1060079

research-article2021
EBXXXX10.1177/10634266211060079Journal of Emotional and Behavioral DisordersArchbell and Coplan

Article
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral

Too Anxious to Talk: Social Anxiety,

Disorders
2022, Vol. 30(4) 273­–286
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2021
Academic Communication, and Students’
Experiences in Higher Education
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/10634266211060079
https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266211060079
jebd.sagepub.com

Kristen A. Archbell, PhD1 , and Robert J. Coplan, PhD2

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 (Mage = 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.

Keywords
internalizing behavior(s), anxiety, postsecondary education, inclusion/integration, school/classroom, communication

It is well documented that interactions with peers and
instructors are important predictors of classroom success
(Donnelly, 2010; Moore, 1989). However, not all students
feel comfortable engaging in social or academic interac-
tions in the university context. For instance, individuals
who experience social anxiety often struggle with social
or performance situations (Schneier, 2006), putting them
at a clear disadvantage in their academic pursuits. Despite
the high prevalence of social anxiety in higher education
(e.g., Baptista et al., 2012; Hakami et al., 2017; MacKenzie
& Fowler, 2013), there appears to be a relative lack of
research examining the correlates and outcomes of social
anxiety and student experiences among university stu-
dents. Accordingly, this research examines a conceptual
model linking university students’ social anxiety, commu-
nication, student experiences, and indices of socio-emo-
tional functioning. Identifying underlying mechanisms
accounting for the negative association between social
anxiety and educational outcomes can help target aca-
demic interventions.
Overview of Social Anxiety
Social anxiety is conceptualized as distress and feelings of
discomfort when meeting and talking to people (Mattick &
Clark, 1998). Milder symptoms of social anxiety material-
ize as social apprehension, occurring often in response to
socio-evaluative situations. As severity increases, social
fears may become disabling and pervasive, and individuals
may engage in social avoidance (Crozier, 2001; Liebowitz,
2003). Social anxiety as a disorder is relatively common
with typical lifetime rates of 7% to 13% for adolescents and
adults (e.g., MacKenzie & Fowler, 2013; G. Russell &
1
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
2
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Kristen A. Archbell, Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of
Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
N2L 3G1.
Email: kristen.archbell@uwaterloo.ca
274
Shaw, 2009), and is a persistent and often hidden disability
that impacts learning and well-being (G. Russell & Topham,
2012).
Previous research underscores a need to consider indi-
viduals who report elevated but subclinical levels of social
anxiety (Crozier & Alden, 2005). Many students experience
heightened symptoms and still experience an adverse
impact on their life and educational experiences (Topham
et al., 2014). There is growing literature linking heightened
symptoms of social anxiety with a wide range of negative
socio-emotional experiences in young adulthood (Fehm
et al., 2008; Schneier et al., 2002), with female university
students experiencing higher levels of social anxiety com-
pared with males (MacKenzie & Fowler, 2013; G. Russell
& Shaw, 2009).
There are several conceptual models of the mechanisms
that may underlie the development and maintenance of
social anxiety, including Clark and Well’s (1995) cognitive
model of social phobia and Rapee and Heimberg’s (1997)
cognitive-behavioral model of social anxiety. Perhaps most
relevant to this study is the self-presentation model
(Schlenker & Leary, 1982), where the drive for creating a
good impression on others is combined with low expecta-
tions of obtaining that goal. Based on early experiences,
individuals develop a range of negative assumptions that
relate to themselves and their social world. This theory is
often applied when examining behaviors of socially anx-
ious individuals across different communicative modalities
(Burke & Ruppel, 2015) and is applicable when examining
socially anxious individuals within the educational context
(Pierce, 2009).
Social Anxiety in Education. The academic context appears to
be particularly stressful for socially anxious students. Mat-
tick and Clarke (1998) explained that central concerns of
individuals with social anxiety include fears of being inar-
ticulate, sounding boring or unintelligent, not knowing how
to respond, and being ignored. These fears may become
exacerbated in the academic environment, given the partici-
patory and social nature of the classroom. In the context of
the self-presentation model (Schlenker & Leary, 1982),
these fears may become pervasive for individuals who
experience social anxiety. Not only do students want to
make a good impression on others, but also their grades
often rely on it, making it a high-stakes situation. They may
be expected to interact with people they do not know, par-
ticipate in classroom discussions, give presentations, and
receive criticism from their peers and instructors (Topham,
2009).
Students often experience anticipatory anxiety prior to
learning, fears of negative evaluation within the classroom,
physiological indicators of anxiety (i.e., quaky voice, blank-
ing mind), self-consciousness, embarrassment during
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 30(4)
learning activities, and rumination (Topham, 2009). These
events may exacerbate preexisting feelings of self-con-
sciousness and reduce both social and cognitive functioning
in the classroom (Topham et al., 2014). Social anxiety nega-
tively impacts students in learning situations, contributes to
decreased engagement and academic achievement, and is
associated with lower rates of retention (Brook &
Willoughby, 2015; M. Cohen et al., 2019; Kessler, 2003;
Wittchen et al., 1999).
Students have reported that social anxiety is emotionally
painful and indicate that their social anxiety tends to be
overlooked within the educational environment (Topham,
2009). Bernstein and colleagues (2008) reported that sever-
ity of social anxiety is correlated with deficits in communi-
cation skills, attention difficulties, and learning problems
within the school setting. Results from several other studies
suggest that socially anxious students have impaired func-
tioning within the educational environment, which may
lead to increases in exam failure, lower grades, greater like-
lihood of leaving school prematurely, and a lower likeli-
hood of graduating from their program (Brook &
Willoughby, 2015; Stein & Kean, 2000; Wetterberg, 2004;
Wittchen et al., 1999). Therefore, it is important to examine
the conceptual mechanisms that may contribute to positive
student experiences, which in turn could promote well-
being among socially anxious students.
Social Anxiety and Communication. Despite these findings,
there is still much to learn about the experiences of socially
anxious students in the context of higher education. A key
feature of social anxiety is discomfort when meeting or
talking to unfamiliar people (Mattick & Clark, 1998). As
the classroom environment is inherently social, individuals
who experience heightened social anxiety are likely to
struggle when social or performance situations arise. Dis-
comfort communicating with others in the academic setting
may disadvantage students who experience social anxiety.
For example, pedagogical strategies used to increase class-
room engagement often require communication, which
may intensify anxiety for individuals who experience dis-
tress when speaking in front of others (Czekanski & Wolf,
2013). This may lead to a cascading effect, negatively
impacting student experiences and socio-emotional
functioning.
Topham and colleagues (2014) conducted thematic anal-
yses on socially anxious individuals’ experiences within the
classroom. Participants reported experiencing negative
physiological responses, fearful self-consciousness, and
distress. In addition, M. Cohen and colleagues (2019)
examined the associations between social anxiety, active
learning discomfort, and student performance. Among the
results, social anxiety was positively associated with active
learning discomfort, which interacted to predict final course
Archbell and Coplan
Figure 1. Conceptual model (multiple mediation) linking social anxiety to student experience (i.e., student engagement, classroom
community, and course satisfaction) through academic communication (i.e., communication with instructors and peers), and social
anxiety to socio-emotional functioning through student experiences (i.e., student engagement, classroom community, and course
satisfaction).
grade. Active learning often requires discussions with peers
(M. Cohen et al., 2019), which can be intimidating for
socially anxious students as they are often concerned with
negative evaluations (Crozier, 2001).
Given the prevalence of social anxiety, it is imperative to
explore additional mechanisms to explain the negative
association between social anxiety and poor student experi-
ences. Accordingly, this research examined the potential
mediating role of the multimodal measure of academic
communication (i.e., communication for the purpose of aca-
demic advancement; Archbell, 2020) in the links between
social anxiety and important predictors of student success
(i.e., student engagement, classroom community, and
course satisfaction). Furthermore, the mediating roles of
student engagement, classroom community, and course sat-
isfaction were examined in the links between social anxiety
and indices of socio-emotional functioning. Understanding
these links can shed light on potential pedagogical practices
and recommendations that can be implemented by educa-
tors in the university context to enhance learning and sup-
port student mental health.
The Present Study
The goal of this study was to evaluate a conceptual model
linking social anxiety, academic communication, student
experiences, and socio-emotional functioning. Specifically,
we sought to understand whether purposeful communica-
tion with instructors and peers might help to explain the
negative association between social anxiety and student
experiences (i.e., engagement, classroom community, and
satisfaction), which in turn was expected to predict poorer
socio-emotional functioning (i.e., multiple mediation).
Moreover, although the links between social anxiety and
socio-emotional functioning have been well established, it
was of interest to understand whether student experiences
could explain variance in this negative relation. Therefore,
275
a structural equation model was specified in which both
direct and indirect links among study variables were exam-
ined (see Figure 1).
Social anxiety was expected to be negatively associated
with academic communication (with both instructors and
peers). Individuals who experience social anxiety are more
often worried about performance in social situations and
experience concerns about being inarticulate or sounding
unintelligent (G. Russell & Topham, 2012). It was further
anticipated that social anxiety would negatively predict indi-
ces of student experience (i.e., student engagement, feelings
of classroom community, and course satisfaction). It has pre-
viously been established that social anxiety negatively
impacts upon classroom engagement, student learning, and
retention (Bernstein et al., 2008; Kessler, 2003). Moreover,
social anxiety has an adverse impact on quality of life (Keller,
2006) and was therefore expected to be negatively associated
with socio-emotional functioning.
Communication and interaction are deeply embedded
within classroom engagement (Czekanski & Wolf, 2013),
and so it was expected that communication with both
instructors and peers would be significantly and positively
associated with student engagement, classroom community,
and course satisfaction. In addition, it was expected that at
least some of the student experiences explored would be
significantly and positively associated with indices of
socio-emotional functioning. Research examining higher
education supports the benefits of engagement in relation to
retention, social connectedness, grades, and positive adjust-
ment (Tinto, 2000; Van Ryzin et al., 2009). Furthermore,
connectedness in school can positively influence well-being
(Dubow et al., 1991); classroom community is inversely
related to feelings of alienation (Rovai & Wighting, 2005).
With regard to indirect effects, it was expected that social
anxiety would be negatively associated with student experi-
ences (i.e., student satisfaction, classroom community, and
course satisfaction) through academic communication.
276
Because student–student and student–instructor interac-
tions are essential in the prediction of student outcomes
(Woo & Reeves, 2007), it was postulated that academic
communication would be an underlying mechanism in this
model. It was also expected that student experiences would
mediate the link between social anxiety and socio-emo-
tional functioning as higher education places many demands
on students, which may exacerbate negative feelings among
socially anxious individuals (Topham, 2009).
Gender differences were also examined on an explor-
atory basis to understand whether the pattern of associa-
tions differed for males compared with females. Compared
with males, females tend to rate higher on indices of social
anxiety related to public speaking and fears of authority
(Caballo et al., 2014)—which may exacerbate distress in
the educational environment, given the importance of stu-
dent–instructor interactions and learning assessments.
Therefore, it is possible that negative associations between
social anxiety and student experiences may be stronger for
females compared with males.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited online through the institutions’
SONA system, where students enrolled in specific courses
(i.e., psychology, neuroscience) voluntarily participate in
research studies for course credit. Participants were 1,073
undergraduate students (21.6% males, 77.9% females, and
0.5% Other) enrolled at a postsecondary institution in
southeastern Ontario, Canada, primarily between the ages
of 17 and 25 years (92%), (Mage = 20.3, SD = 4.49). In
terms of ethnicity, 56.6% identified as Caucasian, 17.2%
Asian or Pacific Islander, 7.6% Black, 2.3% Hispanic, and
1.4% Indigenous (with the remaining 14.8% indicating
Other). About 30% of the sample indicated that their major
was psychology, followed by 24% computer science, 15%
finance, 6% cognitive science, and the remaining 25% dis-
persed across a wide range of disciplines.
Measures
All measures were completed online for course credit
through Qualtrics. Participants completed the Academic
Communication Inventory (ACI) and measures of student
experiences with a specific course in mind. Approximately,
38% reported on a blended course, 27% reported on an
offline course, and 35% reported on an online course.
Academic communication. Participants completed the
recently created ACI (Archbell, 2020) to assess their com-
munication behaviors for the purposes of academic achieve-
ment in a specific course. The ACI contains two subscales,
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 30(4)
Communication with Instructors and Communication with
Peers rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree; for example, “I attend office
hours”; “I send peers text messages about coursework”).
Items on the ACI demonstrated good discrimination and
information values when examined through item response
theory, and both scales displayed good internal consistency,
with alpha ranging from .86 to .88 (Archbell, 2020). Both
scales demonstrated good internal consistency with the cur-
rent sample (α = .84–.85). Items were used as latent vari-
able indicators to reduce measurement error.
Social anxiety. To assess social anxiety, participants completed
the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS; Liebowitz, 2003).
The LSAS is a 24-item self-report designed to assess fear and
avoidance of social (e.g., going to a party, meeting strangers)
and performance situations (e.g., taking a test, giving a report
to a group). When rating for fear/avoidance, participants rated
their response on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (none/never)
to 4 (severe/usually). Higher scores indicate more fear and
avoidance. A total score of social anxiety was created and was
treated as a continuous variable. Both scales on the LSAS
demonstrated excellent internal consistency with the current
sample (α = .92–.95).
Student experiences. Participants’ course-specific learning
experiences were assessed with three separate question-
naires examining their course engagement, feelings of
classroom community, and course satisfaction. Participants
were asked to think of the same course while completing
these questionnaires.
Participants completed the Student Course Engagement
Questionnaire (SCEQ; Handelsman et al., 2005) to assess
their course-specific student engagement. Sample items
include “applying course material to my life” and “partici-
pating in small-group discussions” on a 5-point scale, rang-
ing from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (very
characteristic of me). A summary score was computed, with
higher scores indicating higher levels of course engage-
ment. The SCEQ has demonstrated good internal consis-
tency in previous studies (α = .76–.82) and with the current
sample (α = .92–.90).
Next, participants responded to the Classroom
Community Scale (CCS; Rovai, 2002). The CCS is a
20-item self-report assessing feelings of connectedness
(e.g., “I feel that students in this course care about each
other”) and learning (e.g., “I feel that I am encouraged to
ask questions”) in a specific course. Questions were
responded to on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items were averaged, with
higher scores indicating increased feelings of classroom
community. Consistent with previous studies (Rovai, 2002),
this measure demonstrated good internal consistency with
the current sample (α = .82–.87).
Archbell and Coplan 277

Table 1. Bivariate Correlations Among Main Study Variables for the Main Analyses.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 M SD
1. Instructors — 2.28 (1.31)
2. Peers 496** — 3.09 (1.51)
3. Social anxiety −.143** −.055 — 2.63 (0.719)
4. Engagement .501** .304** −.176** — 3.44 (0.691)
5. Community .196** .306** −.216** .466** — 3.19 (0.512)
6. Course sat. .123* .045 −.131** .495** .508** — 3.51 (0.800)
7. Connectedness .039 .120* −.462** .120** .327** .130** — 3.39 (0.892)
8. Loneliness −.018 −.069* .374** −.069** −.207 −.081* −.708** — 3.38 (0.946)
9. Stress −.036 −.096 .406** −.123** −.149** −.143** −.408** .440** — 2.99 (0.581)

Note. Instructors = communication with instructors; peers = communication with peers; anxiety = social anxiety; engagement = student engagement;
community = classroom communication; course sat. = course satisfaction; loneliness = feelings of loneliness; stress = feelings of stress.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Finally, participants completed selected questions from
the Student Satisfaction Scale (SSS; Bollinger & Halupa,
2012) to assess their perceived educational value of a
selected course. Eight questions were selected from the
original 24-item scale on the basis of generalizability across
courses (e.g., “I am satisfied with the level of effort this
course requires,” “I will be satisfied with my final grade in
this course”). Items were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Total scores
were computed with higher scores, indicating greater stu-
dent course satisfaction. This measure presented good inter-
nal consistency in the current sample (α = .87).
Indices of socio-emotional functioning. Participants completed
the 20-item University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Loneliness Scale to measure their subjective feelings of
loneliness and social isolation (D. Russell, 1996). Partici-
pants were asked to indicate how often each statement pre-
sented described them (e.g., “I cannot tolerate being alone,”
“I feel left out”), on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (I never
feel this way) to 4 = (I often feel this way). Items were
reverse scored and aggregated (higher scores indicating less
loneliness), which was used as an indicator of socio-emo-
tional functioning. Internal consistency with the current
sample was excellent, α = .96.
Social connectedness was also assessed using the
20-item Social Connectedness Scale–Revised (SCS-R; Lee
et al., 2001), examining respondents’ feelings of closeness
with others in their social environment (e.g., “I am able to
connect with other people”). Items are rated on a 5-point
scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Consistent with previous research, the reliability in
the current sample was excellent (α = .93).
Finally, participants completed the revised 10-item
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; S. Cohen et al., 1994) that
measures the degree to which one appraises experiences
as stressful. Participants were asked to rate how often
they felt or thought a certain way (ranging from 1 [never]
to 5 [very often]). Sample items include “How often have
you felt nervous or stressed?” and “How often have you
been able to control irritations in your life?” The PSS
was reverse coded, and an aggregate score was com-
puted, with higher scores indicating less perceived stress.
In this study, the PSS demonstrated good internal consis-
tency (α = .86).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) was used to
handle missing data (Enders, 2010), which was less than
5%. Winsorization method was employed to treat univariate
outliers. Multivariate outliers were identified using diag-
nostic statistics and were removed if a participant distance
was greater than the critical chi-square cutoff (dfcritical =
26.12; αcritical = .001). Next, tolerance and variance infla-
tion factor (VIF) scores indicated no issues with multicol-
linearity. Finally, descriptive statistics and bivariate
correlations were examined for all study variables (see
Table 1).
Multiple Mediation
The purpose of these analyses was to test a hypothesized
model depicting both direct and indirect effects between
social anxiety, academic communication (instructors,
peers), student experiences (engagement, community, and
satisfaction) and socio-emotional functioning (loneliness,
stress, social connectedness). A structural equation model
analysis was conducted in which a measurement model and
structural model were specified prior to evaluating the con-
ceptual model and group differences.
Measurement model specification. To examine the measure-
ment model, the original model was re-specified as a confir-
matory factor analysis. Two latent variables were included
278
Figure 2. Structural equation model (N = 1,073) depicting estimated direct associations between social anxiety, communication with
instructors and peers, student experiences, and socio-emotional functioning.
Note. Solid lines indicate significant pathways; dotted lines indicate nonsignificant pathways. IT# = Item from the Academic Communication Inventory
(ACI); LON = reverse scored University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale; STR = reverse scored Perceived Stress Scale; CON =
Social Connectedness Scale.
†
p < .08. *p < .05. **p < .001.
(communication with instructors, seven indicators; commu-
nication with peers, five indicators), which were permitted
to covary. A third latent variable (socio-emotional function-
ing) was included but was not permitted to covary based on
the original model specification. Three observed variables
served as the indicators for socio-emotional functioning: (a)
social connectedness, (b) loneliness, and (c) stress. Loneli-
ness and stress were reverse coded with higher scores indi-
cating more positive socio-emotional functioning.
The initial model demonstrated good fit, χ2(85) =
440.40, p < .001, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = .062 [.057, .068], comparative fit index (CFI)
= .956, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .945, standardized
root mean squared residual (SRMR) = .055, Akaike infor-
mation criterion (AIC) = 45290.58, and Bayesian informa-
tion criterion (BIC) = 45539.54, with the exception of the
chi-square value. Of note, the chi-square test is no longer
relied upon as a basis to accept or reject model fit, due to its
sensitivity to large sample sizes (Vandenberg, 2006).
Modification indices were examined, but suggestions to
improve model fit were not theoretically justifiable or in
good statistical practice.
Structural model specification. Following the specification of
the measurement model, the model was re-specified with
the addition of the structural components. Social anxiety
was added as a single measured exogenous variable, and
student engagement, classroom community, and course sat-
isfaction were added as measured endogenous variables.
This model demonstrated good fit, χ2(135) = 690.38, p <
.001, RMSEA = .062 [.057, .067], CFI = .942, TLI = .927,
SRMR =.056, AIC = 52147.30, BIC = 52515.76. Next, the
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 30(4)
modifications indices were examined to determine which
justifiable alterations could be made to the model. There
were no theoretically justifiable changes to be made to the
model, and therefore the original model was retained.
Conceptual model. The conceptual model was evaluated in
Mplus 8.0 (results from estimated direct paths are displayed
in Figure 2). As expected, social anxiety was directly and
negatively associated with communication with instructors,
student engagement, classroom community, course satisfac-
tion, and socio-emotional functioning (all ps < .001). Con-
trary to expectations, when communication with peers was
regressed on social anxiety, the negative association only
approached significance (p = .078). Moreover, communica-
tion with instructors was positively associated with student
engagement (p < .001), but not classroom community (p =
.147), and course satisfaction only approached significance
(p = .067). Communication with peers was significantly and
positively associated with student engagement (p < .001)
and classroom community (p < .001), but not course satis-
faction (p = .195). Moreover, student engagement (p = .040)
and classroom community (p < .001) was positively associ-
ated with socio-emotional functioning, but no significant
association was found between course satisfaction and socio-
emotional functioning (p = .466).
Finally, communication with instructors and peers was
positively correlated (p < .001), as was student engagement
and classroom community (p < .001), student engagement
and course satisfaction (p < .001), and classroom commu-
nity and course satisfaction (p < .001).
Indirect effects were also estimated to examine the
potential mediating role of academic communication (i.e.,
Archbell and Coplan 279

Table 2. Indirect Effects of Social Anxiety on Student Experiences Through Academic Communication and Academic
Communication on Socio-Emotional Functioning Through Student Experiences.

Indirect path β SE p
Anxiety → Com → Engage −.059 .016 .001
Anxiety → Instruct → Engage −.049 .014 .001
Anxiety → Peers → Engage −.010 .006 .091
Anxiety → Com → Community −.022 .011 .050
Anxiety → Instruct → Community −.004 .004 .349
Anxiety → Peers → Community −.018 .011 .080
Anxiety → Com → Satisfaction −.010 .005 .049
Anxiety → Instruct → Satisfaction −.007 .005 .136
Anxiety → Peers → Satisfaction −.003 .003 .296
Anxiety → StudExper → Functioning −.045 .010 .001
Anxiety → Engage → Functioning −.009 .005 .072
Anxiety → Community → Functioning −.058 .012 .001
Anxiety → Satisfaction → Functioning .004 .005 .478

Note. Significant effects are in boldface. Anxiety = social anxiety; com = communication; engage = student engagement; instruct = communication
with instructors; peers = communication with peers; community = classroom communication; satisfaction = course satisfaction; StudExper =
student experiences; functioning = socio-emotional functioning.

with instructors and peers) in the links between social anxi-
ety and academic experience, and the mediating role of stu-
dent experiences (i.e., engagement, community, satisfaction)
in the links between social anxiety and socio-emotional
functioning (see Table 2).
There was a significant and negative indirect effect of
social anxiety on engagement through communication with
instructors, but the mediating role of communication with
peers only approached significance. Contrary to expecta-
tions, neither communication with instructors nor commu-
nication with peers mediated the link between social anxiety
and classroom community. However, the sum of both aca-
demic communications together (i.e., multiple mediation)
accounted for significant variation in the negative associa-
tion between social anxiety and classroom community. The
same pattern was found with regard to course satisfaction.
The combined effect of both communication with instruc-
tors and peers accounted for significant variation in the
links between social anxiety and course satisfaction.
Academic experience was found to play a mediating role
between social anxiety and socio-emotional functioning.
For example, although social anxiety was not associated
with socio-emotional functioning through student engage-
ment (approached significance) or course satisfaction, it
was associated significantly and negatively through class-
room community. Thus, a multiple mediation was also pres-
ent, and student experiences accounted for significant
variance in the negative association between social anxiety
and socio-emotional functioning.
Taken together, these results suggest that academic com-
munication accounts for variance in the association between
social anxiety and student experiences, and academic expe-
rience accounts for at least some of the variance in the links
between social anxiety and indices of socio-emotional func-
tioning. Consistent with hypotheses, academic communica-
tion acts as a mechanism to help explain the negative
association between social anxiety and a variety of course-
based outcomes in higher education. Furthermore, social
anxiety is indeed associated with socio-emotional function-
ing through academic experience, particularly classroom
community.
Gender effects. Multigroup analyses were conducted
to determine whether the current conceptual model can be
tested across gender (i.e., to compare males and females).
Participants who selected “other” as their self-identified
gender (i.e., 0.5% of the participant pool) were not included
in the analyses due to the sample size. A configural model
was specified, in which parameters were freely estimated
and demonstrated good fit, χ2(164) = 483.051, p < .001,
RMSEA = .060 [.054, .066], CFI = .961, TLI = .950,
SRMR =.058, AIC = 45166.89, and BIC = 45694.68. As a
result, a series of model constraints were added sequentially
to examine the potential decline in model fit indices, which
would suggest model invariance. Accordingly, a metric
model was specified in which factor loadings were set to be
equal between males and females. Results indicated good fit,
χ2(179) = 508.57, p < .001, RMSEA = .059 [.053, .065],
CFI = .959, TLI = .952, SRMR =.063, AIC = 45162.31,
and BIC = 45615.41, with fit indices only minimally declin-
ing. Finally, scalar invariance was examined by constrain-
ing both factor loadings and item intercepts across groups,
which resulted in adequate-to-good fit χ2(194) = 592.747,
p < .001, RMSEA = .062 [.056, .068], CFI = .951, TLI =
.947, SRMR =.069, AIC = 45216.58, and BIC = 45595.01.
Fit indices once again diminished slightly but remained
280 Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 30(4)

Table 3. Summary of Wald Chi-Square Test Results Using Holm’s Sequential Bonferroni Procedure to Examine Gender Differences
on Pathways From Figure 12.

Path χ2 p Males β (SE) p Females β (SE) p

Peers W instruct 23.856 .001 .625 (.046) .001 .316 (.035) .001
Engage W comm .025 .873
Engage W sat .248 .618
Comm W sat .429 .507
Peers ON anxiety 289.05 .001 .511 (.030) .001 −.069 (.035) .070
Instruct ON anxiety 430.67 .001 .600 (.030) .001 −.164 (.038) .001
Engage ON anxiety 4.60 .03 −.025 (.049) .616 −.137 (.029) .001
Sat ON anxiety 5.749 .01 .005 (.063) .933 −.144 (.035) .001
Comm ON anxiety 1.640 .21
Engage ON peers .005 .943
Sat ON peers .354 .552
Comm ON peers .127 .721
Engage ON instruct 2.655 .103
Sat ON instruct 6.317 .012 −.160 (.12) .176 .097 (.037) .008
Comm ON instruct 1.227 .268
Functioning ON anxiety 20.030 .001 −.082 (.055) .137 −.475 (.032) .001
Functioning ON engage 6.078 .013 .134 (.075) .073 −.079 (.041) .05
Functioning ON comm 10.712 .001 .284 (.040) .001 .485 (.063) .001
Functioning ON sat 1.747 .186

Note. Mean comparisons between males and females were not made for nonsignificant χ2 test statistics. Peers = communication with peers; W =
correlated with; instruct = communication with instructors; engage = student engagement; comm = classroom community; sat = course satisfaction;
ON = regressed on; anxiety = social anxiety; functioning = socio-emotional functioning.

within the acceptable range. Therefore, meaningful mean
differences could be estimated between males and females.
Accordingly, a series of Wald chi-square tests of param-
eter equalities (using Holm’s Sequential Bonferroni
Procedure) were conducted to examine potential gender
effects on pathways present in the current model.
Therefore, one at a time, gender differences on individual
paths were evaluated by being constrained to be equal
across males and females, whereas other paths were freely
estimated. Significant results were then reevaluated based
on the outcomes of the Holm’s Sequential Bonferroni
Procedure, which was implemented to reduce familywise
error. All significant group differences fell below the criti-
cal cutoff score at the p < .05 level (ps ranging from .005
to .05) and were thus interpreted.
Complete results are displayed in Table 3. The positive
correlation between communication with instructors and
peers was significantly stronger among males than females.
The path from social anxiety to communication with
instructors and peers different significantly by gender, with
females demonstrating a stronger negative association than
males. The negative relations between social anxiety and
both student engagement and course satisfaction were also
significantly stronger among female than males.
Furthermore, the path from communication with instructors
to course satisfaction was also significantly different (i.e.,
negative for males and positive for females).
Significant gender differences were also found when
examining paths to socio-emotional functioning. For exam-
ple, the negative association between social anxiety and
socio-emotional functioning was stronger among females
than males. Student engagement was positively associated
with socio-emotional functioning among males, and nega-
tively associated with socio-emotional functioning among
females. Finally, course satisfaction and socio-emotional
functioning were more strongly positively associated for
females compared with males. Pathways not mentioned did
not differ significantly by gender.
Discussion
The overarching goal of this study was to evaluate a con-
ceptual model of the links between student social anxiety,
academic communication, student experiences, and socio-
emotional functioning in the context of higher education.
Among the results, academic communication (joint effect
of instructors and peers) accounted for significant variance
in the links between social anxiety and student experiences
(i.e., student engagement, classroom community, and
course satisfaction). Moreover, social anxiety was nega-
tively related to student experiences, and there was at least
some evidence that student experiences explained part of
the association between social anxiety and socio-emotional
functioning. A number of gender differences were also
Archbell and Coplan
found, suggesting that some aspects of this model displayed
stronger effects for female versus male students.
Academic Communication With Instructors and
Peers
Research finds that student–student and student–instructor
interactions relate to a myriad of positive academic out-
comes, including student engagement (Joksimovic et al.,
2015). Therefore, it was anticipated, and found, that com-
munication with both instructors and peers would be asso-
ciated with student engagement. Because communication is
an essential component to student engagement, it is impor-
tant that higher education continues the shift from the
instructional paradigm (i.e., delivering content through
straight lecture) to a learning paradigm, involving high lev-
els of active participation (Barr & Tagg, 1996). An active
approach to learning can increase communication between
students and instructors, leading to positive outcomes.
There were no significant effects between academic
communication with peers and course satisfaction, and the
association between communication with instructors and
course satisfaction only approached significance. However,
communication with peers (but not instructors) was signifi-
cantly associated with classroom community (i.e., feelings
of connectedness with others). Therefore, it appears that
interactions among students may be the driving force in
developing a sense of classroom community. Student–
student interactions may lead to friendships, which could
result in increased feelings of closeness that may bolster
academic outcomes. For example, Bronkema and Bowman
(2017) found that friendships in higher education were pre-
dictive of academic achievement and degree completion. In
addition, Brook and Willoughby’s (2015) findings suggest
that students with social anxiety may have higher academic
achievement when they have stronger social ties with their
classmates. Generally speaking, classroom community is
associated with knowledge sharing behaviors and student
success (Yilmaz, 2016). This is important to consider when
thinking about students who experience social anxiety as
they often struggle in both the social and academic domains.
Social Anxiety and Student Experiences
Consistent with hypotheses, results add to the limited
research, indicating that social anxiety is negatively associ-
ated with student engagement in higher education. In a
qualitative study, G. Russell and Topham (2012) found that
social anxiety impacts engagement in learning activities.
For example, socially anxious students reported experi-
ences of anticipatory anxiety when presented with a class-
room learning activity, embarrassment, and disabling
effects. These described how student experiences corre-
spond to dimensions of student engagement as outlined in
281
Henrie et al. (2015). For example, behaviorally engaging
tasks (i.e., participatory learning) may cause disabling
effects such as thought blocking or drawing a blank, which
may impact socially anxious students’ ability to cognitively
engage with material. This may subsequently lead to exces-
sive blushing, resulting in self-consciousness (G. Russell &
Topham, 2012), negatively impacting emotional engage-
ment. Therefore, socially anxious students may experience
a snowball effect of undesirable events related to student
engagement.
Computer-mediated communication may also be a more
comfortable medium for socially anxious individuals
(Pierce, 2009). Socially anxious individuals often hold
beliefs that their self-presentation online is easier to control
compared with offline settings (Caplan, 2007)—which can
lead to more positive outcomes. However, online learning
activities (i.e., those mediated through computer) were
recently demonstrated to have little compensatory effects
for university students who experience social discomfort
(Grieve et al., 2016). Because socially anxious students
have difficulty engaging in both face-to-face and computer-
mediated learning activities, it is critical for educators to
develop novel ways to engage all students in the classroom.
For example, mobile-based interactive teaching tools have
been found to increase student engagement and perfor-
mance (Lim, 2017), and these tools may be beneficial for
socially anxious students as they allow for anonymous poll-
ing, quizzes, and games.
Students are often expected to engage with unfamiliar
peers during learning activities (Topham, 2009), which
may increase socially anxious student’s experiences of
stress, potentially resulting in withdrawal from classmates.
In line with this, results from this study found that social
anxiety was negatively associated with classroom commu-
nity. Low sense of community is associated with two key
components linked to student dropout—student burnout
and feelings of isolation (Wang, 2010). Socially anxious
students are already at risk for negative academic out-
comes, including higher rates of attrition (Wetterberg,
2004; Zukerman et al., 2019); therefore, it is necessary to
find ways to mitigate their discomfort with others, in
hopes to increase feelings of classroom community. One
such way could be including icebreakers in activities,
which can build community in the classroom (Eggleston
& Smith, 2004). Although they may be intimidating for
individuals who experience social anxiety, having stu-
dents engage in small-group icebreakers may lead to long-
term benefits and peer relationships. For example,
overtime, the familiarity with peers and the classroom
environment has been found to reduce anxiety for some
individuals (Topham et al., 2014).
Although no previous studies have examined social anx-
iety and satisfaction in higher education, this study hypoth-
esized and demonstrated that social anxiety was negatively
282
associated with course satisfaction. It has been documented
that both clinical and subclinical levels of social anxiety is
linked to poor satisfaction with life in a variety of domains,
including achievement, family, employment, and social
functioning (Eng et al., 2005; Fehm et al., 2008). Results
from this study suggest that dissatisfaction extends to the
educational setting.
Results further demonstrate that communication with
instructors partially explains the negative association
between social anxiety and student engagement. Therefore,
to increase student engagement among socially anxious stu-
dents, it is important to target nonthreatening communica-
tion strategies that can facilitate student–instructor
interaction. Moreover, it is important to encourage instruc-
tor immediacy, while discouraging intimidating behaviors
that highlight power dynamics. Immediacy relates to
approach and avoidance behaviors (Andersen, 1979),
including both nonverbal (gesturing, eye contact, positive
affect, and relaxed posture) and verbal behaviors (knowing
names, inclusive terminology, outside of class conversa-
tions, approachability, and interest in student perspective).
Instructor immediacy is associated with teacher responsive-
ness, caring, and trustworthiness (Thomas et al., 1994), as
well as student attendance and participation (Rocca, 2004).
Increasing instructor immediacy may help socially anxious
students feel less intimidated and more comfortable in their
interactions with instructors, which may subsequently
increase communication and student engagement.
Finally, the results demonstrated that academic commu-
nication accounted for significant variance in the relation
between social anxiety and both classroom community and
student satisfaction. Therefore, academic communication is
an important underlying mechanism explaining the links
between social anxiety and student experiences. It is impor-
tant to provide opportunities to increase communication
that will appeal to students who experience social discom-
fort. For instance, Wang (2010) found that incorporating
both online communication, using blogs, and face-to-face
learning activities in a course helped to maintain interac-
tions among students, fostering a sense of community in the
classroom. Including less-threatening forms of communica-
tion may increase comfort and thus academic communica-
tion. Furthermore, providing students with their preferred
communication modality or platform (i.e., discussion post,
small-group setting) may increase comfort and bolster
interactions.
Research indicates that both engagement and connected-
ness in school are associated with indices of socio-emotional
functioning (e.g., Dubow et al., 1991; Rovai & Wighting,
2005; Tinto, 2000; Van Ryzin et al., 2009), which is consis-
tent with the results from this study. However, for successful
learning to take place, students need to feel well-adjusted
physically, socially, and emotionally. Therefore, it may be
that student socio-emotional functioning influences student
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 30(4)
experiences in higher education (instead of student experi-
ences influencing functioning, as conceptualized in this
study). It is also possible that these two constructs impact
upon each other transactionally over time. As mentioned,
classroom community explained some variance between
social anxiety and socio-emotional functioning. Therefore,
if students who experience social anxiety perceive higher
classroom community, this may serve to improve their func-
tioning. This highlights the importance of academic com-
munication for socially anxious students. If communication
is increased, sense of classroom community may increase as
well, which may have a positive effect on functioning.
Gender Effects
There were gender differences found on direct pathways.
As compared with males, females were found to have sig-
nificantly stronger negative associations between social
anxiety and (a) communication with instructors, (b) stu-
dent engagement, (c) course satisfaction, and (d) socio-
emotional functioning. Research demonstrates that,
compared with their male counterparts, females experi-
ence higher levels of social anxiety (MacKenzie & Fowler,
2013), which may help explain these stronger negative
effects. Baptista and colleagues (2012) found that, among
socially anxious college women, fear of public speaking
was the most common social fear. Public speaking is com-
monly incorporated into classroom activities meant to pro-
mote student engagement (Davidson et al., 1994), which
may consequently strengthen the negative association
between social anxiety and student engagement among
women.
Alternatively, there may be contextual factors impacting
the interplay between social anxiety and self-identified gen-
der in higher education. For instance, feelings of social
anxiety among women may be exacerbated in certain disci-
plines, such as science, technology, engineering, and math-
ematics (STEM), when their gender identity may be more
salient. For example, studies demonstrate that females in
STEM face a chilly climate, where there is more discrimi-
nation and stifling experiences (e.g., Litzler et al., 2014;
Walton et al., 2015). This may present a uniquely difficult
circumstance for women who experience social anxiety to
thrive.
The positive association between communication with
instructors and student satisfaction was also significantly
stronger for females than males. Previous research demon-
strates that males tend to communicate with their teacher
more than females (Hutchinson & Beadle, 1992; Jones &
Dindia, 2004). It is possible that, compared with males,
females experience more positive student–instructor con-
versations, which may thereby increase their course satis-
faction. In partial support of this, Kim and Sax (2009) found
that females are more satisfied with their interaction with
Archbell and Coplan
faculty than their male counterparts, which may contribute
to overall course satisfaction.
Conclusion and Caveats
This study is one of the few to examine the correlates and
outcomes of social anxiety and student experiences at uni-
versity. Academic communication accounted for significant
variance in the negative relation between social anxiety and
student experiences. Therefore, improving socially anxious
students’ interactions with others may enhance their educa-
tional outcomes. Results suggest that social anxiety is nega-
tively related to communication with instructors and student
experiences, and therefore educators should consider the
needs and struggles of these students when designing their
courses to create an inclusive learning environment. For
example, incorporating the use of anonymous modes of
communication, icebreakers, nonthreatening participation
(i.e., polls, computer-mediated quizzes), and providing time
to mentally prepare for discussions are strategies that may
support students who experience social anxiety.
Nevertheless, some caveats should be considered. For
example, some of the statistically significant direct and
indirect effects found in the structural equation model had
relatively small effect sizes (although it is important to note
that the model was statistically well fitting). Moreover, the
use of a more diverse sample would allow for greater gen-
eralizability of results. For example, this study collected
data from only one institution, and more than 50% of par-
ticipants identified as Caucasian, with majority of the sam-
ple enrolled in psychology, computer science, or finance.
Future studies may benefit from exploring the group differ-
ences among academic disciplines, specifically with regard
to the meaning and implications of the ACI (i.e., STEM vs.
Humanities). In addition, there are additional sample char-
acteristics that were not investigated, which may impact
social anxiety, academic communication, and educational
experiences (e.g., economic stability, parental education,
first-generation status, English language proficiency, health
care access and quality, and disability status). As such, an
approach framed around the social determinants of mental
health (World Health Organization, 2014) may provide
greater insight into academic communication and highlight
social positioning factors. Future studies would benefit
from multi-institutional data collection with greater diver-
sity in this regard.
This research design does not examine the interplay
between race/ethnicity, social anxiety, and communication.
Given the presence of racial microaggression in higher edu-
cation (Johnson & Joseph-Salisbury, 2018) and the increase
in reported mental health issues among Black, Indigenous,
and People of Color (BIPOC; Lipson et al., 2019), the com-
municative experiences of students who identify as BIPOC
may differ substantially from their Caucasian peers. Thus,
283
forthcoming studies should meaningfully investigate the
impact of race/ethnicity on academic communication to
create a set of recommendations for instructors, so as to ulti-
mately enhance academic communication and educational
experiences among BIPOC students.
Given the association between social anxiety and pref-
erences in communication modality (e.g., Pierce, 2009),
future research may consider investigating the impact of
academic communication among students who experience
social anxiety in offline, online, and blended learning envi-
ronments. In addition, future studies may benefit from
including multiple reporters (i.e., instructor/teaching assis-
tant reports, peer reports) and data sources (semi-structured
interviews, classroom observations), and a longitudinal
study design to better understand the directionality of
effects, particularly keeping in mind student experiences
and well-being.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Kristen A. Archbell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0241-5395
Robert J. Coplan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3696-2108
References
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of
teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). Transaction Books.
Archbell, K. (2020, July 15). Too anxious to talk: Social anxiety,
communication, and academic experiences in higher educa-
tion. CURVE. https://curve.carleton.ca/bf0cd59b-ac80-4437-
b8f5-ea0d3822523b
Baptista, C. A., Loureiro, S. R., & De Lima Osorio, F. (2012).
Social phobia in Brazilian university students: Prevalence,
under-recognition and academic impairment in women.
Journal of Affect Disorders, 136(3), 857–861. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.09.022
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1996, November/December). From teach-
ing to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate educa-
tion. Change Magazine, pp. 13–25.
Bernstein, G. A., Bernat, D. H., Andrew, A. D., & Layne, A. E.
(2008). Symptom presentation and classroom functioning in a
nonclinical sample of children with social phobia. Depression
and Anxiety, 55(9), 752–760. https://doi.org/10.1002/
da.20315
Bollinger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2012). Student perceptions of sat-
isfaction and anxiety in an online doctoral program. Distance
Education, 33(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2
012.667961
284
Bronkema, R. H., & Bowman, N. A. (2017). Close campus
friendships and college student success. Journal of College
Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 21(3), 270–285.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025117704200
Brook, C. A., & Willoughby, T. (2015). The social ties that bind:
Social anxiety and academic achievement across the univer-
sity years. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 44(5), 1139–1152.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0262-8
Burke, T. J., & Ruppel, E. K. (2015). Facebook self-presentational
motives: Daily effects on social anxiety and interaction suc-
cess. Communication Studies, 66(2), 204–217. https://doi.org
/10.1080/10510974.2014.884014
Caballo, V. E., Salazar, I. C., Irurtia, M. J., Arias, B., Hofmann,
S. G., & CISO-A Research Team (2014). Differences in
social anxiety between men and women across 18 countries.
Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 35–40. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.013
Caplan, S. E. (2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety,
and problematic Internet use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior:
The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality
on Behavior and Society, 10(2), 234–242. https://doi.
org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9963
Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social
phobia. In R. Heimberg, M. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R.
Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and
treatment (pp. 69–93). Guilford Press.
Cohen, M., Buzinski, S. G., Armstrong-Carter, E., Clark, J., Buck,
B., & Reuman, L. (2019). Think, pair, freeze: The association
between social anxiety and student discomfort in the active
learning environment. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
in Psychology, 5(4), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/
stl0000147
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1994). A global
measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 24(4), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404
Crozier, W. R. (2001). Shyness: Development, consolidation, and
change. In R. Crozier & I. Alden (Eds.), International hand-
book of social anxiety (pp. 1–20). John Wiley.
Crozier, W. R., & Alden, L. E. (2005). Constructs of social anxiety.
In W. R. Crozier & L. E. Alden (Eds.), The essential handbook
of social anxiety for clinicians (pp. 1–23). John Wiley.
Czekanski, K. E., & Wolf, Z. R. (2013). Encouraging and evaluat-
ing class participation. Journal of University Teaching and
Learning Practices, 10(1), 1–13. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/
vol10/iss1/7
Davidson, J. R., Hughes, D. C., George, L. K., & Blazer, D. G.
(1994). The boundary of social phobia. Exploring the thresh-
old. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51(12), 975–983. https://
doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950120047008
Donnelly, R. (2010). Interaction analysis in a “learning by doing”
problem-based professional development context. Computer
and Education, 55(3), 1357–1366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.06.010
Dubow, E. F., Tisak, J., Causey, D., Hryshko, A., & Reid,
G. (1991). A two-year longitudinal study of stressful life
events, social support, and social problem-solving skills:
Contributions to children’s behavioral and academic adjust-
ment. Child Development, 62(3), 583–599. https://doi.
org/10.2307/1131133
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 30(4)
Eggleston, T. & Smith, G. (2004). Building community in the
classroom through ice-breakers and parting ways. Office of
Teaching Resources in Psychology. http:// www.teachpsych.
org/otrp/resources/eggleston04.pdf
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. The Guildford
Press.
Eng, W., Coles, M. E., Heimberg, R. G., & Safren, S. A. (2005).
Domains of life satisfaction in social anxiety disorder:
Relation to symptoms and response to cognitive-behavioral
therapy. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19(2), 143–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.01.007
Fehm, L., Beesdo, K., Jacobi, F., & Fiedler, A. (2008). Social
anxiety disorder above and below the diagnostic thresh-
old: Prevalence, comorbidity and impairment in the general
population. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,
43(4), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-007-0299-4
Grieve, R., Padgett, C. R., & Moffit, R. L. (2016). Assignments
2.0: The role of social presence and computer attitudes in stu-
dent preferences for online versus offline marking. Internet
and Higher Education, 28, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iheduc.2015.08.002
Hakami, R. M., Mahfouz, M. S., Adawi, A. M., Mahha, A. J.,
Athathi, A. J., Daghreeri, H. H., Najmi, H. H., & Areeshi, N.
A. (2017). Social anxiety disorder and its impact in under-
graduate students at Jazan University, Saudi Arabia. Mental
Illness, 9(1), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.4081/mi.2017.7274
Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A.
(2005). A measure of college student course engagement.
The Journal of Education, 98(3), 184–191. https://doi.
org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015).
Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learn-
ing: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005
Hutchinson, L., & Beadle, M. (1992). Professors’ communication
styles: How they influence male and female seminar partici-
pants. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8(4), 405–418. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(92)90065-B
Johnson, A., & Joseph-Salisbury, R. (2018). “Are you supposed
to be in here?” Racial microaggressions and knowledge pro-
duction in higher education. In Dismantling race in higher
education (pp. 143–160). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
60261-5_8
Joksimovic, S., Gaševic, D., Kovanovic, V., Riecke, B. E., &
Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as
a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638–654. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jcal.12107
Jones, S. M., & Dindia, K. (2004). A meta-analysis perspective on
sex equity in the classroom. Review of Educational Research,
74(4), 443–471. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004443
Keller, M. B. (2006). Social anxiety disorder clinical course
and outcome: Review of Harvard/Brown Anxiety Research
Project (HARP) findings. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry,
67(Suppl. 12), 14–19.
Kessler, R. C. (2003). The impairments caused by social pho-
bia in the general population: Implications for intervention.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 108, 19–27. https://doi.
org/10.1034/j.1600-0447.108.s417.2.x
Archbell and Coplan
Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in
research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social
class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education,
50, 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9127-x
Lee, R. M., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness, dys-
functional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress:
Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
48(3), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.310
Liebowitz, M. R. (2003). Guidelines for using the Liebowitz social
anxiety Version 5. New York State Psychiatric Institute.
Lim, W. N. (2017). Improving student engagement in higher
education through mobile-based interactive teaching
model using socrative. In IEEE global engineering edu-
cation conference (pp. 404–412). https://doi.org/10.1109/
EDUCON.2017.7942879
Lipson, S. K., Lattie, E. G., & Eisenberg, D. (2019). Increased
rates of mental health service utilization by U.S. college
students: 10-year population-level trends (2007–2017).
Psychiatric Services, 70(1), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.1176/
appi.ps.201800332
Litzler, E., Samuelson, C. C., & Lorah, J. A. (2014). Breaking
it down: Engineering student STEM confidence at the inter-
section of race/ethnicity and gender. Research in Higher
Education, 55(8), 810–832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-
014-9333-z
MacKenzie, M. B., & Fowler, K. F. (2013). Social anxiety dis-
order in the Canadian population: Exploring gender dif-
ferences in sociodemographic profile. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 27(4), 427–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janx-
dis.2013.05.006
Mattick, R. P., & Clark, J. C. (1998). Development and validation
of measures of social phobia scrutiny and social interaction
anxiety. Behavior Research and Therapy, 36(4), 455–470.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)10031-6
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction.
American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face
communication versus technological communication among
teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1367–1372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.003
Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral
model of anxiety in social phobia. Behavior Research and
Therapy, 35(8), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-
7967(97)00022-3
Rocca, K. A. (2004). College student attendance: Impact of
instructor immediacy and verbal aggression. Communication
Education, 53(2), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452
0410001682447
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive
learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks.
The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–332. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00130-6
Rovai, A. P., & Wighting, M. J. (2005). Feelings of alienation
and community among higher education students in a virtual
classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 97–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.03.001
Russell, D. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability,
validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality
285
Assessment, 66(1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532
7752jpa6601_2
Russell, G., & Shaw, S. (2009). A study to investigate the preva-
lence of social anxiety in a sample of higher education stu-
dents in the UK. Journal of Mental Health, 18(3), 198–206.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638230802522494
Russell, G., & Topham, P. (2012). The impact of social anxiety on
student learning and well-being in higher education. Journal
of Mental Health, 21(4), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.3109/09
638237.2012.694505
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-
presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological
Bulletin, 92(3), 641–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.92.3.641
Schneier, F. R. (2006). Social anxiety disorder. The New England
Journal of Medicine, 355(10), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJMcp060145
Schneier, F. R., Blanco, C., Antia, S. X., & Liebowitz, M. R.
(2002). The social anxiety spectrum. Psychiatric Clinics of
North America, 25(4), 757–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0193-953x(02)00018-7
Stein, M. B., & Kean, Y. M. (2000). Disability and quality of life
in social phobia: Epidemiologic findings. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 15(10), 1606–1613. https://doi.org/10.1176/
appi.ajp.157.10.1606
Thomas, C. E., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1994). The
association between immediacy and socio-communicative
style. Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 107–115.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099409359946
Tinto, V. (2000). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first
year of college. NACADA Journal, 19(1), 5–10. https://doi.
org/10.12930/0271-9517-19.2.5
Topham, P. (2009). Feeling stupid: A survey of university stu-
dents’ experience of social anxiety in learning situations
[Project report]. University of the West of England. http://
eprints.uwe.ac.uk/164
Topham, P., Moller, N., & Davies, H. (2014). Social anxiety in
learning: Stages of change in a sample of UK undergraduates.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(1), 125–145.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.895307
Vandenberg, R. J. (2006). Statistical and methodological myths
and urban legends. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2),
194–201. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203867266
Van Ryzin, M. J., Gravely, A. A., & Roseth, C. J. (2009).
Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in school as con-
tributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-007-9257-4
Walton, G. M., Logel, C., Peach, J. M., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M.
P. (2015). Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate”
transform women’s experience, relationships, and achievement
in engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2),
4698–4485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037461
Wang, M. J. (2010). Online collaboration and offline interaction
between students using asynchronous tools in blended learn-
ing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6),
830–846. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1045
Wetterberg, L. (2004). Social anxiety in 17-year-olds in
Stockholm, Sweden: A questionnaire survey. South African
286
Psychiatry Review, 7(2), 30–32. https://doi.org/10.4314/
ajpsy.v7i2.30165
Wittchen, H. U., Stein, B., & Kessler, R. C. (1999). Social fears
and social phobia in a community sample of adolescents
and young adults: Prevalence, risk factors, and co-morbid-
ity. Psychological Medicine, 29(2), 309–323. https://doi.
org/10.1017/s0033291798008174
Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in
web-based learning: A social constructivist interpreta-
tion. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.005
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 30(4)
World Health Organization. (2014). Social determinants of mental
health. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/112828
Yilmaz, R. (2016). Knowledge sharing behaviors in e-learning
community: Exploring the role of academic self-efficacy and
sense of community. Computer in Human Behavior, 63(1),
373–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.055
Zukerman, G., Yahav, G., & Ben-Itzchak, E. (2019). Diametrically
opposed associations between academic achievement and
social anxiety among university students with and without
autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 12(9), 1376–
1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2129