Study one results—focus groups on experiences of social connectedness at university
The focus group sample was selected to be as diverse as possible. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the sample.
Focus group data were analysed using thematic analysis (see Methods section for further details). The theme structure is shown in Table 2 and illustrated in the narrative below. Data were organised into three interconnected themes, each with four-six subthemes. Two subthemes spanned all main themes.
Table 2 Themes and subthemes
Theme 1 Experiences of social connection, Subtheme 1.1 Shared experience: Shared experience was central to students’ understanding and experiences of social connectedness. Students placed importance on both the broader university experience—meeting new people from diverse backgrounds, leaving home, trying new things—and specific, non-academic experiences, such as chatting and ‘playing silly games’ (G2, P1) with peers. Hopes and expectations for shared experiences can motivate students to pursue higher education54, and are shaped by students’ backgrounds and life experiences:
G2, P1: ‘Quite a large reason of why I went to university was for social interaction was for adult conversation. I’m a Mum…’
Subtheme 1.2 Fitting in and belonging: Beyond sharing experiences, ‘fitting in’ seemed necessary in cultivating a sense of belonging. Fitting in involves actively conforming to social norms and behaviours, not just in response to peer pressure, but as a wilful effort to integrate:
G2, P4: ‘I think I would have ended up drinking just to kind of fit in with people.’
This insight demonstrates how students may adopt behaviours that help them feel included, even when these behaviours conflict with their personal preferences or values. Conversely, the pressure to fit in can create feelings of disconnectedness when students are unable or unwilling to engage in normalised behaviours. This tension was particularly evident among mature students, who felt out of sync with the social preferences of younger peers:
G2, P1: ‘The only time I have felt on the limb, if you like, is when it comes to society things or, you know, the kind of party side of it…’
Subtheme 1.3 Connected yet lonely: Efforts to fit in can cultivate social connectedness, but connectedness alone does not prevent loneliness:
G1, P2: ‘I think some people think if they’re around people that they won’t be lonely, but it doesn’t mean that does it, they could still feel lonely (…) doesn’t mean they’re connected just because they’re around people.’
Indeed, students described feeling lonely yet being physically surrounded by people and/or participating in shared activities:
G3, P3: ‘I felt very alone, even when I was like in the nightclub, surrounded by people… So I think that I had superficial, you know, sort of social connection. Really, I didn’t feel it.’
This insight suggests that connectedness may operate as a hierarchy, with regular interactions forming the foundation, and deeper emotional connections at higher tiers. Developing superficial interactions into deeper connections can be hindered by challenges such as homesickness, overwhelm, social pressures, or mental ill-health.
Subtheme 1.4 Fear of missing out and social comparison: Paradoxically, students’ social connections sometimes heightened their awareness of being excluded from experiences shared by others. One student described ‘the fear that you’re not being invited to certain things’ (G1, P4), while others actually observed friends and acquaintances engaging in activities without them, either in person or through social media:
G3, P4: ‘It just made those feelings of sort of like loneliness worse because I was sort of comparing myself to what could have.’
For students, shared experience is key to social connectedness, and the desire for belonging can lead them to adjust their behaviours to fit in. However, not only is connectedness insufficient to preclude loneliness, it can intensify it through fear of missing out and social comparison. The various ways students establish these connections are explored in Theme 2.
Theme 2 Opportunities and ways to connect, Subtheme 2.1 Using social media to avoid anxiety: Social media plays a dual role in students’ lives by facilitating social connection (Theme 2) yet failing to enable deeper connections (Theme 3). For many students, it is the default way to initiate and maintain connections:
G3, P1: ‘Because, like, from my experience, the initial connection is like social media anyway.’
Students may default to social media not only because it is integral to their social lives27,55, but also because it enables them to avoid the anxiety of initiating interactions face-to-face:
G3, P1: ‘I feel too anxious to just be like, hey, my name is [NAME]. But on social media… it’s no, like, none of the physical anxiety.’
G3, P5: ‘I think when you make like a friendship online, kind of thing, like, if they don’t reply to you, it’s a little bit less awkward.’
Subtheme 2.2 Connecting with coursemates: In terms of in-person interaction, connecting with coursemates was a key way students build connections. Opportunities to connect naturally arise from shared academic activities like groupwork (Subtheme 1.1) and from shared lecture spaces:
G1, P3: ‘I think the lecture space was a good area to socialise.’
G2, P1: ‘Have a pleasant time in a lecture with your peers, but then to also go and carry that on campus or off campus for lunch.’
Central to this subtheme is shared space, which extends beyond the classroom in Subtheme 2.3.
Subtheme 2.3 The campus as a source of connectedness: Beyond academic sessions, students viewed the wider campus as a source of social connectedness. They valued chance encounters with friends, but simply being on campus, even alone, fostered a sense of belonging:
G3, P5: ‘…something that actually is on campus… joins you into the university more and makes you feel more connected with the university. So in a kind of psycho-geography style way.’
The campus’ busy, vibrant atmosphere also contributed to this feeling. Reflecting on the COVID-19 lockdown, some students described the stark contrast when that ambience was missing:
G2, P1: ‘I didn’t expect the change in energy [during lockdown]… this building should be vibrant… full of noise and chatter and friendship and hope…’
Implicit in this subtheme is the expectation that the university should provide social space. This thread is explicit in Subtheme A: The university’s role.
Subtheme 2.4 Connecting through shared accommodation: Continuing the theme of shared space, accommodation featured as both an opportunity (Theme 2) and a barrier (Theme 3) to connection. For many, sharing living spaces builds connections organically:
G1, P2: ‘Because we were in halls of residence, everybody was doing things there were things put on.’
G3, P3: ‘I lived in a house of nine of us with my friends so when I came back, like I said, it’s like instantly social.’
However, the quality of these social connections can vary greatly among individuals (see Subtheme 3.3).
Subtheme 2.5 Societies and social events: In contrast to the more passive experiences of social connectedness described so far, some students actively and intentionally engage with societies and social events:
G3, P2: ‘When the university runs… the little fairs going on, or artwork up in the SU, or coffee mornings. You can just go sit in the morning before lectures and talk to people.’
G2, P3: ‘Go and try and find somewhere you fit in and go find like you know, the big social meetings they have where they have the big tent.’
However, these opportunities are not always perceived as accessible (Subtheme 3.1) or appealing, particularly when they involve drinking alcohol (Subtheme 3.2).
Subtheme 2.6 Widening networks: Continuing the trend towards passive social involvement, students often socialised within familiar circles, including pre-assigned working groups:
G2, P5: ‘You tend to actually stick with the people you know… you don’t know anyone and you’re kind of hesitant to meet new people…’
Nonetheless, there was a sense that it would be beneficial to cultivate wider networks, which some students achieved through paid or voluntary work:
G2, P4: ‘I volunteer… And that’s been one of my major social things…’
This theme reveals that connectedness can be cultivated passively, by simply belonging to exogenous groups (e.g., course or accommodation), or actively, by joining endogenous groups (e.g., societies) and seeking new social opportunities through wider networks. Theme 3 explores the obstacles that prevent students from fully engaging with these opportunities.
Theme 3 Barriers to connection, Subtheme 3.1 Accessibility and inclusivity: Fresher’s Week was seen as the ideal time to make connections – a limited window of opportunity – and some students experienced challenges in accessing social opportunities thereafter. Accessing venues was not always straightforward for disabled students, while commuter students struggled to participate in spontaneous social plans,
G2, P2: ‘…I kind of like, had flashes of like feeling really lonely… I couldn’t have like, these random activities that everybody else was like seeing and doing.’
and others experienced financial barriers,
G2, P3: ‘I can’t afford to do that, like, and then it’s been quite difficult and quite isolated for me…’
These experiences are more than just isolated experiences of inconvenience or disappointment; they have a cumulative effect that can contribute to a general sense of disconnect from the university community.
Subtheme 3.2 Drinking culture: Drinking alcohol (excessively) at university has been conceptualised as a social practice—a habitual, socially embedded behaviour56 – but it can deter some students from engaging socially,
G2, P4: ‘There’s a lot of pressure to drink. And I think, if you don’t, … it’s very easy to kind of like, become disconnected in that way.’
while others feel forced to conform to drinking norms:
G3, P2: ‘I didn’t have any choice. The only way you could socialise with your society was to get drunk.’
For some, activities involving heavy drinking are unappealing because they involve taking care of intoxicated friends. Consequently, there is a general desire for more alcohol-free social activities in suitable venues:
G2, P1: ‘I don’t really go into the [Student’s Union] you know, the bar and that space because it always feels to me like somewhere that’s not for me.’
This need for adequate social space is further explored in Subtheme B The university’s role.
Subtheme 3.3 Problems with accommodation: Accommodation can both support (Theme 2) and hinder (Theme 3) social connectedness. Students not living in shared accommodation reported greater difficulty in making connections. Commuter students, for example, miss out on spontaneous social events and can feel disconnected from campus life. Living near campus but alone can also be isolating, even when it is a personal choice:
G2, P3: ‘…I didn’t even have like flatmates or anyone that I could really connect with.’
Conversely, interpersonal dynamics can be challenging when living with strangers in halls of residence, over which students have limited control:
G1, P2: ‘I was put in a particular halls of residence with people are very, very different from me with very, very different interests… because you’re just randomly put together.’
Negative relationships with housemates may be more detrimental to students’ sense of social connectedness than other social ties57,58.
Subtheme 3.4 Interaction anxiety: Students experience interaction anxiety when meeting new people and/or initiating interactions. Many therefore rely on existing connections,
G3, P1: ‘I would never go to any events that my friends won’t go into.’
even though expanding networks would be preferable (Subtheme 2.6):
G2, P3: ‘…we’re kind of kind of sticking to the same groups. And so we’re not really expanding our circles or getting to know people… or expand interests and things like that.’
Alternatively, students turned to social media as a less anxiety-inducing way to establish connections (Subtheme 2.1).
Subtheme 3.5 Mental health: Mental (ill)health moderates students’ sense of social connectedness. Even socially connected students can feel isolated if they experience mental ill-health (Subtheme 1.3):
G3, P3: ‘…even though I was surrounded by a lot of people, because my mental health was very bad, I felt really not connected to anyone.’
Conversely, positive mental health can increase students’ capacity to engage socially
G3, P3: ‘I struggled with my mental health, but at this point, I was feeling a lot better and able to socialise…’
and social engagement, in turn, can boost mental health:
G2, P4: ‘the ability to actually bump into someone and go for that hot coffee was actually really good element for my mental health.’
This subtheme demonstrates the bidirectional relationship between mental (ill)health and social (dis)connectedness14,15.
Subtheme 3.6 Shortcomings of social media: Social media is used, and even relied upon, to establish and maintain social connections (Subtheme 2.1), but, paradoxically, it can also hinder social connectedness. During the COVID-19 lockdowns, students missed casual social encounters on campus (Subtheme 2.3):
G1, P1: ‘You can’t bump into someone online.’
Outside of lockdowns, maintaining relationships formed online proved difficult for many as they did not always translate into lasting, meaningful connections (Subtheme 1.3):
G3, P2: ‘People that I made connections with, on social media when I was in first year, I very rarely talk to now.’
Students described online interactions as impersonal, superficial, and inferior to in-person interactions. Additionally, students recognised that social media engenders upward social comparison, which amplifies feelings of loneliness and isolation (Subtheme 1.4).
Subtheme A: The role of the student: Subtheme A spans all three themes. Students recognised that social connectedness requires some level of effort and active engagement. However, some expressed a desire for this effort to be minimal:
G3, P5: ‘I get involved in things when those things are just easy and made simple for me whereas it felt quite effortful for me to do.’
For students who actively engage, it can be frustrating when others do not show the same level of commitment:
G2, P2: ‘I’ve got a [sport] social this evening, and it will be the same five members that turn up every time…’
However, there was also acknowledgement that some individuals may find social engagement more challenging:
G1, P2: ‘I think it must be really tough… if you’re not naturally, an extrovert…’
Subtheme A and Subtheme B are closely interlinked. While students accept that building connectedness requires effort, the division of responsibility between the university and the individual is difficult to disentangle.
Subtheme B: The role of the university: Subtheme B also spans all three themes. The university shapes students’ social experience by creating or removing barriers to, and opportunities for, social connectedness. Students hold clear expectations that the university should actively encourage and facilitate social connectedness,
G2, P1: ‘The more we can encourage people, I say we, I mean the uni…’
and to support students who struggle in this regard. Missed opportunities to put on social events were seen as a failing on the part of the university.
Finally, the university can facilitate or restrict social connectedness through its provision of space: students feel restricted by limited opening hours or alcohol-focused venues (Subtheme 3.2):
G2, P2: ‘…there’s nowhere to go and sit and have a chat… I find that the campus is actually uninviting in winter [late afternoon/early evening]’
Overall, there is a sense that the university is somewhat responsible for the social connectedness of its students. This responsibility goes beyond providing adequate social events and opportunities and extends to actively encouraging participation, identifying and removing barriers, catering to diverse needs and preferences, and providing ample, accessible, and appealing social spaces.
We now describe the results of Study 2, in which these themes were interrogated in a larger sample via an online survey.
Study 2 Results – Online survey on experiences of social connectedness and initial app ideas
Table 3 shows the demographic characteristics of the survey sample.
Table 3 Survey sample demographics, n = 37
Participants were asked about their experiences of social connectedness and wellbeing. Participants experienced moderate levels of loneliness (mean UCLA score =47.77, SD = 12.95, range: 24–36, n = 42) and wellbeing (mean SWEMWBS = 23.12, SD = 5.04, n = 41). There was no correlation between loneliness and wellbeing, r = 0.25, p = 0.117.
Participants were asked about opportunities and ways to connect. Students (n = 42) primarily connected with others via their course (32 instances), accommodation (19), friends of friends (14), societies (13), social media (9), and employment (5).
Participants did not often use campus spaces to socialise (mean = 39.16, SD = 27.42, n = 37, scored between 0 – never to 100 – all the time), and were only somewhat likely to attend university social events (mean = 45.33, SD = 23.32, n = 36, scored 0 – not at all/never to 100 – definitely/all the time).
Participants were also asked about barriers to participating in social events. Table 4 shows the extent to which barriers identified in Study One made students less likely to attend university social events (from 0 – not at all, to 100 – completely).
Table 4 Barriers to attending university social events, n = 36
Most participants felt anxious about social events at university (27/34, 79.41%), causing almost two-thirds (17/27, 62.96%) of whom to ‘miss out’ on social events. As in Study One, students were anxious about meeting new people, especially in large groups,
P25: ‘It was a large group of people and I didn’t know anyone yet. I can feel very anxious around people I don’t know and find it hard to start conversations with people I don’t know.’
in case they did not connect with others or fit in,
P16: ‘Lack of connection, fear of others not liking me’
Several students were anxious due to drinking culture:
P19: ‘Expected to drink with lots of people I didn’t know or knew very little about’
Social media: Most students (33/37, 89.19%) used social media to keep up with university news and information and/or to connect with others at university. Yet, views on social media were mixed. Around half of students (24/40, 60%) felt positively towards using social media for university purposes. These students reported that school pages and group chats enabled them to connect and make friends and facilitated communication around group projects and understanding assignments, though there were concerns that social media can replace in-person interactions:
P23: ‘It can be useful for communication during group activities although this can sometimes lead to fewer face-to-face interactions.’
Other participants (14/40, 35%) felt that social media could be helpful if moderated to ensure content remained relevant and users were safeguarded:
P6: ‘When done correctly with the right safeguarding in place it can be very beneficial’
Students noted that alternative options are necessary because ‘…not everyone chooses to have social media…’(P15) and ‘…a lot of people are too nervous to interact’(P13).
Two students (5%) did not agree with using social media for university purposes:
P1: ‘…it makes things more difficult for those who are less confident with technology and opens up less formal communication which some people struggle with.’
Feedback on initial app ideas: Participants rated how successfully the proposed app would improve social connectedness on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 100 (extremely). Overall, students felt the app would be successful (M = 69.41, SD = 15.98. n = 32). Most qualitative responses were positive:
P29: ‘I love the idea!’
Students felt the app would facilitate awareness of events,
P17: ‘It’s very easy to miss out on events simply because you don’t even know they are happening’
and increase connectedness,
P6: ‘Can be used to break down barriers, e.g., overcome the difficulties with arranging meeting[s]’
P12: ‘People who might feel alone, won’t have to feel that anymore’
by removing some of the anxiety of initiating connections in-person:
P14: ‘I feel it will help a lot of people’s worries and anxiety around meeting new people / trying things at university’
In this way, respondents thought the app would be at least as effective as social media, but without some of the drawbacks,
P15: ‘More people would willingly download the app as it isn’t a popular toxic social media that many choose not to download’
and with the added benefit of being a one-stop solution:
P28: ‘…it would mean everyone connect[s] in one place rather than across different social media platforms’
However, students remarked that success depends upon ease of use and uptake:
P11: ‘Could be good but I don’t think everyone would bother using it’
P30: ‘Depends if people are willing to download it and the ease of use’
and that anxiety around attending events alone might still be an issue:
P13: ‘It’s a good idea but people may be afraid to attend alone’
One student was concerned about stigma,
P38: ‘…people might be worried that [they would] be negatively labelled for having to use an app to make friends’
and another about inclusivity and representation:
P42: ‘My age and type of degree probably wouldn’t be represented.’
Overall, participants were fairly likely to use the interactive map feature (M = 62.06, SD = 24.71, n = 32, where 0 = ‘not at all’ and 100 = ‘extremely). Participants also ranked the usefulness of 11 other features. Most often ranked first place was a forum/message board, followed by mental health signposting (2nd place, 3rd place), and psychoeducation (4th place). Student suggestions included event reminders, attendee limits, online events, societies pages, and a ‘similar symptoms/situations board to show others feel the same’.
We now describe Study Three, in which findings from Studies One and Two were fed forward into iterative co-production workshops with students.
Study 3 results – iterative think-aloud co-production workshops
In the first co-production workshops, participants co-designed a functional specification for MAPP based on findings from previous studies. Workshop notes were organised into four themes (see Methods section for further details).
Theme 1 Potential benefits: Overall, students were enthusiastic about the app and its central map feature. A key benefit identified was the provision of clear and immediately accessible information about happenings without needing to be on campus. The map was also expected to facilitate navigation, which would benefit (particularly new) students who find navigating the campus ‘daunting and confusing’. Knowing about events in advance was also expected to enable planning, encourage trying new things, enhance motivation to spend more time on campus, and make commuting to campus ‘feel more worthwhile’. Students also liked having university social information on one platform, removing the need for social media.
Theme 2 Features: Five additional features and functionalities were suggested.
Subtheme 2.1 Messaging and social media: Students suggested that event-related message boards would facilitate coordination and that it would be helpful ‘to see who else may be going’. Some students also wanted private and group chat functions, though other students expected to use ’other social media for messaging‘ friends generally, and in-app messaging only if they were attending an event alone. One group felt that a ‘like’ feature would be ‘toxic… [and] a breeding ground for comparison, which can make app users feel worse’. Some students suggested the option to link social media profiles to their MAPP accounts.
Subtheme 2.2 Filters: Students suggested the ability to personalise the map through coloured filters to prevent overwhelm. Suggestions for filters included topic, course, society, placements, and whether events were alcohol-free. Students also wanted to control who could see their posts by filtering by demographics or group membership.
Subtheme 2.4 Group working: Some students suggested that MAPP should facilitate collaboration with coursemates by enabling them to share Google Docs and OneDrive files.
Subtheme 2.5 Calendar and reminders: Calendar and reminder functions were suggested to help students manage their time.
Subtheme 2.6 Wider community: Students suggested that MAPP’s scope could be extended beyond the campus into the wider community because ‘a lot of social events don’t necessarily happen on campus itself’.
Theme 3 Safety concerns: The main concerns students raised were around safeguarding. It was important for students to control who could see their activity. For students advertising events, unwelcome attendees were a concern. Examples included ‘if [a student] was LGBT and didn’t feel comfortable advertising a small-scale event to everyone due to the risk of homophobic people turning up’ and ‘[wanting a] fellow female to walk home with them late at night.’ The proposed solutions were a filter function (Subtheme 2.2) and to verify users’ identities with university credentials, which would also facilitate moderation.
Theme 4 App design and usability: For wide adoption, it was considered essential that the app is easy to use, navigate, and read, does not store unnecessary data nor crash frequently, is kept up to date, and has a modern, simple, and gender-neutral aesthetic using a ‘flat’ illustration style.
In the final workshop, participants gave feedback on the mock-ups produced by the URAs. Workshop notes were organised into three themes (see Methods section for further details).
Theme 1 Map feature: Students liked and would use the interactive map, but they felt clearer guidance was needed around creating groups, posts or events, user permissions, and moderation.
Subtheme 1.1 Safety and privacy: Students wanted an anonymous ‘ghost mode’ to enable them to use the app without their activity being publicly visible.
Subtheme 1.2 Map design and features: Students felt a 3D map that ‘looks like a map’ with a compass, labelled buildings, and current location marker would make MAPP user friendly and easy to navigate. Additional suggestions included adding timings to event pins, and identifying ‘welfare points, sustainability areas, cash points, period boxes [free menstrual products]’ on the map.
Theme 2 Additional features: Students proposed filters for forums and live chats (by cohort, subject, etc.); user profiles; a safety page; a calendar; and a link to the university app. Students also suggested including other local post-secondary institutions to enable broader connections.
Theme 3 General design and usability: Design suggestions included a bright interface, larger and clearer text, and clearer labelling of pages and functions. For example, students were unsure whether the ‘general info and resources’ section referred to MAPP or to the university more generally.