6.2 Summary of Findings
6.2.3 Transition from Study Two (chapter 4) to Study Three (chapter 5)
Psychological research has found consistently positive, small but pervasive effects of perceived available social support on university students’ academic achievement and mental health. However, the author found a lack of research on generative, or facilitative, factors of social support. With evidence from Study Two that perceived available social support was greatest in colleges for relocated, first-year students, the author constructed a correlational
167 matrix from the collected data. The matrix included the factors perceived available support
“Tangible”, “Belonging”, “Appraisal” (sub-scales of social support), domestic support, and greeting network. The greater inter-relatedness and connection of co-residents in colleges, indicated by perceived available belonging support, was further supported by a positive correlation with greeting network.
The first-year participants in Study Two residing in colleges, recognised and greeted more co-residents than did those in other types of residence. According to Egilsson et al.
(2021) and Sumsion and Wong (2011), mutual recognition and acknowledgement in greeting indicate an initial level of inter-relatedness and connection requiring only opportunity for acts associated with belonging to occur. Thus, greeting network seemed a probable generator, or facilitator, of perceived available belonging support.
A broader search of the literature identified “cohesion” as a concept related to belonging. Investigations of “cohesion” have found strong relationships between environmental factors within small military units (10 - 299 members), cohesion, and
members’ mental health/well-being (Bartone et al., 2002, Campbell-Sills et al., 2020; Cota et al., 1995; Manning, 1994). Like international and RRR undergraduates, typical military recruits are aged 17 - 20 years (Campbell-Sills et al., 2020; Manning, 1994) and, thus,
emerging adults facing the same age-related key tasks following relocation. Furthermore, both relocated undergraduates and military recruits are under greater stress than peers living at home. The foregoing, together with the relatively high correlations found between perceived available belonging support, domestic support (material comfort), and oral English use (communication) indicated the aims and methodology for Study Three.
168 6.2.4 Relocated undergraduates, integrated support in residence environment,
associated factors, and outcomes.
Study Three (Chapter 5) is the second quantitative, cross-sectional, survey study. This study aimed to extend Study Two by investigating the associations of constructs in residence environments with participants’ academic success and psychosocial well-being. The
constructs, material comfort, ease of communication, commonality of purpose, and interpersonal care, were combined into a novel scale termed “Integrated support”.
Study Three had three objectives. First, the Study sought to determine any differences in the levels of integrated support, mediating factors, and outcomes for groups of participants residing in flats, share houses, colleges, and “villages”. Second, the Study sought to ascertain any associations of integrated support in residences with probable mediators, namely,
perceived available belonging support and residence sense of community, and effect sizes.
Third, the Study sought the factors with the strongest associations with the following
outcomes: GPA estimate, intention to persist, psychological well-being, regular contact with distal co-residents and university peers.
Study Three (Chapter 5) found, as did Study Two (Chapter 4), that most international students resided in flats and share houses, followed by “villages”, whereas most RRR students resided in colleges, followed by flats and share houses. Data were further analysed in
aggregate for all relocated students. The findings of Study Three were novel since integrated support in undergraduates’ residences has not previously been investigated.
Comparisons between the four types of residence showed that participants residing in colleges had greater integrated support, perceived available belonging support, sense of community, and contact with distal co-residents than had those in flats, share houses, and
“villages”. The differences found between residences were significant, except for one.
However, the difference in the level of perceived available belonging support between
169 colleges and “villages” was close to significant. Comparisons also determined that
participants residing in share houses had a significantly greater sense of community than had those in flats.
The Study found no differences between the four types of residence for the factor, sense of community at university, or for most outcomes. The one exception was regular contact with distal co-residents. A much higher percentage of participants residing in colleges contacted distal co-residents regularly than did those in flats, share houses, or “villages”, while participants in flats did so more than those in share houses, or “villages”.
Relationships within factors, and between factors and outcomes were investigated.
The findings are as follows. Integrated support in residences had a positive, large size of effect on the variances of two factors and one outcome. As integrated support increased, so too did perceived available belonging support, residence sense of community, and contact with distal co-residents. The findings are consistent with research examining the impact on group cohesion of the environmental variables within an entity (da Costa, 2020).
Perceived available belonging support had a positive effect on the variances of all outcomes except contact with distal university peers. The factor contributed to a large increase in residence sense of community, a medium-sized increase in psychological well- being, and small increases in GPA estimate, and intention to persist, consistent with the social support literature. The factor also contributed to a small increase in contact with distal co- residents, and, while not significant, was a positive influence on contact with distal university peers.
The perceived available belonging support of the ISEL (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983) is distinct from feelings or sense of belonging. Previous research investigating belonging and community has defined “belonging” in terms of “fitting in” and, as such, it has been included
170 in measuring sense of community (Jason et al., 2015). The large contribution of perceived available belonging support to the variance of sense of community was a novel finding.
Sense of community in residences contributed a large proportion of the variance in contact with distal co-residents, while university sense of community had a positive, medium size of effect on the variance in psychological well-being.
In summary, academically (emerging-adult work domain) and individually (emerging- adult self-domain), all relocated undergraduate participants were progressing well with the developmental tasks of achieving eventual financial independence and self-actualisation.
However, on variables within the emerging-adult relationships domain, participants in colleges generally outperformed those in flats, share houses, and “villages”. Undergraduates residing in a flat, share house, or “village” have fewer opportunities to interact with as many co-residents as those in colleges. Considering the pervasive, positive effects of perceived available belonging support on the measures of academic success and psychosocial well- being, relocated students, would be ill advised, for this alone, to reside in a flat for their first year.