University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit

(USC Thesis Other)

Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 1

PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AND SENSE OF BELONGING AT
FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS: DIFFERENCES BY ETHNICITY,
RELIGIOSITY, AND FAITH FIT

by

Stuart D. Cleek

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERISTY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2017

Copyright 2017 Stuart D. Cleek
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 2
Acknowledgements
Most journeys of discovery and growth are simply not possible without the
companionship, wisdom, challenge, and support of fellow pilgrims. Thus is the case for my
journey, and I would like to take this opportunity to give thanks. First, I would like to thank
Peter Hansen, who has literally been with me every step of the way. From our long car rides
between Santa Barbara and Los Angeles that allowed us to extend and deepen our classroom
learning, to our collaboration on our joint study, I could not have asked for a better traveling
companion, colleague, or friend. His warm heart and his keen insights have not only made this
dissertation better, but have made this person better.
I would also like to thank my fellow students, faculty, and committee members who have
provided such a rich and engaging learning environment. First, and foremost, an immense debt
of gratitude is owed to my chair, Dr. Ruth Chung. She awakened in me a love for telling stories
through numbers, made it look easy, then patiently taught and encouraged me when I realized it
wasn’t that easy. Her fingerprints are all over this work, and my life. Thank you, also, to my
other committee members, Dr. Briana Hinga and Dr. Julie DeGraw, for their helpful feedback
and support, and, especially to Dr. DeGraw for stepping in all the way from Ohio to support me.
I’m grateful for my very first professor at Rossier, Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, whose grace and skill as
an educator was nothing short of awe inspiring. I hope to teach like her one day. Finally, thanks
to my cohort, especially Karen, Peter, Steven, Sue Jean, and Dylan. How did we get so lucky?
As an educator, so much is learned from colleagues in the midst of our daily work. I am
very thankful for such great colleagues at Westmont College who have not only greatly
supported me on this journey, but have also sharpened me along the way. In particular, I want to
thank Tim Wilson, who I have worked closely with for nearly twenty years. I have learned so
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 3
much about life from him, and especially how to serve, encourage, and support people. His
commitment is unwavering, his wisdom is sound, and his positivity is contagious. I hope I can
be a little bit more like him each day.
Although neither of my parents received a formal education beyond a high school
diploma, Jack and Doris Cleek, were always strong advocates of higher education. What they
lacked in formal education, they made up for in a host of other ways, and they made countless
sacrifices for me to attend a private undergraduate institution. If they were still alive today, I
know they would be very proud, but they would also remind me that no amount of education
takes the place of common sense, a listening ear, and a kind heart.
Perhaps no one has marked my trajectory in life more than my mentor from college, Dr.
Jon Wallace. As dean of students at the time, he gave me a glimpse of how satisfying it could be
to invest one’s life in serving and developing students. He is the first person who told me I
would get a doctorate. He had the eyes to see a vision for my life that went beyond my own, and
he allowed me to borrow his eyes until I could see it for myself. I’ll always be grateful for his
investment in my life, and I hope I pay it forward everyday in my own work with students.
No one completes this journey without the full support of those close to him or her, and
my family has been exceptional in this regard. To my children, Jonathan, Madison, and Kathryn,
you make my world a better place, and you inspire me to make the world a better place too. I
hope your questions will always be hard to answer, and your dreams always worth courageously
pursuing. To my wife and partner for life, Cathy, you make me want to be a better person.
Thank you for your unbridled enthusiasm when I initially brought up this crazy idea, and for
your resolute reassurance as the sacrifices became real. Love is too small a word.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2

List of Tables 6

Abstract 7

Chapter One: Introduction 9

Background of the Study 12

Sense of Belonging as a Theoretical Framework 13

Campus Racial Climate 15

Importance and Purpose of Study 19

Key Terms and Definitions 20

Chapter Two: Literature Review 22

Population Overview 22

Race and Ethnicity 23

Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education 23

Racial Diversity as Educationally Beneficial 24

Race/Ethnicity and Students at Christian Colleges 31

Race/Ethnicity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Campus Racial Climate 32

Race/Ethnicity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Sense of Belonging 33

Religiosity 35

Religiosity and Higher Education 36

Religiosity and Students at Christian Colleges 40

Religiosity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Campus Racial Climate 41

Religiosity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Sense of Belonging 42

Faith Fit 45

Faith Fit and Higher Education 46

Faith Fit and Students at Christian Colleges 46

Faith Fit, Students at Christian Colleges, Campus Racial Climate, and Sense of
Belonging 47

Summary of Literature Review 49

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 51

Research Question 1: 51

Research Question 2: 51

Research Question 3: 51

Chapter Three: Methodology 53

Participants 53

Instruments 54

Race/Ethnicity 55

Campus Racial Climate 56

Sense of Belonging 57

Faith Fit 58

Centrality of Religiosity 59

Procedure 61

Data Analysis 62

Chapter Four: Results 64

Preliminary Analyses 64

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 5
Analyses of Research Questions 64

Research Question 1 64

Research Question 2 68

Research Question 3 70

Chapter Five: Discussion 74

Discussion of Results 74

Differences by Race/Ethnicity in Centrality of Religiosity, Faith Identity Fit, Perceptions of
Campus Racial Climate, and Sense of Belonging for Students at Christian Institutions 74

Relationship Between Faith Fit and Perceptions of CRC 78

Relationship Between Faith Fit, Centrality of Religiosity, Perceptions of CRC, and Sense of
Belonging 78

Implications 80

Faith in its Proper Place 81

Not a Zero-Sum Game 83

A Structural Approach to Improving Campus Racial Climates 83

Limitations of the Study 85

Recommendations for Future Studies 87

Conclusion 88

References 90

Appendix A: Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research 105

Appendix B: Demographic Questions 107

Appendix C: Campus Attitudes and Climate Questionnaire (CACQ) 108

Appendix D: Sense of Belonging Sub-Scale Of The Perceived Cohesion Scale 114

Appendix E: RELTRAD Classification Scheme for American Religious Denominations 115

Appendix F: Centrality Of Religiosity Scale (CRS) 116

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Participating Institutional Characteristics 54

Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Student Participants (N = 1352) 55

Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured
Variables 65
Table 4: Summary of ANOVA Comparisons for Perceptions of Campus Racial Climate and
Centrality of Religiosity by Race/Ethnicity 67

Table 5: Race/Ethnicity Differences for Major Measured Variables 68

Table 6: Summary of Linear Regression Statistics for Faith Identity Fit as Predictor of
Campus Racial Climate 70

Table 7: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Sense of Belonging from Faith Fit,
Centrality of Religiosity, and Perceptions of Campus Racial Climate for White Students
(N = 795) 71

Table 8: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Sense of Belonging from Faith Fit,
Centrality of Religiosity, and Perceptions of Campus Racial Climate for Students of Color
(N = 220) 73

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 7
Abstract
This study sought to better understand the role faith identity plays in the sense of
belonging for Students of Color at Christian colleges and universities. The study specifically
attempted to understand the relationship between a student’s race/ethnicity, centrality of
religiosity, faith fit, perception of the campus racial climate, and their sense of belonging at the
institution. The study also explored whether or not a faith fit resulted in a more positive view of
the campus racial climate. Students of Color have been and will continue to increase in numbers
on college campuses, yet a critical challenge for institutions of higher learning is to better
understand how to develop environments in which those students persist in the same ways as
their White peers. Understanding factors related to students’ sense of belonging on campus and
their perceptions of the racial campus climate have emerged in the literature as promising
avenues for success. Much of the literature on sense of belonging focuses on the unique factors
that influence sense of belonging for Students of Color. However, very few studies have focused
on unique factors that may influence sense of belonging or perceptions of the racial campus
climate for students at faith-based institutions, and, those that do, lack any serious empirical
examination of the role that religious commitment or personal-institutional faith fit play in
students’ sense of belonging or perception of the campus racial climate. Participants included
1,352 students from six Christian colleges geographically dispersed across the country who
completed an online survey consisting of background demographic information, perceptions of
campus racial climate, sense of belonging, faith identity, and centrality of religiosity for the
students. Results revealed that Students of Color have a lower sense of belonging than White
students, and that faith fit, centrality of religiosity, and perception of campus racial climate all
have a relationship with sense of belonging. More specifically, while faith fit and centrality of
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 8
religiosity had a fairly week predictive relationship with sense of belonging, perception of
campus racial climate was strongly predictive of sense of belonging (particularly for Students of
Color). These results suggest that improving the campus racial climate at Christian institutions
would have a meaningful impact on the sense of belonging of students in general and Students of
Color specifically. As the first known study that examines the relationship between faith fit and
sense of belonging, it identifies a possible role that differences in faith and faith fit may play in
the sense of belonging for students on Christian campuses, and opens a potential new line of
inquiry for researchers interested in better understanding the experiences of Students of Color at
Christian institutions.

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The United States is rapidly becoming a more racially diverse country. Experts predict
White people, as a group, will no longer be the majority race in the U.S. at some point in the 21st
century (Bratter, 2015). One institution where these changing demographics can be seen is in
higher education. Students of Color are attending U.S. colleges and universities in increasing
numbers. In the last two decades, the number of undergraduate Students of Color nearly tripled,
and the percentage of undergraduate students who are Students of Color nearly doubled (U.S.
Department of Education, 2013).
The rapid growth of Students of Color on campuses is no accident, and due to more than
just shifting racial demographics. A growing body of research has shown the educational value
of diversity on campuses (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Harper & Hurtado, 2007;
Hurtado, 2001; Rankin & Reason, 2005), and many institutions of higher education have
developed strategic plans targeted to increase the diversity of their student body. However,
while institutions of higher education have been successful in developing the compositional
diversity of their campuses, a growing concern for educators is that Students of Color have not
persisted through college at the same rates as their White counterparts. Of the White students
who began college fall 2003, 54% had a graduated by 2009, while Hispanic and African
American students’ graduation rates during that same period were much lower at 41% and 36%
respectively (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). These low graduation rates are costly to
colleges and universities who pay to recruit more students, to students who often leave
institutions of higher learning with mounting debts and little to show for their expenditure, and to
a society that misses out on the contributions of an educated citizenry (Bowman & Denson,
2014). Therefore, better understanding factors that contribute to the retention and graduation of
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 10
students in general, and Students of Color in particular, has been the subject of much research in
higher education (Bean & Eaton, 2002; Reason, 2009; Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000; Rodgers
& Summers, 2008; Tinto, 1993;). Two constructs that have gained attention in the literature on
retention for Students of Color are sense of belonging and campus racial climate (CRC)
(Hausmann, Ye, Schofield, & Woods, 2009; Johnson, Wasserman, Yildirim, & Yonai, 2013;
Morrow & Ackerman, 2012; Strayhorn, 2008a;).
Hurtado and Carter (1997) were among the first researchers in higher education to assert
that understanding students’ sense of belonging and response to the CRC could be a helpful way
to better understand how particular campus experiences impact Students of Color and their
persistence in college. Researchers seem to agree that a perceived high sense of belonging by
students seems to translate into a strong affiliation with, positive attitude toward, and a
commitment to their institution (Hausmann et al., 2009; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Rodgers &
Summers, 2008; Strayhorn, 2008a). Furthermore, research indicates a link exists between
students experiencing a high sense of belonging and their persistence through college (Bean &
Eaton, 2002; Johnson et al., 2013; Hausmann et al., 2009). This link between sense of belonging
and persistence is significant because higher education researchers have found that Students of
Color as a group consistently experience a lower sense of belonging on campus than their white
counterparts at predominately white institutions of higher learning (Harwood, Huntt, Mendenhall
& Lewis, 2012; Johnson et al., 2007; Strayhorn, 2008a, 2008b). It may come as no surprise,
then, that Students of Color also have lower retention and graduation rates than their white
counterparts.
Although lagging behind secular institutions by nearly twenty years in regard to
percentage of Students of Color on their campuses (Paredes-Collins, 2009), faith-based
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 11
institutions have grown increasingly focused on recruiting more diverse student bodies as well.
From 2003 to 2013 the percentage of Students of Color attending the 113 faith-based schools
affiliated with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) grew from 17% to
24%. Over that same period of time, growing numbers of Students of Color at CCCU schools
accounted for nearly 58% of the total student growth in enrollment (N. Stemmler, personal
communication, March 29, 2016). However, similar to their secular counterparts, graduation
rates of Students of Color at CCCU institutions has lagged behind their White peers. The
percentage of White first-time full-time CCCU freshmen that entered in school in 2002 and had
graduated by 2008 was 56%. However, the graduation rates for Hispanic and African American
students over that same period was 49% and 41% respectively (Council for Christian Colleges
and Universities, 2016a).
In the almost twenty years since Hurtado and Carter (1997) introduced sense of
belonging into the higher education literature, much of the research on sense of belonging has
focused on understanding the unique factors that influence sense of belonging for Students of
Color at large secular universities (Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, Hurtado, & Allen, 1998; Hurtado
& Ponjuan, 2005; Hoffman, Richmond, Morrow & Salomone, 2003). However, very few studies
have examined the unique role faith may play for students in sense of belonging or campus
climate, or whether the unique campus environments of faith-based institutions influence sense
of belonging or perception of the CRC in novel ways.
Are there factors unique to faith-based institutions that may influence sense of belonging
for students at those institutions? For instance, little is known regarding the role a student’s faith
identity plays in either their sense of belonging at the institution or their perception of the CRC.
Does a student’s faith matter when it comes to sense of belonging or perception of CRC at
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 12
Christian colleges and universities? If yes, how? Christian institutions tend to attract students
for whom their religious beliefs play a central role in their lives (Clydesdale, 2007; Goynea &
Kuh, 2006). Does the common religious commitment that exists at Christian institutions provide
a means for greater sense of belonging for those students? If yes, does it have that effect
regardless of the student’s race/ethnicity? How important is a perceived fit between the student’s
personal faith identity and the faith identity of the institution (further referred to as “faith fit”)?
Do students whose faith identity more closely aligns with the faith identity of the institution
experience a greater sense of belonging at their institution? If yes, is this the case regardless of
the student’s race/ethnicity? When it comes to sense of belonging and perceptions of CRC, does
faith fit play a positive, negative, or neutral role on Christian campuses? These and other related
questions were addressed in this study.
Background of the Study
Most research on student retention and persistence in higher education focuses either on
institutional characteristics (e.g., selectivity, size, type), student characteristics (e.g.,
demographic, preparation, pre-college experiences, or college experiences), or the “fit” between
student and institutional characteristics (Bowman & Denson, 2014). Tinto’s (1975, 1993) theory
of student departure is a seminal work for retention in higher education. Early versions of
Tinto’s (1975) work highlighted how misalignment between institutional characteristics and
student needs or expectations could result in a student’s departure from the institution. However,
critics of Tinto (Rendon et al., 2000; Tierney, 1992) have suggested that Tinto’s views appear to
place too much responsibility for student success with the student’s ability to assimilate to the
college environment. They suggest, rather than placing the responsibility on the student to adapt
and integrate into the college environment, institutions need to better understand and address
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 13
institutional shortcomings in supporting the success of those students. In response to these
shortcomings in Tinto’s theory, Hurtado and Carter (1997) postulated that examining a student’s
sense of belonging at the institution could be a helpful framework for better understanding the
psychosocial factors related to the transition to and departure from college.
Sense of Belonging as a Theoretical Framework
The desire to be meaningfully connected with others is central to the human social
experience. As we organize and participate in social institutions such as family, schools, houses
of faith, and community organizations, we desire to be known by, connected with, and matter to
others. Researchers refer to this desire as sense of belonging. Sense of belonging as a construct
has been conceptualized in multiple ways by researchers within and outside higher education.
Researchers in other fields (such as psychology, psychiatry, and nursing) generally define sense
of belonging as, “the experience of personal involvement in a system or environment so that
persons feel themselves to be an integral part of that system or environment” (Hagerty, Lynch-
Sauer, Patusky, Bouwsema, & Collier, 1992, p. 173). Two key elements of sense of belonging
seem to be fit (understood as perception of congruence of one’s values with others), and valued
involvement (understood as a perception that one is important to or needed by others) (Hagerty,
Williams, Coyne, & Early, 1996).
Hurtado and Carter (1997) were among the first researchers in higher education to assert
that understanding students’ sense of belonging could be a helpful way to better understand how
particular experiences impact students. The authors suggested the degree to which students have
a psychological sense of affiliation with the campus community is an indicator of their sense of
belonging. To measure this construct with students, they used the first dimension of Bollen and
Hoyle’s (1990) Perceived Cohesion Scale, which was labeled Sense of Belonging. When
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 14
studying college students and sense of belonging, Strayhorn (2008a) used the operational
definition for sense of belonging as students’ “perceived sense of integration” (p. 303) with the
institution. Hoffman et al. (2003) developed the Sense of Belonging Scale (SBS), which
identifies four scales or measurements for sense of belonging: perceived peer support, perceived
classroom comfort, perceived isolation (negatively correlated), and perceived faculty support.
While researchers have utilized differing methods to measure sense of belonging, there seems to
be consensus that sense of belonging is one more category of measurement in which Students of
Color lag behind their white counterparts.
Students of Color at predominately white institutions consistently report experiencing a
lower sense of belonging than their white counterparts. In fact, there wasn’t a single study found
in which sense of belonging in Students of Color was equal to or exceeded White students. In a
study that measured sense of belonging for African American and White first year students at a
mid-Atlantic university with 73% white students, Hausmann et al. (2009) found that African
American students experienced a lower sense of belonging than white students. Utilizing data
from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ), Strayhorn (2008a) discovered that
Latino students reported lower levels of sense of belonging compared to white students. Another
study that examined data from first-year students at 34 predominately white institutions from 24
states found that Students of Color consistently experience a lower sense of belonging than white
students (Johnson et al., 2007). Hurtado and Carter (1997) argued that, “early transition
experiences can be important predictors of a sense of belonging in the later years of college” (p.
337). It makes sense that Students of Color who may be coming from differing cultural
backgrounds will also have difficulty with early transitional experiences in college, and
ultimately experience a lower sense of belonging with the institution.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 15
Bean and Eaton (2002) introduced the Psychological Model of College Student
Retention, in which they suggest that a student’s psychological response to their campus
environment can strongly influence their decisions to persist through college. Building upon
Bean and Eaton’s model, Johnson et al. (2013) tracked first year Students of Color at a
predominately white institution and found that students who felt committed to their institution
tended to persist through their college experience. Hausmann et al. (2009) found a student’s
sense of belonging was a strongly determinate factor in first year students’ persistence as
measured by them returning for their sophomore year. The authors concluded that there was
evidence to support the inclusion of sense of belonging as a unique factor in models of
persistence.
Some authors have questioned the efficacy of institutions trying to influence the
psychological dispositions of students at all, as these dispositions are beyond the control of the
institution (Reason, 2009). In fact, institutions have had mixed results in their efforts to develop
a higher sense of belonging in their Students of Color, which highlights the need to better
understand the unique factors that influence sense of belonging for Students of Color (Hausmann
et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2007; Rodgers & Summers, 2008; Strayhorn, 2008a; Strayhorn,
2008b). One factor in particular that researchers have linked with lower sense of belonging for
Students of Color is the perception of a negative racial climate (Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
Campus Racial Climate
The CRC is often connected to sense of belonging in the literature. Understanding an
institution’s CRC involves examining the perceived and actual quality of interactions between
individuals and groups within the institutional context. Although the CRC impacts all members
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 16
of the college community, students may view the CRC in various ways depending upon their
background and experiences.
Understanding an institution’s campus climate for diversity involves examining the
perceived and actual quality of interactions between individuals and groups within the
institutional context. Although the campus climate for diversity impacts all members of the
college community, students may view the campus climate for diversity in various ways
depending upon their background and experiences. Milem et al. (1998) have been widely
credited with developing a framework for understanding the range of institutional and personal
factors that contribute toward the campus climate for diversity. The authors’ framework
originally involved four interconnected elements that constitute the campus climate for diversity:
structural diversity (diversity represented in members of the campus community), behavioral
dimensions (e.g., type and quality of social interactions within and between racial groups,
presence of diversity in the curricular and co-curricular experience), psychosocial dimensions
(e.g., perception of discrimination, prejudice, and racial tension), and the historical legacy of
inclusion/exclusion (e.g., history of discrimination at the institution). Milem, Chang, and
Antonio (2005) later refined the original framework through two adjustments. First, the authors
argued that changing the name from structural diversity to compositional diversity would more
accurately capture the intent of that dimension. Secondly, the authors argued the original
framework did not sufficiently incorporate elements related to institutional practices and policies,
and they offered a fifth dimension to the campus climate framework, which they named
organizational/structural diversity. This component recognizes that campus climate is impacted
by a myriad of institutional decisions reflected in things such as curriculum development, faculty
and staff hiring, admissions and financial aid decisions, and resource allocations.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 17
One concept that is critical to understanding campus climate is the notion that students
can and do experience the same campus climate in differing ways. For example, White students
at universities can be blind to instances of prejudice and discrimination on campuses and think of
diversity mostly in terms of demographic numbers, whereas Students of Color may be more
aware of prejudices and micro-aggressions that influence climate and are inclined to perceive
diversity in terms of the quality of cross-race interactions (Rankin & Reason, 2005). In their
study of Latino students and sense of belonging Hurtado and Carter (1997) found that
sophomores who had perceptions of a hostile racial climate reported experiencing a lower sense
of belonging in their junior year. Gilliard’s (1996) study at six Midwestern predominantly white
institutions found that African American students’ perception of a discriminatory climate
(particularly from administrators) had a negative impact on sense of belonging for those students.
This finding suggests that at least some Students of Color may be looking to campus
administrators to set a tone for the CRC. Johnson et al. (2013) have argued that colleges can
impact the negative psychological factors that Students of Color face at predominately white
institutions by paying attention to CRC factors. In fact, much of the research on campus climate
indicates that institutional decisions matter when it comes to creating a positive climate for
diversity. In particular, marginalized students benefit from experiencing institution recognition
and tangible support (Hausmann et al., 2009). But what happens if the key structure of the
institution itself is viewed as unsupportive of a student’s racial/ethnic experience? Some have
suggested the strong faith identity at Christian institutions, which can often promote White
normed theologies, create environments that are unsupportive to Students of Color, but have
offered little empirical evidence supporting this position (Paredes-Collins, 2013; Kim, Edens,
Parra, & Lopez, 2015).
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 18
Although campus climate research has received quite a bit of attention in the literature,
very little attention has been given to exploring campus climate for diversity at Christian
institutions (Paredes-Collins, 2009, 2013, 2014; Paredes-Collins & Collins, 2011). One recent
study explored how a positive campus climate for diversity at 22 evangelical institutions
positively impacted the spiritual development of Students of Color at that institution (Paredes-
Collins & Collins, 2011). However, there was little exploration regarding how a student’s faith
identity impacted their perception of the campus climate for diversity itself. In other words, the
relationship between a student’s perception of faith fit and the impact of that relationship on the
student’s perception of campus climate has not been explored. Little is known about how the
powerful and conforming faith culture present at many faith-based institutions shapes
perceptions of campus climate and, in turn, the sense of belonging of Students of Color whose
faith is not closely aligned with the faith framework of the institution.
A few studies have explored the relationships between faith, sense of belonging, and
campus climate. Most of the current research on diversity and Christian colleges tends to focus
on either effective approaches to supporting Students of Color within a faith-based institutional
context (Reyes, 2013; Case & Hernandez, 2013), understanding constructs of race and diversity
within a religiously conservative context (Modica, 2012), or the ways in which diversity
contributes to the spiritual growth of students (Paredes-Collins & Collins, 2011; Paredes-Collins,
2014). A missing element of exploration is how a student’s commitment to their faith, or having
a faith identity that aligns with the faith identity of the institution is related to either their sense of
belonging or perception of the CRC.
Paredes-Collins (2013) argues faith-based colleges should examine the religious norms at
their institutions that may be the result of the White majority norm for faith practice rather than
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 19
more racially inclusive norms. Although this suggestion is not without warrant, the author
doesn’t establish whether or not a student’s faith fit even impacts their perception of the overall
campus climate for diversity in some way. This study fills an important gap in our
understanding of the role faith may play in the perception of CRC and sense of belonging for
students at Christian colleges and universities.
Importance and Purpose of Study
Students of Color have been and will continue to increase in numbers on college
campuses, yet a critical challenge for institutions of higher learning is to better understand how
to develop environments in which those students persist in the same ways as their White peers.
Understanding factors related to students’ sense of belonging on campus and their perceptions of
the CRC have emerged in the literature as promising avenues for success. Existing literature
demonstrates Students of Color experience a lower sense of belonging than their white
counterparts at predominately white institutions of higher learning, and sense of belonging
influences persistence rates of students. Much of the literature on sense of belonging focuses on
the unique factors that influence sense of belonging for Students of Color. However, very few
studies have focused on unique factors that may influence sense of belonging or perceptions of
the racial campus climate for students at faith-based institutions, and those that do lack any
serious empirical examination of the role that religious commitment or faith fit play in students’
sense of belonging or perception of the CRC.
Filling this gap in the literature would be beneficial for several reasons. First,
understanding the importance of faith fit to overall sense of belonging would be instructive for
campus administrators as they make decisions about campus structures and support systems for
Students of Color. Many administrators at evangelical institutions believe that Christian faith is
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 20
unifying factor for a racially diverse student body. However, if it could be shown that a
perceived lack of faith fit with the institution negatively impacts the sense of belonging of
Students of Color, perhaps those administrators would be motivated to find more creative ways
to offer greater hospitality to a broader range of Christian faith expression, which would, in turn,
result in a greater sense of belonging and persistence for Students of Color at their institutions.
Conversely, if it could be established that faith is not the unifying factor that some Christian
college administrators believe it to be, this might encourage those administrators to deepen their
commitment to more closely examining their CRC and explore ways to improve the CRC for
Students of Color.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to better understand the role faith identity plays
in the sense of belonging for Students of Color at Christian colleges and universities. The study
specifically attempted to understand the relationship between a student’s race/ethnicity,
centrality of religiosity, faith fit, perception of CRC, and their sense of belonging at the
institution. The study also explored whether or not a faith fit resulted in a more positive view of
the CRC.
Key Terms and Definitions
The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and understanding of these
terms throughout the study. The researcher developed all definitions not accompanied by a
citation.
Campus racial climate (CRC). The CRC is considered the overall feel of an institution
based on structure of the campus environments, institutional policies, services provided for
students and relationships and interactions with faculty, staff and administrators (Milem et al.,
1998).
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 21
Centrality of religiosity. The degree to which religious meanings are important, salient,
or central in personality (Huber & Huber, 2012).
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). The Council for Christian
Colleges & Universities (CCCU) is a higher education association of 180 Christian institutions
around the world. The 117 member campuses in North America are all fully accredited,
comprehensive colleges and universities with curricula rooted in the arts and sciences. The
stated mission of the CCCU is, “to advance the cause of Christ-centered higher education and to
help our institutions transform lives by faithfully relating scholarship and service to biblical
truth.” (Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, 2016b, Mission section, para. 1).
Cross-race interaction (CRI). Cross-race interaction refers to interaction between
individuals who do not share the same race (Park & Bowman, 2015).
Evangelical. The word “evangelical” can have a variety of meanings and connotations in
varying theological, historical, sociological, and political spheres that can shift over time. For
the purposes of this review, evangelical refers to either individuals or institutions that identify as
devoutly Christian, but do not adhere to a particular stream or denominational stance of faith.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the literature related to the subject
matter of this study, which is the relationship between race/ethnicity, centrality of religiosity,
faith fit, and perception of campus racial climate (CRC) with student sense of belonging at
Christian colleges and universities. The chapter begins by examining Christian colleges as a
unique population. Next, a review of the relevant literature on race/ethnicity, centrality of
religiosity, and faith fit, and CRC as they relate to sense of belonging in the Christian college
context is presented. Lastly, specific research questions and corresponding hypotheses for the
study are proposed.
Population Overview
As previously mentioned, the Christian church in the United States has long neglected
conversations regarding the intersection of race and faith (Emerson & Smith, 2000). Whether
this stems from theological resistance to the notion of corporate sin and shared responsibility for
injustices (Lee, Nieves, & Allen, 1991) or an adoption of colorblind ideology (Emerson & Smith,
2000), the effects of the racial divide within Christian communities manifest themselves in the
lived experiences of these community members. The theological and cultural tenets of the
Christian church in America not only affect those within its pews, but also affect religiously
affiliated organizations, such as institutions of Christian higher education (Emerson & Smith,
2000; Lee et al., 1991).
By design, Christian colleges and universities are affiliated with some aspect of the
Christian church; therefore, racial dialogue and race-related experiences are layered with both
social and theological implications (Lee et al., 1991; Paredes-Collins, 2009). This combination
of religion and higher education can make it difficult to evaluate the effects of racism when
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 23
religious texts are used to validate normative systems of power and privilege (Kim et al., 2015).
Therefore, in order to assist Students of Color in degree attainment, a comprehensive
understanding of the interplay of faith and race/ethnicity in Christian higher education is
imperative.
Race and Ethnicity
Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education
Although the challenges facing Students of Color in higher education were framed and
briefly discussed in Chapter 1, this section is included to give fuller treatment to this issue, and
understanding of the research relevant to the study. As national demographics have shifted to
include higher percentages of Students of Color in higher education, research on the experiences
of Students of Color at predominately White institutions (PWI) has also increased over the last
few decades (Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1999; Cuyjet, 1998; Harper &
Hurtado, 2007; Harper et al., 2011; Helm, Sedlacek, & Prieto, 1998; Phillips, 2005; Rankin &
Reason, 2005). Although the research has been extensive and far ranging on this topic, three
main veins of inquiry relevant to this study include identifying the overall educational benefits of
more racially/ethnically diverse student bodies (Gurin et al., 2002; Harper & Hurtado, 2007;
Rankin & Reason, 2005), the impact of the educational environment on Students of Color
(Harper et al., 2011; Harwood et al., 2012; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso,
2000; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solorzano, 2009), and how institutional factors or administrative
action can either enhance or hinder these students’ perceptions of CRC and their sense of
belonging (Cuyjet, 1998; Harper et al., 2011; Helm et al., 1998; Rankin & Reason, 2005).
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 24
Racial Diversity as Educationally Beneficial
Recent research examining the effects of racial and ethnic diversity on campuses has
demonstrated that greater racial/ethnic diversity is educationally beneficial for all students (Gurin
el al., 2002; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Rankin & Reason, 2005). Additionally, researchers have
found, while Students of Color may have differing needs to experience an increased sense of
belonging, being aware of and addressing these needs benefits all students. It appears
institutional factors that increase sense of belonging for Students of Color (e.g., significant
interactions with diverse students) do no harm to white students’ sense of belonging and even
improve their sense of belonging as well (Hausmann et al., 2009). Strayhorn (2008a) found that,
while factors that had greater influence sense of belonging differed by race, diverse interactions
with peers positively influenced sense of belonging for both White and Latino students.
However, it also appears that simply having structural diversity on campuses does not ensure a
positive experience for Students of Color. Harwood et al. (2012) note that, “students of color at
predominately White institutions gain the benefits of higher education but also experience the
costs of having to navigate the environment” (p. 171). In fact, much research on race/ethnicity
highlights the disparity of experiences and outcomes between Students of Color and White
students.
Inequities experienced by Students of Color at PWIs. A review of the research on
experiences of Students of Color at PWIs reveals a discouraging pattern of inequity and
marginalization. Students of Color report high levels of overt and subtle experiences of racism at
these institutions (Harper et al., 2011; Harwood et al., 2012; Solorzano et al., 2000; Rankin &
Reason, 2005; Yosso et al., 2009), which often leave lasting harmful effects on those students,
both academically and emotionally (Harper et al., 2011; Ong, Burrow, Fuller-Rowell, Ja, & Sue,
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 25
2013; Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, & Torino, 2007). Some researchers have argued that, without a
significant increase in academic performance and emotional health among Students of Color in
higher education, the very social and economic structures of our society will be at greater risk
(Maramba & Velasquez, 2012). Research has highlighted how the negative experiences of
Students of Color impact both their academic success and emotional wellbeing.
Academic effects. Repeated exposure to discriminatory behavior can have a cascade of
negative effects on academic well-being (Gurin el al., 2002; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Harper et
al., 2011; Ong et al., 2013; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Sue et al., 2007). Solorzano et al. (2000)
found that several students admitted to either dropping a class, changing their major, or, in
extreme cases, even withdrawing from the institution due to racial microaggressions related to
their academic abilities. Much of this was due to off-putting interactions with faculty that filled
students with a sense of self-doubt. Many students in the study mentioned the importance of
having other Students of Color in the classroom in order to minimize stereotype threat
(Solorzano et al., 2000). Other data supports the notion that negative faculty relationships can
lead to overall academic dissatisfaction and an increase in dropout rates (Hughes, 2002).
When comparing the academic success of African American students at PWIs versus
historically Black colleges and universities, the data illustrates the impact of the campus
environment on educational outcomes. In a study of self-concept and academic achievement of
African American students at PWIs, Cokley (2003) found that African American students
attending PWIs entered college with higher grade point averages than those entering historically
Black colleges and universities. These same students attending PWIs, however, reported lower
academic performance and exhibited lower self-concept than those who attended HBCUs
(Cokley, 2003). Another study revealed that 47% of African Americans considered their overall
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 26
university environment to be “chilly” and “unwelcoming,” while only about 20% of White
students suggested that the climate was cold and/or uncaring (Strayhorn, 2013, p. 124). Black
students who felt that the campus climate was unwelcoming and cold were also more likely to
have intentions to leave their current institution.
Emotional effects. In addition to maintaining good academic standing, Students of Color
at PWIs are also forced to negotiate both external and internal emotional conflicts that result
from perceptions and assumptions made about their personhood and their group of origin
(Harper et al., 2011; Ong et al., 2013; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Solorzano et al., 2000).
Microaggressions, harassment, and stereotypes. Daily experiences of microaggressions,
harassment, and stereotype continue to negatively influence the wellbeing of Students of Color at
PWIs (Harper et al., 2011; Harwood et al., 2012; Ong et al., 2013; Solorzano et al., 2000). The
data analysis in a study of the Asian American experience suggests how “‘angry,’ ‘irritated,’
‘disgusted,’ ‘sad,’ and ‘hostile’ they felt as a result of daily racial microaggressions” (Ong et al.,
2013, p.189). The often subtle nature of these experiences are typically invisible to perpetrators,
and this is further complicated by the public beliefs that Asian Americans represent a model
minority who are expected to be immune from these discriminatory effects (Ng, Lee & Pak,
2007).
Twenty-five percent of undergraduate respondents in Rankin and Reason’s (2005) study
indicated that they had personally experienced harassing behavior resulting in negative
emotional effects. After reviewing these results based on racial backgrounds, 33% were
Students of Color while 22% were White students (Rankin & Reason, 2005). When asked to
indicate the focus of received harassment, White students suggested that the driving force of the
experienced harassment was based on their gender while Students of Color suggested that the
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 27
harassment was a result of their race (Rankin & Reason, 2005). Important to note is the
seemingly limited understanding of white students’ perceptions of the CRC for Students of
Color.
Emotional exhaustion for a focus groups of Black male Resident Assistants came as a
result of (a) responding to racist stereotypes in productive ways; (b) negotiating relationships in
social and academic spaces where leadership positions are held by primarily White professionals;
and (c) serving as primary representatives for their racial/ethnic group (Harper et al., 2011). One
Black RA responded “If you’re White you can get away with a lot more. I have done some of
the same things they have done, but I got called on it and they didn’t” (p.192). Moreover, in the
Ong et al. (2013) study discussed earlier, such racism experienced by Students of Color highlight
the interconnected relationship between chronic discrimination and depressive mental health
symptoms.
The narratives of these Students of Color at PWIs highlight the fact that racially charged
experiences often result in them feeling less supported and welcomed by the campus community.
Such counter-narratives offer a racially varied perspective and challenge the single-story
assumptions made by those in power, stories that are inaccurately thought to be shared by White
and racial/ethnic minorities alike (Parker, 1998). The above findings highlight the extent to
which Students of Color have experienced racial/ethnic insensitivities at PWIs and how those
experiences have shaped their perceptions of the CRC and sense of belonging. They also
underscore the importance of understanding how institutional action and practice can either
enhance or hinder these students’ experiences.
Institutional factors and administrative action. Research suggests that there are a
number of institutional factors that can positively affect sense of belonging for Students of Color.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 28
Perhaps the most often cited factor in the literature is the presence of positive interactions with
diverse peers (Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Johnson et al., 2007; Strayhorn, 2008a; Strayhorn,
2008b). In his study of Latino students, Strayhorn (2008a) found the greatest impact on sense of
belonging was regular and wide-ranging interactions with differing peoples and perspectives.
Strayhorn (2008b) also found that interacting with peers from different races or with different
interests significantly contributed to a higher sense of belonging among Black males’ than those
who had not had such interaction. Johnson et al.’s (2007) study of first year students from
varying racial/ethnic groups confirmed that interaction with diverse peers was significantly
related to a greater sense of belonging for Latino students, but it was not found significant for
other racial groups. This may suggest that interaction with diverse peers is more significant for
some racial groups than it is for others.
In addition to interactions with peers, researchers have also found interactions with
faculty influence a sense of belonging. In their study of first year students, Hoffman et al. (2003)
found that, “the development of ‘interpersonal ties’ on which a student could rely to provide
tangible aid, guidance, and feedback about academic matters and which provided students with a
sense of being cared for” (p. 237) increased the likelihood that they would be comfortable in the
campus environment. While this finding has been replicated with some Students of Color, it has
not been universal for all non-White racial groups. In a study of a first year Students of Color,
Johnson et al. (2007) found that the level of interaction student had with faculty had no
significant impact on students’ sense of belonging (except for a negative impact on Latino
students). Perhaps what is significant is not the amount of interaction with faculty, but the
quality and type of interaction Students of Color have with faculty.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 29
Institutions have had mixed results in their efforts to impact students’ perception of the
CRC and develop a greater sense of belonging for their Students of Color. Walton and Cohen
(2007) were successful in preserving the sense of belonging of African Americans who were
majoring in computer science. Their intervention was to simply communicate to those students
that it was normal to experience questions about whether or not they belonged in college. This
simple intervention kept their sense of belonging from declining over time compared to the
control group who did not receive such a message. This suggests a powerful link may exist
between one’s perception of doubts related to their college experience and their own sense of
belonging.
In another case, institutional efforts aimed at developing sense of belonging in Students
of Color in which the university periodically sent small gifts that students would use in their
daily life with the university logo or name on the item resulted in a higher sense of belonging for
white students, but did not significantly impact sense of belonging for Students of Color
(Hausmann et al., 2009). The author concluded that, even though sense of belonging could be
linked to persistence of students regardless of race, it appeared that different factors might
contribute to a higher sense of belonging for Students of Color. Rodgers and Summers (2008)
agree with this conclusion when they postulate that institutional efforts to support Students of
Color may fail because they lack a certain level of “fit” for that student’s needs. Strayhorn
(2008a) has suggested that institutional efforts to increase a sense of belonging in Students of
Color may fall short because the factors that influence sense of belonging in Students of Color
may be different for white students. Johnson et al. (2007) show that the campus environments
that have the greatest impact on sense of belonging for Students of Color may differ by race or
ethnicity. For example, participation in co-curricular activities was very significant for Asian
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 30
Pacific American and White students but was not significant for other groups. More information
is needed to better understand the unique elements that contribute to a high sense of belonging in
Students of Color.
Within more recent campus diversity research, students indicate a desire for increased
exposure to diversity education (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Rankin & Reason, 2005). Based on
survey results from students of differing racial groups from ten campuses, Rankin and Reason
(2005) suggest that students desire more administrative emphasis on race both inside and outside
of the classroom. However, this desire is not universal among students. Students of Color were
more likely than their White counterparts to believe that interventions, such as a required course
on race, would greatly improve the racial campus climate (Rankin & Reason, 2005). In contrast,
White students believed that such courses would actually make the campus climate worse
(Rankin & Reason, 2005). This tension showcases the resistance to administrative action often
expressed by White students (Cuyjet, 1998; Harper et al., 2011; Helm et al., 1998; Rankin &
Reason, 2005;); therefore, highlighting a negative CRC for Students of Color even in their desire
to discuss perceived and actual inequities.
In summary, while college campuses have become more racially and ethnically diverse,
and a good deal of research indicates the educational value of greater diversity on campus,
Students of Color, on the whole, do not fair as well as their White counterparts. Due to incidents
of racism, discrimination, microagressions, and stereotyping Students of Color often encounter a
chilly CRC that negatively impacts their emotional wellbeing, sense of belonging and academic
success. Although it is known that institutional action can make a difference, those efforts have
been uneven in their effectiveness. Additionally, these efforts have been hampered, at least in
part, due to a lack of understanding regarding the unique personal and institutional factors that
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 31
shape sense of belonging for Students of Color. This is especially true for Students of Color at
Christian institutions where there has been very little research related to the experiences of
students related to race/ethnicity.
Race/Ethnicity and Students at Christian Colleges
Although there has been little research at Christian institutions of higher education
regarding race/ethnicity, what research exists suggests those institutions are certainly not
immune from such phenomena described in the previous section, particularly related to
perceptions of CRC and sense of belonging (Bohus, Woods, & Chan, 2005; Kim et al., 2015;
Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012; Paredes-Collins, 2014;). In fact, research suggests a unique set of
challenges may exist as compared to non-faith based institutions. Many researchers have
suggested the unique environment of Christian colleges with lower enrollment rates of Students
of Color, combined with the conservative theological convictions that can often minimize the
importance of racial/ethnic identities, can create an environment that is counterproductive to the
success of Students of Color (Emerson & Smith, 2000; Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012; Lee et al.,
1991; Paredes-Collins, 2009).
In an effort to explore the relationship between institutional priority for diversity and
minority enrollment at four schools within the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
(CCCU), Paredes-Collins (2009) concluded these institutions showed an overall “weak
institutional commitment to campus diversity, doing little to promote a multicultural learning
experience for students” (Paredes-Collins, 2009, p. 298). Only one of the four institutions
exhibited efforts to expand educational opportunities among students of culturally diverse
backgrounds. This same institution showed the highest level of commitment to diversity and
also had the highest level of enrollment for Students of Color (Paredes-Collins, 2009). The
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 32
remaining three institutions’ enrollments of Students of Color “were drastically lower than the
racial/ethnic demographics of the surrounding region” (Paredes-Collins, 2009, p. 298).
Unfortunately, this study only compared level of enrollment and did not examine student
experiences at those institutions. A few other researchers have examined more closely the
experiences of Students of Color at Christian colleges.
Race/Ethnicity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Campus Racial Climate
While the vast amount of CRC research exists from non faith-based institutions, there is a
significant gap in the availability of such research within the CCCU (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012;
Lee et al., 1991; Paredes-Collins, 2013). However, research conducted among Christian college
students at non-faith based institutions expose distinct characteristics related to theological
convictions that significantly influence Christian students’ perceptions of CRC (Park, 2012a;
Park & Bowman, 2015). As mentioned in the previous chapter, colorblind ideologies that exist
in many Christian sub-cultures can minimize the very real experiences of Students of Color.
In one of the few published studies within the CCCU that examines campus diversity, one
faculty member suggests, “Christian colleges tend to be way behind on issues of ethnic and
cultural diversity” (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012, p. 206). In the same study, a faculty member of
color added, “Being a minority from a ‘third world country’ I believe that missionary discourse
constructs a false and negative image of other countries on campus. My students’ papers contain
stereotypes that I never saw at secular universities” (Joeckel & Chesnes, 2012, p. 206). These
findings highlight the unique cultural influences that can significantly shape the CRC within
Christian higher education. Such rhetoric highlights the need for inquiry regarding the effects of
such “White religious norms” as articulated by Paredes-Collins (2013). However, previous CRC
research on campus diversity or CRC has not utilized validated measurement instruments to
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 33
examine student perceptions of CRC. Therefore, results from previous studies on CRC at
Christian institutions lack the academic rigor to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the
relationship between race/ethnicity and CRC. CRC research is clearly needed within the CCCU
to determine the impact of such religious norms on these campuses.
Race/Ethnicity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Sense of Belonging
Until recently, almost no research examining the relationship between race/ethnicity and
sense of belonging at Christian colleges existed. The little research that has recently emerged is
consistent with previous findings at secular institutions that Students of Color experience a lower
sense of belonging than their White counterparts (Kim et al., 2015; Paredes-Collins, 2014).
Bohus et al. (2005) examined psychological sense of community (PSC) at several Christian
institutions in the Midwest, and found Students of Color experienced a lower level of PSC than
White students. However, the study has limited generalizability due to the sample being limited
geographically. Additionally, although PSC may be considered a “close cousin” to sense of
belonging conceptually, the constructs remain distinct and can, at best, give a glimpse of what
one might expect to find related to sense of belonging on Christian campuses.
Paredes-Collins (2014) is the first researcher to examine sense of belonging at Christian
colleges and universities. Her study conducted an analysis of CIRP data from 21 CCCU schools
and examined the relationship between sense of belonging and spiritual growth among college
students. The author found sense of belonging was the single biggest predictor of spiritual
growth for Students of Color, but not for White students. The findings also showed that overall
satisfaction with their college experience played a bigger role than sense of sense of belonging in
White students’ spiritual growth. Kim et al. (2015) conducted an analysis of a national sample of
Christian colleges, which also found that Students of Color have a lower sense of belonging than
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 34
White students. Additionally, the presence of cross-race interaction and satisfaction with campus
diversity was also positively correlated to sense of belonging for Students of Color.
While both studies represent an important step in establishing discrepancies in sense of
belonging between Students of Color and White students at Christian institutions that are similar
to previous research at secular institutions, they miss opportunities to examine several unique
factors that may influence sense of belonging for students at Christian institutions. First,
although Paredes-Collins (2014) successfully establishes a relationship between sense of
belonging and higher spirituality for Students of Color, her assertion that the relationship is
directional (namely that sense of belonging results in spiritual growth) is misplaced. It is just as
possible that students who already possessed a higher level of spirituality felt a stronger sense of
belonging in a context that highly valued spirituality. Second, even though Kim et al. (2015) are
able to show significant differences in sense of belonging between White students and Students
of Color, their assertion that the faith homogeneity of Christian college campuses hampers sense
of belonging for Students of Color comes with no empirical evidence to support such a claim.
So, Students of Color are attending institutions of higher education in increasing
numbers, yet they are not realizing the educational benefits of those institutions in the same way
as their White counterparts. Students of Color often experience a hostile CRC that limits their
sense of belonging, which has been linked to lower graduation rates. Students of Color who
attend Christian institutions find themselves on campuses that often express colorblind
ideologies that seek to limit and minimize racial differences. Similar to students at secular
institutions, Students of Color at Christian colleges report a lower sense of belonging than White
students. Although a few researchers have asserted a link between sense of belonging and
students’ religiosity exists for Students of Color attending Christian colleges, very little is
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 35
understood regarding the nature of this relationship at Christian institutions. What role, then,
does student religiosity play in a student’s sense of belonging or perception of the CRC at a
Christian college or university?
Religiosity
Perhaps one of the biggest challenges researchers who study religion face is agreeing upon
common terms and constructs for religion. These differences have often resulted in research
with findings that appear to contradict each other, but may simply suffer from a lack of clarity
regarding what is being measured. Two terms that appear to present problems for researchers in
particular are the words religious and spiritual. There was a time when the term religious
referred to both an individual and corporate construct (Hill & Pargament, 2003). However, more
recently, religious has come to be identified with a more formalized, institutional, and doctrinal
construct, and spiritual has emerged to signify a more personal, subjective, and individualistic,
and emotive expression (Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001). Hill and Pargament (2003)
argue this division of terms, while a helpful distinction with some utility, is ultimately
problematic. First, assigning the religious experience to two distinct and dichotomous spheres of
personal and institutional disregards the notion that, “all forms of spiritual expression unfold in a
social context and that virtually all organized faith traditions are interested in the ordering of
personal affairs (p. 64).” Second, the authors argue that evolving views on the two terms often
places a value on religion as being “bad” and spiritual as being “good,” which could lead some to
ignore both the beneficial and destructive aspects of each construct. Lastly, religion and
spirituality have more in common than they have different. While much is debatable regarding
the specific constructs, they both involve the search for the sacred, whether individualistic or
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 36
corporate, and this is what distinguishes them from other human experiences (Hill & Pargament,
2003).
Another challenge for the researcher is how to measure the religious phenomena. One
review of available measurements (Hill & Hood, 1999) found at least 125 measures of religion
and spirituality including up to 17 domains. Many studies use very rudimentary measures such
as religious affiliation or global self-assessments of religiousness (Hill & Pargament, 2003). As
a result, conclusions from many studies examining religiosity as either an actor on other
outcomes or as an outcome itself vary widely. Research on religiosity in higher education is no
exception.
Religiosity and Higher Education
In the last few decades there has been renewed and sustained interest in understanding a
multiplicity of intersections between student spirituality and higher education institutions.
Research in this area can generally be placed in three main veins of inquiry: (1) spiritual
development during the college years (Fowler, 1981; Parks, 1986, 2000) including the impact the
college environment has (either positively or negatively) on a student’s religious belief and
practice (Hartley, 2004; Mayhew, Bowman, & Rockenbach, 2014; Rockenbach & Mayhew,
2013; Paredes-Collins, 2014); (2) spirituality as a resource students draw upon for success and
persistence in college (Ackerman & Morrow, 2008; Bowman, Felix, & Ortis, 2014; Ceglie,
2013; Dancy, 2010; Watt, 2003); and (3) the relationship between spirituality and certain
educational or developmental outcomes (Bohus et al., 2005; Mayhew & Bryant, 2013; Park
2012a, 2012b; Park & Bowman; 2015; Rennick, Smedley, Fisher, Wallace, & Young, 2013).
Spiritual development of college students. Parks’s (1986, 2000) theory of faith
development has been the most widely utilized theory of spiritual development in the field of
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 37
student affairs (Long, 2012). Parks built on the work of James Fowler’s (1981) stages of faith,
and her theory has made several significant contributions to our understanding of the faith
development of college students. In particular, Parks demonstrated how cognitive development,
affective states, interpersonal and cultural influences are interrelated strands of spiritual
development that impact each other in ways that theorist before her did not. While Fowler
(1981) focused his stages of faith primarily on the cognitive elements of faith development,
Parks drew from a range of psychosocial and cognitive-structural theorists to construct a
multilayered and multifaceted view of faith development that examines the interplay between
cognitive, affective, and social domains of development.
While Parks (2000) argues that higher education institutions play a critical role in shaping
the faith development of students, researchers disagree on whether the higher education climate
has the effect of strengthening or weakening the religious beliefs and behaviors of students.
Early research into this question seemed to support a view that campuses, in general, were
hostile toward religious development and contributed to the liberalizing and secularization of
students (Hartley, 2004). However, more recent research suggests that, at least for mainline
faiths, the college environment can support and nurture students’ faith (Mayhew & Bryant,
2013).
Spirituality as a resource. Researchers have also shown how students (particularly
Students of Color) have utilized spirituality as a resource to be more successful in college. One
study (Ceglie, 2013) found the religious beliefs of Latina and African-American women enrolled
in science majors played a significant role in their persistence in a STEM field. Watt (2003)
identified how African American women use spirituality as both a coping mechanism to the
challenges of the higher education environment, and as empowerment to resist negative societal
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 38
messages. African American women in the study saw embracing spirituality as a positive coping
mechanism alternative to other perceived common coping mechanisms such as overeating or
engaging in unhealthy relationships (Watt, 2003). Other studies (Dancy, 2010; Herndon, 2003)
have noted similar reliance on spirituality for African American males to be successful in
college.
Role of spirituality on outcomes. Parks’s Theory suggests that faith development can
impact student development in other domains, and researchers have investigated the role
spirituality plays in college student success. Generally, the research on academic and personal
outcomes fall into one of three categories: academic achievement; personal and emotional well
being; and social activities. While it appears religion has a positive relationship with student
satisfaction, the impact of religion on other outcomes such as academic achievement and
emotional wellbeing are less conclusive (Mayrl & Oeur, 2009).
Although there are studies citing correlations between religion and academic success,
many of them require some sort of qualification. An often-cited study (Mooney, 2010) analyzes
data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Freshman, which includes over 4,000 students
from 28 selective colleges and universities. The study found students had a higher GPA in
college if they regularly attended religious services during their senior year of high school.
However, the study did not include a measurement for religious service attendance while in
college; therefore, religiosity in college cannot be correlated to academic achievement through
the study. Other studies that correlate religious belief or participation to academic achievement
rely on small samples that lack generalizability, and are limited by their lack of controlling
variables (Walker & Dixon, 2002; Zern 1989). Bryant (2007) was able to establish a minimal
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 39
correlation between religiosity and academic success, but it was unclear whether the success was
more linked to previous academic preparedness rather than religious involvement.
Research on the link between religiosity and emotional wellbeing is even more mixed.
Bryant and Astin (2008) found a negative correlation between participation in campus religious
groups and emotional wellbeing, which would have been even more pronounced if the negative
impacts were not mediated by the strong friendship networks these students developed. While
some studies have found that students who are religious generally manage stress better than those
who are not religious (Pollard & Bates, 2004), other studies show spiritually involved students
tended to report higher levels of stress (Carlozzi, Thomason, Worth, Harrist, & Winterowd,
2005). Alternatively, a large national study utilizing data from the National College Alcohol
study found religious students exhibited fewer signs of depression than students who identified
as not religious (Phillips & Henderson, 2006). On the whole, it seems the best that can be said
regarding the impacts of religiosity on student emotional wellbeing is that it is moderate yet
contradictory.
What seems clearer is the positive impact of religiosity on other types of affective or
social outcomes such as student satisfaction with college. In their landmark study of nearly
150,000 college students from over 450 institutions, Gonyea and Kuh (2006) found that students
who regularly engaged in spiritual practices were, “more satisfied with college, and view the out-
of-class experience more positively” (p. 44). Mooney (2010) also found that college students
who had regularly attended religious services in high school were significantly more satisfied
with college.
More recent studies suggest a link between religiosity and non-cognitive or social
outcomes that go beyond student satisfaction. A study investigating the effects of religious
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 40
engagement on students’ affective outcomes such as leadership skills, social satisfaction, and
sense of belonging examined data from the 2008 University of California Undergraduate
Experience Survey, which included 63,528 undergraduate respondents from all nine of the
University of California campuses (Rennick et al., 2013). The authors found religious
engagement generally had a positive impact on several affective factors, including interpersonal
skills, social satisfaction, and sense of belonging. However, there were significant differences in
results by race. For Latino students, religious engagement was not correlated with any of the
outcomes except for interpersonal skills, while all the outcomes were observed in White, Asian
American students, and highly correlated for African American students. These findings suggest
religious engagement may have differing impacts by race on affective outcomes such as sense of
belonging. More specifically, it appears African Americans may benefit more from religious
engagement than other races (in particular Latino students).
Religiosity and Students at Christian Colleges
While there has been recent renewed interest in studying religion in college students, most
of the research conducted to date, including research examining students who identify as
Christian, has taken place at secular rather than Christian institutions (Astin, Astin, & Lindholm,
2011; Hartley, 2004). Most of the research regarding religiosity and students at Christian
institutions does so by means of comparison to students at secular institutions (Foster & LaForce,
1999; Gonyea & Kuh, 2006; Small & Bowman, 2012). For example, a quantitative study by
Gonyea and Kuh (2006) found students at faith-based schools were most engaged in spiritual
activities while their counterparts at private secular or public schools were least engaged, and
students at Protestant and Catholic schools fell somewhere in the middle regarding their
engagement in spiritual activities. The authors point out these differences in spiritual
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 41
engagement by institution are most likely an indicator that students who chose to attend a faith-
based institution are pre-disposed to be interested in spiritual activities. Foster and LaForce
(1999) found students who persisted through their senior year at a Christian liberal arts college
had greater gains in religious development than their non-persisting peers. However, the non-
persisting peers had greater gains in intrinsic religiosity, which suggests a secular environment
may encourage more personal ownership for beliefs and practices.
Small and Bowman (2012) summarized their research utilizing data from the Spirituality
in Higher Education project conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute, which
includes over 14,500 students from 136 institutions. The authors found that students attending
Christian colleges had the greatest gains in religious commitment, spiritual identification, and
spiritual quest. Furthermore, the study found students at Christian institutions had greater gains
in well being, but those gains were consistent with students at secular institutions who reported
similar levels of spiritual engagement and support. These findings suggest well being may have
more to do with individual disposition rather than institutional characteristics. While it seems
clear that students benefit spiritually from attending Christian institutions, very little research has
been conducted exploring outcomes such as sense of belonging or CRC for students attending
Christian colleges and universities may be experienced.
Religiosity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Campus Racial Climate
Despite religion being a primary point of cultural socialization for college students, little
research has been conducted on how religion affects diversity engagement (Park, 2012a). There
is even less research regarding the intersection of religiosity and diversity engagement for
students at Christian Colleges. Only one study was found that examined the relationship
between religiosity and CRC at Christian colleges and universities. Paredes-Collins (2014) used
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 42
structural equation modeling to examine data from 2,86 senior undergraduate students from 21
CCCU institutions who participated in the CCCU’s Comprehensive Assessment Project, which
utilizes data from the College Senior Survey (CSS), a component of the Cooperative Institutional
Research Program (CIRP) at the Higher Education Research Institute at University of California,
Los Angeles. While the author establishes a relationship between campus climate for diversity
and spirituality for all students in general, and an even stronger relationship for Students of
Color, her assertion that campus climate for diversity is predictive of spirituality lacks further
scrutiny of the study’s methods. Paredes-Collins (2013) further argues that white religious
norms should be examined and modified at Christian colleges in order to improve the CRC for
Students of Color. However, while some theoretical grounding for this argument is presented,
the author fails to provide any empirical evidence to show how the religious norms at the
institution (White or otherwise), impact students’ perceptions of the CRC. Therefore, more
study is needed to understand the unique role religiosity plays in perceptions of CRC for students
on Christian campuses.
Religiosity, Students at Christian Colleges, and Sense of Belonging
Few studies have examined the relationship between religiosity and sense of belonging at
Christian colleges. Bohus et al. (2005) examined the relationship between religious commitment
and Perceived Sense of Community (PSC) at 11 Christian colleges in the Midwest. The author
measured religious commitment through Roof and Perkins’ (1975) Salience in Religious
Commitment Scale (SRCS) and found that lower religious commitment was correlated with
lower PSC. Unfortunately, patterns of religious commitment level were not examined by race or
ethnicity. Therefore, it is unclear whether the lower PSC correlated with lower religious
commitment independent of race and ethnicity, or if lower religious commitment was also
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 43
correlated by race and ethnicity. Additionally, the SRCS measurement itself is problematic in
that the instrument assumes a Christian religious orientation, thereby automatically identifying
non-Christian students as low in religious commitment and potentially privileging some religious
experiences over others. Lastly, while PSC has some similarities with sense of belonging as a
construct, the differences between the constructs are sufficient enough that findings should be
applied cautiously between the two constructs, and further research is merited.
In a more recent study directly examining the relationship between sense of belonging
and religiosity, Paredes-Collins (2014) examined the nature of the relationship between sense of
belonging and spirituality for 2,860 seniors at 21 CCCU institutions across the country. Once
again, the author asserts that sense of belonging was the single strongest predictor of spirituality
for Students of Color, but that overall satisfaction was the strongest predictor of spirituality for
White students. However, while a correlation between these variables was established, claims of
causality are not supported methodologically. The author also takes the opportunity to make a
case for the importance of Christian colleges to create diverse campus environments in which
Students of Color experience a greater sense of belonging. However, the author continues to
assert that the homogeneous religious context of the Christian colleges contributes to a lower
sense of belonging for Students of Color, but offers little empirical evidence to bolster such a
claim. In fact, given the study found no difference in the levels of spirituality between Students
of Color and White students, it may be possible that Students of Color draw upon their faith even
more in a religious context and, as a result experience a higher sense of belonging in that context
than they would have if it were a secular environment. It is also possible that differences in
sense of belonging between Students of Color and White students on Christian campuses has less
to do with the homogeneous religious environment, and is more related to other known variables
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 44
established in previous research on secular campuses such as perceptions of CRC (Hoffman et
al., 2003; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Johnson et al., 2007). Therefore, more research is needed to
examine the relationship between race, religiosity, perceptions of CRC, and sense of belonging
in the unique context of Christian colleges.
In summary, while the construct of religiosity in the human experience has been the
subject of much research, debate over the phenomena of religiosity in general and the
multiplicity of measurements has led to uneven and often inconclusive findings. In recent years
there has been a growing interest in religion and higher education, which (similar to religious
research outside of higher education) has resulted in interesting yet sometime inconclusive
results. Although it was originally thought that higher education had an overall negative impact
on students’ spirituality, more recent research has shown that some students experience spiritual
growth during their college years. Furthermore, researchers have discovered that spiritual
engagement in college may be linked to non-spiritual educational outcomes for students such as
student satisfaction, and, less conclusively to personal wellbeing.
Very little research exists regarding the relationship between religiosity and non-spiritual
outcomes for students attending Christian colleges and universities, and only a few studies
explore links between religiosity, perception of CRC, and sense of belonging. Those that do
seem to suggest a relationship may exist between centrality of religiosity and sense of belonging
(at least for Students of Color), but more research is needed to firmly establish this link. While
few researchers have examined the relationships between religion, sense of belonging, and racial
campus climate at Christian colleges, even fewer have empirically examined the role alignment
between a student’s personal faith identity and the institution’s faith identity may play in the
sense of belonging and perception of CRC for students at Christian colleges.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 45
Faith Fit
Higher education researchers have long recognized that institutional differences impact
the type of educational experiences of students. In short, institutional context matters. Tinto’s
(1975, 1993) theory of college student departure emphasizes the vital role of fit between a
student’s needs, preferences, and interests and the institution’s offerings. Tinto argued that a
misfit between student needs and institutional offerings played a key role in students’ decision to
drop out. Although Tinto’s theory has been critiqued by several scholars most notably for the
author putting too much responsibility on the student to adjust to the institution (Rendon et al.
2000, Tierney 1992), even the critiques or alternatives to Tinto acknowledge the incongruence
between student and institutional attributes often play a role in student satisfaction and,
ultimately, persistence of students (Bean & Eaton, 2000; Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon,
2004). One area of personal-institutional fit that has received little attention from researchers is
faith identity.
When it comes to issues of faith development, it appears that different institutional
contexts have differing impacts on outcomes for students. Gonyea and Kuh (2006) examined
results by institution type from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), which
included over 60,000 undergraduate students from 473 institutions, and found students attending
institutions with differing religious affiliations exhibited differences in several categories of
student engagement. More specifically, students attending what they called “faith-
based/fundamental” schools were more likely to gain substantially in spiritual and ethical
dimensions than students attending mainline protestant or Catholic schools, and even more
pronounced gains than students at non-affiliated private or public schools. Researchers
(Bowman & Small, 2010; Hill, 2009) have also found Catholic students who attended a Catholic
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 46
university had greater gains in religious participation and spiritual identification. These findings
suggest a positive link between institutional faith identity and the spiritual growth of students.
However, when studies examine whether differences in positive gains exist between students
whose faith identity aligns with the faith identity of the institution and those who do not, results
are mixed.
Faith Fit and Higher Education
Using data from the Spirituality in Higher Education project through the Higher
Education Research Institution, Small and Bowman (2011, 2012) were able to identify a number
of findings related to faith fit. First, although Catholic students attending Catholic institutions
experienced spiritual growth, students who identified with marginalized religions who attended
Catholic schools tended to see their spiritual growth diminish (Bowman & Small, 2010). In
contrast, mismatches in personal-institutional affiliation seem to be associated with decreases in
religious struggle (Small & Bowman, 2011), which is a measure of the degree to which a person
is conflicted about their spiritual beliefs. Lastly, although it appears students experience greater
wellbeing as a result of attending religiously affiliated institutions, student well being does not
appear to be correlated to alignment of student and institutional religious affiliation (Small &
Bowman, 2012). So, while current research suggests personal-institutional faith identity
alignment may be relevant to positive spiritual outcomes at Catholic institutions, no such link has
been established for students at Christian colleges.
Faith Fit and Students at Christian Colleges
While there has been recent interest in better understanding the impacts of Christian
college attendance on student outcomes (Gonyea & Kuh, 2006; Small & Bowman, 2011, 2012;
Schriener & Kim, 2011), very little research has considered how personal-institutional faith
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 47
identity alignment (further referenced as “faith fit”) may impact non-spiritual outcomes. One
study (Small & Bowman, 2012) found students from a range of religious backgrounds benefitted
spiritually from attending Christian colleges regardless of the student’s religious affiliation.
However, the authors did not indicate whether or not students who attended Christian colleges
benefitted in other ways such as personal wellbeing much less whether there were differences in
personal wellbeing by student religious identity. The study did find campuses (including
secular) with at least average ecumenical worldviews were associated with improved wellbeing
for students. Given, many Christian campuses (at least those in the CCCU) would not generally
be considered ecumenical, these findings raise more questions than answers regarding the impact
of faith fit on non-spiritual student outcomes such as sense of belonging for students at those
institutions. How does the powerful and conforming faith culture present at Christian institutions
shape campus climate and, in turn, the sense of belonging of students whose faith is not aligned
with the faith framework of the institution? Other than speculation, the literature is silent on this
question.
Faith Fit, Students at Christian Colleges, Campus Racial Climate, and Sense of Belonging
Researchers who have examined sense of belonging at Christian colleges have
established that Students of Color experience a lower sense of belonging than White students
(Kim et al., 2015; Paredes-Collins, 2013, 2014). However, the role faith fit may play in a
student’s sense of belonging or their perception of the CRC has largely been ignored in their
research. In her study of CRC and sense of belonging at CCCU institutions Paredes-Collins
(2013) argues that faith-based colleges should examine the White religious norms at their
institutions that may be the result of the White majority norm for faith practice rather than more
racially inclusive religious norms. However, the author doesn’t empirically establish whether or
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 48
not a student’s perceived faith fit with an institution is correlated with students’ perception of the
overall campus climate for diversity in some way. For instance, do Latino(a) students who
identify as Roman Catholic perceive a more negative CRC or lower sense of belonging at an
evangelical college than Latino(a) students who identify as evangelical or protestant?
The only other study examining sense of belonging at a Christian college campus (Kim et
al., 2015), which conducted an analysis of a national sample of Christian colleges, asserts that
the faith homogeneity of the Christian college campus hampers sense of belonging for Students
of Color but does not provide any empirical evidence to support such a claim. In both cases
(Kim et al., 2015; Paredes-Collins, 2013), the authors rely on literature examining the existing
racial divides within the church at large (and reviewed earlier in this chapter) to theorize that
those same divides would exist on Christian college campuses and, therefore, contribute to a
lower sense of belonging for Students of Color. Small and Bowman’s (2011) work, which found
higher student general well-being in institutions with more ecumenical environments may
support a view that students at Christian colleges (which are not typically ecumenical in nature)
who hold a faith identity that differs from the institution may experience lower well-being
outcomes such as a lower sense of belonging. Yet, no such empirical link has been made in the
literature. In fact, Gonyea and Kuh (2006) found students attending what they refer to as “faith-
based fundamentalist” institutions experienced a stronger sense of belonging than those attending
other types of institutions. It is therefore unclear whether differences in sense of belonging
between students at Christian colleges are attributable in some way to a misalignment of
personal-institutional faith identity, or whether the antecedents for differences are more similar
to their secular counterparts. While it is possible for religious norms to be racialized, even
within a particular faith identity, better understanding the relationship between faith fit,
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 49
perceptions of CRC, and sense of belonging will help explore implications for practice related to
the relevance of faith differences for Students of Color in Christian institutions of higher
learning.
Summary of Literature Review
Students attending institutions of higher education have been and will continue to be
more racially and ethnically diverse. However, Students of Color have not persisted at the same
rates as their white counterparts. Examining correlates to persistence for students in general and
Students of Color in particular has received much attention in the literature, yet persistence rates
for Students of Color have remained low. Therefore, effectively identifying factors that
contribute to greater persistence rates for Students of Color continues to be a need in higher
education research.
One factor that seems to be relevant to persistence is sense of belonging. Existing
literature demonstrates a link between students’ sense of belonging and their persistence, and
Students of Color experience a lower sense of belonging than their white counterparts at
predominantly white institutions of higher learning. Much of the literature on sense of belonging
focuses on investigating the unique factors that influence sense of belonging for Students of
Color. One of those unique factors is the CRC. Research shows that Students of Color can
experience the racial climate of their campuses in very different ways, and these differences, in
turn, can impact their sense of belonging on campus.
While research on sense of belong and campus climate have gained quite a bit of
attention in the last few decades, very few studies have examined unique factors that influence
sense of belonging or CRC for students at faith-based institutions. The few studies conducted on
Christian college campus examining sense of belonging or CRC show similar results to those
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 50
conducted on secular campuses. Students of Color at Christian institutions experience lower
sense of belonging and have a more negative view of the CRC than their white counterparts
(Kim et al., 2015; Paredes-Collins, 2009; 2014). However, there has been little empirical
investigation regarding how the unique intersections of personal religiosity and unique
institutional context of the Christian college may influence a student’s perception of the racial
campus climate and sense of belonging at the institution.
Research that has examined the relationship between religiosity, CRC and sense of
belonging either examined how diversity impacts spiritual outcomes (Paredes-Collins, 2014), or
how religious commitment impacted perceived sense of community (Bohus et al., 2005). Even
though researchers have shown that students at Christian colleges experience more positive
spiritual outcomes from attending those institutions, other than theorizing on the impact of the
unique institutional context of Christian colleges, very little examination has been conducted in
the literature on the relationship of faith fit to variables such as perception of CRC and sense of
belonging at Christian institutions.
Although lagging behind their secular counterparts in terms of numbers, Christian
institutions have grown increasingly successful in recruiting more diverse student bodies.
Students of Color accounted for 58% of the growth of student bodies at Christian colleges in the
last decade. Given the established relationship between sense of belonging and student
persistence, an important key to the continued sustainability of Christian colleges is to provide
campus environments in which Students of Color have a positive perception of the CRC and
high sense of belonging. It is imperative for Christian institutions of higher education to develop
a better understanding of how the unique faith context of their institutions impacts student
outcomes such as sense of belonging.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 51
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
Therefore, the primary goal of this study was to examine the relationships among
race/ethnicity, centrality of religiosity, faith identity fit, perceptions of CRC, and sense of
belonging for students at Christian institutions. In order to determine if there were any
racial/ethnic group differences within the key variables of the study, a preliminary analysis was
conducted to explore differences by race/ethnicity in the key constructs of the study. The
following specific questions and hypotheses were addressed in this study:
Research Question 1:
Are there differences by race/ethnicity in centrality of religiosity, faith fit, perceptions of
campus racial climate, and sense of belonging for students at Christian institutions?
Hypothesis 1a: Students of Color will have a more negative perception of CRC than
White students.
Hypothesis 1b: Students of Color will have a lower sense of belonging than White
students.
If there are racial/ethnic group differences found in RQ1, the subsequent analysis will be
conducted by race/ethnicity.
Research Question 2:
Does faith fit predict perception of campus racial climate for students at Christian
institutions?
Hypothesis 2: Faith fit will predict positive perception of campus racial climate.
Research Question 3:
Do centrality of religiosity, faith fit, and perception of campus racial climate predict
sense of belonging for students at Christian institutions?
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 52
Hypothesis 3a: Faith fit will predict sense of belonging.
Hypothesis 3b: Centrality of religiosity will predict sense of belonging.
Hypothesis 3c: Perception of campus racial climate will predict sense of belonging.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 53
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This study investigated the relationship between race, centrality of religiosity, and faith
fit on sense of belonging and campus racial climate (CRC) for students who attend Christian
colleges. This chapter will review the methods utilized in conducting this study. First, relevant
demographic characteristics of participants will be discussed. Second, the instruments used to
operationalize constructs and collect data will be examined. Finally, recruitment and data
collection procedures will be explained.
Participants
Undergraduate students from six Christian Colleges and Universities across the U.S. were
recruited for participation in the study during a one-month period in the fall semester of 2016. A
total of 1451 students volunteered to participate in the study. Of the 1451 surveys, 99 could not
be included in the study due to incomplete responses or missing data, resulting in a total of 1,352
usable responses for the final data analysis. Participating institutions represented a wide range of
geographic locations including the West, Pacific Northwest, Northeast, and Midwest regions of
the country. Additionally, three of the institutions were denominationally affiliated and three
had no current denominational affiliation (see Table 1). This variance in denominational
affiliation is important to note due to its relevance when examining faith fit. As explained
below, only students from denominationally affiliated schools were able to receive an “exact fit”
designation for faith fit. Also, given the subject matter of the study, it is worth noting the timing
of the distribution of the survey occurred just weeks after the election of Donald Trump as
President of the United States. It is unknown to what extent, if any, this larger cultural event
may have influenced responses to the survey, but it would likely have heightened sensitivity and
awareness around issues of race/ethnicity.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 54
Table 1
Participating Institutional Characteristics
West PacWest Mid A Mid B South East Avg.

Faith Identity Type No Aff. No Aff. Denom No Aff. Denom Denom N/A

Institutional Size 1,000-
1,500
Under
1000
Under
1000
2,000-
2,500
1,500-
2,000
Under
1000
N/A

Sex Percentages
Male 39.8 57.5 52.4 46.0 36.4 36.4 44.4
Female 60.2 42.5 47.6 54.0 64.6 64.6 55.6

Race/Ethnicity
Percentages

African
American/Black
2 2 5 6 20 2 6.2
Asian or Asian
American
7 7 1 3 2 2 3.7
Latino/a or Hispanic 13 1 3 5 2 2 4.5
Multi-racial 8 6 2 2 1 4 3.8
White 65 67 86 59 65 79 70.2
Other/Unknown 5 16 3 25 10 11 11.8
Note. No Aff. = no denominational affiliation; Denom = denominationally affiliated

As shown in Table 2, the respondents were equally distributed by class year. Distribution
of female undergraduate students comprised 66% (n = 892) of the sample, while male
undergraduate students comprised 34% (n = 455) of the sample. This distribution is fairly
consistent with the distribution of sex in the population of the participating institutions. The
largest represented race/ethnicity was White (n = 1049, 77.8%) with the next largest racial/ethnic
categories being Multi-racial (n = 98, 7.3%) and Asian or Asian American (n =71, 5.3%).
Students’ race/ethnicity for the current study are presented in Table 2.
Instruments
As shown in Appendix A, students were provided an informed consent form prior to
participating in the survey and were notified that all survey responses would remain confidential.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 55
The survey itself was divided into five sections, including: 1) demographic information
(Appendix B); 2) campus racial climate (Appendix C); 3) sense of belonging
(Appendix D); 4) faith identity (Appendix E); and 5) centrality of religiosity (Appendix F).
Detailed information on the instruments used for this study is described below.
Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Student Participants (N = 1352)
N Percentage

Sex
Male 455 33.8
Female 892 66.2

Race/Ethnicity
African American/Black 52 3.9
Asian or Asian American 71 5.3
Latino/a or Hispanic 51 3.8
Multi-racial 98 7.3
White 1049 77.8
Other 27 1.9

Year in School
First-Year 336 24.9
Sophomore 309 22.9
Junior 341 25.3
Senior 361 26.8

Institutions
West Coast 243 18.0
Midwest A 236 17.5
Midwest B 458 33.9
Pacific Northwest 152 11.2
East Coast 101 7.5
Southern 162 12.0

Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity is a nominal measurement. The instrument included a number of
categories from which the respondent was able to choose a response including: Hispanic/Latino,
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 56
American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander, White, and Two or more races. These seven categories are the adopted standard
of the Department of Education for collecting and reporting of data on race and ethnicity (United
States Department of Education, 2008). Due to the limited number of respondents in several of
these categories, the data collected was eventually grouped into two categories labeled Students
of Color and White.
Campus Racial Climate
The Campus Attitudes and Climate Questionnaire (CACQ) was used to measure the CRC
for this study. The CACQ was developed by Helm et al., (1998) and consists of 43 statements
surrounding the CRC. In most instances, students were asked to indicate their level of agreement
with those statements using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The CACQ measures the following
eleven sub-scales: (1) Racial Tension, (2) Cross-cultural Comfort, (3) Diversity Awareness, (4)
Racial Pressures, (5) Residence Hall Tension, (6) Fair Treatment, (7) Faculty Racism, (8)
Respect for Other Cultures, (9) Lack of Support, (10) Comfort with Own Culture, (11) Overall
Satisfaction (Ancis et al., 2000). These factors were identified using principal axis factor
analysis and varimax rotation, which accounts for 48% of the total variance (Ancis et al., 2000,
p. 181). Some sample statements from this instrument are as follows: “I feel I need to minimize
various characteristics of my racial/ ethnic culture (e.g., language, dress) to be able to fit in here”
and “The school provides an environment for the free and open expression of ideas, opinions,
and beliefs (Helm et al., 1998, p. 120).”
The CACQ is proven to be high in reliability and validity. The coefficient alpha
reliability of the CACQ was .81, which signifies that it is reliable (Helm et al., 1998). The
CACQ also has face validity in that it appears to measure what it intends to measure.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 57
Additionally, the CACQ has been used in countless national surveys, and has been cited by
Harper and Hurtado (2007) as one of the measures that has significantly contributed to CRC
research. As such, the CACQ was a logical instrument to examine perceptions of CRC. For this
study the internal reliability on the eleven subscales ranged between .59 and .84.
Sense of Belonging
The dependent variable of sense of belonging is a construct that was measured through a
Sense of Belonging sub-scale of the Perceived Cohesion Scale (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990). The
scale was developed to measure a group member’s perceived cohesion to the group, and includes
two subscales of three items each that measure sense of belonging and feelings of morale.
Responses to items are recorded on an eleven-point Likert scale (with 0 = strongly disagree; 5 =
neutral; 10 = strongly agree). The three items used to measure sense of belonging are, “I see
myself as a part of the campus community,” “I feel I am a member of the campus community,”
and “I feel a sense of belonging to the campus community.” This instrument has been widely
used with some studies using all six items while other studies opting to use only the three items
related to sense of belonging (Demcho, 2011; Hausman et al., 2009; Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
The Cronbach’s alpha for the sense of belonging items are .94 (Hausman et al., 2009) and .91
(Demcho, 2011) which demonstrate a high level of consistency for the instrument. The alpha
reliability for this study was extremely high at .97. The instrument has been used with a wide
range of populations including students at small liberal arts colleges, large public universities,
residents of small cities, and even nations (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990; Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
Bollen and Hoyle (1990) demonstrated the validity of the instrument utilizing samples from
students at a small liberal arts college known for possessing a high level of school spirit and a
small Midwestern city (which was hypothesized to have a lower perceived cohesion than the
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 58
college students). The instrument displayed strong goodness of fit results on four indices
including a chi-square test that was not statistically significant. Additionally, the instrument
showed appropriate concurrent validity by reflecting hypothesized differences in means between
the college and city samples while still maintaining similar structural properties (Bollen &
Hoyle, 1990). Given the instrument’s demonstrated reliability and validity across populations in
general and its considerable use with college students in particular, it is a logical and reasonable
choice to use for this research question.
Faith Fit
A multi-step process was used to measure faith fit. First, respondents’ personal religious
identity was established as a nominal measurement utilizing a classification scheme
(RELTRAD) for American religious denominations, which was first introduced by Steensland et
al. (2000) and has become widely used in surveys (Woodberry, Park, Kellstedt, Regnerus &
Steensland, 2012) including the Pew Research Center 2014 Religious Landscape Survey (Pew
Research Center, 2015). To do so, respondents were asked their religious identity by selecting
from the following options: Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Mormon, Jehovah’s
Witness, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Other faiths, Atheist, Agnostic, or
Nothing in particular. Respondents who marked either “other Christian” or “other faiths” were
given the option of writing in a specific category. Respondents who marked either “Protestant”
or “Other Christian” were asked to identify their particular denomination, whether or not they
considered themselves “born-again”, and whether the church they attended was multi-racial or
“mostly the same race.” In most cases, when combined with respondent’s race, these clarifying
questions assisted the researcher to assign the respondent to one of three categories of Protestant:
Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, and Historically Black Protestant.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 59
An examination of institutional documents (particularly statements of faith) that specified
the institution’s denominational or faith identification was used by the researcher to categorize
participating institutions’ faith identity using the same classification scheme that was used for the
respondents. Lastly, a comparison was made between the faith identity of the respondent and the
institution. Based upon this comparison, one of five possible faith fit ordinal codes was assigned
to each respondent: no fit, marginal fit, general fit, fit, and exact fit. “No fit” was given to
respondents who identified as a faith other than Christian, Non-Christian, or Religiously
Unaffiliated. A “marginal fit” coding was given when respondents identified as Christian but not
within a Protestant category. “General fit” was given to respondents who identified as Protestant
but not within the same category of Protestant as their institution. A coding of “fit” signified
both the respondent’s identity and the respondent’s institutional identity fell within the same
Protestant category (Evangelical, Mainline, or Historically Black), but not the same
denomination (or when either the respondent or institution did not identify with a specific
denomination. “Exact fit” was only given in instances when a respondent’s institutional faith
identity could be categorized into a specific denomination, and the respondent’s faith identity
was the same denomination.
As there were no known previous studies comparing alignment of personal faith identity
to an institutional faith identity, the researcher utilizing a common sense approach to the
development of the ordinal categories and drawing upon over 25 years of experience in Christian
higher education and feedback from colleagues developed the previous coding system.
Centrality of Religiosity
Centrality of religiosity was measured through the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS)
developed by Huber and Huber (2012). The CRS measures the saliency of religious meanings in
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 60
personality. The instrument utilizes a multidimensional approach to the study of religion first
proposed by Charles Glock (1962) but made some modifications to Glock’s original model to
address several shortcomings. Glock theorized there are five core dimensions of religion to
examine for empirical research: intellectual, ideological, ritualistic, experiential, and
consequential. Stark and Glock (1968) later revised the model by eliminating the consequential
dimension and splitting the ritualistic dimension into public and private practice. Glock’s
conceptualization of religion is helpful because it provides a universal frame of reference for
empirical research on religiosity. Additionally, the author was able to identify a limited set of
core dimensions that cover the general range of religious life.
While Glock’s model of religiosity is helpful to researchers, it also contained two major
shortcomings, which Huber and Huber (2012) have addressed with the CRS. First, Glock’s
research involved North American Christianity. As a result, a model that contains indicators
with a Christian bias undermines Glock’s claims of universality. Secondly, researchers found
there was enough overlap in measurements of the individual dimensions to lead to a confounding
of the constructs (Weigert & Thomas, 1969). The CRS has several design features to address
these shortcomings in Glock’s model. First, to address the issue of interreligious reliability,
references to “God” are replaced with a more general expression of “God or something divine.”
This modification eliminates privileging of religions in which there is a singular divine being.
Additionally, for surveys given to participants who do not identify with an Abrahamic tradition,
and, therefore, a monotheistic concept of God, a few questions are modified to reflect this
difference in theological understanding. Doing so, “allows the measurement of the respective
dimension (and the centrality value) adaptive to the specific spirituality pattern of the individual
respondent” (Huber & Huber, 2012, p. 719). For example, the question, “How often do you
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 61
pray spontaneously when inspired by daily situations?” was modified to read, “How often do you
try to connect to the divine spontaneously when inspired by daily situations?” These
modifications greatly enhance the interreligious reliability of the instrument.
The CRS was first validated in 1999 with a random sample of 806 students studying at the
University of Fribourg in Switzerland (Huber, 2007), and showed strong psychometric
properties. The reliability was very high with a Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93. Additionally, the
construct-validity was shown by strong correlations with religious self-concept (“Overall, how
religious would you describe yourself?”), and daily consequences of religiosity (operationalized
through a scale identifying impact of personal religious beliefs on various aspects of life such as
family, politics, friendships, etc.). The correlations were 0.87 and 0.84 respectively, and both
were significantly correlated at the p < 0.001 level. In three different studies, the reliabilities of
each of the five dimensions ranged from 0.80 to 0.93 (Huber & Huber, 2012). Since it was first
validated, over 100 studies in 25 different countries with over 100,000 total participants have
utilized the CRS to examine the sociology of religion, psychology of religion, and religious
studies. Although no studies were found which included students in higher education in the
United States, the instrument’s high reliability and validity across a range of populations,
combined with its interreligious generalizability and multidimensional approach to
understanding the salience of personal religiosity made the CRS a good choice to measure the
centrality of religiosity. The internal reliability for this study on each of the five subscales
ranged between .81 and .90.
Procedure
The researcher initially contacted 29 Christian Colleges and Universities across the U.S.
to request their participation in the study. Each of the institutions were predominantly White,
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 62
and the researcher selected each of the institutions based upon their current or recent membership
in the CCCU. Additionally, the researcher was careful to select institutions that represented both
a range of geographic locations across the country, and also a mixture of denominationally based
institutions and non-denominational institutions. A brief description of the survey, a link to the
survey, and a notice of confidentiality were included in the email to each contact. Six
institutions representing geographic areas from across the country eventually agreed to
participate in the study. Three of the institutions were denominationally based and three of the
institutions were non-denominational (see Table 1). All undergraduate grade levels were
sampled with the intent of providing a representative data sample. Students participating in the
online survey were provided with an informed consent form notifying them of the purpose of the
study, procedures for completion, potential of risks and benefits, confidentiality and rights as
participants. To maintain confidentiality of the participants, only the primary investigators were
granted access to the dataset. All identifying information from the survey was kept in a separate
location from the survey responses. The average time to complete the survey was approximately
13 minutes. A raffle drawing for Visa gift cards was used as an incentive for survey completion.
Data Analysis
For the data analysis, race/ethnicity, centrality of religiosity, faith fit, and perception of
CRC were used as independent variables. Perception of CRC and sense of belonging were used
as dependent variables, depending on the research question. Race/ethnicity was measured using
scores from a questionnaire developed for this study. Centrality of religiosity was measured
using scores from the CRS, and faith fit was measured using the RELTRAD classification
system and coding developed for this study. Perception of CRS was measured using the CACQ
instrument, and sense of belonging was measured using the Sense of Belonging instrument. To
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 63
examine research question one, an ANOVA test was used to determine if racial/ethnic group
differences existed in any of the key constructs. Having found group differences, multiple
regression analyses were conducted for research questions two and three.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 64
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The following chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the results of the study
including preliminary analyses and analyses of the research questions.
Preliminary Analyses
Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships
between the variables of sense of belonging, CRC, faith fit, and centrality of religiosity (see
Table 3). Sense of belonging was significantly correlated with all variables in the study. Faith
fit was significantly correlated with eight of the eleven CRC subscales and all the subscales of
centrality of religiosity. Centrality of religiosity was significantly correlated with eight of the
CRC subscales.
Analyses of Research Questions
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “Are there differences by race/ethnicity in centrality of
religiosity, faith fit, perceptions of campus racial climate, and sense of belonging for students at
Christian institutions?”
Hypothesis 1a: Students of Color will have a more negative perception of CRC than
White students.
Hypothesis 1b: Students of Color will have a lower sense of belonging than White
students.
To determine if there were differences by race/ethnicity in centrality of religiosity, faith
fit, perceptions of CRC, and sense of belonging for students at Christian institutions, four
separate statistical analyses were conducted, one for each of the main variables of centrality of

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 65

Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. Sense of Belonging 8.12 2.74 -- .14** .25* -.29** .40** -.35** .70** .39** -.48** .52** -.30** -.28** .31** .17** .19** .24** .19** .17**
2. Faith Fit 3.67 .96 -- .12** -.04 .08** -.04 .23** .08* -.11** .15** -.03 -.08** .06* .37** .56** .53** .50** .35**
Campus Racial Climate
(CACQ)

3. Diversity Awareness 2.08 .36 -- -.03 .21** .05 .29** .08** -.29** .18** -.02 -.04 .15** .25** .16** .23** .18** .19**
4. Racial Pressure 2.29 .78 -- -.31** .42** -.35** -.34** .22** -.34** .20** .29** -.29** -.04 -.01 -.02 .00 .04
5. Cross-cultural Comfort 3.85 .63 -- -.29** .43** .37** -.35** .41** -.20 -24** .86** .17** .11** .14** .12** .12**
6. Racial Tension 1.85 .63 -- -.44** -.62** .39** -.42** .30** .59** -.27** .06* -.04 .00 .02 .02
7. Overall Satisfaction 3.99 .75 -- .53** -.55* .57** -.33** -.36** .33** .28** .26** .34** .28** .25**
8. Respect Other Cultures 3.11 .66 -- -.51** .47** -.28** -.43** .30** .12* .15* .14** .12** .11**
9. Residence Hall Tension 2.25 .59 -- -.61** .29** .26** -.27** -.23** -.18** -.23** -.19** -.18**
10. Fair Treatment 4.32 .69 -- -.41** -.36** .31** .22** .19** .22** .18** .14**
11. Lack of Support 1.81 .71 -- .27** -.15** -.01 -.05 -.03 -.03 -.05
12. Faculty Racism 1.32 .60 --- -.19** -.02 -.08** -.03 .02 .06*
13. Comfort Own Culture 3.65 .87 -- .11** .10** .11** .11* .09**
Centrality of Religiosity
(CRS)

14. Intellectual 4.03 .88 -- .54** .68** .60** .59**
15. Ideology 4.72 .66 -- .73** .71** .55**
16. Public Practice 4.44 .88 -- .78** .59**
17. Private Practice 4.28 .92 -- .69**
18. Religious Experience 3.77 1.00 --
Note. All scores are scaled scores. CACQ = Campus Attitudes & Climate Questionnaire; CRS = Centrality of Religiosity Scale
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 66
religiosity, faith fit, perceptions of CRC, and sense of belonging. The results for each test are
discussed separately below.
For the dependent variable of centrality of religiosity, a one-way MANOVA was
conducted with student race/ethnicity as the independent variable and five subscales of centrality
of religiosity as the dependent variables. The overall model was significant for the effect of
race/ethnicity, F(1, 1105) = 6.82, p < .001; Pillai’s V = .03; partial η2 = .03. Follow-up
ANOVAs for the subscales revealed differences between White and Students of Color in
Intellectual (F(1, 1105) = 15.84, p < .001; partial η2 = .01) and Public Practice (F(1, 1105) =
4.15, p =.042; partial η2 = .004) (see Table 4).
For the dependent variable of faith fit, a Mann-Whitney U test was conducted with
race/ethnicity as the independent variable. Faith fit scores ranged on an ordinal scale from 1 to
5. Faith fit scores for White students (M = 3.71, mean rank = 577.61) was significantly higher
than for Students of Color (M = 3.55, mean rank = 517.51), U = 96926, z = -3.04, p = .002.
Means and standard deviations of the main measured variables by race/ethnicity are presented in
Table 5.
For the dependent variable of CRC, a one-way MANOVA was conducted with student
race/ethnicity as the independent variable and eleven subscales of CRC as the dependent
variables. The overall model was significant for the effect of race/ethnicity, F(11, 1028) = 21.74,
p < .001; Pillai’s V = .19; partial η2 = .19. Follow-up ANOVAs for the subscales revealed
differences between White students and Students of Color in all eleven subscales of CRC, with
Racial Pressure (F(1, 1038) = 218.13, p < .001; partial η2 = .17) showing the greatest effect size
(see Table 4 for ANOVA scores for each subscale). Therefore, hypothesis 1a that Students of
Color will have a more negative perception of CRC than White students was confirmed.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 67
Table 4

Summary of ANOVA Comparisons for Perceptions of Campus Racial Climate and Centrality of
Religiosity by Race/Ethnicity

Variable Test Statistic df sig
Campus Racial Climate (CACQ)

DIVERSITY AWARENESS 8.205* 1, 1038 .004
RACIAL PRESSURE 218.131** 1, 1038 .000
CROSS-CULTURAL COMFORT 9.797* 1, 1038 .002
RACIAL TENSION 23.168** 1, 1038 .000
OVERALL SATISFACTION 29.435** 1, 1038 .000
RESPECT FOR OTHER CULTURES 16.508** 1, 1038 .000
RESIDENCE HALL TENSION 22.592** 1, 1038 .000
FAIR TREATMENT 29.591** 1, 1038 .000
LACK OF SUPPORT 4.262* 1, 1038 .039
FACULTY RACISM 12.492** 1, 1038 .000
COMFORT WITH OWN CULTURE 4.411* 1, 1038 .036
Centrality of Religiosity (CRS)
INTELLECTUAL 15.843** 1, 1105 .000
IDEOLOGY .041 1, 1105 .839
PUBLIC PRACTICE 4.157* 1, 1105 .042
PRIVATE PRACTICE .166 1, 1105 .683
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE .613 1, 1105 .434
Note. CACQ (Campus Attitudes & Climate Questionnaire; CRS (Centrality of Religiosity Scale)

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 68
Table 5
Race/Ethnicity Differences for Major Measured Variables
Total White Students of Color
M SD M SD M SD
Sense of Belonging 8.12 2.74 8.40 2.56 7.20 3.15
Faith Fit 3.67 .96 3.71 .96 3.55 .94
Campus Racial Climate (CACQ)
DIVERSITY AWARENESS 2.08 .36 2.10 .36 2.02 .37
RACIAL PRESSURE 2.29 .78 2.11 .66 2.90 .85
CROSS-CULTURAL COMFORT 3.85 .63 3.89 .60 3.71 .73
RACIAL TENSION 1.85 .63 1.80 .60 2.02 .72
OVERALL SATISFACTION 3.99 .75 4.06 .70 3.73 .85
RESPECT FOR OTHER CULTURES 3.11 .66 3.15 .62 2.93 .74
RESIDENCE HALL TENSION 2.25 .59 2.20 .57 1.90 .79
FAIR TREATMENT 4.32 .69 4.38 .64 4.11 .78
LACK OF SUPPORT 1.81 .71 1.79 .68 1.90 .79
FACULTY RACISM 1.32 .60 1.29 .56 1.44 .71
COMFORT WITH OWN CULTURE 3.65 .87 3.68 .82 3.51 1.03
Centrality of Religiosity (CRS)
IDEOLOGY 4.72 .66 4.72 .66 4.71 .66
PUBLIC PRACTICE 4.44 .88 4.47 .87 4.35 .91
PRIVATE PRACTICE 4.28 .92 4.29 .92 4.26 .91
INTELLECTUAL 4.03 .88 4.08 .86 3.84 .91
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE 3.77 1.00 3.75 1.00 3.82 .98

For the dependent variable of sense of belonging, an independent-samples t-test was
conducted with race/ethnicity as the independent variable. Sense of belonging was higher for
White Students than Students of Color. This difference in sense of belonging between White
students and Students of Color was significant, M = 1.20, 95% CI [0.77, 1.63], t(342.38) = 5.51,
p < .001. These results confirm hypothesis 1b, which stated that Students of Color would have a
lower sense of belonging than White students. Since there were racial/ethnic group differences
found in all variables examined, the analysis for subsequent research questions were conducted
by race/ethnicity.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “Does faith fit predict perception of campus racial
climate for students at Christian institutions?”
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 69
Hypothesis 2: Faith fit will predict positive perception of campus racial climate.
To determine the extent to which faith fit predicts perceptions of CRC, a series of eleven
individual linear regressions were run with faith fit as the independent variable and each subscale
of CRC. Faith fit significantly predicted perceptions of CRC on six of the eleven subscales for
White students, and on two of the subscales for Students of Color (see Table 6 for summary of
results). However, the predictive value of faith fit on the subscales was relatively small for both
White students and Students of Color. For White students, faith fit predicted Overall
Satisfaction, F(1, 877) = 47.92, p < .001, accounting for 5% of the variation in Overall
Satisfaction. Of the five other subscales that faith fit was significantly predictive for White
students, four accounted for only 2% of the variation and the last accounted for 1% of the
variation, all representing a small size effect according to Cohen (1988). For Students of Color,
faith fit predicted Overall Satisfaction, F(1, 241) = 8.30, p = .004, accounting for 3% of the
variation in Overall Satisfaction. Faith fit also predicted Fair Treatment, F(1, 241) = 10.15, p =
.002, accounting for 4% of the variation in Fair Treatment. So, while faith fit was predictive for
some subscales of CRC, there were a low number of subscales for which faith fit was predictive.
Additionally, the effect size on those subscales for which faith fit was predictive was relatively
small. These results led to a rejection of hypothesis 2 and the conclusion that faith fit does not
predict perception of CRC.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 70
Table 6

Summary of Linear Regression Statistics for Faith Identity Fit as Predictor of Campus Racial
Climate

White Students Students of Color
R
2
F B SE β p R
2
F B SE β p
Campus Racial Climate
DIVERSITY AWARENESS .01 12.62 .04 .01 .12 .000 .01 1.63 .03 .03 .08 .202
RACIAL PRESSURE .00 .116 .01 .02 .12 .733 .00 .77 -.05 .06 -.06 .381
CROSS-CULTURAL COMFORT .00 2.20 .03 .02 .05 .138 .01 3.17 .09 .05 .11 .076
RACIAL TENSION .00 .797 -.02 .02 -.03 .388 .00 .24 -.03 .05 -.03 .620
OVERALL SATISFACTION .05 47.92 .17 .02 .23 .000 .03 8.30 .17 .06 .18 .004
RESPECT FOR OTHER
CULTURES .01 4.30 .05 .02 .07 .038 .00 .44 .03 .05 .04 .509
RES. HALL TENSION .01 7.08 -.05 .02 -.09 .008 .01 2.68 -.07 .04 -.11 .103
FAIR TREATMENT .02 12.98 .08 .02 .12 .000 .04 10.15 .17 .05 .20 .002
LACK OF SUPPORT .00 .76 -.02 .02 -.03 .384 .00 .00 .00 .05 .00 .949
FACULTY RACISM .01 6.87 -.05 .02 -.09 .009 .00 .09 -.02 .05 -.02 .760
COMFORT OWN CULTURE .00 1.40 .03 .03 .04 .240 .01 2.15 .10 .07 .09 .144

Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “Do faith fit, centrality of religiosity, and perception of
campus racial climate predict sense of belonging for students at Christian institutions?”
Hypothesis 3a: Faith identity fit will predict sense of belonging.
Hypothesis 3b: Centrality of religiosity will predict sense of belonging.
Hypothesis 3c: Perception of campus racial climate will predict sense of belonging.
A hierarchical multiple regression was run for both White students and Students of Color to
determine if the addition of centrality of religiosity and then of perception of CRC improved the
prediction of sense of belonging over and above faith fit alone. The full model of faith fit,
centrality of religiosity, and perceptions of CRC to predict sense of belonging (Model 3) was
significant for both White students, R2 = .46, F(11, 777) = 69.16, p < .001, and Students of
Color, R2 = .64, F(11, 202) = 37.36, p < .001. For White students (see Table 7), the addition of
centrality of religiosity to the prediction of sense of belonging (Model 2) led to a significant
increase in R2 of .04, F(5, 788) = 15.46 , p < .001. The addition of perception of CRC to the
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 71
Table 7

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Sense of Belonging from Faith Fit, Centrality of
Religiosity, and Perceptions of Campus Racial Climate for White Students (N = 795)

Sense of Belonging
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B β sig B β sig B β sig
Faith Fit .29 .11 .003 -.02 -.01 .836 -.07 -.02 .462
Centrality of Religiosity (CRS)
INTELLECTUAL -.17 .15 .265 -.23 -.08 .044
IDEOLOGY -.06 .22 .789 .08 .02 .624
PUBLIC PRACTICE .69 .20 .001 .17 .06 .267
PRIVATE PRACTICE -.10 .18 .599 -.18 -.06 .203
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE .25 .13 .049 .09 .04 .344
Campus Racial Climate (CACQ)
DIVERSITY AWARENESS .15 .02 .469
RACIAL PRESSURE -.07 -.02 .555
CROSS-CULTURAL COMFORT .28 .07 .231
RACIAL TENSION .01 .00 .936
OVERALL SATISFACTION 1.98 .55 .000
RESPECT FOR OTHER CULTURES -.34 -.08 .029
RESIDENCE HALL TENSION -.61 -.14 .000
FAIR TREATMENT .30 .07 .046
LACK OF SUPPORT -.17 -.05 .119
FACULTY RACISM -.02 .00 .919
COMFORT WITH OWN CULTURE .00 .00 .989

R
2
.01 .05 .46
F 9.10* 15.46** 69.16**
ΔR
2
.01 .04 .41
ΔF 9.10* 6.36* 53.70**
Note. CRS (Centrality of Religiosity Scale); CACQ (Campus Attitudes & Climate Questionnaire
*p < .05. **p < .001.

prediction of sense of belonging (Model 3) also led to a significant increase in R2 of .41,
F(11,777) = 53.70, p < .001. The final model accounted for 46% of the variance in sense of
belonging for White students.
For Students of Color, the addition of centrality of religiosity to the prediction of sense of
belonging (Model 2) led to a significant increase in R2 of .08, F(5, 202) = 11.04, p = .003. The
addition of perception of CRC to the prediction of sense of belonging (Model 3) also led to a
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 72
significant increase, R2 of .52, F(11, 202) = 37.36, p < .001. The final model accounted for 64%
of the variance in sense of belonging for Students of Color (see Table 8).
Therefore, results show that hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c were all supported. Faith fit and
centrality of religiosity significantly predicted variances in sense of belonging for both White
students and Students of Color (hypotheses 3a and 3b). However, the practical significance of
these variables was less relevant, as the predictive power of faith fit and centrality of religiosity
together (Model 2) was relatively weak (3% for White students and 11% for Students of Color).
On the other hand, including perception of CRC to the model significantly increased the
predictive power of the overall model (41% for White students and 64% for Students of Color).
Additionally, when perception of CRC was included in the model (Model 3), only the
Intellectual (for White students and Students of Color), and Public Practice (for Students of
Color) subscales of centrality of religiosity remained significant in the final model (Model 3).
Therefore, hypothesis 3c, that perception of CRC will predict sense of belonging, was more fully
supported. Furthermore, these results indicate that perception of CRC has much greater
predictive power for sense of belonging than faith fit or centrality of religiosity. Implications for
these results will be discussed in depth in the following chapter.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 73
Table 8

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Sense of Belonging from Faith Fit, Centrality of
Religiosity, and Perceptions of Campus Racial Climate for Students of Color (N = 220)

Sense of Belonging
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B β sig B β sig B β sig
Faith Fit .60 .18 .008 -.07 -.02 .802 -.19 -.06 .341
Centrality of Religiosity (CRS)
INTELLECTUAL .06 .02 .841 -.43 -.12 .047
IDEOLOGY .58 .12 .249 .10 .02 .771
PUBLIC PRACTICE .83 .23 .031 .55 .15 .034
PRIVATE PRACTICE .04 .01 .098 .14 .04 .610
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE .00 .00 .993 -.07 -.02 .757
Campus Racial Climate (CACQ)
DIVERSITY AWARENESS .64 .07 .115
RACIAL PRESSURE -.08 -.02 .688
CROSS-CULTURAL COMFORT .33 .08 .471
RACIAL TENSION -.28 -.06 .418
OVERALL SATISFACTION 2.02 .55 .000
RESPECT FOR OTHER CULTURES .08 .02 .296
RESIDENCE HALL TENSION .41 .08 .198
FAIR TREATMENT .87 .21 .002
LACK OF SUPPORT -.09 -.02 .652
FACULTY RACISM .01 .00 .984
COMFORT WITH OWN CULTURE -.02 -.01 .953

R
2
.03 .11 .64
F 7.27* 11.04** 37.36**
ΔR
2
.03 .08 .52
ΔF 7.27* 3.77* 26.32**
Note. CRS (Centrality of Religiosity Scale); CACQ (Campus Attitudes & Climate Questionnaire
*p < .05. **p < .001.

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 74
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to empirically examine the relationships among race/ethnicity,
centrality of religiosity, faith identity fit, perceptions of CRC, and sense of belonging for
students at Christian institutions. More specifically, this study sought to explore whether
differences in these variables existed by race/ethnicity, and whether centrality of religiosity, faith
identity fit, or perceptions of campus climate could be used to predict sense of belonging for
students at Christian institutions. Results of this study show that Students of Color at Christian
institutions experience a lower sense of belonging than their White counterparts, and that, though
faith identity fit and centrality of religiosity do play some role in sense of belonging for students,
perceptions of CRC have a far stronger role in sense of belonging. The following chapter
provides a summary and discussion of the results as well as implications for both theory and
practice. Limitations of this study are also discussed as well as possible opportunities for future
research.
Discussion of Results
This study sought to explore whether there were differences by race/ethnicity in centrality
of religiosity, faith fit, perceptions of CRC, and sense of belonging for students at Christian
institutions. It was hypothesized that Students of Color would report a lower sense of belonging
and more negative perceptions of CRC than White students.
Differences by Race/Ethnicity in Centrality of Religiosity, Faith Identity Fit, Perceptions of
Campus Racial Climate, and Sense of Belonging for Students at Christian Institutions
Results from this study confirmed the hypotheses that Students of Color would
experience a lower sense of belonging and a more negative perception of CRC than White
students at Christian institutions. This gap in sense of belonging has been well established
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 75
through research at secular institutions (Hausmann et al., 2009; Hoffman et al., 2003; Johnson et
al., 2007), and it appears that Christian institutions are not unique from their secular counterparts
in this regard. In fact, this finding confirms previous research on sense of belonging at Christian
institutions (Kim et al., 2015; Paredes-Collins, 2014), which found that Students of Color report
a lower sense of belonging than White students.
Another way in which it appears Christian institutions are similar to their secular
counterparts is the way students experience the campus climate in racialized ways. The current
study found that Students of Color had a more negative perception of CRC than White students
on all eleven measured subscales. Students of Color reported more Racial Pressure, Racial
Tension, and Faculty Racism than White students while also reporting perceiving less Respect
for Other Cultures, Fair Treatment, and Overall Satisfaction with the campus climate. White
students also indicated a higher level of comfort with their own culture. This was consistent with
previous research (Helm et al., 1998), which suggests White students do not see their culture as
problematic, as they often “do not see the relevance of their culture to diversity because the
overall culture on campus has been, and continues to be, designed for them (p. 115).”
Conversely, Students of Color saw a high relevance for their race/ethnicity and reported higher
levels of pressure related to their race.
Although these findings were consistent with similar previous studies at non-faith based
institutions (Ancis et al., 2000; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Helm et al., 1998; Phillips, 2005;
Rankin & Reason, 2005), this study was unique in that each of the participating institutions
identified explicitly as a Christian institution. As such, this finding makes a valuable
contribution to the literature because it is the only known empirical examination of perception of
CRC at Christian institutions that utilizes a validated and reliable instrument. Previous studies at
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 76
Christian institutions have either used their own instruments that were not validated (Jockel &
Chesnes, 2012; Yancey, 2010), or used other measures as a proxy for perception of CRC
(Paredes-Collins, 2014). Therefore, although not surprising in its results given similar outcomes
at secular institutions, this study makes an important contribution to our understanding of the
experiences of Students of Color at Christian institutions by showing that those students perceive
a more negative CRC than White students.
Another finding of the study were differences in centrality of religiosity by race/ethnicity.
While there were no differences by race/ethnicity in three of the CRS subscales, the study
revealed differences in the Intellectual and Public Practice dimensions with those dimensions
being more central for White students. These findings suggest that White students think about
religious issues more often than Students of Color, and find it more important to be connected to
a religious community. One possible explanation for these differences is that Students of Color
may disproportionally choose to attend Christian institutions for non-religious reasons. For
example, Yancey (2010) found that more than one in three African Americans chose to attend
Protestant institutions to compete in intercollegiate athletics, which was more than three times
more than for any other race. Additionally, African American students were half as likely to
identify spiritual reasons for choosing to attend the institution.
Although not part of the original research questions, it is worth noting responses to the
CRS in general. On the whole, student mean scores were overall high with all but one subscale
scoring above four and a five-point scale. Although not surprising, this suggest that religiosity is
very central to most students attending Christian institutions (even though none of the
institutions require students to sign statements of faith to attend). Additionally, even though
there were differences by race/ethnicity in the Intellectual and Public Practice dimensions, the
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 77
order of scores were the same for both White students and Students of Color with Ideology being
most central and Religious Experience being least central (see Table 5). As the Ideology
dimension is related to belief in a divine power, it isn’t surprising that students at a Christian
college would score very high in this dimension. Perhaps more surprising is that Religious
Experience was least central for students. Since this dimension is related to the extent to which
students feel a divine presence in their lives, it appears that students at Christian institutions are
more inclined to believe in the presence of the divine than they are to experience the presence of
that divinity in their daily lives. Perhaps, in the context of an academic environment, engaging
in a religious experience is less emphasized than thinking rightly about faith. This raises the
question of whether Students of Color in the Christian institution context utilize religious
experience as a way to cope with the challenges of the higher education environment in the same
way as their counterparts at secular institutions (Ceglie, 2013; Dancy, 2010; Watt, 2003).
This study also examined differences in faith fit by race/ethnicity. On the whole, White
students had a better faith fit with their institutions than Students of Color. While some previous
authors (Paredes-Collins, 2013; 2014; Kim et al., 2015) have drawn from research on
racial/ethnic differences between church communities (Emerson & Smith, 2000), to speculate
that Students of Color who attend Christian institutions encounter a religious community
different from their own, this finding is significant as it is the first known study that provides
empirical evidence to support this assertion. Authors (Paredes-Collins, 2013; 2014; Kim et al.,
2015) have also asserted, without empirical evidence, that, given the strong religious norms
rooted in White identity that shape most Christian college cultures, lack of faith fit contributes to
negative perceptions of the CRC for Students of Color. While one would be hard pressed to
deny that White identity does indeed shapes many of the religious norms of Christian campuses,
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 78
previously stated findings of this study regarding racial/ethnic differences in centrality of
religiosity raises the question of whether evidence exists to support the claim that this difference
in faith fit for Students of Color contributes to a more negative perception of CRC.
Relationship Between Faith Fit and Perceptions of CRC
This study sought to explore if faith fit predicted perceptions of CRC. Specifically, it
was hypothesized that greater faith fit would predict positive perceptions of CRC. Not
surprisingly, faith fit was predictive of the Overall Satisfaction subscale for both White Students
and Students of Color. However, for this study, faith fit was correlated with only a total 5 of the
eleven subscales of CRC for White students and only 2 of the subscales for Students of Color.
Furthermore, the predictive power of these correlations for both White students and Students of
Color were weak at best. These findings call into question assertions made by previous authors
who, on the basis of theoretical grounds, have suggested that faith differences between White
students and Students of Color negatively impact the perceptions of CRC for Students of Color
(Paredes-Collins, 2014). As this is the first known study that empirically examines the
relationship between faith fit and perceptions of CRC, more study is needed to confirm these
findings, but they are nevertheless important to note. Although faith is an important element of
the Christian college environment, it appears that other factors for students are more salient to
the perceptions of CRC.
Relationship Between Faith Fit, Centrality of Religiosity, Perceptions of CRC, and Sense of
Belonging
This study sought to explore whether faith fit, centrality of religiosity, and perceptions of
CRC were predictive of sense of belonging. Specifically, it was hypothesized that faith fit,
centrality of religiosity, and perception of CRC would all predict sense of belonging for students.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 79
A compelling finding of this study is that, although all three variables do predict sense of
belonging, perception of CRC is far more predictive of sense of belonging for both Students of
Color and White students than faith fit or centrality of religiosity.
Faith fit and centrality of religiosity do predict sense of belonging in this study. This
result builds upon previous research on sense of belonging at Christian institutions in several
important ways. Bohus et al. (2005) established a relationship between religious commitment
and perceived sense of community, but did not account for possible differences in religious
commitment by race/ethnicity. By accounting for differences in centrality of religiosity by
race/ethnicity, this study confirms a link between centrality of religiosity and sense of belonging
for students. Additionally, by adding faith fit as another variable in addition to importance of
religiosity, this current study added another dimension to the understanding of the impact of
religion on sense of belonging. Paredes-Collins (2014) established a relationship between levels
of spirituality and sense of belonging for Students of Color, but not for White students. This
study advances that work by finding a link between sense of belonging and the spiritual aspects
of centrality of religiosity and faith fit for Students of Color. However, this study also seems to
contradict the research of Paredes-Collins (2014) in that it also found a similar link for White
students as well. One possible explanation for this seemingly contradictory finding is the
differing measures for spirituality used between the studies. As noted previously, the use of
differing constructs for spirituality or religiosity have been the culprit for a number of seemingly
contradictory results from research involving spiritual dimensions (Hill & Hood, 1999; Hill &
Pargament, 2003). Additionally, this is the first known study that empirically establishes a link
between faith fit and sense of belonging at Christian institutions for both Students of Color and
White students. More research is needed to better understand the relationship of faith fit with
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 80
sense of belonging. Due to the limits on the precision of the faith fit measurement combined
with the relatively weak predictive power of faith fit, results from this study should be used
tentatively until further confirming research can be conducted.
The current study results indicate that perception of CRC was the single greatest
predictor of sense of belonging for both Students of Color and White students. This result
affirms the work of Kim et al. (2015) who identified items that could be characterized as CRC
(i.e., satisfaction with racial/ethnic diversity of the student body, respect for the expression of
diverse beliefs, cross-racial interaction, and satisfaction with faculty accessibility) as predictors
of sense of belonging for both Students of Color and White students at religious-based colleges
and universities. However, Kim et al. (2015) did not empirically examine the effect of religiosity
or faith fit on sense of belonging. Therefore, the current study adds to the literature by
demonstrating that perception of CRC plays a much bigger role in the sense of belonging for
students at Christian institutions than does centrality of religiosity or faith fit. What, then, are the
implications of these findings?
Implications
The results of this study hold a number of important implications for researchers,
administrators, and higher education practitioners in their efforts to better understand how to
support students in their success during college. The results from this study, taken together with
results from previous studies, establishes that Students of Color experience a lower sense of
belonging than White students at Christian institutions. This result in and of itself, that a
particular group of students consistently experience lower levels of sense of belonging than other
students, should prompt all involved in Christian higher education to pause and ask, “Why?”
What is it about the interplay between personal identity and institutional environment that
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 81
consistently produces this outcome? While the answers to this question are, no doubt, complex,
multi-dimensional, and even reach beyond the confines of the institutions themselves, the results
of this study begin to provide some helpful insights to guide our inquiry and practice.
Faith in its Proper Place
A compelling question for many Christian higher education practitioners is the role faith
does and should play in their work. On the one hand, faith is central to most practitioners’ work,
and very earnest attempts are made by practitioners to integrate faith into their work at every
opportunity. On the other hand, not all issues addressed or explored in a Christian higher
education setting have elements that are explicitly issues of faith. As institutions of Christian
higher education have grappled with the challenge of how do develop campus environments that
are increasingly racially and ethnically diverse, a single view of the role faith should play in this
process has yet to emerge. Some Christians have suggested that the Christian faith, as one’s
primary identity, should act as a unifier across differing racial/ethnic identities. Those with this
view tend to align with Emerson and Smith’s (2000) description of White evangelicals who
adopt a color-blind ideology and see racism as a relational sin involving individual relationships
rather than structural systems. The old hymn, “We are One in the Spirit.” (Watson, 2002) which
elevates the work of the Holy Spirit to bridge relationships for Christians could serve as the
rallying cry for this perspective. This approach said succinctly is faith trumps racial difference.
A growing number of researchers in Christian higher education (Kim et al. 2015;
Paredes-Collins, 2014) have promoted the theory that, because at least some elements of the type
of Christian faith that is professed and practiced at predominately White Christian campuses are
part of a larger White hegemony, faith serves to further alienate Students of Color rather than
unify them with White students. This approach said succinctly is faith magnifies racial
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 82
difference. Some results from this study appear to support this notion. Results suggest that
White students, on the whole, have faith identities that are more closely aligned to the
institutional faith identities than Students of Color. Furthermore, it appears that lower faith fit is
correlated with lower sense of belonging. It makes sense, then, that institutions could increase
the sense of belonging for Students of Color by making modifications to their faith identities in
ways that would create a greater faith fit with a broader range of students.
However, there could be a number of pragmatic challenges in doing so. In their study of
a Lutheran institution’s efforts to create a more religiously pluralistic campus environment,
Bryant and Craft (2010) illustrate some of the challenges faced by institutions attempting to
create a more spiritually welcoming campus environment. In particular, students who were more
fervent in their faith practice felt a sense of alienation because of the centrality of their faith to
their identity. Additionally, the authors reported little sense of improvement in perceptions of
the campus racial environment by students. There may be a more effective way to increase sense
of belonging for Students of Color that would not run the risk that concerns many administrators
of Christian institutions of compromising the strong faith identities of the institution.
Results from this study suggests that, while faith fit does play some role in sense of
belonging for students, administrators and practitioners who wish to improve sense of belonging
for Students of Color would be better served by focusing their efforts on improving the racial
climate of their campuses. This is not to say that faith plays no importance. Rather, that faith fit,
compared with race/ethnicity, appears to be less important relative to sense of belonging for
students. Said succinctly, race trumps faith. To be more specific, perception of CRC appears to
trump both faith fit and centrality of religiosity of students in its relationship to sense of
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 83
belonging. This was true for both Students of Color and White students (though slightly less so),
which is important for campus administrators to keep in mind.
Not a Zero-Sum Game
Results suggest improving the CRC increases sense of belonging for both White students
and Students of Color. While certain factors may impact sense of belonging in different ways
for Students of Color, research suggests being aware of and addressing these needs benefits all
students. Researchers have found that factors that increase sense of belonging in Students of
Color do no harm to White students’ sense of belonging and even improve their sense of
belonging as well (Hausmann et al., 2009). For example, Strayhorn (2008a) found that, while
factors that had greater influence on sense of belonging differed by race, diverse interactions
with peers positively influenced sense of belonging for both White and Latino students.
Furthermore, students who have actual experiences with diversity show positive learning
outcomes regardless of their racial/ethnic identity (Gurin, 2002).
A Structural Approach to Improving Campus Racial Climates
Results from this study show a relationship between perceptions of CRC and sense of
belonging. However, campus administrators and practitioners who wish to increase sense of
belonging are still left with the dilemma of how to actually improve the CRC for Students of
Color. Although a number of factors shape perceptions of CRC, previous research suggests
promising results from examining the institutional structures that support diverse perspectives
and students. Two such approaches, one specific to a Christian context and one not, are
highlighted below.
Yancey’s (2010), review of diversity efforts at 161 Protestant colleges and universities
reveals a number of interesting suggestions for institutions. Although, Yancey’s research did not
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 84
specifically focus on CRC or sense of belonging as constructs, the author did examine the impact
of diversity efforts on retention and graduation rates of Students of Color, which have also been
linked with sense of belonging in previous research (Hausmann et al., 2009; Morrow &
Ackermann, 2012). Yancey found links between retention rates of Students of Color and three
institutional factors: the existence of a campus office that addressed multi-cultural issues, the
presence of required diversity courses taught by popular faculty of color in the curriculum, and
the presence of multicultural student organizations specific to the student’s race/ethnicity.
Surprisingly, the author also found only 61 percent of conservative Protestant colleges had a
dedicated office that addressed multi-cultural issues. Although, the author didn’t compare these
results with non-sectarian institutions, it was noted that it was his experience that such offices are
quite commonplace at those institutions. This may be another indicator of how Christian
institutions are lagging behind their secular counterparts when it comes to issues of diversity, and
Yancey makes a compelling argument that institutions that wish to improve their campus
climates would be well served by establishing multi-cultural offices, hiring more faculty of color,
developing required diversity courses in the curriculum (especially ones that cover institutional
racism), and supporting the growth and interaction of multi-cultural student organizations.
Bensimon (2004) argues that institutions that wish to address gaps in achievement or
outcomes for Students of Color would benefit from an intensive examination of existing
institutional data in order to determine where systematic forms of inequity may exist at the
institution. Bensimon calls this process the Diversity Scorecard project. The Diversity
Scorecard project is a process in which institutions use existing institutional data to evaluate
institutional equity issues in four performance outcomes: access, retention, institutional
receptivity, and excellence. The data reviewed is disaggregated in a number of ways that
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 85
facilitates the ability to identify institutional equity issues among Students of Color. This
process has been found to be an effective means to assist institutional practitioners to be
conscious of and attend to the organizational obstacles that prevent equitable student outcomes
by, “making the invisible visible and the undiscussable discussable (Bensimon, 2004, p. 99).”
Utilizing the Diversity Scorecard project at Christian institutions would challenge campus
administrators to examine their current cultural model that the college produces equitable
educational outcomes for all students. Through this process, administrators could develop a new
cultural model for the institution in which they believe that the college can and should take
action to create more equitable educational outcomes for Students of Color.
Limitations of the Study
A number of limitations must be taken into account regarding this study including issues
of measurement, instrumentation, and study design. First and foremost, due to the relatively low
number of respondents from racial/ethnic groups other than White, the study combined those
races/ethnicities into one “student of color” group. While this approach allowed the researcher
to account for the disparity in sample size between White students and other race/ethnicities, it
also limits the ability of the study to examine the differences that may exist between racial/ethnic
minorities. Previous research on sense of belonging and CRC has established that differences
between non-White racial/ethnic differences do exist (Hurtado, 2001; Johnson et al., 2007;
Johnson et al., 2013; Milem et al., 1998). Therefore, it is unclear how those racial/ethnic
differences between Students of Color may have influenced the overall findings of the study for
Students of Color. Additionally, it would be a mistake to assume that, because a finding was
found significant for Students of Color as a whole, it would be significant for all racial/ethnic
groups incorporated into the Students of Color designation. Future researchers could design their
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 86
study in such a way as to oversample Students of Color and, thereby, effectively examine
differences between specific racial/ethnic groups.
As this was the first known study that examined the relationship between faith fit and
sense of belonging for students at Christian institutions, it makes an important contribution to our
understanding of the effect of faith fit on sense of belonging at these institutions. However, the
method used to measure faith fit also has some important limitations. The method of
measurement relied on respondents to state their faith and, when appropriate, their
denominational affiliation. This measurement method provided a consistent way to categorize
respondents’ faith identity that could be compared to the faith identity of the institution.
However, since the instrument did not ask respondents more detailed information regarding key
elements of either the expression or tenants of their faith (i.e., worship styles, role of prayer,
importance of service, women in leadership, etc.), there could certainly be important faith
differences that were not captured by the question of faith affiliation. Had those potential
differences been measured more precisely, it is quite possible that differences in faith fit may
have been magnified, and, as a result, had a greater overall effect on students’ sense of belonging
on their campus.
Another measurement limitation related to faith fit is that the study did not examine
respondents’ perceptions of the fit between their faith identity and the faith identity of the
institution. It is possible that, due to cultural differences in the expression or practice of their
faith, some students who may have been identified in this study as having a faith fit with the
institution may experience something less than an ideal faith fit with the institution, or the
opposite could be true as well. For example, a respondent may have identified as Catholic for
the study, but may have also perceived quite a bit of alignment with the faith identity of a
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 87
protestant institution due to similar expressions of their faith. Since this study is the first to
explore the relationship of faith fit to sense of belonging and CRC at Christian institutions, it
would be wise to be tentative in drawing too many definitive conclusions regarding the nature of
this relationship. This leads to several possible directions for continued examination.
Recommendations for Future Studies
While researchers have studied various elements of faith development or spirituality in
higher education in general and specifically at Christian institutions, and research interest is
growing in the experiences of students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds, there are still
many opportunities to explore the unique interplay of faith and racial/ethnic difference at
Christian institutions. Researchers who wish to better understand the unique cultural
assumptions that shape the Christian campus environment should continue to use faith,
spirituality, and religiosity as lenses into the unique experiences of students at Christian
institutions. There are several logical ways to build upon the findings of the current study.
First, as previously mentioned, opportunities are available for researchers to explore more
textured and nuanced ways of understanding faith fit and how it impacts outcomes such as sense
of belonging. In particular, it would be very beneficial to develop an instrument that could be
used to measure the perception of a student’s personal faith identity fit with the institutional faith
identity. If such an instrument could also account for potential differences in faith expression,
belief, or practice that may exist due to cultural or racial/ethnic differences it would be a valuable
tool to further empirically test assumptions previously put forth in the literature regarding the
impact of such differences on the overall sense of belonging or perception of CRC of students.
Secondly, as perception of CRC was identified in this study as strongly related to sense of
belonging, further research on effective ways to improve perceptions of CRC in the Christian
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 88
institutional context is warranted. While a good deal of research on sense of belonging and CRC
exists in the literature, very little has taken place at Christian institutions. While this previous
research can be a helpful resource for administrators and practitioners who wish to improve CRC
and sense of belonging on their campuses, there are certainly characteristics unique to these
institutions that are important to understand. For instance, due to the small class size of most
Christian institutions and the strong desire of faculty to develop meaningful relationships with
their students that are just not possible to the same degree at larger institutions, many faculty at
Christian institutions play a significant role as a spiritual mentor for students. It would be
important to understand the unique role professors at Christian institutions play in both the faith
and racial/ethnic identity development of their students, and the extent to which those
relationships with professors are related to a student’s sense of belonging at the institution.
Conclusion
This study sought to bridge a gap in the current literature by exploring the role faith
identity and perception of CRC plays in the sense of belonging for students at Christian colleges
and universities. Results from this study revealed that Students of Color have a lower sense of
belonging than White students, and that faith fit, centrality of religiosity, and perception of CRC
all have a relationship with sense of belonging. More specifically, while faith fit and centrality
of religiosity had a fairly weak predictive relationship with sense of belonging, perception of
CRC was strongly predictive of sense of belonging (particularly for Students of Color). These
results suggest that improving the CRC at Christian institutions would have a meaningful impact
on the sense of belonging of students in general and Students of Color specifically. Additionally,
practitioners who wish to improve the sense of belonging for Students of Color may be better
served by addressing gaps in perceptions of CRC rather than addressing differences in faith fit.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 89
As the first known study that examines the relationship between faith fit and sense of belonging,
it identifies a possible role that differences in faith and faith fit may play in the sense of
belonging for students on Christian campuses, and opens a potential new line of inquiry for
researchers interested in better understanding the experiences of Students of Color at Christian
institutions.

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 90
References
Ackermann, M. E., & Morrow, J. A. (2007). A principal components analysis and validation of
the coping with the college environment scale (CWCES). Journal of College Student
Retention, 9(2), 133-148. doi:10.2190/CS.9.2.a.
Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus cultural
climate by race. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(2), 180–185.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02576.x.
Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can
enhance students' inner lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2002). The psychology underlying successful retention practices.
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1), 73–89.
Bohus, S., Woods, R. H., & Chan, K. C. (2005). Psychological sense of community among
students on religious collegiate campuses in the Christian evangelical tradition. Christian
Higher Education, 4(1), 19–40. doi:10.1080/153637590507423
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical
examination. Social Forces, 69, 479–504. doi:10.1093/sf/69.2.479
Bowman, N. A., & Denson, N. (2014). A missing piece of the departure puzzle: Student–
Institution fit and intent to persist. Research in Higher Education, 55(2), 123–142.
doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9320-9
Bowman, N., Felix, V., & Ortis, L. (2014). Religious/Worldview identification and college
student success. Religion & Education, 41(2), 117–133.
doi:10.1080/15507394.2013.862126
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 91
Bowman, N. A., & Small, J. L. (2010). Do college students who identify with a privileged
religion experience greater spiritual development? Exploring individual and institutional
dynamics. Research in Higher Education, 51(7), 595-614. doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9175-
2.
Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college
student departure. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 30(3).
Bratter, J. (2015). The demography of race and ethnicity in the United States. In R. Saenz, D. G.
Embrick, & N. Rodriguez (Eds.). The international handbook of the demography of race
and ethnicity (pp. 47–69). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8891-8
Bryant, A. N. (2007). The effects of involvement in campus religious communities on college
student adjustment and development. Journal of College and Character, 8(3), 8.
doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1178
Bryant, A. N., & Astin, H. S. (2008). The correlates of spiritual struggle during the college years.
The Journal of Higher Education, 79(1), 1–27. doi:10.1353/jhe.2008.0000
Bryant, A. N., & Craft, C. M. (2010). The challenge and promise of pluralism: Dimensions of
spiritual climate and diversity at a Lutheran college. Christian Higher Education, 9(5),
396–422. doi:10.1080/15363750903182201
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagedorn, L. S. (1999). Campus
racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison between white
students and African-American students. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 134–
160.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 92
Carlozzi, B., Thomason, N., Worth, S., Harrist, S., & Winterowd, C. (2005). The relationship of
spiritual beliefs and involvement with the experience of anger and stress in college
students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(5), 515–529.
doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0057
Case, K. F., & Hernandez, R. (2013). "But still, I'm Latino and I'm proud": Ethnic identity
exploration in the context of a collegiate cohort program. Christian Higher Education,
12(1), 19.
Ceglie, R. (2013;2012;). Religion as a support factor for women of color pursuing science
degrees: Implications for science teacher educators. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 24(1), 37–65. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9286-z.
Cheng, D. X. (2004). Students' sense of campus community: What it means, and what to do
about it. NASPA Journal, 41(2), 2–433. doi:10.2202/1949-6605.1331
Clydesdale, T. & Ebrary, I. (2007). The first year out: Understanding American teens after high
school. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Cokley, K. O. (2003). What do we know about the motivation of African American students?
challenging the "anti-intellectual" myth. Harvard Educational Review, 73(4), 524–558.
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. (2016a). CCCU retention and graduation rates.
Retrieved from http://cccu.org/filefolder/CCCU_Retention_and_Graduation_Rates_
Five_Years.pdf
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. (2016b). About the CCCU. Retrieved from
http://www.cccu.org/about
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 93
Cuyjet, M. J. (1998). Recognizing and addressing marginalization among African American
college students. College Student Affairs Journal, 18(1), 64.
Dancy, E. T. (2010). Faith in the unseen: The intersection(s) of spirituality and identity among
African American males in college. Journal of Negro Education, 79(3), 416–432.
Demcho, M. C. (2011). Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year
commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (3477877)
Emerson, M. O., & Smith, C. S. (2000). Divided by faith: Evangelical religion and the problem
of race in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Foster, J. D., & LaForce, B. (1999). A longitudinal study of moral, religious, and identity
development in a Christian liberal arts environment. Journal of Psychology and
Theology, 27(1), 52–68.
Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for
meaning. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Gilliard, M. D. (1996). Racial climate and institutional support factors affecting success in
predominantly white institutions: An examination of African-American and White
student experiences. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(04), 1515A.
Glock, C. Y. (1962). On the study of religious commitment. Religious Education, 57(4), 98–110.
doi:10.1080/003440862057S407
Gonyea, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Independent colleges and student engagement: Do
religious affiliation and institution type matter? Bloomington, IN: Center for
Postsecondary Research.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 94
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory
and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–366.
Hagerty, B. M. K., Lynch-Sauer, J., Patusky, K. L., Bouwsema, M., & Collier, P. (1992). Sense
of belonging: A vital mental health concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6(3), 172-
177. doi:10.1016/0883-9417(92)90028-H.
Hagerty, B. M., Williams, R. A., Coyne, J. C., & Early, M. R. (1996). Sense of belonging and
indicators of social and psychological functioning. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing,
10(4), 235-244. doi:10.1016/S0883-9417(96)80029-X.
Harper, S. R., Davis, R. J., Jones, D. E., McGowan, B. L., Ingram, T. N., & Platt, C. S. (2011).
Race and racism in the experiences of black male resident assistants at predominantly
white universities. Journal of College Student Development, 52(2), 180–200.
doi:10.1353/csd.2011.0025.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7–24.
doi:10.1002/ss.254.
Hartley, H. V. (2004). How college affects students' religious faith and practice: A review of
research. College Student Affairs Journal, 23(2), 111–129.
Harwood, S. A., Huntt, M. B., Mendenhall, R., & Lewis, J. A. (2012). Racial microaggressions
in the residence halls: Experiences of students of color at a predominantly white
university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(3), 159–173.
doi:10.1037/a0028956
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 95
Hausmann, L. R., Ye, F., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2009). Sense of belonging and
persistence in white and African American first-year students. Research in Higher
Education, 50(7), 649–669. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9137-8.
Herndon, M. K. (2003). Expressions of spirituality among African-American college males. The
Journal of Men's Studies, 12(1), 75-84. doi:10.3149/jms.1201.75.
Helm, E. G., Sedlacek, W. E., & Prieto, D. O. (1998). The relationship between attitudes toward
diversity and overall satisfaction of university students by race. Journal of College
Counseling, 1(2), 111-120. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.1998.tb00130.x.
Hill, J. P. (2009), Higher Education as Moral Community: Institutional Influences on Religious
Participation During College. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 515–534.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01463.x
Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL:
Religious Education Press.
Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of
religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. American
Psychologist, 58(1), 64–74. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.64
Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salomone, K. (2003). Investigating "sense of
belonging" in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(3),
227–256.
Huber, S. (2007). Are religious beliefs relevant in daily life? In H. Streib (Ed.). Religion inside
and outside traditional institutions (pp. 211–230). Boston, MA: Brill.
Huber, S., & Huber, O. W. (2012). The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS). Religions, 3(4),
710–724. doi:10.3390/rel3030710.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 96
Hughes, R. (2002). Understanding the context of the: Other” education: Black and white
students talk about their experiences at Lone Star University, a predominantly white
institution of higher education in the south. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the
classroom environment and student development. In: G. Orfield (Ed.). Diversity
Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action (pp. 187–203. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino students' sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324–
345.
Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal
of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235-251. doi:10.1177/1538192705276548.
Joeckel, S., & Chesnes, T. (2012). The Christian college phenomenon: Inside America's fastest
growing institutions of higher learning. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press.
Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H., &
Longerbeam, S. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates
from different Racial/Ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5),
525–542.
Johnson, D. R., Wasserman, T. H., Yildirim, N., & Yonai, B. A. (2013). Examining the effects of
stress and campus climate on the persistence of students of color and white students: An
application of Bean and Eaton's psychological model of retention. Research in Higher
Education, 55(1), 75-100. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-9304-9
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 97
Kim, Y. K., Edens, D., Parra, O. E., & Lopez, K. M. (2015). Sense of belonging in religious-
based colleges and universities: Predictors and patterns among students of color and
white students. In B. J. Glimps, & T. Ford (Eds.). Gender and diversity issues in
religious-based institutions and organizations. (pp. 269–290). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8772-1.ch012
Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and health.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lee, J. J. (2002). Religion and college attendance: Change among students. The Review of
Higher Education, 25(4), 369–384. doi:10.1353/rhe.2002.0020
Lee, D. J., Nieves, A. L., & Allen, H. L. (1991). Ethnic-minorities and evangelical Christian
colleges. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Long, D. (2012). Theories and models of student development. In L. J. Hinchliffe & M. A.
Wong (Eds.), Environments for student growth and development; Librarians and student
affairs in collaboration (pp. 41–55). Chicago: Association of College & Research
Libraries
Maramba, D. C., & Velasquez, P. (2012). Influences of the campus experience on the ethnic
identity development of students of color. Education and Urban Society, 44(3), 294–317.
Mayhew, M. J., & Bryant, A. N. (2013). Achievement or arrest? the influence of the collegiate
religious and spiritual climate on students' worldview commitment. Research in Higher
Education, 54(1), 63–84.
Mayhew, M. J., Bowman, N. A., & Rockenbach, A. B. (2014). Silencing whom? linking campus
climates for religious, spiritual, and worldview diversity to student worldviews. Journal
of Higher Education, 85(2), 219–245.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 98
Mayrl, D. & Oeur, F. (2009). Religion and higher education: Current knowledge and directions
for future research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 260–275.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01446.x
Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J. & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A
research-based perspective. Retrieved from http//:www.aacu.or/inclusive_excellence/
pdfs/Milem_Final.pdf
Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., Hurtado, S., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus
climates for Racial/Ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of
Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.
Modica, M. (2012). Constructions of race among religiously conservative college students.
Multicultural Perspectives, 14(1), 38-43. doi:10.1080/15210960.2012.646850.
Mooney, M. (2010). Religion, college grades, and satisfaction among students at elite colleges
and universities. Sociology of Religion, 71(2), 197-215. doi:10.1093/socrel/srq035
Morrow, J. A., & Ackermann, M. E. (2012). Intention to persist and retention of first-year
students: The importance of motivation and sense of belonging. College Student Journal,
46(3), 483.
Ng, J. C., Lee, S. S., & Pak, Y. K. (2007). Chapter 4: Contesting the model minority and
perpetual foreigner stereotypes: A critical review of literature on Asian Americans in
education. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 95–130.
doi:10.3102/0091732X06298015
Ong, A. D., Burrow, A. L., Fuller-Rowell, T., Ja, N. M., & Sue, D. W. (2013). Racial
microaggressions and daily well-being among Asian Americans. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 188–199.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 99
Paredes-Collins, K. (2009). Institutional priority for diversity at Christian institutions. Christian
Higher Education, 8(4), 280–303.
Paredes-Collins, K., & Collins, C. S. (2011). The intersection of race and spirituality:
Underrepresented students' spiritual development at predominantly white evangelical
colleges. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 20(1), 73–100.
doi:10.1080/10656219.2011.557586.
Paredes-Collins, K. (2013). Cultivating diversity and spirituality: A compelling interest for
institutional priority. Christian Higher Education, 12(1-2), 122–137.
doi:10.1080/15363759.2013.739436.
Paredes-Collins, K. (2014). Campus climate for diversity as a predictor of spiritual development
at Christian colleges. Religion & Education, 41(2), 171–193.
doi:10.1080/15507394.2013.864206.
Park, J. J., & Bowman, N. A. (2015). Religion as bridging or bonding social capital: Race,
religion, and cross-racial interaction for college students. Sociology of Education, 88(1),
20–37. doi:10.1177/0038040714560172.
Park, J. J. (2012). When race and religion collide: The effect of religion on interracial friendship
during college. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(1), 8–21.
doi:10.1037/a0026960.
Park, J. J. (2012b). "Man, this is hard": A case study of how race and religion affect cross-racial
interaction for black students. Review of Higher Education, 35(4), 567–593.
Parker, L. (1998). “Race is . . . race ain’t”: An exploration of the utility of critical race theory in
qualitative research in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 11(1), 43–55. doi:10.1080/095183998236881.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 100
Parks, S. D. (1986). The critical years: Young adults and the search for meaning, faith, and
commitment. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Parks, S. D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search for
meaning, purpose, and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pew Research Center. (2015). America's changing religious landscape. Washington, DC: Pew
Research Center.
Phillips, C. D. (2005). A comparison between African-American and white students enrolled in
an equal opportunity program on predominantly white college campuses: Perceptions of
the campus environment. College Student Journal, 39(2), 298.
Phillips, R., & Henderson, A. (2006). Religion and depression among U.S. college students.
International Social Science Review, 81(3/4), 166–172.
Pollard, L. J., & Bates, L. W. (2004). Religion and perceived stress among undergraduates
during fall 2001 final examinations. Psychological Reports, 95(3), 999–1007.
Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and white
students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College
Student Development, 46(1), 43–61. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0008.
Raphael, L. M., Pressley, M., & Kane, J. (2003). Catholic higher education and Latino students:
Exploring the experience of university undergraduates. Catholic Education: A Journal of
Inquiry and Practice, 7(2), 197.
Reason, R. D. (2009). An examination of persistence research through the lens of a
comprehensive conceptual framework. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6),
659–682. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0098
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 101
Rendon, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of
minority student retention in higher education. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the
student departure puzzle (pp. 127–156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Rennick, L. A., Smedley, C. T., Fisher, D., Wallace, E., & Young, K. (2013). The effects of
Spiritual/Religious engagement on college students' affective outcomes: Differences by
gender and race. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 22(3), 301–322.
Reyes, R. J. (2013). Particularity "and" integration: Understanding of ecocultural niches and their
implication for fostering diversity within Christian colleges and universities. Christian
Higher Education, 12(1), 16.
Rockenbach, A. B., & Mayhew, M. J. (2013). How the collegiate religious and spiritual climate
shapes students' ecumenical orientation. Research in Higher Education, 54(4), 461–479.
doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9282-y
Roof, W. C., & Perkins, R. B. (1975). On conceptualizing salience in religious commitment.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14(2), 111–128.
Rodgers, K. A., & Summers, J. J. (2008). African American students at predominantly white
institutions: A motivational and self-systems approach to understanding retention.
Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 171–190
Schreiner, L. A., & Kim, Y. K. (2011). Outcomes of a Christian college education: A
comparison of CCCU students' gains to the national aggregate. Christian Higher
Education, 10(3-4), 324–352. doi:10.1080/15363759.2011.577714
Small, J. L., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). Religious commitment, skepticism, and struggle among
U.S. college students: The impact of Majority/Minority religious affiliation and
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 102
institutional type. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 154–174.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01557.x
Small, J. L., & Bowman, N. A. (2012). Religious affiliation and college student development: A
literature review and synthesis. Religion & Education, 39(1), 64–75.
doi:10.1080/15507394.2012.648586
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and
campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The
Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60-73.
Stark, R., & Glock, C. Y. (1968). Patterns of religious commitment. Berkeley, CA: University
Press.
Steensland, B., Park, J. Z., Regnerus, M. D., Robinson, L. D., Wilcox, W. B., & Woodberry, R.
D. (2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art.
Social Forces, 79(1), 291-318. doi:10.1093/sf/79.1.291
Strayhorn, T. L. (2008a). "Sentido de pertenencia": A hierarchical analysis predicting sense of
belonging among Latino college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(4),
301–320.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2008b). Fittin' in: Do diverse interactions with peers affect sense of belonging
for black men at predominantly white institutions? NASPA Journal, 45(4), 501–527.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2013). Measuring race and gender differences in undergraduate students'
perceptions of campus climate and intentions to leave college: An analysis in black and
white. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(2), 115–132.
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2007). Racial microaggressions
and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 103
13, 72–81.
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. The
Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603–618.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. doi:10.2307/1170024
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2
nd
ed.).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
United States Department of Education. (2008). Defining race and ethnicity data: NCES
standard 1–5. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/2002/std1_5.asp
United States Department of Education. (2013). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting
postsecondary institutions, by level of enrollment, sex, attendance status, and
race/ethnicity of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2012. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.go/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_306.10.asp
Walker, K. L., & Dixon, V. (2002). Spirituality and academic performance among African
American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 28(2), 107–121.
doi:10.1177/0095798402028002003
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
Watson, J. R. (2002). An annotated anthology of hymns. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/0198269730.001.0001
Watt, S. K. (2003). Come to the river: Using spirituality to cope, resist, and develop identity.
New Directions for Student Services, 2003(104), 29–40. doi:10.1002/ss.105
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 104
Weigert, A. J., & Thomas, D. L. (1969). Religiosity in 5-D: A critical note. Social Forces, 48(2),
260–263. doi:10.1093/sf/48.2.260
Wells, A. V., & Horn, C. (2015). The Asian American college experience at a diverse institution:
Campus climate as a predictor of sense of belonging. Journal of Student Affairs Research
and Practice, 52(2), 149. doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.1041867
Woodberry, R. D., Park, J. Z., Kellstedt, L. A., Regnerus, M. D., & Steensland, B. (2012). The
measure of American religious traditions: Theoretical and measurement considerations.
Social Forces, 91(1), 65–73. doi:10.1093/sf/sos121
Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solorzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard
Educational Review, 79(4), 659–690.
Yancey, G. A. (2010). Neither Jew nor Gentile: Exploring issues of racial diversity on protestant
college campuses. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Zern, D. S. (1989). Some connection between increasing religiousness and academic
accomplishment in a college population. Adolescence, 24(93), 141.
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 105
Appendix A
Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AS PREDICTORS FOR CROSS-RACE
INTERACTION AT CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES:
DIFFERENCES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, SEX, AND RELIGIOSITY
and
PERCEPTIONS OF CAMPUS RACIAL CLIMATE AND SENSE OF BELONGING AT CHRISTIAN
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: DIFFERENCES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, RELIGIOSITY AND
FAITH FIT.

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Stu Cleek and Peter Hansen under the
supervision of Dr. Ruth Chung at the University of Southern California. You are eligible to participate
because you are an undergraduate student aged 18 and up. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask
questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to fill a gap in the current literature on how perceptions of campus racial
climate differentiate by the salient identities of race/ethnicity, sex, and centrality of religiosity and how
these perceptions predict cross-race interaction. The study also fills a gap in the current literature on the
role faith identity plays in the sense of belonging for students of color at Christian colleges and
universities. Additionally, the study specifically attempts to understand the relationship between a
student’s centrality of religiosity, faith fit, and their sense of belonging at the institution. Lastly, the study
explores whether or not faith fit with an institution results in a more positive view of the campus racial
climate. Ideally, these findings will help inform campus administrators as they make decisions about
campus structures and support systems for students of color; thereby, assisting to close the gap in
retention and graduation rates for these students.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey, which is anticipated
to take about 10-15 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to, click “next” or
“N/A” in the survey to move to the next question.
INFORMATION SHEET FOR RESEARCH
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 106

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your school will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Each research participant will be entered in a random drawing for the possibility of receiving a $25.00
Amazon gift card. Participation in the survey is voluntary and all participants will be entered in the
drawing whether or not they complete the survey.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your survey responses are anonymous and will not be linked to your name, email address, or any other
identifier. For purposes of entering the raffle, we will provide a link at the end of the survey that will take
the respondents to a separate survey where they can enter your contact information. Those identifiers
from the second survey will not be linked to your survey responses and will be deleted once the raffles are
completed. The anonymous data will be stored on a secure computer and retained at the discretion of the
investigators. At the completion of the study, the anonymous data may be used for future research
studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should not participate.

The results of this research may be made public, shared with participating sites and quoted in professional
journals and meetings, but results from this study will only be reported as a group such that no individual
respondents can be identified. No identifiable information will be included.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
• Co-Principal Investigator, Peter Hansen via email at pjhansen@usc.edu or phone at (805) 565-
6358
• Co-Principal Investigator, Stu Cleek via email at cleek@usc.edu or phone at (805) 565-6029
• Faculty Advisor, Dr. Ruth Chung via email at rchung@usc.edu or (213) 740-3258

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the research
in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of
the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South
Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 107
Appendix B
Demographic Questions

Q2. What is your sex?
m Male (1)
m Female (2)
Q3. What is your year in school?
m First year (1)
m Sophomore (2)
m Junior (3)
m Senior (4)
Q4. What best describes your race/ethnicity?
m African American / Black (2)
m Asian or Asian American (3)
m Latino/a or Hispanic (4)
m Middle Eastern (5)
m Multi-racial (Please specify which races) (6) ____________________
m Native American (7)
m Pacific Islander (8)
m White (1)
m Other (Please indicate below) (9) ____________________

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 108
Appendix C
Campus Attitudes and Climate Questionnaire (CACQ)
Helm, Sedlacek, and Prieto (1998)

Q5. Please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statements:

SD
(1)
D
(2)
N
(3)
A
(4)
SA
(5)
Q5.1. My experiences since coming to school here
have led me to become more understanding of
racial/ethnic differences
m m m m m
Q5.2. Getting to know people with racial/ethnic
backgrounds different from my own has been
easy on this campus
m m m m m
Q5.3. My social interactions on this campus are
largely confined to students of my
race/ethnicity
m m m m m
Q5.4. I feel there are expectations about my
academic performance because of my
race/ethnicity
m m m m m
Q5.5. I feel pressured to participate in ethnic
activities at this school
m m m m m
Q5.6. I feel I need to minimize various
characteristics of my racial/ethnic culture (e.g.
language, dress) to be able to fit in here
m m m m m
Q5.7. My experiences since coming to this school
have strengthened my own sense of ethnic
identity
m m m m m
Note. SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

Q6. Think about the faculty whose courses you have taken here. How many of them would
you describe as:

None
(1)
Few
(2)
Some
(3)
Most
(4)
All
(5)
Q6.1. Approachable outside of the classroom m m m m m
Q6.2. Fair to all students regardless of their
racial or ethnic backgrounds
m m m m m

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 109

Q7. Think about your experiences in the classroom. Please indicate to what degree you
agree with the following statements:

SD
(1)
D
(2)
N
(3)
A
(4)
SA
(5)
Q7.1. In my experience, students of different
racial/ethnic backgrounds participate equally in
classroom discussion and learning
m m m m m
Q7.2. I feel I am expected to represent my race or
ethnic group in discussion in class
m m m m m
Q7.3. Faculty use examples relevant to people of my
race/ethic group in their lectures
m m m m m
Q7.4. In my classes I feel that my professors ignore
my comments or questions
m m m m m
Note. SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

Q8. Please indicate how comfortable you feel in the following situations at this school:

VU
(1)
U
(2)
N
(3)
C
(4)
VC
(5)
Q8.1. Going to see a faculty member of my own
race/ethnicity
m m m m m
Q8.2. Speaking with others about my race/ethnicity m m m m m
Q8.3. Being in situations where I am the only person
of my racial/ethnic group
m m m m m
Q8.4. Saying what I think about racial/ethnic issues m m m m m
Q8.5. Being with people whose racial/ethnic
backgrounds are different from my own
m m m m m
Q8.6. Participating in class m m m m m
Q8.7. Going to see a faculty member of a different
race/ethnicity than my own
m m m m m
Q8.8. Being with people whose racial/ethnic
backgrounds are the same as my own
m m m m m
Note. VU = Very Uncomfortable; U = Uncomfortable; N = Neutral; C = Comfortable; VC = Very Comfortable

Q9. The effort made by your school to improve relations and understanding between
people of different racial/ethnic backgrounds is:
m Too little (1)
m About right (2)
m Too much (3)
m Don't know (4)

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 110
Q10. Please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statement:

SD
(1)
D
(2)
N
(3)
A
(4)
SA
(5)
Q10.1. The campus has done a good job providing
programs and activities that promote
multicultural understanding
m m m m m
Q10.2. At this school students are resentful of others
whose race/ethnicity is different from their
own
m m m m m
Q10.3. There should have to be a requirement for
graduation that students take at least one
course on the role of ethnicity and race in
society
m m m m m
Q10.4. This school does not promote respect for
diversity
m m m m m
Q10.5. The student newspaper’s coverage of
racial/ethnic events and issues is balanced
m m m m m
Q10.6. Diversity is/was one of the reasons why I
chose to come here
m m m m m
Note. SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

Q11. Please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statements:

SD
(1)
D
(2)
N
(3)
A
(4)
SA
(5)
Q11.1. The school provides an environment for the
free and open expression of ideas, opinions
and beliefs
m m m m m
Q11.2. Overall my educational experience here has
been a rewarding one
m m m m m
Q11.3. The atmosphere in my classes does not make
me feel like I belong
m m m m m
Q11.4. I would recommend this school to sibling or
friends as a good place to go to college
m m m m m
Q11.5. The overall quality of academic programs
here is excellent
m m m m m
Q11.6. I feel as though I belong in the campus
community
m m m m m
Note. SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 111
Q12. Please use the scale below to indicate the extent to which you believe each of the
following is present at your school:

Little or
none (1)
Some (2)
Quite a
bit (3)
A great
deal (4)
Q12.1. A racial conflict on campus m m m m
Q12.2. Respect by faculty for students of
different racial and ethnic groups
m m m m
Q12.3. Respect by students for other students
of different racial and ethnic groups
m m m m
Q12.4. Racial/ethnic separation on campus m m m m
Q12.5. School commitment to the success of
students of different racial and ethnic
groups
m m m m
Q12.6. Friendship between students of
different racial and ethnic groups
m m m m
Q12.7. Interracial tensions in the residence
halls
m m m m
Q12.8. Interracial tensions in the classroom m m m m

Q13. How fairly do you believe you have been treated by the following:

Very
unfairly (1)
Unfairly
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Fairly
(4)
Very
fairly (5)
Q13.1. University Police or
Campus Safety
m m m m m
Q13.2. Residence hall personnel m m m m m
Q13.3. Faculty m m m m m
Q13.4. Teaching assistants m m m m m
Q13.5. Students m m m m m

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 112
Q14. In each of these setting to what extent have you been exposed to information about
the history, culture, and/or social issues of racial and ethnic groups other than whites?

Not at
all (1)
A little
(2)
Some
(3)
Quite a
bit (4)
A great
deal (5)
Q14.1. In course readings, lectures and
discussions
m m m m m
Q14.2. In activities and programs in the
residence halls
m m m m m
Q14.3. In other school programs or
activities
m m m m m
Q14.4. In informal interactions and
conversations with friends
m m m m m

Q15. How often do you have difficulty getting help or support from:

Never
(4)
Seldom
(3)
Sometimes
(2)
Often
(1)
Q15.1. Faculty m m m m
Q15.2. Students m m m m
Q15.3. Teaching Assistants m m m m

Q16. How often have you been exposed to a racist atmosphere created by the faculty?

Never
(4)
Seldom
(3)
Sometimes
(2)
Often
(1)
Q16.1. In the classroom m m m m
Q16.2. Outside the classroom m m m m

Q17. How often have you been exposed to a racist atmosphere created by other students?

Never
(4)
Seldom
(3)
Sometimes
(2)
Often
(1)
Q17.1. In the classroom m m m m
Q17.2. Outside the classroom m m m m
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 113
Q18. Please indicate whether your experience here has changed your behavior in any of
the following ways:

Yes
(1)
No
(2)
Q18.1. I now recognize culturally-biased behavior I had not previously
identified
m m
Q18.2. I now discuss topics related to cultural awareness with friends m m
Q18.3. I now stop myself from using language that may be offensive to
others
m m
Q18.4. I now handle negative language used by another in such a way as
to try to educate the other person
m m
Q18.5. I now initiate contact with people who are not of my culture or
ethnic background
m m

Q19. Have you attended or participated in any diversity programs on campus this year?
m Yes (1)
m No (2)
m Don't know (3)

Q20. To what degree do you agree that attending programs on diversity contributes to the
goal of building community?
m Strongly disagree (1)
m Disagree (2)
m Neutral (3)
m Agree (4)
m Strongly agree (5)

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 114
Appendix D
Sense of Belonging Sub-Scale of The Perceived Cohesion Scale
Bollen & Hoyle (1990)

Q22. What best describes your response to the following statements?

SD
0
(1)

1
(2)

2
(3)

3
(4)

4
(5)

N
5 (6)

6
(7)

7
(8)

8
(9)

9
(10)
SA
10
(11)
Q22.1. I see myself as part of the
campus community
m m m m m m m m m m m
Q22.2. I feel that I am a member of
the campus community
m m m m m m m m m m m
Q22.3. I feel a sense of belonging to
the campus community
m m m m m m m m m m m
Note. SD = Strongly Disagree; N = Neutral; SA = Strongly Agree

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 115
Appendix E
RELTRAD Classification Scheme for American Religious Denominations
Steensland, Park, Regnerus, Robinson, Wilcox, & Woodberry (2000)

Q23. What is your faith identity?
m Protestant (1)
m Catholic (2)
m Orthodox Christian (3)
m Mormon (4)
m Jehovah’s Witness (5)
m Other Christian (6)
m Jewish (7)
m Muslim (8)
m Buddhist (9)
m Hindu (10)
m Other faiths (11)
m Atheist (12)
m Agnostic (13)
m Nothing in particular (14)

Display Questions 24-26, if Q23. What is your faith identity? “Protestant” or “Other Christian”
Is Selected
Q24. What is your denomination (choose "Other" for first selection if you do not know
your denomination)?
Q25. Do you consider yourself "born again?"
m Yes (1)
m No (2)
Q26. Which statement best describes the church you attend?
m Multi-racial (1)
m Mostly the same race (same as my own race) (2)
m Mostly the same race (not my own race) (3)
m I do not attend a church (4)
SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 116
Appendix F
Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS)
Huber and Huber (2012)

Note: “A” questions display for Abrahamic faiths or no faith; “B” questions display for Non-
Abrahamic faiths

Q27. How often do you:

N
(1)
R
(2)
Occ.
(3)
O
(4)
VO
(5)
Q27.1. Think about religious issues? m m m m
Q27.2.A. Experience situations in which you have the feeling
that God or something divine intervenes in your life?
m m m m m
Q27.2.B. Experience situations in which you have the feeling
that you are one with all?
m m m m m
Q27.3.A. Experience situations in which you have the feeling
that God or something divine wants to communicate
or to reveal something to you?
m m m m m
Q27.3.B. Experience situations in which you have the feeling
that you are touched by a divine power?
m m m m m
Q27.4. Keep yourself informed about religious questions
through radio, television, internet, newspapers, or
books?
m m m m m
Q27.5.A. Pray spontaneously when inspired by daily
situations?
m m m m m
Q27.5.B. Try to connect to the divine spontaneously when
inspired by daily situations?
m m m m m
Q27.6. Experience situations in which you have the feeling
that God or something divine is present?
m m m m m
Note. N = Never; R = Rarely; Occ. = Occasionally; O = Often; VO = Very Often

Q28. How often do you take part in religious services?
m Never (1)
m Less often (2)
m A few times a year (3)
m One or more times a month (4)
m Once a week (5)
m More than once a week (6)

SENSE OF BELONGING AT FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS 117
Q29.A. How often do you pray?
m Never (1)
m Less often (2)
m A few times a year (3)
m One to three times a month (4)
m Once a week (5)
m More than once a week (6)
m Once a day (7)
m Several times a day (8)
Q29.B. How often do you meditate?
m Never (1)
m Less often (2)
m A few times a year (3)
m One to three times a month (4)
m Once a week (5)
m More than once a week (6)
m Once a day (7)
m Several times a day (8)

Q30. Choose the statement below that best reflects your answer to the following questions:

Not
at all
(1)
Not very
much
(2)

Moderately
(3)
Quite
a bit
(4)
Very
much
so (5)
Q30.1. To what extent do you believe that God
or something divine exists?
m m m m m
Q30.2. How interested are you in learning more
about religious topics?
m m m m m
Q30.3. To what extent do you believe in an
afterlife—e.g. immortality of the soul,
resurrection of the dead or
reincarnation?
m m m m m
Q30.4. How important is it to take part in
religious services?
m m m m m
Q30.5.A. How important is personal prayer for
you?
m m m m m
Q30.5.B. How important is meditation for you? m m m m m
Q30.6. In your opinion, how probable is it that a
higher power really exists?
m m m m m
Q30.7. How important is it for you to be
connected to a religious community?
m m m m m

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perceptions of campus racial climate as predictors for cross-race interaction at Christian colleges and universities: differences by race/ethnicity, sex, and religiosity

PDF

Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...

PDF

A critical worldview: understanding identity and sense of belonging of underrepresented students' participation in study abroad

PDF

An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...

PDF

The effects of campus friendships and perceptions of racial climates on the sense of belonging among Arab and Muslim community college students

PDF

Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution

PDF

Faculty perceptions of barriers: gender and ethnicity differences among tenured and tenure-track faculty in the University of California system

PDF

U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

The relationship of college climate and policy to transgender student belonging

PDF

The relationship between the campus climate and under-represented students’ experiences on campus and the influences on fit, self-efficacy, and performance: a qualitative study

PDF

Sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities: a qualitative study

PDF

Creating opportunities for engagement and building community utilizing geek culture in a residential education department

PDF

The perception of campus climate and satisfaction in a postsecondary setting for students with disabilities

PDF

The relationship among gender, race/ethnicity, sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance of biomedical undergraduates

PDF

Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students

PDF

The relationship of ethnicity, gender, acculturation, intergenerational relations, and sense of belonging in the institution to academic success among Asian American undergraduates

PDF

First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university

PDF

The relationship between students’ feelings of belonging to their campus community and racial ethnic identification in undergraduate university students

PDF

Promoting students' sense of belonging as a practitioner inquiry community

Asset Metadata

Creator Cleek, Stuart D. (author)

Core Title Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/20/2017

Defense Date 03/06/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag campus racial climate,Christian colleges,Faith,faith-based institutions,OAI-PMH Harvest,Race,religiosity,sense of belonging,students of color

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), DeGraw, Julie (committee member), Hinga, Briana (committee member)

Creator Email cleek@usc.edu,scleek@westmont.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-364063

Unique identifier UC11258302

Identifier etd-CleekStuar-5261.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-364063 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CleekStuar-5261.pdf

Dmrecord 364063

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cleek, Stuart D.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA