Too Anxious to Talk: Social Anxiety, Academic Communication, and Students’ Experiences in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social anxiety is related to a host of negative student outcomes in the educational context, including physical symptoms of anxiety, reduced cognitive functioning, and poor academic performance. Despite the prevalence of social anxiety, little is known about mechanisms that may underlie associations between social anxiety and outcomes in the context of higher education. Therefore, the goal of this study was to evaluate a conceptual model linking social anxiety, communication with peers and instructors, students’ experiences (i.e., engagement, connectedness, and satisfaction), and indices of socio-emotional functioning at university. Participants were 1,073 undergraduate students ( M age = 20.3 years, SD = 3.49) who completed a series of self-report measures. Among the results, social anxiety was negatively related to communication with instructors, socio-emotional functioning, and student experiences, and academic communication accounted for significant variance in the links between social anxiety and student experiences. In addition, there was at least some evidence that student experiences partially mediated the association between social anxiety and socio-emotional functioning. Gender effects suggest that social anxiety is related to less communication with instructors, lower engagement and satisfaction, and poorer socio-emotional functioning among females compared with males. Results are situated within current literature examining social anxiety in education. The discussion provides concrete suggestions for educational practitioners to increase support for students who experience social anxiety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".