Belonging Regulation Strategies in High School: Deductive Coding of Student Responses to Low Belonging

• In Event: Belonging at What Cost? Identifying and Regulating Costs of Existing and Persisting in Educational Spaces

Abstract

Objectives/Framework
School belonging is a critical contributor to student motivation, mental health, and academic engagement during adolescence (Allen et al., 2021; Walton & Cohen, 2007). However, students’ sense of belonging often fluctuates in response to peer dynamics, school climate, and academic stressors, particularly for students from marginalized backgrounds (Walton & Brady, 2017). Theoretical models of self-regulation suggest that when students experience a threat to belonging, they may actively engage in behavioral, cognitive, or emotional strategies to restore it—or withdraw from efforts to belong altogether (Zimmerman, 2002). Yet, little is known about how adolescents themselves understand and articulate their strategies for navigating moments of low belonging. Thus, we explored how high school students regulate their school belonging by analyzing open-ended responses to a question about how they would respond to feelings of low belonging in school.

Method
We surveyed 1,517 high school students (55% girls, 45% boys; 48% White, 19% Black, 18% Latino, 5% Asian, and 10% from other groups) from a large public school district in the U.S. Midwest. Students responded to an open-ended prompt as part of a broader school climate survey. Inductive coding was conducted independently by two coders for reliability (Cohen’s Kappas > .60).

Results
Students reported a wide range of strategies. Researchers categorized strategies into three superordinate types: prosocial, antisocial, and withdrawal belonging regulation strategies. Prosocial strategies, which were listed by the large majority of participants included efforts to connect with others, seek support, or invest in valued school activities (e.g., joining a club or sports team, asking for help). Antisocial strategies, the category with fewest student responses, included masking emotions, adopting inauthentic behavior to gain acceptance, or acting out (e.g., being mean or annoying). Withdrawal strategies, which fell between prosocial and antisocial in prevalence, involved disengagement from school, social isolation, or self-protective retreat (e.g., giving up on trying to belong). Many students listed more than one type of strategy, suggesting complex and flexible self-regulation approaches. See Table 3a for results by categories.
Patterns differed by student gender and race/ethnicity. Girls reported more withdrawal regulation (p<.001) whereas Black and Latino students reported more withdrawal (p<.001) and less prosocial (p<.01). Intersectional analyses showed differential patterns based on race/ethnicity and gender, such that Black and Latino girls tended to report more withdrawal regulation, and Black and Latino boys tended to show less prosocial regulation.

Significance
Findings highlight the active role students take in regulating their belonging, often by mobilizing school-based resources or peer relationships. However, the presence of antisocial and withdrawal strategies also signals that for some students, belonging may feel inaccessible or conditional. Understanding these strategies provides insight into how students make meaning of low belonging—and what support systems they consider viable. These results can inform interventions to promote belonging, especially by reinforcing prosocial strategies and addressing the school conditions that make antisocial or withdrawal responses seem adaptive. Future research should explore how these regulation patterns relate to academic outcomes, school engagement, and identity development over time.

Author

• Chris Rozek, Washington University in St. Louis