Exploring the Mediating Role of Academic Adjustment in Influencing the Link Between Spiritual Well-Being and Institutional Attachment

Abstract

Aim/Purpose: This study aimed to examine the structural relationships among Spiritual Well‑Being (SWB), Academic Adjustment (AA), and Institutional Attachment (IA) among undergraduate students at a faith‑based international university in Thailand. Specifically, the study sought to determine whether SWB functions as a psychological resource that facilitates AA, whether AA promotes IA, whether AA mediates the SWB-IA relationship, whether year of study moderates the AA-IA link, and whether SWB has a direct effect on IA independent of AA. These objectives address inconsistencies in prior literature regarding pathways through which spirituality influences student academic outcomes.

Introduction/Background: The transition to university involves significant academic, social, and emotional demands. Poor adjustment is consistently linked to disengagement, distress, and attrition. Spiritual well‑being has been proposed as a resilience‑enhancing resource that facilitates coping and meaning‑making, yet empirical evidence on its role in student outcomes is mixed. Some studies have reported positive associations with academic adjustment, while others suggest indirect or negligible effects. Moreover, most research has been conducted in Western secular contexts, leaving a gap in understanding how spirituality operates within faith‑based Asian higher education settings where spiritual values are embedded in institutional cultures. This study addressed these gaps by testing a theoretically grounded mediation‑moderation model in a Thai faith‑based university.

Methodology: A quantitative, cross‑sectional design was employed. Participants were 252 undergraduates recruited via convenience sampling from a private faith‑based international university in Thailand. Three validated instruments were used: the 10‑item short form of the Spiritual Well‑Being Scale (SWBS; α = .674), an 8‑item academic adjustment subscale from the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; α = .549), and an 8‑item institutional attachment scale (α = .506). Data were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation, simultaneous multiple regression, PROCESS Macro Models 4 (mediation) and 1 (moderation) with 5,000 bootstrap resamples (Hayes, 2018), and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) in AMOS. Model fit was assessed using CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR with established cut‑off criteria. 

Findings: Hypothesis 1 (SWB → AA positive) was not supported: the bivariate correlation was negligible and non‑significant (r = −.006, p = .920). Hypothesis 2 (AA → IA positive) was supported (r = .257, p < .001). In simultaneous multiple regression (R² = .088, F (2, 249) = 11.99, p < .001), both AA (β = .258, p < .001) and SWB (β = .148, p = .015) uniquely predicted IA – contrary to Hypothesis 5, which proposed no direct SWB effect. Hypothesis 3 (mediation via AA) was not supported: the indirect effect was negligible (ab = −.002, 95% bootstrap CI [−.055, .049]), and the a‑path (SWB → AA) was non‑significant. Hypothesis 4 (moderation of AA–IA by year of study) was also not supported (AA × Year interaction p = .297, R² = .004). SEM fit was acceptable for absolute indices (RMSEA = .072, SRMR = .061) but marginal for incremental fit (CFI = .89, TLI = .87). Overall, spiritual well‑being did not predict academic adjustment but did directly predict institutional attachment; academic adjustment also independently predicted attachment but did not serve as a mediator.

Contribution/Impact on Society: The findings challenge mediation models that treat AA as the primary mechanism linking SWB to IA, instead supporting a domain-specificity model in which spiritual resources directly foster institutional bonds. They offer empirical evidence from a non-Western, faith-based context, extending the generalizability of student development theories, and reinforcing the distinction between internal psychological resources (SWB, AA) and external relational drivers of belonging, consistent with self-determination theory and the need-to-belong framework. Practically, spiritual programming alone appears insufficient for institutional attachment; institutions should pair it with peer mentoring, faculty engagement, and developmentally targeted community-building programs. 

Recommendations: For higher education practitioners, especially in faith‑based Asian contexts, a holistic support model is recommended that integrates academic, spiritual, and social dimensions. Specific interventions include structured peer‑mentoring schemes, faculty‑student relationship initiatives, and campus community‑building events that foster belonging. Institutions should also consider culturally responsive approaches that emphasize collective harmony and relational engagement rather than academic performance alone. For researchers, it is recommended to use full‑length validated measures (e.g., the complete SACQ) and to include explicit assessments of social integration to better capture the drivers of institutional attachment.

Research Limitations: The cross-sectional design precluded causal inference, and the single-institution convenience sample limited external validity. The year-of-study distribution was severely imbalanced (senior n = 7), undermining the moderation analysis, while internal consistency for academic adjustment (Cronbach’s α = .549) and institutional attachment (Cronbach’s α = .506) fell below acceptable thresholds, introducing possible measurement error. No social integration measures were included, measurement invariance across year groups was untested, and common method bias may have inflated correlations given single-timepoint self-reported data. 

Future Research: Future studies should use longitudinal, multi-wave designs to establish causal pathways, and multi-institutional, cross-cultural replication to assess generalizability. Balanced samples across year levels, full-length validated instruments (Cronbach’s α ≥ .70), and explicit measures of social integration (e.g., Sense of Belonging Instrument) are recommended. A moderated mediation model (PROCESS Model 14 or 58) could test whether the indirect effect of SWB on IA via AA varied by year of study, with a mixed methods follow-up to add contextual richness.