manage stress that can arise from social marginalization by incorporating diverse aspects of their self-identity in their daily academic lives. As expected, gender differences and intervention effects were concentrated in male-dominated majors (<20% women). In these majors, compared with control conditions, both interventions raised women’s school-reported engineering grade point average (GPA) over the full academic year, eliminating gender differences. Both also led women to view daily adversities as more manageable and improved women’s academic attitudes. However, the two interventions had divergent effects on women’s social experiences. The social belonging intervention helped women integrate into engineering, for instance, increasing friendships with male engineers. Affirmation training helped women develop external resources, deepening their identification with their gender group. The results highlight how social marginalization contributes to gender inequality in quantitative fields and two potential remedies.
Walton and Cohen (2007)	First-year college students; Study 1: 29 men and 40 women; Study 2: 12 men 35 women; Study 1 : 26 Black or Latino, 51 White/Asian; Study 2: 18 Black and 19 White	Group 1: n = 77;Group 2: n = 37	Intervention, academic fit, sense of fit	Classroom presentation and surveys before, during, and after	Difference-education programs (addressing group-specific challenges such as the challenge of being a first-generation university student); students participated in classroom presentations and surveys. In study one, the focus was on the uncertainty in belonging in a specific field (low minority students). Study two focused on transition to college struggles based on ethnicity	This tested how belonging uncertainty undermines motivation and achievement of people whose group is negatively characterized in academic settings	Two experiments tested how belonging uncertainty undermines the motivation and achievement of people whose group is negatively characterized in academic settings. In Experiment 1, students were led to believe that they might have few friends in an intellectual domain. Whereas White students were unaffected, Black students (stigmatized in academics) displayed a drop in their sense of belonging and potential. In Experiment 2, an intervention that mitigated doubts about social belonging in college raised the academic achievement (e.g., college grades) of Black students but not of White students.
Walton et al. (2023)	Pre-first-year college students. 40% male, 58.5% female; FG: 15% Hispanic/Latinx, 4% Black, 11% White, 2% Asian, 2% Native American, 3% otherCG: 6% Hispanic/Latinx, 4% Black, 40% White, 7% Asian, 27% Native American, 7% other	n = 26911	Social belonging intervention, full-time enrollment	Self-administered online reading/writing intervention	10–30 minute reading and writing activity that was self-administered over the internet. Three parts: Survey about everyday worries, curated stories that describe how things improved, and an opportunity to reflect	Students were presented with hopeful thinking when presented or faced with belonging worries in an effort to increase belonging and persistence in maintaining full-time enrollment	Results showed that the social belonging intervention, administered online before college (in under 30 minutes), increased the rate at which students completed the first year as full-time students, especially among students in groups that had historically progressed at lower rates. The college context also mattered: The intervention was effective only when students’ groups were afforded opportunities to belong. This study develops methods for understanding how student identities and contexts interact with interventions. It also shows that a low-cost, scalable intervention generalizes its effects to 749 4-year institutions in the United States.

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.