University Belonging, Friendship Quality

The Journal of Experimental Education, 2008, 76(4), 343–361
Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications
University Belonging, Friendship Quality,

and Psychological Adjustment During
the Transition to College
LAURA D. PITTMAN
ADEYA RICHMOND
Northern Illinois University
ABSTRACT. The authors collected questionnaire data from college stu-

dents (N = 79) at 2 time points during their freshman year to examine
how changes in a sense of university belonging, quality of friendships, and
psychological adjustment were associated. Students who had positive
changes in university belonging had corresponding positive changes in
self-perceptions (e.g., scholastic competence, self-worth) and decreases
in their internalizing problem behaviors. Although the results did not link
improvements over time in friendship quality to changes in self-perceptions,
the authors linked them to decreasing levels of problem behaviors. The
authors discuss the importance of educators’ fostering university belonging
and positive friendships among students as they transition to college.
Keywords: friendships, late adolescents, psychological adjustment, school
belonging, transition to college
LATE ADOLESCENCE AND emerging adulthood is increasingly recognized

as an important developmental period (e.g., Arnett, 2000; Dornbusch, 2000;
Sherrod, Haggerty, & Featherman, 1993). In this period, a growing number
of youths enroll in postsecondary education (Pratt, 2000). In the last 30 years,
increasing numbers of young adults are completing college. In 1974, 13% of
adults of age 25 years or older had attended 4 years of college, whereas in 2004,
Address correspondence to: Laura D. Pittman, Psychology Department, Northern

Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115. E-mail: lpittman@niu.edu
343
344 The Journal of Experimental Education
28% had (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Entering college requires youths to face
multiple transitions, including changes in their living arrangements, academic
environments, and friendship networks, while adapting to greater independence
and responsibility in their personal and academic lives. Although many suc-
cessfully make this transition to college, others experience long-term emotional
maladjustment and depression (Gall, Evans, & Bellerose, 2000; Hammen, 1980;
Wintre & Yaffe, 2000). The National Center for Educational Statistics found
that approximately one third of entering college students leave higher education
without obtaining a degree, and most do so during their 1st year (Bradburn &
Carroll, 2002). Thus, gaining a better understanding of what factors may promote
positive adjustment in the 1st year of college is warranted (Pratt). Two constructs
that have not often been considered but may potentially contribute to better ad-
justment in college students during their freshman year are a sense of university
belonging (e.g., Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow, & Salomone, 2002) and the qual-
ity of their friendships (e.g., Fass & Tubman, 2002)
Schools are recognized as important developmental contexts for academic and
socioemotional development (see Eccles & Roeser, 2003) of younger students.
Yet, researchers have rarely considered the school context when examining the
adjustment of late adolescents as they attend college. Some researchers have sug-
gested that the degree of affiliation that the student feels toward the university
(i.e., university attachment) is linked to better social adjustment (Tao, Dong,
Pratt, Hunsberger, & Pancer, 2000), lower levels of depressive symptoms, higher
academic motivation, and lower attrition rates (Beyers & Goossens, 2002). Fur-
thermore, students in China who perceived greater support from their teachers
during the first semester of college had lower levels of negative coping (Tao et
al.). Thus, exploring how factors related to the university may be linked to col-
lege students’ psychological functioning is worth some consideration.
A construct rarely studied in college students is a sense of school belonging,
which is also referred to as connectedness to one’s school or perceived school
membership. School belonging, although likely linked to school affiliation and
support of teachers, goes beyond these constructs to include individuals’ percep-
tions of fitting in and belonging with others at the same institution (for a more
detailed review, see L. H. Anderman & Freeman, 2004; Osterman, 2000). Under-
lying factors of school belonging include a sense of commitment to the institu-
tion, individual commitment to work in this setting, and a sense of one’s abilities
being recognized by others (Hagborg, 1994; Smerdon, 2002). Thus, this sense
of belonging goes beyond the relationships with individuals in the school to a
more global sense of belonging and feeling connected to a larger community. Ac-
cording to the belongingness hypothesis (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), although
attachments to parents and positive relationships with friends are important in
individuals’ adjustment, those who do not have a sense of connection to a larger
group or community will likely experience increased stress and emotional dis-
Pittman & Richmond 345
tress. For college students, the university provides a larger group in which to
belong. Roeser, Midgley, and Urdan (1996) proposed a comprehensive model
for middle school students that integrates school belonging into a larger set of
constructs influencing behavioral outcomes; this may be applied at older ages. In
particular, they suggested that students who perceive better school relationships
are more likely to develop a stronger sense of belonging in the school, which in
turn would likely lead to more positive beliefs and emotions about one’s learn-
ing (e.g., academic self-efficacy), which in turn would relate to higher academic
grades and lower levels of behavioral problems. Thus, Roeser et al. concluded
that a sense of school belonging may be one of several school factors that com-
bine with individual factors to influence positive youth development.
As suggested theoretically, in multiple studies with middle school and high
school students, researchers found links between a positive sense of school
belonging and positive student outcomes including better academic motivation,
(L. H. Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Finn, 1989; Goodenow & Grady, 1993),
higher grade point average (E. M. Anderman, 2002; L. H. Anderman, 2003;
Goodenow, 1993; Goodenow & Grady; Roeser et al., 1996), lower rates of school
dropout (Finn; Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, & Fernandez, 1989), and better
social-emotional functioning (E. M. Anderman; L. H. Anderman, 1999; Resnick
et al., 1997; Shochet, Dadds, Ham, & Montague, 2006). With more researchers
conducting studies using college student populations, university belonging is be-
coming more clearly associated with positive adjustment. For example, a better
sense of belonging at the university level is linked to perceived professor caring
(Freeman, Anderman, & Jensen, 2007) and greater involvement in campus orga-
nizations (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Furthermore, a greater sense of school be-
longing is linked concurrently to lower levels of depression (Hoyle & Crawford,
1994; Mounts, 2004) and externalizing behaviors (Pittman & Richmond, 2007),
higher self-reported grades and perceptions of academic competence (Pittman &
Richmond), and more positive perceptions of social acceptance (Freeman et al.;
Hoyle & Crawford). Thus, in the developing literature, researchers are suggest-
ing that, at younger ages, a sense of school belonging at the university may be
an important component in a comprehensive model predicting college students’
adjustment.
As with school belonging, research on the influence of peers on adolescents’
functioning at a young age has developed. Researchers have accepted that the
influence of friends on adolescents’ behaviors and socioemotional development
increases during adolescence (e.g., Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006).
Although negative peer pressure (e.g., Dishion & Dodge, 2005) and bullying
and victimization by peers (e.g., Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Nishina &
Juvonen, 2005) may negatively influence adolescents’ functioning, the support
that more positive and accepting adolescent friendships provide has been as-
sociated with positive developmental outcomes (Brown & Klute, 2003; Laible,
Carlo, & Roesch, 2004). These close friends, who are more intimate and sup-
portive than friends at younger ages (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992), are thought
to enhance adolescents’ social skills and thus their perceived social competence
and self-worth (Collins & Steinberg, 2006). Although much of this research has
focused on middle and high school students, some researchers have examined
friendship during late adolescence. Of college students, those in their 1st year
who reported more peer support or higher levels of friendship quality displayed
higher academic performance (Ashwin, 2003; Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco,
2005; Lapsley, Rice, & Fitzgerald, 1990), lower levels of depression and anxiety
(Mounts, Valentiner, Anderson, & Boswell, 2006), and lower levels of perceived
distress (Rodriguez, Mire, Myers, Morris, & Cardoza, 2003). Thus, the quality
of friendship is another important influence on psychological outcomes during
late adolescence.
In previous work with university and high school students, friendship quality
and a sense of school belonging have been strongly associated (Chipuer, 2001;
Pittman & Richmond, 2007). Furthermore, those with stronger perceptions of
university belonging reported a greater degree of involvement in group activi-
ties at the university (Hoyle & Crawford, 1994). Despite these significant asso-
ciations, when both are considered simultaneously, they often appear to have
independent links to various aspects of psychological functioning, including
loneliness and perceived competence. For example, when both school belonging
and attachments to best friends were included in the same analyses, only school
belonging—and not best friend attachment—was linked to feelings of global
loneliness, whereas both were linked independently to students’ reports of social
loneliness (Chipuer, 2001). More work is needed to disentangle the influence of
these two constructs.
The present study extended the existing research on the sense of school belong-
ing and friendship quality to explore their influences on adjustment during the
transition to college. Unlike many previous researchers, we collected data at two
time points during students’ 1st year at the university, one in the first semester
and one in the second semester, enabling better testing of links over time between
these constructs. To address the potentially overlapping influences of school
belonging and friendship quality, we included both in these analyses simultane-
ously. Furthermore, rather than focusing on initial levels of friendship quality
or school belonging, we focused on the changes in these constructs between the
two time points because we expected that these changes would be more power-
ful in predicting adjustment at Time 2. In particular, during the first semester of
college, we expected freshmen to explore their new environment, make friends,
and begin to develop a sense of belonging in their new environment. Thus, it was
not their initial levels of friendship quality and school belonging but whether
there was a positive change in these constructs that we expected to be linked to
positive outcomes during their second semester. In addition, we included several
important covariates in the analyses (e.g., family socioeconomic status, gender,

minority status) that are linked with perceptions of school belonging (e.g., L. H.
Anderman & Freeman, 2004; Maddox & Prinz, 2003; Newman, Lohman, New-
man, Myers, & Smith, 2000; Smerdon, 2002), peer relationship processes (e.g.,
Rose & Rudolph, 2005), and psychological outcomes (e.g., McLeod & Shana-
han, 1993; Prelow, Danoff-Burg, Swenson, & Pulgiano, 2004; Wade, Cairney, &
Pevalin, 2002). Last, in our analyses predicting Time 2 outcomes, we included
the corresponding Time 1 outcome as an independent variable. The inclusion
of this Time 1 variable reduced the threat of omitted variable bias by capturing
unmeasured characteristics not included in the model that may be associated with
the participants’ adjustment at Time 2 and the changes in university belonging
and friendship quality. Thus, these longitudinal analyses were a more conserva-
tive approach to testing the links between university belonging, friendship qual-
ity, and college students’ adjustment than could be done with cross-sectional
analyses. Because of the limited research on these constructs among college
students, this study was exploratory. In particular, we were interested in knowing
whether, if we controlled these background characteristics, changes in university
belonging and friendship quality would be linked with psychological adjustment
during the 1st year of college.
Method
Participants
Participants were 79 freshman college students (21 men, 58 women) who par-
ticipated in data collection at two time points at a regional state university, first
during the fall semester and second during the spring semester of their 1st year.
For the first time point, participants were recruited through a subject pool of stu-
dents enrolled in a course on an introduction to psychology and received course
credit for their participation. On participants’ completing the questionnaires, we
asked them about their willingness to be contacted in the following semester
to continue participation in the study. If they were interested, they provided us
with contact information (phone numbers, e-mail addresses). Approximately 3–4
months later, during the beginning of the second semester, we contacted partici-
pants again for the study. At Time 2, we paid participants $10 for their participa-
tion. Of participants from Time 1, 33% agreed, were successfully contacted, and
finished the second set of questionnaires.
After the participants signed a consent form, we gave them a packet of ques-
tionnaires to fill out that included questions related to demographic information
(Time 1 only), school belonging at the university, feelings about school and
work, relationships with parents and friends, and perceptions of their compe-
tence, self-worth, and problem behaviors.
Participants (98%) were typically 18–19 year olds (M = 18.28, SD = 0.62). The
sample was diverse in terms of ethnicity (71% were White, 18% were Black, 5%
were Hispanic American, 4% were Asian American, 1% were Native American,
and 1% were biracial). More women than men participated in this study (73%
vs. 27%, respectively). Almost all (94%) of the participants were living in the
dormitories on campus, although a few lived in apartments with friends or with
parents or other family (6%).
Measures
Demographics. We asked participants questions regarding their ethnicity; age;

gender; grades; living arrangements (e.g., where they lived, with whom they
lived); job; and parents’ income, occupation, and education level. Because of the
low number of participants in each of the minority racial and ethnic groups (e.g.,
only 3 Asian American participants were in the sample), we created a dummy
variable to indicate whether the participant was a member of any minority group.
We used students’ reports of their parents’ education and occupation to estimate
their families’ socioeconomic status (SES) by using Hollingshead’s (1975)
guidelines. Through this method, we gave each family a value between 1 and 5
(1 = unskilled workers; 2 = semiskilled workers; 3 = skilled craftsman, clerical,
or sales workers; 4 = medium business, minor professional, or technical workers;
and 5 = major business or professional workers). We found that 3% of the parents
of the participants were classified as semiskilled workers; 17% were classified
as skilled craftsman, clerical, or sales workers; 57% were classified as medium
business, minor professional, or technical workers; and 24% were classified as
major business or professional workers.
University belonging. We adapted the Psychological Sense of School Member-

ship (PSSM; Goodenow, 1993) measure for this study to ask participants about
their current sense of belonging at the university. The PSSM is an 18-item ques-
tionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale response format, with choices ranging from
1 (not at all true) to 5 (completely true), and was designed to measure psycho-
logical belonging and school membership for junior high school students. We
adapted the PSSM, adjusting wording as appropriate, by having the participants
rate items about their university (e.g., “Most professors at this school are inter-
ested in me”; “Other students here like me the way I am”). Researchers used this
adaptation of the PSSM in a previous study (Pittman & Richmond, 2007) and
found it to have good internal consistency and concurrent validity. The internal
consistency of the scale in this study was also good (αT1 = .91, αT2 = .97).
Relationships with friends. To assess participants’ relationships with their

friends at the university, participants filled out the Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). The IPPA has a 5-point Likert
response scale format, with choices ranging from 1 (almost never or never true)
to 5 (almost always or always true). In previous psychometric work the authors
of the measure found the IPPA’s 28 items to have three underlying constructs:
trust (e.g., “My friends understand me”), communication (e.g., “When we dis-
cuss things, my friends care about my point of view”), and alienation (e.g., “I
feel alone or apart when I’m with my friends”). However, these three subscales
were strongly correlated with each other (r = .91 for trust and communication at
both time points; r = –.53 and –.66 for communication and alienation at Times
1 and 2, respectively; r = –.62 and –.70 for trust and alienation at Times 1 and
2, respectively). Thus, because the subscales are tapping into underlying aspects
of the relationships with friends, as is commonly done in research using this
measure (Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 1999), we created a composite measure
by reverse coding the items that reflected a negative perception of relationships
and calculating a mean across all items (αT1 = .95, αT2 = .96). Thus, participants’
higher scores on the composite indicated more positive relationships with their
friends at the university.
Self-competence. We assessed students’ self-reports of scholastic competence,

social acceptance, and self-worth with the 54-item Self-Perception Profile for
College Students (Neeman & Harter, 1986). For each item, participants chose
which one of two opposing statements was more like them and then decided
whether the statement was sort of true or really true for them. For this study, we
used three subscales: the 6-item self-worth subscale (“Some students like the
kind of person they are but other students wish that they were different”; αT1 =
.82, αT2 = .89), the 4-item scholastic competence subscale (e.g., “Some students
feel confident that they are mastering their coursework but other students do
not feel so confident”; αT1 = .73, αT2 = .79), and the 4-item social acceptance
subscale (e.g., “Some students like the way they interact with other people but
other students wish their interactions with other people were different”; αT1 =
.85, αT2 = .85).
Problem behaviors. We used the Adult Self-Report (ASR; Achenbach & Rescor-
la, 2003) to assess problem behaviors (e.g., aggressive behavior, anxiety, depres-
sion) in the students. The ASR is an upward extension of the Youth Self-Report
(Achenbach, 1991) that is widely used in research in the developmental and child
clinical literatures. In the present study, the college students reported whether a
series of 119 items described them by using a 3-point Likert scale (0 = not true,
1 = somewhat or sometimes true, 2 = very true or often true). We formed subscales
by summing specific items. We used students’ scores on the internalizing and ex-
ternalizing behaviors scales, in which higher scores indicate more problematic
behaviors. Items on the internalizing problem behaviors asked participants about
their feelings of anxiety and depression, behaviors indicating being withdrawn

from others, and somatic complaints. Items on the externalizing problem behav-
iors asked participants about how often their behavior is intrusive, is aggressive,
or involves breaking rules. The internal consistencies of these composites were
strong in our study (αT1 = .92 and αT2 = .94 for internalizing problem behaviors;
αT1 = .87 and αT2 = .89 for externalizing problem behaviors).
Results
Attrition Analyses
Because of the low response rate at Time 2, prior to running the specific
longitudinal analyses to address the hypotheses, we ran attrition analyses to de-
termine whether there were significant differences between those who chose to
continue participation (n = 79) and those who chose to discontinue participation
(n = 163). We ran t tests comparing both dependent and independent variables in
the analyses to see whether there was selective attrition. We did not find differ-
ences in Time 1 demographics on the basis of participation at Time 2, although
the comparison of SES approached significance, with those who discontinued
participation tending to be from families with a lower social class, t(240) =
–1.74, p < .10. No other differences emerged between groups on the dependent
or independent variables.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics at Times 1 and 2 for the sample with
complete longitudinal data that we used in the following analyses (N = 79). The
college students in this sample reported problem behaviors at higher rates than
we expected from the normative sample (Achenbach, 2003). For comparison,
we note that in this clinical measure, researchers would expect 10% to have
scores in the clinical range. Yet, in our sample, at Time 1 and Time 2, 30% and
18%, respectively, had internalizing problem behaviors in the clinical range, and
at both Time 1 and 2, 15% had externalizing problem behaviors in the clinical
range. Likewise, the means of this sample on the self-competence measures were
lower than those reported by Neeman and Harter (1986), especially at Time 1.
This finding suggests that this sample was more psychologically distressed than
the nonclinical sample with which the measures were developed. Because the
transition to college is expected to be stressful and previous research has docu-
mented increased psychological problems (e.g., Gall et al., 2000), this higher rate
of internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors was not surprising.
We made a paired t-test comparison between the corresponding Time 1 and
Time 2 variables to see whether there was significant change in the construct
Pittman & Richmond
TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Measures (N = 79)
Time 1 Time 2
Variable M SD Range M SD Range t
Friendship quality 3.94 0.74 1.60–5.00 4.06 0.74 1.88–4.96 –1.52

University belonging 3.47 0.63 2.17–4.83 3.58 0.62 2.06–4.83 –1.95*
Scholastic competence 2.68 0.56 1.00–4.00 2.90 0.59 1.25–4.00 –3.69****
Social acceptance 3.03 0.71 1.50–4.00 3.05 0.73 1.00–4.00 –0.29
Self-worth 3.05 0.60 1.33–4.00 3.17 0.62 1.50–4.00 –2.43**
Internalizing problem behaviors 17.95 12.31 0–51 15.85 12.74 0–58 1.86*
Externalizing problem behaviors 13.18 10.69 0–49 12.13 9.30 0–41 1.21
Change in friendship quality 0.12 0.71 –2.12–2.24
Change in university belonging 0.11 0.52 –1.22–1.17
*
p < .10. **p < .05. ****p < .001.
351
among the college students in the sample. As indicated in the last column of
Table 1, participants reported a small but significant increase in perceptions of
scholastic competence and self-worth over time. In addition, at a trend level, par-
ticipants reported slightly increasing levels of university belonging and decreas-
ing levels of internalizing problem behaviors over time. These positive changes
are not surprising because many students adjust to attending university and adapt
to their new environment by the second semester as compared with their first
semester. However, as shown by the descriptive statistics of the change variables
for university belonging and friendship quality, although the mean change for
the sample was close to zero, the variation in experience was quite high. Ap-
proximately 40% of students had negative changes in each variable, whereas
approximately 60% had positive changes.
Correlation Analyses
As shown in Table 2, we performed correlation analyses between time points

to better understand the bivariate associations among variables. As expected by
the overlapping aspects of the two constructs, university belonging was strongly
correlated with the quality of friendship at the university at both time points.
Both friendship quality and university belonging were significantly linked
cross-sectionally with the outcomes of interest, although the correlation between
friendship quality and perceived scholastic competence was not significant at
Time 2. Furthermore, as expected, most of the dependent variables were signifi-
cantly associated with each other at both time points. In particular, internalizing
problem behaviors were significantly associated with all other outcomes at both
Time 1 and 2, whereas externalizing problem behaviors were linked to all but
social acceptance at Time 1. Furthermore, we found no association between per-
ceived scholastic competence and social acceptance at either time point, although
self-worth was significantly associated with both of these variables.
Regression Analyses
We ran ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions predicting each of the five
dependent variables of interest: scholastic competence, social acceptance, self-
worth, internalizing problem behaviors, and externalizing problem behaviors.
Because dependent variables that are change scores tend to have greater mea-
surement error and lower reliability than level scores (e.g., Allison, 1990; Na-
tional Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child
Care Research Network & Duncan, 2003), we used a residualized change model
in our analyses to measure change in students’ adjustment over time. In particu-
lar, we used the Time 2 outcome measure as the dependent variable and included
the corresponding Time 1 outcome measure among the independent variables.
Pittman & Richmond
TABLE 2. Bivariate Correlations for Time 1 (Above the Diagonal) and Time 2 (Below the Diagonal; N = 79)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Friendship quality — .62*** .31** .48*** .32** –.52*** –.40*** –.49*** –.12
2. University belonging .66*** — .26* .32** .45*** –.52*** –.35** –.28* –.44***
3. Scholastic competence .19 .29** — .13 .42*** –.25* –.27* –.17 –.13
4. Social acceptance .48*** .56*** .06 — .36** –.38** –.14 –.02 .05
5. Self-worth .54*** .54*** .46*** .55*** — –.54*** –.36** .19 –.01
6. Internalizing behaviors –.60*** –.62*** –.41*** –.54*** –.66*** — .74*** .02 .09
7. Externalizing behaviors –.43*** –.39*** –.42*** –.28* –.43*** .68*** — .03 –.03
8. Change in friendship quality .48*** .13 .06 .09 .14 –.32** –.22 — .49***
9. Change in university belonging .36** .40*** .20 .31** .13 –.37** –.17 .49*** —
**
p < .05. ***p < .01. ****p < .001.
353
Thus, the resulting regression coefficients reflected the degree to which the inde-
pendent variables were associated with change in the outcome measure between
Time 1 and Time 2. In addition, the inclusion of this earlier outcome measure
accounted for omitted variable bias by capturing unmeasured characteristics not
included in the model that may be associated with Time 2 adjustment (NICHD
Early Child Care Research Network & Duncan). The primary independent vari-
ables of interest included in each model were change scores for both friendship
quality and university belonging. This reflects our belief that changes over the
1st year of college in, rather than initial levels of, friendship quality and univer-
sity belonging are linked to changes in psychological adjustment. Although, as
shown in Table 2, the correlation between the change in friendship quality and
the change in university belonging was strong (r = .49, p < .001), examination
of the tolerance statistics (.68–.74) suggested that multicollinearity was not a
serious concern. Last, in addition to the corresponding Time 1 outcome variable,
we included students’ SES, gender, and minority status as control variables. As
shown in Table 3, all models were significant in predicting the outcomes of inter-
est (R2 ranged from .45 to .61, p < .001).
As shown in Table 3, students who had positive changes in their sense of
university belonging had corresponding positive changes in their scholastic
competence and social acceptance but not in their self-worth. Unlike changes in
university belonging, changes in the quality of friendships were not significantly
linked to changes in scholastic competence, social acceptance, or self-worth. A
different pattern emerged in the models predicting internalizing and external-
izing problem behaviors. Changes in friendship quality over time were linked
to changes in both internalizing and externalizing behaviors. In particular, more
positive changes in friendship quality were significantly linked to decreasing
reports of problem behaviors over time. However, changes in university belong-
ing were only linked to decreasing levels of internalizing behaviors and were not
linked to externalizing behaviors.
Discussion
This study supports previous cross-sectional research (e.g., Freeman et al.,

2007; Pittman & Richmond, 2007) indicating that a sense of university belong-
ing, like the sense of school belonging at younger ages, is linked to students’
positive self-perceptions of social acceptance and scholastic competence. Fur-
thermore, like previous cross-sectional research (e.g., Mounts, 2004), students
who had positive changes in their sense of university belonging, on average,
had decreasing levels in internalizing behavior problems over time. Likewise,
the link between positive changes in friendship quality and lower internalizing
problem behaviors matches cross-sectional findings in previous research (e.g.,
Mounts et al., 2006), but the link to externalizing behaviors has not been found
TABLE 3. Ordinary Least Squares Regressions Predicting Students’ Psychological Adjustment at Time 2 (N = 79)
Pittman & Richmond
Scholastic Social Internalizing Externalizing

competencea acceptanceb Self-worthc behaviorsd behaviorse
Variable B SE β B SE β B SE β B SE β B SE β
Time 1 outcome 0.67 0.10 .64*** 0.67 0.09 .65*** 0.80 0.08 .78*** 0.69 0.08 .67*** 0.64 0.07 .74***
Socioeconomic status 0.01 0.08 .01 –0.05 0.09 –.05 –0.08 0.07 –.09 –0.87 1.38 –.05 –0.77 1.05 –.06
Gender –0.04 0.12 –.03 –0.05 0.14 –.03 0.11 0.11 .08 1.96 2.17 .07 0.11 1.64 .06
Minority –0.23 0.12 –.18 –0.09 0.13 –.06 –0.13 0.10 –.09 –0.92 2.10 –.03 –3.08 1.60 –.15
Change in friendship 0.04 0.09 .05 –0.02 0.10 –.02 –0.07 0.08 –.08 –4.17 1.56 –.23** –2.59 1.18 –.20*
quality
Change in university 0.27 0.12 .24* 0.41 0.13 .29** 0.19 0.10 .16 –5.13 2.12 –.21* –1.11 1.59 –.06
belonging
Constant 1.18 0.47 1.28 0.47 0.87 0.43 4.94 6.61 7.94 4.99
Note. aF = 9.61***. R2 = .45. Adj. R2 = .40. bF = 13.07***. R2 = .52. Adj. R2 = .48. cF = 18.19***. R2 = .60. Adj. R2 = .57. dF = 18.53**. R2 = .61.
Adj. R2 = .57. eF = 16.61***. R2 = .58. Adj. R2 = .55.
**
p < .05. ***p < .01. ****p < .001.
355
before in this population. The longitudinal design of these analyses provides a

more stringent test compared with earlier cross-sectional research of the links
between these constructs because it accounts for omitted variables not included
in the model. Furthermore, despite the positive association between changes in
university belonging and changes in the quality of university friendships, both
had independent effects, supporting previous work suggesting that friendship
quality and perceptions of belonging are distinct constructs (e.g., Chipuer, 2001).
It is interesting that in the present study, changes in a sense of university belong-
ing were linked with self-perceptions and internalizing problem behaviors or, in
other words, the way one thinks about oneself. However, changes in friendship
quality were linked to decreases over time in actual negative behaviors, both
internalizing and externalizing. As researchers have discussed in the literature
regarding distinctions between friendships and social acceptance (e.g., Asher,
Parker, & Walker, 1996), these two aspects of social relationships seem to pro-
vide specific links to adolescent adjustment. Sense of belonging, like the related
construct of social acceptance, was associated with feelings about oneself rather
than actual behaviors. However, friendships—which provide social support,
assistance in coping with difficult situations, and the opportunity to engage in
social activities—were more directly linked to adolescents’ actual behaviors.
Because of these findings and the growing body of research in this area (e.g.,
Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Mounts, 2004), it would be useful for university ad-
ministrators to consider ways to enhance 1st-year students’ sense of belonging
and development of more positive friendships. A review of university Web sites
provides a variety of examples of freshman programming, many of which offer
seminar classes with smaller class sizes or access to older student or faculty
mentors. However, research on the effectiveness of these types of programs with
randomized control groups has rarely been conducted (but see Lamothe et al.,
1995). Some researchers have found that interventions that enhance 1st-year
college students’ development of friendships at the university have positive ef-
fects (Folger, Carter, & Chase, 2004; Lamothe et al.). In particular, students who
participated in interventions focusing on developing social support among peers
and assistance in formation of social ties, compared with students not in such
programs, experience better adjustment in their first semester. However, a peer-
mentoring program involving freshman business majors had mixed results, with
increased student satisfaction during the semester of implementation, but the re-
searchers found no differences in students’ academic performance or graduation
rates (Sanchez, Bauer, & Paronto, 2006).
Furthermore, in most of these studies, the researchers did not examine the
mechanisms concerning what aspects of the freshman programming were linked
to positive changes. Thus, the inclusion of measures of such possible explanatory
mechanisms, such as university belonging and friendship quality, could improve
studies testing the effectiveness of such interventions for freshmen. Research on
what factors are linked to increased levels of school belonging at younger ages
also may provide ideas for how to implement more effective freshman program-
ming. For example, McNeely, Nonnemaker, and Blum (2002) found that those
middle schools and high schools with smaller school sizes and higher rates of
student participation in extracurricular activities had students with higher per-
ceptions of school connectedness. In addition, Freeman et al. (2007) suggested
in recent research that a sense of university belonging is linked to a sense of
belonging in specific classes and perceptions of professors’ caring. Thus, at the
university level, students may benefit from smaller class sizes in which profes-
sors promote cohesion in the classrooms and encourage students to participate in
extracurricular activities.
Despite the strength of this study’s longitudinal design, the findings still can-
not be interpreted as supporting a causal link between (a) university belonging
or friendship quality and (b) better adjustment in the 1st year. It is still pos-
sible that students who are adjusting better to the university are experiencing
corresponding positive changes in their sense of university belonging and are
developing stronger friendships. Only an experiment with random assignment
designed to enhance these qualities would provide more causal explanations for
these meaningful associations. Furthermore, because all the data were gathered
by self-reports, gaining more objective measures of students’ adjustment to the
university (e.g., grades from a transcript, reports of resident hall assistants who
may observe the students on a daily basis) would add to the conclusions that
could be made.
Our study suggests that university belonging and friendship quality are im-
portant factors in students’ adjustment to college during the 1st year. However,
additional study of these constructs with different samples would help indicate
whether the findings are applicable across multiple populations. First, this
sample was small and predominantly female. Although attrition analysis did not
suggest differences between those who continued their participation and those
who discontinued their participation, unmeasured differences may have existed
between the two groups. It is certain that the group who participated at Time 2
did not include any students who dropped out of the university after their first se-
mester. Likewise, it would be interesting to explore with a larger sample whether
the links between school belonging, friendship quality, and adjustment to college
are moderated by gender. Some evidence exists that there are mean-level differ-
ences on these factors, but possible interactions with gender have not been tested.
It is unfortunate that the sample size of this data set was not large enough to
adequately test such interactions. In addition, analyses with a larger sample size
that would allow comparison of these associations across race or ethnicity would
be warranted. Previous research on younger ages has suggested that students
who are more disadvantaged or from marginalized populations may benefit more
from enhanced school belonging (L. H. Anderman & Freeman, 2004; Newman
et al., 2000). Last, the university at which we collected these data was a large,
regional state university. Perhaps different types of university climates lead to
different associations between these variables. Comparisons across different
campuses would provide useful information in this regard. However, overall,
the present study suggests the possibility that intervention programs aimed at
enhancing students’ sense of school belonging and assisting students in develop-
ing positive ties to friends would increase adjustment and ultimately success in
postsecondary education.
NOTE
The authors presented portions of this article at the third Conference on Emerging Adulthood,
Tuscon, AZ, in February 2007.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: Uni-
versity of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2003). Manual for the ASEBA adult forms & profiles. Burling-
ton, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. In C. C. Clogg
(Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 93–114). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Anderman, E. M. (2002). School effects on psychological outcomes during adolescence. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94, 795–809.
Anderman, L. H. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging and social goals as predic-
tors of students’ positive and negative affect following the transition to middle school. Journal of
Research & Development in Education, 32, 89–103.
Anderman, L. H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle school
students’ sense of school belonging. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 5–22.
Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’ achievement
goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 21–37.
Anderman, L. H., & Freeman, T. M. (2004). Students’ sense of belonging in school. In P. R. Pintrich
& M. I. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 13. Motivating students,
improving schools: The legacy of Carol Midgley (pp. 27–63). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Armsden, G., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment Relationships
to Well-Being in Adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 683–692.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the
twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.
Asher, S. R., Parker, J. G., & Walker, D. L. (1996). Distinguishing friendship from acceptance: Im-
plications for intervention and assessment. In. W. M. Burkowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup
(Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 366–405). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Ashwin, P. (2003). Peer support: Relations between the context, process and outcomes for the stu-
dents who are supported. Instructional Science, 31, 159–173.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2002). Concurrent and predictive validity of the Student Adaptation to
College Questionnaire in a sample of European freshman students. Educational & Psychological
Measurement, 62, 527–538.
Bradburn, E. M., & Carroll, C. D. (2002, November). Short-term enrollment in postsecondary educa-
tion: Student background and institutional differences in reasons for early departure, 1996–1998
(Report No. NCES 2003-153). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education.
Brown, B. B., & Klute, C. (2003). Friendships, cliques, and crowds. In G. R. Adams, & M. D. Ber-
zonsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescence (pp. 330–348). Oxford, England: Blackwell Science.
Chipuer, H. M. (2001). Dyadic attachments and community connectedness: Links with youths’ lone-
liness experiences. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 429–446.
Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In N. Eisen-
berg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional,
and personality development (pp. 1003–1067). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Measurement of individual differences in adoles-
cent and adult attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (pp. 434–465). New York: Guilford.
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support, and
peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students. Journal
of College Student Development, 46, 223–236.
Dishion, T. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). Peer contagion in interventions for children and adolescents:
Moving towards an understanding of the ecology and dynamics of change. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 33, 395–400.
Dornbusch, S. M. (2000). Transitions from adolescence: A discussion of seven articles. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 15, 173–177.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2003). Schools as developmental contexts. In G. R. Adams & M. D.
Berzonsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescence (pp. 129–148). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Fass, M. E., & Tubman, J. G. (2002). The influence of parental and peer attachment on college stu-
dents’ academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 561–573.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.
Folger, W. A., Carter, J. A., & Chase, P. B. (2004). Supporting first generation college freshmen with
small group intervention. College Student Journal, 38, 472–476.
Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college freshmen at
the classroom and campus levels. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 203–220.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of per-
sonal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115.
Gall, T. L., Evans, D. R., & Bellerose, S. (2000). Transition to first-year university: Patterns of
change in adjustment across life domains and time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
19, 544–567.
Goodenow, C. (1993). The Psychological Sense of School Membership among adolescents: Scale
development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 79–90.
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values to academ-
ic motivation among urban adolescent students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 60–71.
Hagborg, W. J. (1994). An exploration of school membership among middle- and high-school stu-
dents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 312–323.
Hammen, C. L. (1980). Depression in college students: Beyond the Beck Depression Inventory.
Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 48, 126–128.
Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salomone, K. (2002). Investigating “sense of belonging”
in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4, 227–256.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four-factor index of social status. Manuscript in preparation.
Hoyle, R. H., & Crawford, A. M. (1994). Use of individual-level data to investigate group phenom-
ena. Issues and strategies. Small Group Research, 25, 464–485.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial
climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324–345.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and
school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 349–359.
Laible, D. J., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. C. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence: The role of
parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 703–716.
Lamothe, D., Currie, F., Alisat, S., Sullivan, T., Pratt, M., Pancer, S. M., et al. (1995). Impact on a
social support intervention on the transition to university. Canadian Journal of Community Mental
Health, 14, 167–180.
Lapsley, D. K., Rice, K. G., & Fitzgerald, D. P. (1990). Adolescent attachment, identity, and adjust-
ment to college: Implications for the continuity of adaptation hypothesis. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 68, 561–565.
Maddox, S. J., & Prinz, R. J. (2003). School bonding in children and adolescents: Conceptualization,
assessment, and associated variables. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 6, 31–49.
McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1993). Poverty, parenting, and children’s mental health. American
Sociological Review, 58, 351–366.
McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence
from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health, 72, 138–146.
Mounts, N. S. (2004). Contributions of parenting and campus climate to freshmen adjustment in a
multiethnic sample. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 468–491.
Mounts, N. S., Valentiner, D. P., Anderson, K. L., & Boswell, M. K. (2006). Shyness, sociability, and
parental support for the college transition: Relation to adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 35, 71–80.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research
Network, & Duncan, G. J. (2003). Modeling the impacts of child care quality on children’s pre-
school cognitive development. Child Development, 74, 1454–1475.
Neeman, J., & Harter, S. (1986). Manual for the self-perception profile for college students. Denver,
CO: University of Denver.
Newman, B. M., Lohman, B. J., Newman, P. R., Myers, M. C., & Smith, V. L. (2000). Experiences of
urban youth navigating the transition to ninth grade. Youth & Society, 31, 387–416.
Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing peer harassment in
middle school. Child Development, 76, 435–450.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 70, 323–367.
Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2007). Academic and psychological functioning in late adolescence:
The importance of school belonging. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 270–290.
Pratt, M. W. (2000). The transition to university: Contexts, connections, and consequences. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 15, 5–8.
Prelow, H. M., Danoff-Burg, S., Swenson, R. R., & Pulgiano, D. (2004). The impact of ecological
risk and perceived discrimination on the psychological adjustment of African American and Euro-
pean American youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 375–389.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997).
Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent
Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823–832.
Rodriguez, N., Mire, C. B., Myers, H. F., Morris, J. K., & Cardoza, D. (2003). Family or friends:
Who plays a greater supportive role for Latino college students? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 9, 236–250.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environ-
ment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating
role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408–422.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2005). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes:
Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 98–131.
Sanchez, R. J., Bauer, T. N., & Paronto, M. E. (2006). Peer-mentoring freshmen: Implications for
satisfaction, commitment, and retention to graduation. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 5, 25–37.
Sherrod, L. R., Haggerty, R. J., & Featherman, D. L. (1993). Introduction: Late adolescence and the
transition to adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 217–226.
Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an un-
deremphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 170–179.
Smerdon, B. A. (2002). Students’ perceptions of membership in their high schools. Sociology of
Education, 75, 287–305.
Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal
and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284.
Tao, S., Dong, Q., Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B., & Pancer, S. (2000). Social support: Relations to cop-
ing and adjustment during the transition to university in the People’s Republic of China. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 15, 123–144.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Table A-2. Percent of people 25 years and older who have completed
high school or college, by race, Hispanic origin and sex: Selected years 1940–2004. Retrieved
February 2, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/tabA-2.pdf
Wade, T. J., Cairney, J., & Pevalin, D. J. (2002). Emergence of gender differences in depression dur-
ing adolescence: National panel results from three countries. Journal of the American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 190–198.
Wehlage, G., Rutter, R., Smith, G., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. (1989). Reducing the risk: Schools
as communities of support. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer.
Wintre, M. G., & Yaffe, M. (2000). First-year students’ adjustment to university life as a function of
relationships with parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 9–37.
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��

��
� ��
��
��
��

University Belonging, Friendship Quality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

University Belonging, Friendship Quality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Journal of Experimental Education, 2008, 76(4), 343–361

Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications