importanttt fof and pro

Missouri Baptist University
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
This is to certify that the Dissertation by
Terri Politte
has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by
the Dissertation Committee have been made.
Dissertation Committee
Dr. Jerry Raines, Committee Chair, University Faculty
Dr. Rachel Howard, Committee Member, University Faculty
Associate Vice President for Graduate Affairs
Melanie Bishop, Ed.D.
Missouri Baptist University

2023
FEAR OF FAILURE AND BELONGING 1
Fear of Failure and Belonging in Relation to Success and Retention
Terri A. Politte
A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate Studies Program

of Missouri Baptist University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May, 2023
Abstract
Higher education has explored student retention and success over time and continues to look for
ways to improve in these areas. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the
correlation between the feelings of fear of failure and a sense of belonging, and their association
with retention and student success. The group that was studied was first-year and transfer college
students enrolled in the Freshman Seminar Course at a four-year university in a suburb of a
metropolitan area. The students who participated in the study did so voluntarily and completed a
survey that included individual beliefs in aversive consequences of failure and generalized fear
of failure and perceptions of peer support, classroom, comfort, isolation, and faculty support.
Students self-reported their feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and future academic
goals to measure student success and self-reported plans to return to the studied institution the
following school year to measure student retention. The findings in the study suggest students
who have a higher sense of belonging have lower levels of fear of failure, which increases
student success. Student success and retention were positively associated. Future research similar
to this study could include strategies to decrease fear of failure and increase a sense of belonging
in an effort to increase student retention and success.

Acknowledgements
The dissertation process is a journey with many hills and valleys. I began this expedition
due to a calling I had from God. At first, I did not think I was capable or smart enough to
complete this process. However, what I have learned is that when God calls us do something, He
shows up to ensure we are equipped to finish the task well. There were many times during this
exploration that I felt like quitting. Prayer and submitting to the will of God carried me through.
In addition to God’s guidance, I must acknowledge my amazing cohort. We helped encourage
and inspire one another during the entire process cheering each other on and celebrating
milestones. I want to thank Dr. Harrison for believing in me, challenging me, and listening to my
needs. Thank you to Dr. Raines and Dr. Howard for their guidance and support throughout this
quest. Thank you to Mr. Nolan for helping me navigate the quantitative research and data. I am
incredibly thankful for my family who cheered me on the entire time. They put up with many
hours of focusing on work and picking up the slack when needed. They are my biggest fans.
Overall, I am thankful for this challenge that has allowed me to grow in ways I did not think was
possible. Anything is possible with God.

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ....................................................................................................7
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................7
Background ..........................................................................................................................8
Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................9
Purpose Statement ..............................................................................................................10
Paradigmatic Framework ...................................................................................................11
Significance of Study .........................................................................................................11
Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................................12
Definition of Terms and Concepts .....................................................................................14
Limitations .........................................................................................................................15
Delimitations ......................................................................................................................16
Researcher Assumptions ....................................................................................................16
Summary ............................................................................................................................16
CHAPTER TWO : Review of Literature ..................................................................................18
Introduction ........................................................................................................................18
Student Success ..................................................................................................................19
Fear of Failure ....................................................................................................................27
Belonging ...........................................................................................................................32
Summary ............................................................................................................................38
CHAPTER THREE: Methodology ............................................................................................40
Introduction ........................................................................................................................40
Research Design.................................................................................................................41
Research Setting and Context ............................................................................................42
Research Sample and Data.................................................................................................43
Instruments and Procedures ...............................................................................................43
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................44
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................45
Role of the Researcher .......................................................................................................46
Summary ............................................................................................................................47
CHAPTER FOUR: Results .........................................................................................................48
Introduction ........................................................................................................................48
Rationale and Purpose........................................................................................................48
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................49
Population ..........................................................................................................................50
Quantitative Findings .........................................................................................................50
Treatment of Data………………………………………………………………………,,55
Analysis of Data………………………………………………………………….………55
Summary ............................................................................................................................69
CHAPTER FIVE: Discussion and Conclusion..........................................................................70
Introduction ........................................................................................................................70
Summary of Study .............................................................................................................70
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................74
Implications for Policy and Practice ..................................................................................77
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................78
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................80
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................82
APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................................90
Appendix A: Institutional Review Board Approval ..........................................................90
Appendix B: The Performance Failure Inventory .............................................................91
Appendix C: Permission to Use Performance Failure Inventory.......................................93
Appendix D: Revised Sense of Belonging Scale ...............................................................94
Appendix E: Permission to Use Revised Sense of Belonging Scale .................................96

Chapter One: Introduction
Fear is a phenomenon that affects most people during their lives. Fear ensues a
debilitating feeling that cripples oneself from reaching their full potential. Batterson (2016)
likened fear to a lion and encouraged the reader to dream big and persevere through failures to
chase fears instead of running from them. The fear of failure within the higher educational
setting causes students to have an unclear vision of their goals and path to achievement. For
example, “Individuals higher in implicit fear of failure whose motive was aroused by negative
performance feedback featured reduced speed of information accumulation. Furthermore, high
fear of failure individuals showed reduced learning rates” (Lerche et al., 2018, p. 13). Cox (2009)
found that students who stressed about the transition to college reported being afraid of being
unable to succeed in college, and the feelings ranged from lack of confidence to overwhelming
fear.
Belonging has been defined as the perception of one’s experience and the consistent
interactions with others as well as persistently shown care from others (Baumeister & Leary,
1995). Baumeister and Leary (1995) shared Maslow’s (1943) thoughts on the need for belonging
before one can achieve knowledge or understanding. Without the feelings of belonging, students
will struggle to achieve their full potential. The connections students feel at their university
impact their persistence and retention (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).
Chapter One will discuss the background of this study, which covers belonging, fear of
failure, student success, and student retention. Next, Chapter One will provide an overview of the
Problem Statement, Purpose Statement, Paradigmatic Framework, Significance of Study,
Definition of Terms and Concepts, Delimitations, Researcher Assumptions, and Chapter
Summary.
Background
Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs provided a model of human motivation. This
motivation model depicted the basic needs on the lower level, self-actualization at the top, and
the need to complete each step before moving onto the next. A sense of belonging is shown as
needed before achievement can be accomplished. Creating environments that validate students'
backgrounds and establish a sense of belonging will positively impact student success (Cohn-
Vargas & Steele, 2016; Cobb & Krownapple, 2019).
The definition of student success has evolved throughout history and throughout the years
in higher education. Examining student success throughout history from the creation of the
higher education system when our country was founded through the 21 st century, the
measurement of student success and focus on student achievement has transformed. During the
colonial period, success was determined by students becoming leaders in the church and state
(Dorn, 2015; Thelin, 2019). Universities prided themselves on producing and influencing
political leaders, generation after generation (Thelin, 2019). Student success was measured by
what they went on to do after graduation. Higher education programs during World War II were
framed around knowledge, careers, and culture (Dorn, 2015). The 21st century has provided more
accessibility and offers a vast number of pursuits.
Predictors of college retention rates have also evolved over time (Davidson & Beck,
2021; Nicoletti, 2019; Respondek et al., 2020; Roberts, 2018; Rodriguez-Gomez et al., 2015;
Saunders-Scott et al., 2018). Three early theoretical models for examining and predicting
students’ decisions to either dropout or persevere through their journey in higher education have
influenced or have been influenced by Tinto’s theories (1973, 1975, 1993, 1997): Spady’s
model, Pascarella’s model, and Bean’s model (Nicoletti, 2019). Little improvement in student
retention in higher education has occurred since 2015 according to the First Year Retention and
Persistence Report (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2020).

Higher education shows a projected decrease in enrollment, an increase in government
regulations, demographic changes, and managing the budget while working toward making
higher education more accessible to all (Hossler & Bontrager, 2015). It is predicted that the
struggling students in the bottom 25% of higher education institutions will dropout or will leave
their college to go to another institution in the next 10-15 years (Horn, 2018).
Problem Statement
The problem this study addressed was the feelings of failure and lack of belonging
present in first-year and transfer college students. Any identified correlation between fear of
failure and belonging was explored further through their association with retention and student
success.
The psychological motivation of fear of failure has been investigated through a need
achievement model explaining the motive behind the fear of failure and the effects it has on
students becoming an overstriver or a self-protector (De Castella et al., 2013; Lerche et al., 2018;
Michou et al., 2014; Martin & Marsh, 2003) and through the categories: upsetting of others,
losing others’ interests, devaluing self-estimate, embarrassment, and uncertain future (Bartels &
Ryan, 2013; De Castella et al., 2013; Nefzi, 2018; Zarrin, et al., 2020). The fear of failure has
been found to adversely affect students' academic success and goals (Bartels & Ryan, 2013; Cox,
2009; De Castella et al., 2013; Michou et al., 2014). It was reported that many students were
found to doubt their abilities to succeed (Cox, 2009).
Belonging was explored through two sub-topics that discussed student identity and
belonging's effect on academic success grounded in Abraham Maslow’s (1943) concept of
hierarchy of needs suggesting that people are motivated by the fulfillment of basic needs before
proceeding to the more advanced needs, such as achievement. Ahn and Davis (2020) found a
strong association of a sense of belonging, academic achievement, and success in higher

education. Watson Swail’s Geometric Model of Student Persistence and Achievement points out
an equilibrium balance of three factors: cognitive, social, and institutional practices and
strategies (Hossler et al., 2015). These three factors addressed the persistence of
underrepresented students and can be applicable to all students. Institutional practices and
strategies can positively impact the cognitive and social aspects of a student’s college
experience. Belonging can be accomplished through an inclusive environment by recognizing
and celebrating the various cultures and backgrounds while providing opportunities for
connections and instruction that meet the individual’s needs, interests, and backgrounds (Cobb &
Krownapple, 2019). Meeting people where they are and building connections, while showing
appreciation and value for one another, empowers people to persevere by using their strengths
(Cobb & Krownapple, 2019). The findings that Hossler and Bontrager (2015) showed for at-risk
students match the results found in the First Year Retention and Persistence report showing,
“Students of color have lower levels of subsequent institutional commitment. Subsequent
institutional commitment positively influences student persistence. Thus, students of color are at
risk for departure” (Hossler & Bontrager, 2015, p. 293).
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between the feelings of fear of
failure and a sense of belonging, and their association with retention and student success. The
researcher in this study examined the correlation between the feelings of fear of failure and a
sense of belonging and their relationship with student success and retention in first-year and
transfer college students at a four-year university in a suburb of a metropolitan area. Student
success was defined by students’ self-reporting their feelings of preparedness to achieve their
current and future academic goals.
Paradigmatic Framework
The positivitism paradigmatic framework was used and is appropriate for this study
because it was based on objective and deductive logic through analyzing the correlation between
the fear of failure and a sense of belonging (Patel, 2015). Any correlation was examined by
looking for any functional relationship with student success, and retention. This quantitative
study aligned with the positivist approach while looking for a “single reality” that can be
measured and made known (Patel, 2015). The following reliable tools were used to measure fear
of failure and belonging. The data from the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (Conroy et
al., 2003) (see Appendix B) and the Sense of Belonging Scale - Revised (Hoffman et al., 2002)
(see Appendix D) was analyzed using a continuous scale model. The correlational design type
used was the explanatory research design to examine the association of two variables: the
feelings of belonging and fear of failure and if changes in one variable reflected changes in the
other (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019). Any identified correlation between fear of failure and
belonging was explored further through their association with retention and student success.
Significance of Study
The significance of this study was to provide information on how the correlation between
the feelings of fear of failure and belonging in first-year and transfer college students overall
were associated with student success and retention. The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory
(Conroy et al., 2003) was used to measure individuals’ beliefs in aversive consequences of
failure (see Appendix B). The Sense of Belong Scale - Revised (Hoffman et al., 2002-2003) was
used to measure first-year and transfer college students' perception of peer support, classroom
comfort, isolation, and faculty support (see Appendix D). Students' self-reported feelings of
preparedness to achieve their current and future academic goals was used to define student
success for this study and plans to return to their college or university the next school year was
used to define student retention.

Tinto (1997) found that students who leave their college or university do so prior to their
second year of college and only 60% of students, enrolled in a four-year college, earn a degree.
Tinto (1997) has pointed out the significance of creating a positive impact on students during
their first year in higher education to gain a higher percentage of retention and success. The
connections students feel during their first year will contribute to their persistence. A sense of
belonging helps students feel that they matter to one another and relates to academic
achievement, academic progress, and social acceptance (Ackermann & Morrow, 2012).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The following questions guided the researcher to determine if there was a correlation
between feelings of fear of failure and a sense of belonging and any association with success and
retention.
RQ1. Is there a correlation between the fear of failure and a sense of belonging?
Null Hypothesis: A correlation between the feelings of belonging and fear of failure does
not exist.
Alternative Hypothesis: A correlation between the feelings of belonging and fear of
failure does exist.
RQ2. Is there a correlation between the fear of failure and student success?
Null Hypothesis: A correlation between students reporting fear of failure and their
feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and future academic goals does not exist.
Alternative Hypothesis: A correlation between students reporting fear of failure and their
feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and future academic goals does exist.
RQ3: Is there a correlation between the fear of failure and student retention?
Null Hypothesis: A correlation between students reporting fear of failure and their plans
to return to their university does not exist.

plans to return to their university does exist.
RQ4: Is there a correlation between belonging and student success?
Null Hypothesis: A correlation between feelings of belonging and student success does
not exist.
Alternative Hypothesis: A correlation between feelings of belonging and student success
does exist.
RQ5: Is there a correlation between belonging and student retention?
Null Hypothesis: A correlation between feelings of belonging and student retention does
not exist.
Alternative Hypothesis: A correlation between feelings of belonging and student retention
does exist.
The first research question, RQ1, compared the feelings of fear of failure and belonging.
The question informed the researcher if there was a correlation between the two feelings.
The second research question, RQ2, sought to determine if there was a relationship
between the feelings of failure and student success. Students self-reported their feelings of
preparedness to achieve their current and future academic goals.
The third research question, RQ3, examined if there was a relationship between fear of
failure and student retention. Students self-reported their plans to return to the university the
following school year.
The fourth research question, RQ4, compared the feelings of belonging and student
success. Students self-reported their feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and future
academic goals.
The final question, RQ5, revealed if there was a relationship between belonging and
student retention. Students self-reported their plans to return to the university the following
school year.
Definition of Terms and Concepts
For clarification, the following concepts and terms will be discussed in this study:
Academic Achievement: The performance outcomes that have been accomplished based
on focused goals in the instructional environment (Steinmayr et al., 2014)
Belonging: The personal involvement in an environment where the person feels they are
an integral part of the system or environment (Hagerty et al., 1992).
Fear of failure: A risk aversion with a negative emotion that comes from a perception
influenced by the environment (Nefzi, 2018).
Retention: For the purpose of this study, retention will be defined by freshman students’
plans to return to the same university the following school year. Based on Tinto’s Model of
Institutional Departure (1975, 1993) retention is shown through persistence in academic
performance and academic systems.
Student Success: For the purpose of this study, student success will be defined by
students’ feeling of preparedness to achieve their academic and personal goals. Bowden et al.
(2019) defined student success as students understanding who they are and who they are
becoming.
Tinto’s Model of Retention: Tinto proposes that students bring their own experiences and
backgrounds when they enter higher education that shapes how students experience the
communities within colleges or universities (Nicoletti, 2019).
Limitations
The following limitations of this study identified by the researcher posed a potential
impact on the quality of the results of the survey. Using only a quantitative study did not provide
personal perceptions of students to determine the specific feelings and experiences individual
students have had in terms of fear and belonging. The survey sample size was limited to one
institution.
Personal issues or experiences unrelated to the college experience may have influenced
the survey scores. The issues could have included death in the family, health concerns, financial
strains, or family issues. Mental health issues could have also contributed to the results of the
survey. Students self-reported feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and future
academic goals could have been inaccurate due to not responding honestly to the survey. It could
have taken longer than a semester for students to feel a sense of belonging and to overcome fear
of failure.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study included the population sample, which included first-year
and transfer college students from a four-year university in a suburb of a metropolitan area with
330 students enrolled in the Freshman Seminar Course. Participants were surveyed after the first
semester of their first year enrolled at the institution. The research did not consider family
backgrounds and history, education level of parents, or incomes of families.
Researcher Assumptions
The researcher believed the following assumptions were accurate at the time of the study
and survey:
• Students answered the questions on the survey honestly.

• The sample size was an accurate representation of the first-year and transfer students
enrolled at the institution.
• Students completed the survey understood and knew their current and future academic
goals.
• Students were able to identify their feelings of fear of failure and belonging.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the correlation between the feelings of a sense
of belonging and a fear of failure and their relationship with retention and student success in
college students completing their first-year at a four-year university in a suburb of a metropolitan
area. The literature in Chapter Two will examine several aspects of belonging and the
psychological motivation behind the fear of failure. Predictors and trends of retention and student
success defined over time will be reviewed to gauge the relationship of belonging and a fear of
failure. Chapter Three will consider the methodology used to determine any correlation between
the fear of failure and belonging and their relationship to student success and retention in this
quantitative study. Chapter Four will provide details on the results of research conducted with
first-year and transfer college students. Chapter Five will discuss the impact of the results and
will provide suggestions for further study.

Chapter Two: Review of Literature
The purpose of this study was to explore the psychological causes and motives behind the
fear of failure compared to the sense of belonging in students within the higher education
platform and their relationship with student success and retention. The fear of failure has been
investigated through a need achievement model explaining the motive behind the fear of failure
and the effects it has on students becoming an overstriver or a self-protector (Martin & Marsh,
2003) and through the categories: upsetting of others, losing others’ interests, devaluing self-
estimate, embarrassment, and uncertain future (Bartels & Ryan, 2013; De Castella, et al., 2013;
Nefzi, 2018; Zarrin, et al., 2020). The historical framework of defining student success and
retention models over time allowed for an exploration of looking for an association between the
fear of failure and belonging and students striving for success and meeting graduation
requirements. Research has been conducted on Tinto’s model of retention over time to examine
and predict student retention rates (Tinto, 1975, 1993, 1997; Tinto & Cullen, 1973). Defining
student success has evolved over time (Thelin, 2019). Academic success has been investigated
through the lens of how students perceive their identity and the role of the higher education
system in promoting a sense of belonging to nurture the growth of the individual student.
Through reviewing the fear of failure and its relationship to student success and retention,
this chapter includes three sections: student success, fear of failure, and belonging. Student
success is divided into two sub-topics that discuss the certainty of success and retention within
the historical tradition of higher education in the United States. Fear of failure is divided into one
sub-topic that discusses the psychological background of fear. Belonging is divided into two sub-
topics that discus student identity and belonging and their association with academic success.
Student Success
Defining student success has evolved throughout history and throughout the years in
higher education. Looking through history from the creation of the higher education system
when our country was founded through the 21 st century, the measurement of student success and
focus on student achievement has transformed. The focus has shifted from higher education
servicing only the elite with hopes of producing leaders in the church or state to students
pursuing their own passions and interests (Thelin, 2019). The 21st century has provided more
accessibility and offers a vast number of pursuits including advanced technology (Silver, 2007).
Higher education has seen influence by social change and has contributed to economic and social
development (Silver, 2007).
History of Student Success
During the colonial period, success was determined by students becoming leaders for the
church and state (Dorn, 2015; Thelin, 2019). Universities prided themselves on producing and
influencing political leaders, generation after generation (Thelin, 2019). Student success was
measured by what they went on to do after graduation. “The colleges, with their concentration of
strong male adults – ministers, alumni, government officials, and tutors – were charged with
transforming little boys into little men” (Thelin, 2019, p. 25). Higher education programs during
World War II were framed around knowledge, careers, and culture (Dorn, 2015).
As the value of liberal education came into question, the purpose of higher education
became more about the college experience and changed to an anti-intellectual style where
students began to focus on the college experience as opposed to academics (Dorn, 2015).
Another shift occurred as faculty and prominent donors contributed to a knowledge focus. Goals
of the professors and students differed with a commitment to inquiry and credentials respectfully.
The success indicators were driven by serving the economy and society (Dorn, 2015).
Throughout history the purpose of higher education has changed due to pressures of
conforming to British standards using Oxford and Cambridge as examples. “Colleges such as
Harvard, Princeton, William and Mary, and Yale followed the ‘Oxbridge’ residential college
model…intent on molding students’ whole selves, students and their tutors lived, worked,
studied, and socialized together as a part of the residential college model” (Fink & Inkelas, 2015,
p. 6). This included accounting for more active and hands-on learning, creating educated citizens
to contribute positively to a democratic society, and adjusting for higher enrollments and tuition,
while defending the value of education (Fink & Inkelas, 2015). In terms of student success,
British culture and intellect were a priority during the colonial period because of using Oxford
and Cambridge as examples. In the 20th century, students were expected to be more actively
engaged in their learning creating a more collaborative approach. After WWII, various types of
schools and colleges were created to meet the demands of the diverse population. Success
continued to be measured by becoming a democratic citizen but in more ways than going into
leadership for the church or state. Moving into the 21st century, with technology changes and
advancements, higher education evolved into striving to create curricula to be more inclusive and
connected within smaller learning communities (Fink & Inkelas, 2015).
As authors have conducted various studies in higher education to improve student
success, they have defined student success in various ways (Bowden et al., 2019; Cruz &
Haycock, 2012; Fjelkner-Pihl, 2022; Robinson, 2021). Cruz and Haycock (2012) conducted a
study on why colleges should be responsible for student success. In this study, the authors
defined student success as completing a college degree and emphasized the importance of
closing the gap between high school graduation rates and college graduation rates. In Fjelkner-
Pihl’s (2022) study, student success was defined by academic outcome, and the social network
analysis found that students’ social networks positively and significantly impacted academic
outcomes. Robinson (2021) defined student success in higher education as students attaining
self-efficacy regarding academic performance skills, self-regulating behaviors, and critical-
thinking skills. Bowden et al. (2019) examined a holistic approach to improve student
engagement, success, and retention. Through the examination of affective, social, cognitive, and
behavioral engagement, the authors defined student and institutional success in their study as:
“institutional reputation, student wellbeing, transformative learning, self-efficacy, and self-
esteem” (Bowden et al., 2019).
As student success has continued to focus on academic success being measured by
grades, career readiness, and persevering through higher education programming, institutions
have adjusted their focus to how to meet student needs to accomplish academic success and
retention (Snevers & De Witte, 2018; Goncalves & Trunk, 2014; Roberts, 2018). Roberts (2018)
conducted a study on academic success and retention noticing there has been a divide between
teaching and non-teaching staff and the need for these two entities to unite by creating strategies
to help students reach academic success and persevere through their studies rather than the
historic bureaucratic compliance approach. Snevers & De Witte (2018) discussed the need for
student-faculty mentoring and the positive impact it has on student academic outcomes,
retention, and graduation rates. Goncalves and Trunk (2014) have found that the higher level of
student engagement in the academic environment has led to higher levels of academic outcomes
and attrition rates.
Retention’s Role in the Development of Enrollment Management
Predictors of college retention rates have evolved over time (Davidson & Beck, 2021;
Nicoletti, 2019; Respondek et al., 2020; Roberts, 2018; Rodriguez-Gomez et al., 2015; Saunders-
Scott et al., 2018). Three early theoretical models for examining and predicting students’
decisions to either dropout or persevere through their journey in higher education that have
influenced or have been influenced by Tinto’s theories (1973, 1975, 1993, 1997) are: Spady’s
model, Pascarella’s model, and Bean’s model (Nicoletti, 2019). The theoretical framework has
evolved over time and has been the basis for further research to analyze retention rates and
attempt to solve the problem of retention. Prior to the 1970’s, only the psychology associated
with persistence had been studied and not the sociology behind retention (Berger et al., 2012).
Spady’s (1970) Sociological Model of the Dropout Process took into account both academic and
social factors when considering persistence and retention.
Spady’s (1970) Sociological Model of the Dropout Process addressed the sociological
perspective represented in the student dropout rates (Nicoletti, 2019). The model recognized the
combination of both academic and social aspects within a student’s time in higher education.
Spady’s model showed differing paths grounded in a student’s family background to a dropout
decision or obtaining institutional commitment. A predictor of the dropout was if the student
demonstrated academic potential but only focused on grade performance. A predictor of
institutional commitment was if the student had academic potential and focused on grade
performance along with social integration and satisfaction. A student with a normative
congruence could move to social integration to satisfaction to institutional commitment without
focusing on grade performance and intellectual development. Friendship support played a key
role in all scenarios to help students persevere in their academic pursuits (Nicoletti, 2019). The
social aspect of a student’s university experience was found to be instrumental in pursuing
success (Spady, 1970).
Spady’s (1970) Sociological Model of the Dropout Process influenced Tinto’s Model of
Attrition and Persistence (1973) and included three sets of variables: family background, pre-
college schooling, and individual attributes, which includes an emphasis on interactions between
the student and institution. This model was influenced by Spady’s model and considered the data
combination of the background of a student including their family, individual characteristics, and
prior knowledge with the integration of academic and social life. The factors were used in
predicting students’ perseverance or dropout decisions. Tinto & Cullen (1973) discussed how
dropping out of college did not necessarily equate to failing but a type of withdrawal from
society. Environmental factors and students separating from their original communities to fully
join the new learning community was emphasized (Tinto, 1973). The original study was more
general than the refined version of Tinto’s model in 1997. The newer model created a more
complex and explicit explanation of goal and institution commitments as well as academic and
social systems. Tinto’s model presented a theoretical framework for student retention and
analyzed the effectiveness of monitoring student progress and past dropout scenarios (Nicoletti,
2019).
Tinto’s Model of Institutional Departure (1975, 1993) examined persistence through the
lens of integrating academics with the interactions of faculty/staff and peer groups as well as
extracurricular activities. The original work of Tinto’s Institutional Departure Model (1975) was
revised through the years by himself and other authors including Pascarella (1980), and the
model influenced the theoretical foundations of other studies such as Bean (1985). Tinto’s Model
of Institutional Departure (1993) was his final revised version measuring academic integration by
grade performance and social integration by interactions between students and their peers and
faculty/staff. Tinto (1993) added the idea that students’ family and job commitments relate to
their initial goals and commitments as well as how they move through their higher education
journey.
Pascarella’s Model (1980) built upon Tinto’s Institutional Departure Model (1975) and
provided definitions of variables and factors to consider in predicting student retention rates. The
following variables were considered: students’ background characteristics, institutional factors,
informal contact with faculty, other college experiences, and educational outcomes. The model
attempted to find the correlation between the variables; however, it was not determined as to
what level of impact each variable had on students’ decisions to persevere or dropout (Nicoletti,
2019). Pascarella’s Model (1980) created a flow of information to show how the informal
interactions between students and faculty members would improve the student’s overall
academic experience, both socially and academically, as well as positively impact the student’s
decision to persevere through their academic work.
The theoretical foundation of Bean’s Model (1985) was influenced by Tinto’s
Institutional Departure Model (1975) and included exogenous and endogenous variables in
predicting student dropout rates. The exogenous variables included academic factors, social-
psychological factors, and environmental factors. The endogenous variables contained
socialization selection factors that included college grades, institutional fit, and institutional
commitment (Bean, 1985). The idea was that the exogenous variables had influence over the
socialization selection factors. As Nicoletti (2019) conducted a study on this model, it was
determined that Bean’s model was too generalized to effectively analyze the dropout rates.
More recent studies have included grades as a determining factor in retention (Respondek
et al., 2020; Saunders-Scott et al., 2018). A study was conducted to determine the relationship
between grit, stress, and academic success (Saunders-Scott et al., 2018). Students’ ACT scores,
GPA in college and high school, and the measurement of their progress towards their degrees
were considered throughout the process. The results showed that the higher levels of perceived
stress predicted lower grit. It was found that the students’ GPA was more of a predictor of the
students’ graduation rates in higher education than that of the ACT scores (Saunders-Scott et al.,
2018). The relationship between perceived academic control and grades in predicting dropout
rates within higher education was studied (Respondek et al., 2020). The results showed the
perceived academic control decreased during a student’s first year at college, and the perceived
academic control predicted the dropout rate and affected students’ grades.
Predicting student outcomes swiftly leads to identifying at-risk students to prevent an
increase in student dropout rates (Davidson & Beck, 2021; Rodriguez-Gomez et al., 2015). A
study on the effectiveness of a two-minute test to predict undergraduate drop-out rates was
conducted to provide universities an avenue to quickly predict student outcomes (Davidson &
Beck, 2021). The test rapidly helped identify students who are most at-risk allowing for more
time spent on developing interventions and strategies to meet individual needs. The
considerations included the characteristics of both the students and the institution’s faculty and
staff as well as resources available when developing interventions and strategies (Davidson &
Beck, 2021). Data and research have been provided to determine how various countries address
the issue of retention (Rodriguez-Gomez et al., 2015). The importance of establishing diagnostic
tools, identifying groups of students at-risk, and creating interventions to meet the differing
needs of students was found to be of utmost importance.
Faculty and staff in higher education impact the students’ college experience to increase
student retention and success (Roberts, 2018). Roberts’ (2018) study suggested in order to
increase student retention and success, the university staff, as a whole, needed to work together
in creating a model that is student-focused and learner-oriented as opposed to traditional models.
The model focuses on the positives of why students persevere as opposed to the negatives. The
success factors included: culture, student preparation, personal well-being, academic
engagement, and social integration (Roberts, 2018).
Overall, many factors have been considered in regard to retention’s role in the
development of enrollment management. Tinto’s theories (1973, 1975, 1993, 1997) led the work
in considering both academic and social factors playing a key role in predicting and determining
student retention rates. Students’ background including their family life and prior knowledge as
well as the institutions’ environment helps or hinders students to make commitments to their
institutions. Faculty and staff impact students’ experiences in higher education. Early
determination of at-risk students will lead to the ability to create strategies and interventions to
meet the individual needs and increase enrollment and retention rates.
At-risk students have included students who struggle with a fear of failure. Cox (2009)
conducted a study around the role of students’ fear of failure and the balance of hopes and fears.
The study analyzed students' aspirations and anxieties, defensive strategies, and the potential for
professors' roles in influencing students’ fears (Cox, 2009). The study found that the balancing of
students’ fears and hopes and the understanding of this concept by instructors had a greater
impact than students’ cognitive-academic preparation, which in-turn helped them persist in
college.
Fear of Failure
The fear of failure affects student success in higher education. Determining the
motivation behind the fear of failure allows a glimpse into why students struggle with a fear to
fail and find strategies to help students feel successful. If a student feels successful, this will
promote a positive experience within institutions and retention rates. The fear of failure
debilitates students with feelings of anxiety, keeps them from reaching their goals or finding
success, and/or achieving graduation. Erving Goffman (1952) discussed the strategies of how
adults adapt to failure. It is explained that when an adult moves into a new social position, they
decide if they are worthy of this new role. Goffman (1952) considered the greatest risk comes
when there is an involuntary loss. The self-destruction pattern was thought to begin when a
person has defined themselves as possessing qualities and then finding that they are lacking in
this area (Goffman, 1952).
Psychological Background
The fear of failure has been found to be motivated by the need for achievement
perspective of students in higher education (De Castella et al., 2013; Lerche et al., 2018; Michou
et al., 2014; Martin & Marsh, 2003). The quadripolar model of self-handicapping, helplessness,
and defensive pessimism has been used to examine how students respond or are driven by the
fear of failure (De Castella et al., 2013; Martin & Marsh, 2003). The research conducted by
Martin and Marsh (2003) on the quadripolar model was extended by the research of De Castella
et al. (2013) to show how the quadripolar model is useful in making predictions for
underachievement and disengagement among students cross-culturally.
A cascading model was used to describe the progression of the quadripolar model using a
staircase diagram to show the steps from failure acceptance to student success orientation
(Martin & Marsh, 2003). The bottom rung of the staircase showed the failure acceptance role as
being cognitively disengaged and behaviorally disengaged to both fear and success. The next
step of the staircase demonstrated failure avoidance II (self-handicapping), which showed
cognitive and behavioral engagement with fear. The third step of the staircase showed failure
avoidance II (defensive pessimism) exhibiting cognitive engagement with fear and beginning to
show behavioral engagement with fear. The fourth step of the staircase demonstrated failure
avoidance I (overstriver) that begins to engage cognitively with fear and is behaviorally engaged
with success. The top of the staircase showed success orientation where there is cognitive
engagement and behavioral engagement with success (Martin & Marsh, 2003).
The quadripolar model research suggested the overstriver may be seen as a positive
response to the feelings of fear of failure because a person may be challenged by the avoidance
of fear to succeed. However, negative effects may be found in the overstriver due to the suffering
of anxiety and a perceived low sense of control and lack of self-esteem. If an overstriver failed,
there would be a danger of falling into a feeling of incompetence or self-protection (Martin &
Marsh, 2003). The self-protector avoids failure by protecting their self-worth in one of two ways:
self-handicap or defensive pessimism. The self-protector creates a self-impediment that protects
the thought of ability by procrastinating and showing a lack of effort and low engagement. If a
student puts these self-impediments into practice, their ability would not be questioned. The
defensive pessimism involves setting low expectations for outcomes to preserve self-worth. The
feeling of disappointment can be avoided if the achievement bar is set low (Martin & Marsh,
2003).
A study was conducted to explore the relationship between the fear of failure, success
orientation, and student disengagement within Eastern and Western settings (De Castella et al.,
2013). The use of the quadripolar model of self-handicapping, helplessness, and defensive
pessimism contributed to the self-worthy theory entailing cognitive, motivational, and emotional
roles played in striving for achievement. The results showed the quadripolar model useful in
making predictions for underachievement and disengagement among students cross-culturally.
Bartels and Ryan (2013) conducted a quantitative study to determine the relationship
between the interpersonal and intrapersonal fear of failure and approach-avoidance achievement
goals by surveying 308 undergraduate students at a university located in the Midwest. The
survey used was the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (see Appendix B) examining
intrapersonal fears such as the upsetting of others, losing others’ interests, devaluing of self-
estimate, embarrassment, and uncertain future. The Academic Goal Questionnaire was given to
examine achievement goals in mastery-avoidance, performance-avoidance, mastery-approach,
and performance approach. The results showed the fear of failure had a direct correlation to
achievement goals. Mastery-avoidance and performance-approach goals were the greater
contributors. The study suggested interventions to deter students from such motivation by having
a mindset of learning from their mistakes and redirecting their thinking from putting too much
emphasis on their failures, while highlighting that an entire future is not based solely on one test
score or assignment.
It has been found that the need for achievement and the fear of failure has a direct impact
on students' goals (Michou et al., 2014). The fear of failure related negatively to effort
regulation. The need for achievement in pursuing an academic goal was done for autonomous
reasons whereas the pursuit of academic goals in students with the motive of fear of failure were
for controlling reasons.
Procrastination was investigated and determined to be a coping strategy with college
students who struggle with the fear of failure (Limone et al., 2020; Zarrin et al., 2020). The
research indicated that time management skills and metacognitive self-regulation both play a key
role in procrastination and theorized two main traditions of personality trait and behavior as they
relate to procrastination and students’ performance (Limone et al, 2020). Insight was gained as to
the relationship between the fear of failure and self-regulation strategies in terms of academic
procrastination and showed the ability to predict academic procrastination by measuring fear of
failure and responsibilities in students (Zarrin et al., 2020). It has been theorized that
procrastination occurs as a result of fear of failure and a lack of self-regulating strategies.
A study was conducted to analyze how a fear of failure in students may adversely affect
their academic goals (Cox, 2009). The study was framed around three theoretical ideas: students’
aspirations and anxieties, defensive strategies, and professors’ role in preventing students’ fears.
Many students were found to doubt their abilities and defined their status based on qualifications.
The results suggested how a validation in the academic environment can aid in overcoming the
fear of failure and the ability to complete the work required for their degree. The qualitative
study highlighted the importance of an institution’s environment that would be conducive to
eliminating fear and for students to feel successful in their academic journey (Cox, 2009).
Several studies have referred to and utilized David E. Conroy’s (2003) Performance
Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI) (see Appendix B) to measure fear of failure in higher
education (Bartels & Ryan, 2013; De Castella et al., 2013; Nefzi, 2018; Zarrin et al., 2020). The
inventory included 25 items that measured five consequences of failure: experiencing shame and
embarrassment, devaluing one’s self-estimate, having an uncertain future, important others
losing interest, and upsetting others (Conroy et al., 2003). In Conroy et al. (2003) study, the
authors found fear of failure to be associated with high levels of worry, anxiety, cognitive
disruption, and low levels of optimism.
Nefzi (2018) referred to Conroy et al. (2003) study noting that fear of failure beginning
from the environment influences the individual’s personal ability toward achievement. Nefzi
(2018) used the PFAI (2003) in his study and found the entrepreneurial risk perception was
significantly and positively correlated to the PFAI and negatively correlated with the trait of fear.
Bartels and Ryan (2013) used Conroy et al. PFAI (2003) in their study to test their theory
that mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals would be associated with fear of
failure. The results of their study showed that there was a correlation between the fear of failure
and achievement goals (Bartels & Ryan, 2013).
In a study by De Castella et al. (2013), the authors utilized Conroy et al. PFAI (2003) to
measure fear of failure in correlation to success orientation in the quadripolar model. The results
of the study showed a significant correlation between fear of failure and self-handicapping and
defensive pessimism found in the cascading model referred to by the quadripolar model.
In Zarrin et al. (2020) descriptive correlational study, the PFAI (2003) was used to
examine the relationship between the fear of failure, self-regulation, and academic
procrastination. The results showed the relationship between fear of failure and procrastination
was associated through self-esteem (Zarrin et al., 2020).
Belonging
Many theorists have set out to define student identity and aid in the discovery of student
development and determine ways to meet the needs of individual students. Student identity
affects academic success, and the higher education environment can have either a positive or
negative effect on the journey to finding success. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs depicts a theory
of human motivation (Maslow, 1943). The motivation model presents a picture of how basic
needs have to be met before achieving self-actualization. A sense of belonging is needed before
achievement can be accomplished. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943) has been
depicted as a pyramid displaying needs beginning at the bottom of the pyramid and moving to
the top. It has been communicated that each need must be met before moving higher on the
pyramid. For example, the lowest portion of the pyramid is physiological needs, which are the
basic needs such as food and water. The next step of the pyramid displays safety needs such as
health and security. The middle of the pyramid is love and belonging. After belonging, there is
esteem, which is the feeling of accomplishment or achievement. At the top of the pyramid is self-
actualization. This occurs when an individual has reached their full potential. The pyramid has
also been displayed as stairsteps depicting a large gap between safety needs to esteem needs,
showing that belonging needs to take place before achievement can take place (Cobb &
Krownapple, 2019). Research has been conducted on creating environments that validate
students' backgrounds and create a sense of belonging to positively impact student success
(Cohn-Vargas & Steele, 2016; Cobb & Krownapple, 2019).
Hoffman et al. (2002) developed a Sense of Belonging Scale (SOBS) that focused on five
factors: perceived peer support, perceived faculty support, perceived classroom comfort,
perceived isolation, and empathetic faculty understanding (see Appendix D). This study found
that students had a greater sense of belonging when the faculty at their university showed
empathy. The SOBS has been used by several authors to measure and examine a sense of
belonging at the university level (Ahn & Davis, 2020; Morrow & Ackermann, 2012; Slaten et
al., 2018; Tovar & Simon, 2010). Slaten et al.’s (2018) study found that the perceived level of
support from the university was consistent with the findings of Hoffman et al.’s (2002) study that
showed the two factors of perceived support from the personnel at the university contributed to
the sense of belonging construct. Tovar and Simon (2010) found in their study that more work
needed to be done at the university level to study belonging compared to what has been done in
the K-12 educational sector. The study used Hoffman et al.’s (2002) SOBS with a three-factor
structure as opposed to the original five-factor structure including the corresponding subscales
(faculty understanding/comfort, perceived peer support, and perceived classroom comfort) using
the 5-point Likert Scale (Tovar & Simon, 2010). In Morrow and Ackermann’s (2012) study, the
SOBS was used to measure belonging in a college environment. The study found that faculty and
peer support showed significantly positive correlation to retention (Morrow & Ackermann,
2012).
Ahn and Davis (2020) conducted a study on belonging and found that students’ self-
esteem, identity, personal interests, and how much they value their experiences are all
fundamental to their belonging. Cohn-Vargas and Steele (2016) discussed how identity safe
classrooms are ones that validate backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives of all students,
while linking identities to academic performance intentionally. Challenging and diverse lessons
should be centered around students’ lived experiences, interests, skills, and identities while
promoting empathy and understanding around the diverse population (Cohn-Vargas & Steele,
2016). Cobb and Krownapple (2019) have shared that we should value people for who they are
as opposed to what they can achieve. The authors highlighted the importance of humanizing the
educational system where belonging would take place before achievement (Cobb & Krownapple,
2019).
Higher education has shifted to a more humanizing approach when working toward
achieving academic success (Bowden et al., 2019; Cruz & Haycock, 2012; Fjelkner-Pihl, 2021;
Robinson, 2021). An emphasis on monitoring student engagement, social and personal growth,
transformative learning, inclusiveness and belonging, and student well-being have contributed to
helping universities support student success (Bowden et al., 2019). Self-efficacy and self-
regulation have been considered when preparing students for success (Robinson, 2021).
Academic outcomes were found to be significantly impacted by students’ social networks
(Fjelkner-Pihl, 2021). Cruz and Haycock (2012) highlighted how universities are now looking
for ways to close the achievement gap found in students identifying as low-income and students
of color compared to their peers.
Student Identity
Patton et al. (2016) discussed Arthur Chickering’s seven vectors that make up the
development of student identity, which continues to be referred to today in higher education:

developing competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward
interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing
purpose, and developing integrity. Patton et al. (2016) also highlighted Arthur Chickering’s
seven influences of the educational environment: institutional objectives, institutional size,
student-faculty relationships, curriculum, teaching for development, friendships and student
communities, and student development programs and services.
Identity may also be defined by personal qualities or roles, culture or religion,
race/ethnicity, gender, and/or sexual orientation (Smith, 2020). The differing identities may
result in perceptions of inclusion or exclusion according to the social stigma associated with the
identity (Smith, 2020). Identities have been known to compete for significance based on the
context or situation (Smith, 2020). A student’s identity affects their perspective in higher
education. Patton et al. (2016) referred to Erik Erikson’s stage five: Identity versus Identity
Diffusion, demonstrating there is a time when an individual’s identity is being shaped from
childhood to adulthood and an experience of role confusion may occur when deciphering
between how they view themselves as opposed to how others view them.
Cohn-Vargas and Steele’s (2016) review of research exploring the Stereotype Threat
Theory showed that a student's performance decreases when social identity is linked to academic
success. When students feel they are being judged by their identity, their performance will
lessen. Steele (2010) explains that there is an emphasis on explaining deficiencies instead of
explaining success. The stereotype threat explored by Steele (2010) highlights how the same test
or environment is perceived differently according to each individual, while interpreting the same
experiences differently.
Steele (2010) discussed how identity contingencies are social identities that are present
and impact social situations. These social identities affect performance in the academic setting
and there is pressure to prove oneself due to the influences of society (Steele, 2010). Due to the
historical structural inequities in society, there have been disadvantages and advantages to
certain groups based on identity and there should be an emphasis on disaggregating the data to
identify disparities.
Student Identity and Belonging Effect on Academic Success
A tendency for students to be grouped together according to their identity occurs, and
Steele (2010) offers the term “identity contingencies” where the given social identity becomes a
barrier to overcome when seeking out what one wants or needs (p. 3). This can cause feelings of
trying to prove oneself and can affect performance on tests, in the classroom, and/or on the
athletic field (Steele, 2010).
Student identity affects academic success. The environment in higher education does not
always meet the needs of individual identities. Cohn-Vargas and Steele (2016) point out that
institutions that tend to rely on the deficit theory provide interventions that categorize students
who may be from low socioeconomic backgrounds or in a minority group to be intellectually or
socially deficient. The authors explained that this type of curriculum emphasizes remediation
instead of inspiration and is missing the mark as to what is needed for student success. When an
institution is “colorblind”, the idea of treating all students equally misses the mark of meeting the
individual needs while honoring and validating individual cultures, backgrounds, and
perspectives (Cohn-Vargas & Steele, 2016). Being “colorblind” sends a message that an
individual's culture does not count or is not important. Creating a “one-size fits all” approach
does not honor differing interests, gifts, and talents.
Changes to the educational environment need to occur. Cohn-Vargas and Steele (2016)
suggest creating identity safe classrooms by providing validation for all students’ backgrounds
and experiences. The authors emphasize the importance of creating a sense of belonging for all
students while promoting empathy. The educational materials provided should represent diverse
backgrounds. Cohn-Vargas and Steele (2016) discussed creating an environment where students’
strengths and interests are at the forefront of learning. Cohn-Vargas and Steele’s (2016) research
results showed that higher scores on standardized tests were accomplished by students who were
participants in higher identity safe classrooms, and they had a more positive outlook on school, a
sense of belonging, and more motivation to learn than students who participated in less identity
safe classrooms. Engagement has been found by many researchers to be associated with
students’ sense of belonging, success, and retention (Ahn & Davis, 2020; Baumeister & Leary,
1995; Kuh et al., 2005; Masika & Jones, 2016). Baumeister and Leary (1995) found relationships
and social interaction to be integral in developing belonging. Kuh et. al (2005) identified a strong
correlation between engagement and student success. Ahn and Davis (2020) determined that
establishing belonging happens through academic and social engagements and found social
engagement to be most predominant.
Williams et al. (2021) conducted a qualitative study to address the barriers
underrepresented populations face when seeking academic success, while noting the importance
of engaging students both academically and socially. An inclusion assistant program was
investigated to determine its effectiveness in creating success for students in underrepresented
populations. The results of the study showed that the program created a universal targeted
approach by positively impacting all students. The program created a sense of belonging in the
resident’s hall, and it was noted that students appreciated people of color being in leadership
roles. The inclusion assistants felt overwhelmed taking on the sole responsibility of creating an
inclusive environment as some were supported more than others by resident directors and staff.
Ensuring each student feels validated, included, and has a sense of belonging is an
important part of the educational environment to promote academic success. The feeling of being
connected and involved helps students obtain a sense of belonging and they will be more apt to
achieve success (Boettcher et al., 2019). Relationships play a key role in helping students feel
included in their environment. Patton et al. (2016) communicated Chickering and Reisser’s
vectors for student development emphasizing the importance of developing mature interpersonal
relationships. The psychological well-being of students in higher education is dependent upon
the interactions with other students, faculty/staff, family, and classes taken to ensure academic
success and retention rates (Castillo-Lavergne & Destin, 2019).
In order to create an equitable environment for education, inclusive environments should
be established intentionally to grow a sense of belonging and honor each individual’s dignity
(Cobb & Krownapple, 2019). Inclusion does not mean that an individual “fits in,” but rather each
individual should feel appreciated, valued, accepted, and treated fairly while affirming
backgrounds, talents, and beliefs (Cobb & Krownapple, 2019). Simply having a diverse
environment does not mean there is equal inclusion. Cobb and Krownapple (2019) define
exclusion as being denied access due to failing to meet the membership standards of belonging.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs demonstrates that a sense of belonging needs to be established
before achievement can take place (Cobb & Krownapple, 2019). In education we tend to ask
students to achieve before obtaining a true sense of belonging. For students to reach their full
potential in academic success, an education environment needs to be inclusive for all learners
while honoring the dignity and backgrounds of all.
Summary
The fear of failure has been found to be motivated by a need for achievement within the
higher education platform. Student academic success has been found to be affected by a fear of
failure, belonging, and the environment provided by the higher education platform. Striving for
achievement and success has appeared differently throughout history. Thelin (2019) points out
that during colonial times, students were expected to obtain positions of leadership in the state or
church. Higher education success has evolved over time creating more of an individual approach
to success in terms of students’ own goals and pursuits. Tinto’s original retention model
researched and refined over time, has shown that the institution’s environment plays a key role in
student retention (Nicoletti, 2019). It has been found that the educational environment greatly
impacts the role of student identity and meeting the social and academic needs of the students
according to Williams et al. (2021). By faculty and staff striving to meet the social emotional
needs of students and focusing on positive ways to ensure students have a sense of belonging,
there will be an increase of retention rates and academic success with a decrease in the fear of
failure within higher education. “Knowing why a student is in jeopardy of prematurely ending
his or her college career is often helpful in developing an effective intervention strategy”
(Williams et al., 2021, p. 10). Chapter Three will consider the methodology used to determine
any correlation between the fear of failure and belonging and their relationship to student success
and retention in this quantitative study. Chapter Four will provide details on the results of the
survey provided to first-year and transfer college students. Chapter Five will discuss the impact
of the results and will provide suggestions for further study.

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter will explore the research methodology used in this study. This chapter will
also discuss the participants involved in the study, the setting, the instruments used, and
measures taken to ensure confidentiality of the participants. The procedural steps and how the
data was collected, analyzed, and distributed are included as well. The purpose of this study was
to examine the correlation between the feelings of fear of failure and a sense of belonging in
first-year and transfer college students and any correlation found was explored further through
their association with retention and student success. The quantitative method allowed the
researcher to collect data, using a sliding scale, on students who were enrolled in the Freshman
Seminar Course at a four-year university in a suburb of a metropolitan area (Creswell &
Gutterman, 2019). The following questions guided the researcher to determine if there was a
correlation between feelings of fear of failure and a sense of belonging and any association with
success and retention.
not exist.
failure does exist.
not exist.
does exist.
not exist.
does exist.
Research Design
The research method that was used for this study focused on quantitative data using a
sliding scale to score the data (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019). A correlational design was used to
investigate the relationship between students’ feelings of failure and belonging (Creswell &
Gutterman, 2019). The research method and design used in this study helped determine a
positive or negative correlation and explored further their association with student success and
retention. The two measurable quantitative outcomes were the measure of first-year and transfer
college students’ individual beliefs in aversive consequences of failure and generalized fear of
failure and perceptions of peer support, classroom, comfort, isolation, and faculty support. The
measuring tools used were the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (Conroy et al., 2003)
(see Appendix B) and the Sense of Belonging Scale - Revised (Hoffman et al., 2002) (see
Appendix D). The scores were compared to examine the correlation between the feelings of a
fear of failure and belonging using the Pearson’s Correlation Test. Students self-reported their
feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and future academic goals. The feelings of
preparedness and plans to return or not return to their college were reported by using a sliding
scale. The Pearson’s Correlation Test was used to determine the correlation between the feelings
of fear of failure and belonging and the relationship of these feelings with student success and
retention. The significance of the analysis showed the correlation between feelings of belonging
and fear of failure and their relationship to student success and retention to inform future studies
in an effort to increase student success and retention.
Research Setting and Context
The study included freshman and transfer students enrolled in the Freshman Seminar
Course at a four-year university in a suburb of a metropolitan area. The institution had an
approximate total of 300 students enrolled in the Freshman Seminar Course according to the
instructor. The university enrollment included 4,569 undergraduate students and 1,002 graduate
students. with a persistence rate of 69% for full-time students. From the Fall of 2020 to the Fall
of 2021, 73% of students who began their bachelor’s degree studies returned the following
school year (U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard, 2022). The total undergraduate
enrollment included students who identified as follows: 1% American Indian or Alaska Native,
2% Asian, 7% Black or African American, 2% Hispanic or Latino, 75% white, 2% two or more
races, and 10% race/ethnicity unknown (U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard,
2022).
Research Sample and Data Sources

The student sample group used for this study were required to take the Freshman Seminar
Course at a four-year university in a suburb of a metropolitan area. This included first-year and
transfer college students. The timeline of this study took place within one year of IRB approval
(2022) with students surveyed at the end of first-year and transfer students’ first semester of
college. The inclusion criteria included all first-year and transfer students enrolled in the
Freshman Seminar Course at the university and included students representing all genders,
race/ethnicity, and demographic backgrounds. The student population consisted of a total of 52%
male and 48% female; of this population students self-identified as 73% white, 23% Black or
African American, 3% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander. A single stage sampling design was used by surveying students one time at the end of
the course. The researcher believed this was a fair sample of first-year and transfer college
students providing feedback for feelings of failure and belonging in relation to student success
and retention, because the students made up a diverse range of backgrounds, cultures, and
perspectives while having the common denominator of being in their first semester at this
university.
Instruments and Procedures
Five data sources were used in this quantitative correlational design study for analysis. A
survey was sent to students enrolled in the Freshman Seminar Course at a four-year university in
a suburb of a metropolitan area with an incentive of earning extra credit for completing the
survey. The Snowball Recruiting process was used to gather as many participants as possible
enrolled in the Freshman Seminar Course with the instructor’s assistance. The Snowball
Recruiting process included the instructor offering extra credit to students who completed the
survey. The hope was to include a wide range of students from differing backgrounds, cultures,
and life experiences. The confidentiality of students’ identities and results were protected.
The first data source found in the survey tested students' feelings of belonging at their
university using the Sense of Belonging Scale - Revised (Hoffman et al., 2002) (see Appendix
D). This scale examined belonging based on perceived peer support, perceived classroom
comfort, perceived isolation, and perceived faculty support. The second data source found in the
survey tested students’ fear of failure using the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory
(Conroy et al., 2003) (see Appendix B). This scale examined fear of failure based on fear of
shame or embarrassment, fear of devaluing one’s self estimate, fear of having an uncertain
future, fear of important others losing interest, fear of upsetting important others, and general
fear of failure. The third data source found in the survey was students’ self-reported feelings of
preparedness to achieve their current and future academic goals. This was used as a measurement
for student success. The fourth data source found in the survey was students’ self-reported plans
to return to their university for the 2023/2024 school year, which was used to measure student
retention. The fifth data source was the Pearson’s Correlation Test used to determine the
correlation between the students’ feelings of fear of failure and belonging. These scores were
compared to student success and retention to determine any association with the feelings of fear
of failure and belonging.
Data Collection
The researcher applied to the Institutional Research Board at the four-year university in a
suburb of a metropolitan area to gain permission to collect data. Once the Institutional Research
Board granted permission (see Appendix A), the researcher submitted the information required
to collect data in the state of Missouri and sought permission from the institution and instructor
of the freshmen seminar course.
The data collected from the Fear of Failure and Belonging Survey used a sliding scale for
students to report their feelings of fear of failure and a sense of belonging. A sliding scale was
also used for students to self-report their feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and
future academic goals to measure student success. Retention data was gained from students self-
reporting their plans to return to the university for the 2023/2024 school year using a sliding
scale.
Data Analysis
The researcher used statistical data based on the results of the Fear of Failure and
Belonging Survey to determine the relationship between the fear of failure, a sense of belonging,
student success, and retention. The data was collected in an Excel spreadsheet to be analyzed and
used to recognize trends and patterns in the data. The data analysis took multiple steps. The first
phase analyzed students’ fear of failure and a sense of belonging. Then the Pearson’s Correlation
Test was used to determine if there was a correlation between students’ feelings of fear of failure
and belonging. The comparison of the scores was used to determine the degree of association
between the two feelings.
The next phase compared the results of the fear of failure inventory to the results of
students’ self-reported feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and future academic
goals. The Pearson’s Correlation Test was used to determine the degree of association between
students’ fear of failure and student success.
The third phase compared the results of the fear of failure inventory to the results of the
students’ self-reported plans to return to the institution the following school year. The data was
analyzed to determine the association between feelings of fear of failure and student retention.
The fourth phase compared the results of the sense of belonging scale to the results of
students’ self-reported feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and future academic
goals. The Pearson’s Correlation Test was used to determine the degree of association between
students’ sense of belonging and student success.

The fifth phase compared the results of the Sense of Belonging Scale to the results of the
students’ self-reported plans to return to the university the following school year. The data was
analyzed to determine the association between a sense of belonging and student retention.
Role of the Researcher
The role of the researcher included multiple roles. First, the researcher applied for
permission to conduct the study from the university’s Institutional Research Department (see
Appendix A). Then the researcher sent a letter to the doctoral office and the instructor of the
Freshman Seminar Course to seek permission to survey the students enrolled in the Freshman
Seminar Course. The researcher created a survey that included the data sources from the Sense of
Belonging Scale - Revised (Hoffman et al., 2002) (see Appendix D) and the Performance Failure
Appraisal Inventory (Conroy et al., 2003) (see Appendix B). The survey was administered by
using the Snowball Recruiting model where the instructor of the Freshman Seminar Course
included the survey in the course platform. Once the results of the survey were obtained, the
researcher analyzed the results from the statistical data. The confidentiality of the results was
established by keeping the data anonymous. All research information shared with the researcher
will remain confidential and secure, and individual students cannot be identified.
Summary
Information gathered from the study helped determine a correlation between the feelings
of fear of failure and belonging and if these feelings had a relationship to student success and
retention. The Fear of Failure and Belonging Survey administered to first-year and transfer
college students at a four-year university in a suburb of a metropolitan area provided information
to identify any correlation between fear of failure and belonging in relation to student success
and retention through the Pearson’s Correlation Test.

failure and a sense of belonging, and how they related to retention and student success. For the
purpose of this study, student success was defined by academic achievement measured by
students’ self-reporting their feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and future
academic goals. Multiple analysis of data was used to determine the degree of association. The
quantitative correlational research method and design was used to determine a positive or
negative correlation and how these feelings related to student success and retention. Chapter
Four will provide details on the results of the survey administered to first-year and transfer
college students. Chapter Five will discuss the impact of the results and will provide suggestions
for further study.

Chapter Four: Results
The following chapter provides the results of the quantitative data analysis. The
researcher explored the correlation between the feelings of fear of failure and belonging and their
association with student success and retention in college students completing their first year at a
four-year university in a suburb of a metropolitan area. In order to determine any correlation, the
researcher looked at various data points including the average results of fear of failure,
belonging, student success, and retention. The data was then compared using the Pearson’s
Correlation Test.
Rationale and Purpose
The completion of post-secondary degrees has been a topic explored over time and Tinto
(1997) shared that students who leave their college or university do so prior to their second year
of college. Tinto (1997) also highlighted the importance of creating a positive impact on students
during their first year in higher education to gain a higher percentage of retention and success.
This quantitative data study determined if there was a correlation between the feelings of fear of
failure and belonging and any association with student success and retention.
This chapter contains three sections: data collection, population, and the results of the
quantitative tests. The data analysis focused on the following research questions:
The research questions guided the collection of data on students’ feelings of fear of failure, sense
of belonging, self-reporting plans to return to the university the following school year, self-
reporting preparedness to achieve current and future academic goals, and finally the correlation
between feelings of fear of failure and belonging relating to students’ success and retention. The
information gathered from this data will inform the four-year university in a suburb of a
metropolitan area and other colleges in planning how to address these issues.
Data Collection
The correlational design and quantitative method, with a sliding scale to score data,
(Creswell & Gutterman, 2019) allowed the researcher to collect various data on students who
were enrolled in the Freshman Seminar Course at the studied institution. The quantitative
research method was the best choice for this study because the information was able to be
gathered in a single survey at the end of the students’ first semester at the university to determine
correlation coefficients.
The researcher collected data from the studied institution’s Freshman Seminar Course
that included first-year and transfer college students during their first semester. The two
measurable quantitative outcomes were gathered from the Performance Failure Appraisal
Inventory (Conroy et al., 2003) (see Appendix B) and the Sense of Belonging Scale – Revised
(Hoffman et al., 2002) (see Appendix D). The measuring tools focused on individual beliefs in
aversive consequences of failure and generalized fear of failure and perceptions of peer support,
classroom, comfort, isolation, and faculty support. Students self-reported their feelings of
preparedness to achieve their current and future academic goals that measured student success.
Retention was measured by students self-reporting their plans to return or not to return to the
studied institution. Once the data was collected, the researcher used the Pearson’s Correlation
Test to determine the correlation between the feelings of fear of failure and belonging and the
relationship of these feelings with student success and retention.
Population
The data were retrieved from a four-year university in a suburb of a metropolitan area
using information from 158 first-year and transfer college students enrolled in the Freshman
Seminar Course. The student population consisted of a total of 52% male and 48% female; of
this population students self-identified as 73% white, 23% Black or African American, 3%
American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Figure 9 reflects
scores comparing male and female responses. Figure 10 compares scores according to
race/ethnicity. In the next section, the researcher will discuss the Pearson’s Correlation Test
performed in relation to the research questions.
Quantitative Findings
The data used in this quantitative study appears in Table 1. There were 156 students
surveyed regarding their feelings of belonging, fear of failure, preparedness and on track to
achieve their current and future academic goals (student success), and plans to return to the
studied institution the following school year (student retention).
Table 1:
Data for Student Samples of the Study - Belonging, Fear of Failure, Student Success, and Student
Retention
Average Average Fear of Average Student Average Student
Student Sample Belonging Score Failure Score Success Score Retention Score
1 4.64 4.44 5 7
2 5.43 5.48 10 10
3 8.64 7.4 10 5
4 0.96 4.32 0 1
5 5.79 5.88 3 10
6 4.07 4.76 6 10
7 1.93 7.88 3 10
8 4.89 5.4 8 9
9 9.00 6.6 10 10
10 3.43 7.72 5 9
11 4.07 5.16 7 7
12 7.54 5.92 8 10
13 3.54 5.4 4 7
14 6.36 1.04 8 10
15 6.68 6.4 4 10
16 3.36 3.4 10 10
17 5.86 5.92 8 10
18 5.64 4.44 7 10
19 5.96 4.72 6 10
20 6.68 5.64 5 7
21 9.04 3.68 10 10
22 7.18 6.76 2 5
23 8.04 2.52 9 9
24 7.61 9.36 10 10
25 6.46 4.36 10 10
26 7.29 9.08 10 10
27 4.75 1.64 7 6
28 6.36 3.32 5 10
29 6.79 2.2 10 0
30 4.36 4.04 6 10
31 8.86 1.72 10 10
32 8.00 6.08 9 10
33 6.89 4.16 7 10
34 6.82 4.88 5 10
35 6.32 5.48 6 9
36 9.79 4.76 10 10
37 2.96 7 6 10
38 5.32 2.12 9 5
39 4.04 5.6 7 10
40 0.21 0 1 0
41 7.25 6.4 10 10
42 8.29 3.92 8 10
43 5.57 8.16 7 9
44 3.21 6.4 5 6
45 4.18 9.28 5 10
46 4.96 4.96 6 6
47 3.79 8.68 4 10
48 3.11 7.6 5 10
49 1.93 2.84 2 10
50 7.82 1.24 5 10
51 7.75 7.28 10 10
52 7.46 5.16 0 5
53 8.00 5.44 8 7
54 8.07 1.04 8 10
55 3.39 3.4 10 5
56 8.75 2.24 10 10
57 9.71 2 10 10
58 6.11 1.76 8 10
59 4.36 4.16 8 7
60 5.61 1.76 10 0
61 5.36 6.96 1 10
62 8.18 2.12 10 10
63 6.25 4.8 7 10
64 5.50 5.88 6 10
65 6.79 6.84 8 7
66 8.89 3.36 10 10
67 7.68 5.8 8 8
68 6.82 2.64 8 5
69 4.57 3.8 9 3
70 4.75 7 5 1
71 8.36 9.2 6 2
72 3.79 6.32 3 3
72 2.11 1.2 6 7
74 4.39 7.6 6 10
75 5.93 5.36 4 4
76 8.57 1.76 6 10
77 8.75 5.24 8 10
78 4.04 10 3 6
79 6.82 2.8 5 10
80 7.79 7.48 8 10
81 5.18 8.28 10 10
82 5.64 4.76 8 10
83 2.50 4.84 5 8
84 3.04 5.76 5 6
85 4.64 7.2 4 10
86 6.64 6.12 10 10
87 9.25 7.68 5 5
88 8.32 4.08 10 10
89 5.61 6.2 6 3
90 2.14 7.08 5 10
91 8.61 2 7 10
92 2.71 7.6 7 9
93 4.54 8.24 7 10
93 5.07 4.84 7 0
95 7.54 5.92 10 10
96 1.54 7.56 6 10
97 7.00 7.4 8 10
98 5.00 6 5 10
99 5.00 8.48 1 10
100 7.21 10 5 8
101 8.50 6.68 9 9
102 8.25 6.68 6 5
103 6.39 6.32 3 10
104 3.14 8.44 2 1
105 8.36 3.08 7 5
106 5.89 5.2 7 10
107 6.04 0.64 10 0
108 6.68 8.88 4 10
109 4.21 1 6 10
110 6.64 3.52 8 0
111 5.96 3.2 5 7
112 9.79 2.16 10 10
113 6.71 6.24 9 10
114 6.61 6.44 10 10
115 8.54 7.32 7 10
116 4.11 2.8 10 5
117 4.43 3.04 10 0
118 5.39 2.84 2 10
119 9.21 0.4 10 7
120 1.93 8.4 5 10
121 7.43 2.36 10 10
122 4.29 4.84 8 10
123 4.71 1.76 8 10
124 4.75 3.56 8 10
125 2.86 5.32 7 10
126 4.50 1.64 10 10
127 6.86 5.36 7 10
128 5.82 9.16 3 7
129 3.14 6.04 0 5
130 4.64 1.64 5 10
131 3.75 1.56 10 5

132 5.14 1.08 9 10
133 8.82 2.2 10 10
134 9.75 9.04 7 10
135 6.21 7.32 7 9
136 6.79 4.64 8 10
137 9.46 0.92 10 5
138 9.64 2.48 10 7
139 8.50 1.12 10 10
140 7.14 3.56 5 8
141 4.21 5.12 3 1
142 5.75 3.4 5 10
143 4.00 2 7 7
144 5.68 2.36 8 0
145 9.04 4.24 7 10
146 2.32 3.56 4 10
147 3.75 5.92 1 0
148 5.86 2.08 7 10
149 6.21 3.32 7 9
150 8.04 0.4 10 10
151 7.82 6.84 7 2
152 6.50 5.52 10 3
153 9.21 1.48 10 10
154 9.71 4.84 10 10
155 7.07 1.36 7 10
156 6.04 9.76 5 10
Treatment of Data
A quantitative, correlational research design was used to determine if two variables vary
consistently allowing the opportunity to make predictions of scores of one variable based on
another variable (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019). The quantitative, correlational design was used
to determine if a relationship existed between a fear of failure and belonging, a fear of failure and
student success, a fear of failure and student retention, belonging and student success, and
belonging and student retention. The Pearson’s Correlation Test and Descriptive Statistics were
used to determine the results of this study. The degree of association ranges from -1 to 1 while
results closer to 1 show a greater relationship between the two variables (Creswell & Gutterman,
2019). A positive correlation shows the variables moving in the same direction whereas a
negative correlation shows the variables moving in the opposite direction (Creswell &
Gutterman, 2019). A descriptive statistics test was used to determine statistical significance, and
the confidence of 0.5 was determined showing less than 5% chance of being wrong with over
95% chance of being correct. A linear regression model was used for each correlation to
determine the relationship between each variable and if the variables were moving in the same or
opposite directions. A T-Test: Paired Two Samples for Means was conducted to determine the
increase or decrease in the tested variables.
Analysis of the Data
The examination of the hypotheses included determining the correlation and directional
relationship between the fear of failure and belonging, fear of failure and student success, fear of
failure and retention, belonging and student success, and belonging and retention. This was
followed by descriptive statistics and a T-Test to determine the level of relationship significance.
Overview of Pearson Correlation Test
Results of Pearson Correlations between fear of failure, sense of belonging, student
success, and retention are presented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Pearson correlations between the study variables
Belonging Fear of Failure Student Success Retention

Belonging 1
Fear of Failure -0.13 1

Student Success 0.5 -0.32 1
Retention 0.2 0.08 0.17 1
As shown in Table 1, belonging positively related to student success and retention. Belonging
was negatively related to fear of failure, which suggests increasing belonging decreases fear of
failure. Fear of failure was negatively related to student success suggesting lower levels of fear
of failure increases student success. Positive relationships were found between student success
and retention.
The following information provides the results of all tests run to answer the research
questions. The first research question and hypotheses were:
R1. Is there a correlation between the fear of failure and a sense of belonging?
not exist.
failure does exist.
The Pearson’s Correlation Test (Table 2) was selected for this question because the
researcher compared two sets of scores to determine the direction and degree of association
(Creswell & Gutterman, 2019). The data collected for this test was the Performance Failure
Appraisal Inventory (Conroy et al., 2003) (see Appendix B) and the Sense of Belonging Scale –
Revised (Hoffman et al., 2002) (see Appendix D). A sliding scale was used to show how
completely true or completely untrue the student felt about each question. The average individual
scores were compared using the Pearson’s Correlation Test.
Figure 1.
Belonging and Fear of Failure

300
250
Fear of Failure
200
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Belonging
A graph of the data points for levels of belonging and fear of failure is displayed in
Figure 1. The linear forecast shows the greater levels of belonging decrease the levels of fear of
failure.
The researcher rejects the null hypothesis as there was a negative and weak correlation.
The correlation coefficient is -0.13 showing a weak relationship between the feelings of fear of
failure moving in the opposite direction of feelings of belonging.
Descriptive statistics have been provided to compare the means of the levels of belonging
and fear of failure.
Table 3.
Descriptive Statistics for Belonging and Fear of Failure
Std.
N Mean Deviation Std. Error Mean
Belonging Values 156 6.00 2.14 0.17
Fear of Failure 156 4.86 2.45 0.20
The T-Test: Paired Two Samples for Means results were used to determine the
hypothesis of belonging level of the student sample (m=6, SD= 2.14, N=156) to move in the
opposite direction in relationship to the fear of failure level of the student sample (m= 4.86, SD=
2.45, N= 156). The difference was not significant, t (4.12) = 1.98, p = 0 (1 tail).
The second research question and hypothesis were:
R2. Is there a correlation between the fear of failure and student success?
The Pearson’s Correlation Test was selected for this question because the researcher
compared two sets of scores to determine the direction and degree of association (Creswell &
Gutterman, 2019). The data collected for this test was the Performance Failure Appraisal
Inventory (Conroy et al., 2003) (see Appendix B) and students self-reporting their feelings of
preparedness and being on track to achieve their current and future academic goals. A sliding
scale was used to show how completely true or completely untrue the student felt about each
question. The average individual scores were compared using the Pearson’s Correlation Test.
Figure 2.
Fear of Failure and Student Success

12
10
Student Success
8
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Fear of Failure
A graph of the data points for levels of fear of failure and student success is displayed in
Figure 2. The linear forecast shows the greater levels of fear of failure and student success to be
moving in the opposite direction.
The researcher rejects the null hypothesis as there was a negative and moderate
correlation. The correlation coefficient is -0.32 showing a moderate relationship between the
feelings of fear of failure moving in the opposite direction of student success.
Descriptive statistics have been provided to compare the means of the levels of fear of
failure and student success.
Table 4.
Descriptive Statistics for Sample of All Students - Fear of Failure and Student
Success
Std.
Fear of Failure Values 156.00 4.86 2.45 0.20
Student Success 156.00 6.88 2.64 0.21
hypothesis of fear of failure level of the student sample (m= 4.86, SD= 2.45, N= 156).to move in
the opposite direction in relationship to student success level of the student sample (m= 6.88,
SD= 2.64, N= 156). The difference was not significant, t (-6.09) = 1.98, p = 0 (1 tail).
The third research question and hypothesis were:
R3: Is there a correlation between the fear of failure and student retention?
Gutterman, 2019). The data collected for this test was the Performance Failure Appraisal
Inventory (Conroy et al., 2003) (see Appendix B) and students self-reporting their plans to return
to the institution the following school year. A sliding scale was used to show how completely
true or completely untrue the student felt about each question. The average individual scores
were compared using the Pearson’s Correlation Test.
Figure 3.
Fear of Failure and Student Retention

12
10
Student Retention
8
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Fear of Failure
A graph of the data points for levels of belonging and fear of failure is displayed in
Figure 3. The linear forecast shows the greater levels of fear of failure decrease the levels of
retention.
The researcher could not reject the null hypothesis as there was no correlation found
between the feelings of failure and retention. The correlation coefficient is 0.09 showing no
relationship between the feelings of fear of failure and retention.
Table 5.
Descriptive Statistics for Sample of All Students - Fear of Failure and Student
Retention
Std.
Fear of Failure Values 156 4.86 2.45 0.20
Student Retention Values 156 7.97 3.10 0.25
hypothesis of fear of failure level of the student sample (m= 4.86, SD= 2.45, N= 156).to move in
the opposite direction in relationship to student retention level of the student sample (m= 7.97,
SD= 3.10, N= 156). The difference was not significant, t (-10.24) = 1.98, p = 0 (1 tail).
The fourth research question and hypothesis were:
R4: Is there a correlation between belonging and student success?
not exist.
does exist.
Gutterman, 2019). The data collected for this test was the Sense of Belonging Scale – Revised
(Hoffman et al., 2002) (see Appendix D) and students self-reporting their feelings of
preparedness and on track to achieve their current and future academic goals. A sliding scale was
used to show how completely true or completely untrue the student felt about each question. The
average individual scores were compared using the Pearson’s Correlation Test.
Figure 6.
Belonging and Student Success

12
10
Student Success
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Belonging
A graph of the data points for levels of belonging and student success is displayed in
Figure 6. The linear forecast shows the greater levels of belonging increase the levels of student
success.
The researcher rejects the null hypothesis as there was a positive and moderate
correlation. The correlation coefficient is 0.5 showing a moderate relationship between the
feelings of belonging and student success.
Table 6.
Descriptive Statistics for Belonging and Student Success
Descriptive Statistics for Sample of All Students - Belonging and Student

Success
Std.
Student Success 156 6.88 2.64 0.21
hypothesis of belonging level of the student sample (m= 6.0, SD= 2.14, N= 156).to move in the
same direction in relationship to student success level of the student sample (m= 6.88, SD= 2.64,
N= 156). The difference was not significant, t (-4.53) = 1.98, p = 0 (1 tail).
The fifth research question and hypothesis were:
R5: Is there a correlation between belonging and student retention?
not exist.
does exist.
Gutterman, 2019). The data collected for this test was the Sense of Belonging Scale – Revised
(Hoffman et al., 2002) (See Appendix D) and students self-reporting their plans to return to the
institution the following school year. A sliding scale was used to show how completely true or
completely untrue the student felt about each question. The average individual scores were
compared using the Pearson’s Correlation Test.
Figure 7.
Belonging and Student Retention

12
10
Student Retention
8
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Belonging
A graph of the data points for levels of belonging and student retention is displayed in
Figure 6. The linear forecast shows the greater levels of belonging and the levels of student
success moving in the same direction.
The researcher rejects the null hypothesis as there was a positive and weak correlation.
The correlation coefficient is 0.2 showing a weak relationship between the feelings of belonging
and student retention.
Table 7.
Descriptive Statistics for Sample of All Students - Belonging and Student

Retention
Std. Std. Error
N Mean Deviation Mean
Student Retention Values 156 7.97 3.10 0.25
hypothesis of belonging level of the student sample (m= 6.0, SD= 2.14, N= 156).to move in the
same direction in relationship to student retention level of the student sample (m= 7.97, SD=
3.10, N= 156). The difference was not significant, t (-7.24) = 1.98, p = 0 (1 tail).
Figure 8.
Averages according to gender
Male (N=82) Female (N=76)

10
8
Sliding Scale 0-10
6
4
2
0
Fear of Sense of Student Student
Failure Belonging Success Retention
Male 4.928292683 5.835834897 6.780487805 8.036585366
Female 4.751578947 5.939271255 6.986842105 7.842105263
Failure/Belonging/Success/Retention
Male Female
Fear of failure, sense of belonging, student success, and student retention average scores of male
and female students who were enrolled in the Freshman Seminar Course in the Fall of 2022 are
displayed in figure 8. A significant difference was not shown in scores according to gender.
Figure 9.
Averages according to race/ethnicity
Results by Race/Ethnicity
9
8
7
Sliding Scale (0-10)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Native
Black or American
Hawaiian or
White African Indian or
Pacific
(N=116) American Alaska
Islander
(N=37) Native (N=4)
(N=1)
Fear of Failure 4.81 4.909189189 4.66 7
Sense of Belonging 5.916114058 5.857588358 5.509615385 4.884615385
Student Success 7.351351351 7.351351351 8.5 5
Student Retention 8.043103448 7.621621622 6.223205128 1
Failure/Belonging/Success/Retention
Fear of Failure Sense of Belonging Student Success Student Retention
Fear of failure, sense of belonging, student success, and student retention average scores of
students who were enrolled in the Freshman Seminar Course in the Fall of 2022 according to
race/ethnicity are displayed in figure 9. Significant differences were not shown in results based
on race/ethnicity except in the categories of fear of failure, student success, and retention
according to Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander compared to White, Black or African
American, and American Indian or Alaska Native.
Figure 10.
Motivation of Fear of Failure

6 5.612115732
4.969936709 4.917721519
5 4.526898734
3.844303797
Mean 4
3
2
1
0
Fear of Fear of Fear of Having Fear of Fear of
Experiencing Devaluing One's Uncertain Important Upsetting
Shame & Self-Estimate Future Others Losing Important
Embarassment Interest Others
Fear of Failure
Motivation of fear of failure average scores by type of students who were enrolled in the
Freshman Seminar Course in the Fall of 2022 is displayed in figure 10. The average scores show
fear of experiencing shame and embarrassment to be the greatest motivator of fear of failure
whereas the fear of important others losing interest was the least motivator of fear of failure.
Figure 11.
Belonging by Type
7 6.446835443
5.684335443 5.813291139
6 4.957278481
5
4
Mean
3
2
1
0
Perceived Peer Perceived Perceived Non- Perceived Faculty
Support Classroom Isolation Support
Comfort
Belonging
Belonging by type average scores of students who were enrolled in the Freshman Seminar
Course in the Fall of 2022 is displayed in figure 11. The average results show perceived faculty
support to be the greatest belonging type whereas the perceived non-isolation was the least.
Summary
A review of Chapter Four revealed a negative and weak relationship between fear of
failure and belonging, a positive and weak relationship between belonging and retention, positive
and moderate relationship between student success and belonging, a negative and moderate
relationship between the fear of failure and student success, and no relationship between fear of
failure and retention. Included was the Pearson’s Correlation Test to show the direction and
degree of association (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019). The 158 students enrolled in the Freshman
Seminar Course at the studied institution showed an average score of 5.9 on a sliding scale of 0-
10. The average score of the fear of failure was 4.9 on a sliding scale of 0-10. The average score
of student success defined by students’ self-reporting feelings of preparedness and on track to
achieve their current and future academic goals was 6.9 on a sliding scale of 0-10. The average
score of student retention defined by students’ self-reporting plans to return to the studied
institution the following school year was 7.9 on a sliding scale of 0-10.
Chapter Five will first provide a summary of the study. The second section will provide
the opportunity for the researcher to discuss in depth the results of this study. The third section
will provide the implications for practice and recommendations. The fourth section will provide
recommendations for future research. The last section will include a closing statement.
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion
This chapter will provide a summary and description of this study as well as an overview
of the problem, purpose statement, research questions and hypotheses, methodology, and results.
This chapter will also provide an in-depth discussion of the reported data including the
limitations followed by recommendations for future studies. The recommendations will overall
contribute to the continued effort in finding solutions to promote student success and retention.
Summary of Study
Purpose of Study
failure and a sense of belonging, and their association with retention and student success. The
researcher in this study examined the correlation between the feelings of fear of failure and a
sense of belonging and their relationship with student success and retention in first-year and
transfer college students at a four-year university in a suburb of a metropolitan area. Student
success was defined by students’ self-reporting their feelings of preparedness to achieve their
current and future academic goals. Student retention was defined by students’ self-reporting their
plans to return to the institution the following school year, the fall of 2024. It is important to
determine associations with these variables to identify and inform pathways to increase student
Significance of Study
The significance of this study was to provide information about how the correlation
between the feelings of fear of failure and belonging in first-year and transfer college students
overall may be associated with student success and retention. The Performance Failure Appraisal
Inventory (Conroy et al., 2003) (see Appendix B) was used to measure individuals’ beliefs in
aversive consequences of failure. The Sense of Belong Scale - Revised (Hoffman et al., 2002-
2003) was used to measure first-year and transfer college students' perception of peer support,
classroom comfort, isolation, and faculty support (see Appendix D). Students' self-reported
feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and future academic goals were used to define
student success for this study and plans to return to their college or university the next school
year were used to define student retention.
Tinto (1997) found that students who leave their college or university do so prior to their
second year of college and only 60% of students, enrolled in a four-year college, earn a degree.
Tinto (1997) has pointed out the significance of creating a positive impact on students during
their first year in higher education to gain a higher percentage of retention and success. The
connections students feel during their first year will contribute to their persistence. A sense of
belonging helps students feel they matter to one another and relates to academic achievement,
academic progress, and social acceptance (Ackermann & Morrow, 2012). The evaluation of the
association between fear of failure, sense of belonging, student success, and student retention
may benefit the studied institution and similar institutions in Missouri and across the United
States.
Methodology
The research method that was used for this study focused on quantitative data using a
sliding scale to score the data (Creswell & Gutterman, 2019). A correlational design was used to
investigate the relationship between students’ feelings of failure and belonging (Creswell &
Gutterman, 2019). The research method and design used in this study helped determine a
positive or negative correlation and explored their association with student success and retention.
The two measurable quantitative outcomes measured first-year and transfer college students’
individual beliefs in aversive consequences of failure and generalized fear of failure and
perceptions of peer support, classroom, comfort, isolation, and faculty support. The measuring
tools used were the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (Conroy et al., 2003) (see
Appendix B) and the Sense of Belonging Scale - Revised (Hoffman et al., 2002) (see Appendix
D). The scores were compared to examine the correlation between the feelings of a fear of failure
and belonging using the Pearson’s Correlation Test. Students self-reported their feelings of
preparedness to achieve their current and future academic goals. The feelings of preparedness
and plans to return or not return to their college were reported by using a sliding scale. The
Pearson’s Correlation Test was used to determine the correlation between the feelings of fear of
failure and belonging and the relationship of these feelings with student success and retention.
The significance of the analysis showed a correlation between feelings of belonging and fear of
failure and their association to student success and retention. The analysis can be used to inform
future studies in an effort to increase student success and retention.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The results will inform instructors of what factors may lead to student success and
retention as well as guide institutions in evaluating the effectiveness of their first-year and
transfer college students programming. The following is a review of the research questions and
hypotheses:
not exist.
failure does exist.
not exist.
does exist.
not exist.
does exist.
As shown in Table 2 (p. 57), Belonging positively related to student success and
retention. Belonging was negatively related to fear of failure, which suggests increasing
belonging decreases fear of failure. Fear of failure was negatively related to student success
suggesting lower levels of fear of failure increases student success. Positive relationships were
found between student success and retention.
Limitations
The limitations of this quantitative study included personal perceptions of students to
determine the specific feelings and experiences individual students have had in terms of fear and
belonging. The researcher could not control personal issues or experiences unrelated to the
college experience that may have influenced the survey scores such as death in the family, health
concerns, mental health concerns, financial strains, or family issues. Students self-reporting their
feelings of preparedness to achieve their current and future academic goals could have been
inaccurate due to not responding honestly to the survey. It could take longer than a semester for
students to feel a sense of belonging and to overcome fear of failure. Because this study was
conducted at a private 4-year institution, results may not be able to be generalized to a large
public 4-year institution or a 2-year community college.
Discussion
Students who feel a sense of belonging feel consistent interactions with others and
persistently shown care from others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The connections students feel
at their university impact their persistence and retention (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Students
need for achievement and their fear of failure has a direct impact on students' goals (Michou et
al., 2014). Institutions providing a sense of belonging in their academic setting decrease the
feelings of fear of failure while student retention and academic success will be increased.
Belonging is established by the faculty, staff, peers, and engagement in the academic community
(Hoffman et al., 2002-2003). When students are not afraid to fail, they are more open to taking
risks and persevering through their academic program. The effectiveness of belonging and
support provided when students make mistakes builds a strong community of learners committed
to achieving their professional and personal goals.
The results of the first research question on the correlation between the feelings of fear of
failure and belonging showed a negative and weak relationship. These two variables were shown
to have a correlation coefficient of -0.12525515 moving in opposite directions. Although the
correlation was found to be weak, the negative relationship between the fear of failure and
belonging suggests increasing belonging decreases fear of failure. Belonging can be
accomplished through an inclusive environment by recognizing and celebrating the various

cultures and backgrounds while providing opportunities for connections and instruction that meet
the individual’s needs, interests, and backgrounds (Cobb & Krownapple, 2019).
The results of the second research question on the correlation between fear of failure and
student success showed a negative and moderate relationship. These two variables were shown to
have a correlation coefficient of -0.31991619 moving in the opposite direction. The negative
relationship suggests lower levels of fear of failure increases student success. The fear of failure
debilitates students with feelings of anxiety and keeps them from reaching their goals or finding
success. When students have interventions to reduce the fear of failure by having a mindset of
learning from their mistakes and redirecting their thinking from putting too much emphasis on
their failures, then there is a positive impact on achievement goals (Bartels & Ryan, 2013).
The results of the third research question on the correlation between fear of failure and
retention showed no statistically significant association between the two variables. The
correlation coefficient was 0.088503652 showing no relationship between the feelings of fear of
failure and retention. The balancing of students’ fears and hopes and the understanding of this
concept by instructors may have a greater impact than students’ cognitive-academic preparation,
which in-turn helps them persist in college (Cox, 2009). Since there was no statistically
significant correlation between the fear of failure and retention, the researcher will address other
directions of study in the recommendations for future research section.
The results of the fourth research question on the correlation between a sense of
belonging and student success showed a positive and moderate correlation. These two variables
were shown to have a correlation coefficient of 0.460502638 moving in the same direction.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943) shows that a sense of belonging is needed before
achievement can be accomplished. An emphasis on monitoring student engagement, social and

personal growth, transformative learning, inclusiveness and belonging and student well-being
have contributed to helping universities support student success (Bowden et al., 2019).
The results of the fifth research question on the correlation between a sense of belonging
and student retention showed a positive and weak correlation. These two variables were shown
to have a correlation coefficient of 0.139745881 moving in the same direction. The researcher
believes the results showing a weak correlation may be due to students being unsure of future
plans or options for other institutions. Based on Tinto’s Model of Institutional Departure (1975,
1993) that shows persistence through the lens of integrating academics with the interactions of
faculty/staff and peer groups as well as extracurricular activities, the researcher would expect to
see a correlation between belonging and student retention. Pascarella’s Model (1980) also points
to a correlation between belonging and student retention by showing how the informal
interactions between students and faculty members would improve the student’s overall
academic experience, both socially and academically, as well as positively impact the student’s
decision to persevere through their academic work.
In this study, the fear of failure was examined through individual beliefs in aversive
consequences of failure and generalized fear of failure. A sense of belonging was examined
through individual perceptions of peer support, classroom, comfort, isolation, and faculty
support. The average scores showed fear of experiencing shame and embarrassment to be the
greatest motivator of fear of failure whereas the fear of important others losing interest was the
least motivator of fear of failure. The average results show perceived faculty support to be the
greatest belonging type whereas the perceived non-isolation was the least. The positive effects of
having a sense of belonging decreased feelings of fear of failure and increased student success
and retention. The educational environment greatly impacts the role of student identity and
meeting the social and academic needs of the students (Williams et al., 2021).
Implications for Policy and Practice
Research in this study found that a sense of belonging impacts fear of failure, retention,
and success. Fear of failure also impacts student success. Even though the current study did not
find any statistically significant correlation between the fear of failure and retention, a sense of
belonging decreased fear of failure and increased retention. The 158 students enrolled in the
Freshman Seminar Course at the studied institution showed an average score of 5.9 on a sliding
scale of 0-10 for belonging. The average score of the fear of failure was 4.9 on a sliding scale of
0-10. The average score of student success defined by students’ self-reporting feelings of
preparedness and on track to achieve their current and future academic goals was 6.9 on a sliding
scale of 0-10. The average score of student retention defined by students’ self-reporting plans to
return to the studied institution the following school year was 7.9 on a sliding scale of 0-10.
The results of the survey showed that faculty support was the greatest belonging type
while the greatest motivator of fear of failure was experiencing shame and embarrassment. Both
results show that the studied university is positively impacting students through faculty support
while increasing student retention and student success.
The results of this study can positively impact the studied institution as well as both
students and faculty/staff. The following recommendations for planning are offered:
• Continuing to grow the advisor/life coach model will allow students the opportunity to be
heard, valued, and seen throughout the decision-making process during their time at the
studied institution.
• Providing Cognitive Coaching training to advisors will allow advisors to be able to guide
student thinking and help them through the decision-making process of majors and
careers.
• Continuing to grow a student mentorship program where students in their third to fourth
year at the institution can help guide first-year and transfer college students to help them
feel a sense of belonging to help increase student retention and success.
• Providing opportunities for students to connect based on the same interests, majors, and
career paths will also allow students to feel connected resulting in a sense of belonging.
• Adding to the Freshman Seminar Course an opportunity for students to job shadow areas
of interests to decrease a fear of failure and help them feel purpose in their studies.
Recommendations for Future Research
Student success has continued to focus on academic success being measured by grades,
career readiness, and persevering through higher education programming. As a result, institutions
have adjusted their focus to meet student needs in accomplishing academic success and retention
(Eline & Kristof, 2018; Goncalves & Trunk, 2014; Roberts, 2018). Roberts’ (2018) study found
the importance of creating strategies to help students succeed and persist in their studies instead
of through compliance. Mentoring programs pairing students and faculty members showed a
positive impact on student outcomes (Eline & Kristof, 2018). Student engagement has been
found to promote academic success and attrition rates (Goncalves & Trunk, 2014).
Research into strategies to decrease fear of failure and increase sense of belonging would
be the researcher’s next step. The researcher suspects that these strategies would increase student
retention and success. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943) highlights that a sense of
belonging needs to be met before achievement can take place. Bartels and Ryan (2013) study
results demonstrated that fear of failure was related to achievement goals, and the study
recommended strategies to deter students from avoiding failure and embrace a mindset of
learning from mistakes.

Why are students reporting a generalized fear of failure or a lack of belonging? The four-
year university in a suburb of a metropolitan area could send an exit survey to students who are
leaving the institution to find out if the reasons revolve around fear of failure or belonging.
Ongoing surveys can be sent to students to continue to assess these feelings and if they feel on
track to meet their current and future academic goals.
Another recommendation is to complete a qualitative study to interview students
reporting to have feelings of fear of failure or lack of belonging to determine why they are
having those feelings. The interview could also include questions about what strategies or
supports would help them feel they could overcome their feelings of failure and create a greater
sense of belonging.
Another study would be to interview instructors to find out what professional
development they need to lower the levels of fear of failure in students while creating a sense of
belonging. The interview would include questions asking what strategies the institution could put
in place to create a more inclusive environment for all students, staff, and faculty.
The studied institution has already put in place an inclusive advising model to increase
enrollment and retention. This model allows advisors to reach out to students often and check on
them regularly. Advisors can identify if there are any barriers in their learning or life at the
institution. This model could expand to asking questions about belonging and fear of failure. In
supporting the whole person, the social and emotional needs should be met as well.
Conclusions
This study began with a desire to examine if there is a correlation between the feelings of
fear of failure and belonging and their association with student success and retention. The two
variables, fear of failure and belonging, showed a weak but negative relationship. Even though
there was a weak relationship, the results showed the two variables moved in opposite direction,
which demonstrates a higher sense of belonging decreases feelings of fear of belonging. A sense
of belonging had a moderate and positive association with student success. A sense of belonging
had a weak and positive association with retention, however, Tinto’s theories (1973, 1975, 1993,
1997) led the work in considering both academic and social factors playing a key role in
predicting and determining student retention rates.
This study’s results indicate that the fear of failure and sense of belonging impact student
success. The focus of the studied institution has been on enrollment and retention. According to
the U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard (2022), the four-year university in a suburb
of a metropolitan area has a 53% graduation rate with a 68% retention rate for students who
return after their first year. The researcher suspects continued study in how to support students to
overcome their fear of failure and increase a sense of belonging will positively impact student
Faculty and staff at the four-year university in a suburb of a metropolitan area need
ongoing professional development for continued growth in creating an inclusive environment
where all students, faculty, and staff feel heard, validated, appreciated, and valued. Overall
accomplishing a sense of belonging and strategies to view failure as a way to fail forward, while
striving for success, will positively impact the learning environment.

References
Ahn, M. Y., & Davis, H. H. (2020). Four domains of students’ sense of belonging to university.
Studies in Higher Education, 45(3), 622-634.
Ackermann, M. E. & Morrow, J. A. (2012). Intention to persist and retention of first-year
students: The importance of motivation and sense of belonging. College Student Journal,
46(3), 483-491.
Bartels, J. M., & Ryan, J. J. (2013). Fear of failure and achievement goals: A canonical analysis.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 40(1), 42–49. https://0-search-ebscohost-
com.bridges.searchmobius.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=97169751&site=eh
ost-live
Batterson, M. (2016). In a pit with a lion on a snowy day. Biblica, Inc.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–
529.
Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college
student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 35-64.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022001035
Berger, J., Ramirez, G. B., & Lyon, S. (2012). Past to present: A historical look at retention. In
A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 7-34).
Rowman & Littlefield.
Boettcher, M. L., Eason, A., Earnest, K., & Lewis, L. (2019). The cultivation of support
networks by students of color in a residence hall setting at a predominantly white
institution. The Journal of College and University Student Housing, 45(3), 30–46.
Bowden, J. L.H., Tickle, L., & Naumann, K. (2019). The four pillars of tertiary student
engagement and success: A holistic measurement approach. Studies in Higher
Education, 46(6), 1207–1224. https://0-doi-
org.bridges.searchmobius.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647
Castillo, L. C. M., & Destin, M. (2019). How the intersections of ethnic and socioeconomic
identities are associated with well‐being during college. Journal of Social Issues, 75(4),
1116–1138. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12358
Cobb, F., & Krownapple, J. (2019). Belonging through a culture of dignity. Mimi and Todd
Press.
Cohn-Vargas, B., & Steele, D. M. (2016). Creating identity safe classroom environments. Illinois
Reading Council Journal, 44(3), 23–32.
Conroy, D. E., Metzler, J. N., & Hofer, S. M. (2003). Factorial invariance and latent mean
stability of performance failure appraisals. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 70, 401-422.
Cox, R. D. (2009). “It was just that I was afraid.” Promoting success by addressing students’ fear
of failure. Community College Review, 37(1), 52–80.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552109338390
Creswell, J. W. & Gutterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed). Pearson.
Cruz, J., & Haycock, K. (2012). Occupy higher education: Why colleges should own the effort to
improve student success. Change, 44(5), 49–52. https://0-doi-
org.bridges.searchmobius.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.706514
Davidson, W. B., & Beck, H. P. (2021). A two-minute test to identify undergraduates likely to
drop out. College Student Journal, 55(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981125

De Castella, K., Byrne, D., & Covington, M. (2013). Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A cross-
cultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student disengagement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 861–880. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032464
Dorn, C. (2015). The history of American higher education: Learning and culture from the
founding to World War II. Journal of American History, 102(3), 847.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jav544
Fink, J. & Inkelas, K. K. (2015). New directions for student services. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.,
149(11), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20113
Fjelkner-Pihl, A. (2022). The constructive overlap: A study of multiplex ties in students’ study-
related networks and academic performance. Innovative Higher Education, 47(2), 273–
295. https://0-doi-org.bridges.searchmobius.org/10.1007/s10755-021-09576-4
Goffman, E. (1952). On cooling the mark out: Some aspects of adaptation to failure. Psychiatry,
15, 451-463.
Goncalves, S. A., & Trunk, D. (2014). Obstacles to success for the nontraditional student in
higher education. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research. 19 (4), 164-172.
10.24839/2164-8204.JN19.4.164.
Hagerty, B. M., 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9417(92)90028-H
Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salomone, K. (2002). Investigating “Sense of
belonging” in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(3),
227–256.
Hossler, D., & Bontrager, B. (2015). Handbook of strategic enrollment
management. Jossey-Bass.
Horn, M. (2018). Will half of all colleges really close in the next decade?.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2018/12/13/will-half-of-all-colleges-really-
close-in-the-next-decade/?sh=75fe6aa152e5
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance
educational effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
Lerche, V., Neubauer, A. B., & Voss, A. (2018). Effects of implicit fear of failure on cognitive
processing: A diffusion model analysis. Motivation & Emotion, 42(3), 386–402.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9691-5
Limone, P., Sinatra, M., Ceglie, F., & Monacis, L. (2020). Examining procrastination among
university students through the lens of the self-regulated learning model. Behavioral
Sciences, 10(12), 184. DOI:10.3390/bs10120184
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe?. Australian Psychologist,
38(1), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060310001706997
Masika, R., & Jones, J. (2016). Building student belonging and engagement: Insights into higher
education students’ experiences of participating and learning together. Teaching in
Higher Education, 21 (2): 138–50.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Michou, A., Vansteenkiste, M., FMouratidis, A., & Lens, W. (2014). Enriching the hierarchical
model of achievement motivation: Autonomous and controlling reasons underlying
achievement goals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 650–666.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12055
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and
theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-
6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I
Morrow, J. A., & Akermann, 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), 483–491.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (2020). First-year persistence and retention
2018 beginning cohort. Snapshot Report. https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/PersistenceRetention2020.pdf
Nefzi, N. (2018). Fear of failure and entrepreneurial risk perception. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Knowledge, 6(2), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.2478/IJEK-2018-0013
Nicoletti, M. (2019). Revisiting the Tinto’s theoretical dropout model. Higher Education Studies,
9(3), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v9n3p52
Patel, S. (2015). The research paradigm – methodology, epistemology and ontology – explained
in simple language. https://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/the-research-paradigm-
methodology-epistemology-and-ontology-explained-in-simple-language/
Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in college
theory, research, and practice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 50(4), 545-595. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050004545
Respondek, L., Seufert, T., Hamm, J. M., & Nett, U. E. (2020). Linking changes in perceived
academic control to university dropout and university grades: A longitudinal approach.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 987–1002.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000388
Roberts, J. (2018). Professional staff contributions to student retention and success in higher
education. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 40(2), 140–153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2018.1428409
Robinson, L. (2021). Investigating critical thinking disposition, self-efficacy, self-regulation, and
self-identity amongst online students. College Student Journal, 55(3), 325–337.
Rodríguez-Gómez, D., Feixas, M., Gairín, J., & Muñoz, J. L. (2015). Understanding Catalan
university dropout from a cross-national approach. Studies in Higher Education, 40(4),
690–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842966
Saunders-Scott, D., Braley, M. B., & Stennes-Spidahl, N. (2018). Traditional and psychological
factors associated with academic success: Investigating best predictors of college
retention. Motivation & Emotion, 42(4), 459–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-
9660-4
Silver, H. (2007). Higher education and social change: Purpose in pursuit? History of Education,
36(4/5), 535–550. https://0-doi-
org.bridges.searchmobius.org/10.1080/00467600701496815
Slaten, C. D., Elison, Z. M., Deemer, E. D., Hughes, H. A., & Shemwell, D. A. (2018). The
development and validation of the university belonging questionnaire. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 86(4). 633-641.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1339009
Smith, D. (2020). Diversity’s promise for higher education (3rd ed.). John Hopkins University
Press.
Snevers, E. & De Witte, K. (2018). Interventions in higher education and their effect on student
success: A meta-analysis. Educational Review, 70(2). 208-228.

Spady, W. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and synthesis.
Interchange, 1(1), 64-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02214313
Steele, C. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi. W. W. Norton & Company.
Steinmayr, R., Meibner, A., Weidinger, A. F., & Wirthwein, L. (2014). Academic achievement.
Oxford Bibliographies. DOI: 10.1093/OBO/97801997568100108
Thelin, J. R. (2019). A history of American higher education (3rd ed.). John Hopkins University
Press.
Tinto, V., & Cullen, J. (1973). Dropout in higher education: A review and theoretical synthesis
of recent research. Office of Education (DHEW), Contract OEC-0-73-1409, 99. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED078802.pdf
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of educational research, 45(1), 89-125.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student
persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1997.11779003
Tovar, E., & Simon, M. (2010). Factorial structure and invariance analysis of the sense of
belonging scales. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(3),
199–217. doi:10.1177/0748175610384811
U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard. (2022). Compare. Retrieved March 27, 2022,
from
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/compare/?toggle%3Dinstitutions%26s%3D178244%26s
%3D179894%26s%3D179159%26s%3D177968%26s%3D178059%26s%3D177418
Williams, S., Kolek, E. A., Ampaw, F., Johnson, M. R., Hornak, A. M., & Gardner, K. (2021).
Using inclusion assistants within a residential curriculum to improve the experiences and
success of students with underrepresented identities. Journal of College & University
Student Housing, 47(2), 44–61.
Zarrin, S. A., Gracia, E., & Paula Paixão, M. (2020). Prediction of academic procrastination by
fear of failure and self-regulation. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 20(3), 34–
43. https://doi.org/10.12738/jestp.2020.3.003
Appendix A: Institutional Review Board Approval

Appendix B: The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory
The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (Long-Form, 25 Items)
_____ 1. When I am failing, it is often because I am not smart enough to perform successfully.
_____ 2. When I am failing, my future seems uncertain.
_____ 3. When I am failing, it upsets important others.
_____ 4. When I am failing, I blame my lack of talent.
_____ 5. When I am failing, I believe that my future plans will change.
_____ 6. When I am failing, I expect to be criticized by important others.
_____ 7. When I am failing, I am afraid that I might not have enough talent.
_____ 8. When I am failing, it upsets my “plan” for the future.
_____ 9. When I am failing, I lose the trust of people who are important to me.
_____ 10. When I am not succeeding, I am less valuable than when I succeed.
_____ 11. When I am not succeeding, people are less interested in me.
_____ 12. When I am failing, I am not worried about it affecting my future plans.
_____ 13. When I am not succeeding, people seem to want to help me less.
_____ 14. When I am failing, important others are not happy.
_____ 15. When I am not succeeding, I get down on myself easily.
_____ 16. When I am failing, I hate the fact that I am not in control of the outcome.
_____ 17. When I am not succeeding, people tend to leave me alone.

_____ 18. When I am failing, it is embarrassing if others are there to see it.
_____ 19. When I am failing, important others are disappointed.
_____ 20. When I am failing, I believe that everybody knows I am failing.
_____ 21. When I am not succeeding, some people are not interested in me anymore.
_____ 22. When I am failing, I believe that my doubters feel that they were right about me.
_____ 23. When I am not succeeding, my value decreases for some people.
_____ 24. When I am failing, I worry about what others think about me.
_____ 25. When I am failing, I worry that others may think I am not trying.
Appendix C: Permission to Use the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory

Appendix D: Revised Sense of Belonging Scale

Perceived Peer Support (8 items)
1. I have met with classmates outside of class to study for an exam
2. If I miss class, I know students who I could get notes from
3. I discuss events which happened outside of class with my classmates
4. I have discussed personal matters with students who I met in class
5. I could contact another student from class if I had a question
6. Other students are helpful in reminding me when assignments are due or when tests are
approaching
7. I have developed personal relationships with other students in class
8. I invite people I know from class to do things socially
Perceived Classroom Comfort (4 items)
9. I feel comfortable contributing to class discussions
10. I feel comfortable asking a question in class
11. I feel comfortable volunteering ideas or opinions in class
12. Speaking in class is easy because I feel comfortable
Perceived Isolation (4 items)
13. It is difficult to meet other students in class
14. No one in my classes knows anything personal about me
15. I rarely talk to other students in my class

16. I know very few people in my class
Perceived Faculty Support (10 items)
17. I feel comfortable talking about a problem with faculty
18. I feel comfortable asking a teacher for help if I do not understand course-related material
19. I feel that a faculty member would be sensitive to my difficulties if I shared them
20. I feel comfortable socializing with a faculty member outside of class
21. I feel that a faculty member would be sympathetic if I was upset
22. I feel that a faculty member would take the time to talk to me if I needed help
23. If I had a reason, I would feel comfortable seeking help from a faculty member outside of
class time (office hours etc.)
24. I feel comfortable seeking help from a teacher before or after class
25. I feel that a faculty member really tried to understand my problem when I talked about it
26. I feel comfortable asking a teacher for help with a personal problem
Appendix E: Permission to Use Revised Sense of Belonging Scale

ProQuest Number: 30637681
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.
Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2023 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.
This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.
Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA

importanttt fof and pro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

importanttt fof and pro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

importanttt fof and pro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Missouri Baptist University

This is to certify that the Dissertation by

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

Associate Vice President for Graduate Affairs

Melanie Bishop, Ed.D.

Missouri Baptist University

Fear of Failure and Belonging in Relation to Success and Retention

A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate Studies Program

students enrolled in the Freshman Seminar Course at a four-year university in a suburb of a

in an effort to increase student retention and success.

In addition to God’s guidance, I must acknowledge my amazing cohort. We helped encourage

possible. Anything is possible with God.

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ....................................................................................................7

Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................9

Purpose Statement ..............................................................................................................10

Paradigmatic Framework ...................................................................................................11

Significance of Study .........................................................................................................11

Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................................12

Definition of Terms and Concepts .....................................................................................14

Researcher Assumptions ....................................................................................................16

CHAPTER TWO : Review of Literature ..................................................................................18

Student Success ..................................................................................................................19

Fear of Failure ....................................................................................................................27

CHAPTER THREE: Methodology ............................................................................................40

Research Setting and Context ............................................................................................42

Research Sample and Data.................................................................................................43

Instruments and Procedures ...............................................................................................43

Data Collection ..................................................................................................................44

Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................45

Role of the Researcher .......................................................................................................46

CHAPTER FOUR: Results .........................................................................................................48

Rationale and Purpose........................................................................................................48

Data Collection ..................................................................................................................49

Quantitative Findings .........................................................................................................50

CHAPTER FIVE: Discussion and Conclusion..........................................................................70

Summary of Study .............................................................................................................70

Implications for Policy and Practice ..................................................................................77

Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................78

Appendix A: Institutional Review Board Approval ..........................................................90

Appendix B: The Performance Failure Inventory .............................................................91

Appendix C: Permission to Use Performance Failure Inventory.......................................93

Appendix D: Revised Sense of Belonging Scale ...............................................................94

Appendix E: Permission to Use Revised Sense of Belonging Scale .................................96

Chapter One: Introduction

performance feedback featured reduced speed of information accumulation. Furthermore, high

impact their persistence and retention (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

Problem Statement, Purpose Statement, Paradigmatic Framework, Significance of Study,

Definition of Terms and Concepts, Delimitations, Researcher Assumptions, and Chapter

Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs provided a model of human motivation. This

Vargas & Steele, 2016; Cobb & Krownapple, 2019).

accessibility and offers a vast number of pursuits.

Persistence Report (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2020).

Higher education shows a projected decrease in enrollment, an increase in government

found to doubt their abilities to succeed (Cox, 2009).

belonging's effect on academic success grounded in Abraham Maslow’s (1943) concept of

strong association of a sense of belonging, academic achievement, and success in higher

experience. Belonging can be accomplished through an inclusive environment by recognizing

“Students of color have lower levels of subsequent institutional commitment. Subsequent

risk for departure” (Hossler & Bontrager, 2015, p. 293).