Who Feels Safe to Speak?: An Exploratory Analysis of Psychological Safety Among College Students

Background and Purpose: Psychological safety, defined as the belief that one can speak up, ask questions, express concerns, and take interpersonal risks without fear of embarrassment, rejection, or negative consequences, has been recognized as an important feature of healthy organizational and educational environments. Research has largely focused on workplace teams, with limited examination of how college students experience psychological safety. This gap is particularly salient in higher education, where students’ willingness to engage, seek support, participate authentically, and navigate institutional spaces may be shaped by whether they perceive those spaces as socially and relationally safe. The aim of this study is to answer the research question: To what extent do student characteristics (e.g., demographics) and campus experiences (e.g., living situation and extracurricular involvement) predict levels of psychological safety among college students at a Southeastern public university?

Methods: This pilot study examined psychological safety among college students using a quantitative, cross-sectional design. Psychological safety was conceptualized as a relational and environmental condition shaping students’ belonging, self-expression, and engagement across campus. Data were collected via an online survey administered to a convenience sample of college students at a large public university in a southeastern state. Psychological safety was measured using an adapted organizational psychological safety measure which included Clark’s Four Stages of Psychological Safety: inclusion safety, learner safety, contributor safety, and challenger safety. We conducted univariate and linear regression analysis to examine patterns across student identities and levels of psychological safety, both cumulatively and within specific stages of psychological safety. Given this study’s exploratory nature, we used a significance threshold of p<.10.

Results: The final sample included 125 participants. The average age of our sample was 23.46 years old. The majority of sample was female (68.8%, n=86), heterosexual (74.4%, n=93), and white (27.2%, n=34). Most were undergraduate students (80%, n=101), enrolled full-time (87.2%, n=109), and living off campus (82.4%, n=103). Forty percent (n=51) identified as first generation college students. Regression analyses revealed males reported lower overall psychological safety compared to women (ß=-5.51, p=.060). Relative to graduate students, undergraduate students reported lower levels of psychological safety across all levels except for challenger safety. Students living off-campus reported higher levels of inclusion safety compared to those living on campus (ß=1.48, p=.098). Participation in student organizations, clubs, or extracurricular activities was associated with differences in contributor safety (ß=-1.18, p=.053).

Conclusion and Implications: This study contributes to emerging scholarship by extending psychological safety into the broader college campus context and highlighting its relevance for student engagement and inclusion. Findings underscore the importance of fostering environments that support inclusion and interpersonal risk-taking. Findings have implications for campus climate initiatives, student support programming, and institutional strategies aimed at fostering more inclusive educational environments. Further, this work underscored the importance of psychological safety as a foundational condition for student engagement and well-being. Future research should employ larger and more rigorous sampling strategies to confirm these findings. Considerations should be had for how we measure psychological safety with college students and what other mechanisms shape psychological safety.