Institutions Set the Tone: Cultivating Campus Experiences that Convey Inclusivity
Kroeper, K. M., Gopalan, M., Emerson, K. T. U., & Walton, G. M. (2025). Who gets to belong in college? An empirical review of how institutions can assess and expand opportunities for belonging on campus. Educational Psychology Review, 37, 36.
Introduction
In their empirical review, Kroeper and colleagues (2025) advance the study of social belonging in higher education by shifting the conversation from student-level psychology to institutional responsibility. Their goal is to help higher education leaders not only ask who gets to belong on campus—but why, and what can be done about it.
Methods
The article’s empirical core draws from one of the most extensive datasets in the field: the College Transition Collaborative (CTC) multi-institutional randomized controlled trial. Focusing specifically on the 15,143 students in the control condition, the authors examine belongingness and group-level opportunities for belonging across 374 “local identity groups” (LIGs) defined by race/ethnicity, generation status, institution, and cohort.
Instead of comparing entire racial groups across institutions, the authors analyze belonging within intersectional identities across specific schools, revealing nuanced patterns invisible in broader analyses.
Results
Authors found that Black, Asian, and first-generation college students consistently experienced lower levels of belongingness compared to white and continuing-generation students. No institution served all identity groups well, yet every institution had at least one group whose belonging was well supported.
In other words, exclusion is not inevitable, and inclusion is not automatic. It depends on institutional choices. Four classes of factors were identified as the strongest predictors of belonging:
- In-group representation: Students were more likely to feel they belonged when their identity group was more visibly represented on campus.
- Inclusive campus cultures: Perceptions of genuine commitments to diversity and low levels of social identity threat strongly predicted higher belonging.
- Opportunities for strong relationships: Peer and faculty connections (not just the quantity, but the quality of relationships) mattered significantly.
- Opportunities for productive learning: Environments that emphasized growth mindsets, purpose-driven education, and academic inclusivity enhanced students’ sense of belonging.
Discussion
Authors illustrate that while students navigate college on an individual basis, it is the institution that determines the environment—signaling who is welcome.
Systems of exclusion are deeply ingrained, but they are also malleable. Belonging is not an abstract or fuzzy concept, but is measurable, predictable, and improvable. The authors encourage institutional leaders to examine belonging affordances systematically and disaggregated by identity group, and to see these measures not just as descriptive but as diagnostic tools.
Implications for Mentoring Programs
Programs should prioritize cultivating mentors from diverse backgrounds and identities to improve in-group representation. They should also aim to train mentors in inclusive communication, identity-affirming support, and growth-oriented feedback to foster mentor-mentee relationships that explicitly address identity and purpose.
Read the full article here
