Socioemotional Competence, Social Anxiety, and Academic Performance in College

Students

By

Afaq Afzal

Reg. # F21A14U62017

Supervised by

Aqsa Zaheer Toor

Bachelor

In

Applied Psychology

At

Riphah International University

Faisalabad Campus, Faisalabad (Pakistan)

June, 2025
 Approval Sheet
Submission of Higher Research Degree Thesis
The following statement is to be signed by the candidates ‘supervisor (s), Dean/ HOD
and must be received by the COE, prior to the dispatch of the thesis to the approved examiners.
Candidate’s Name & Reg. #: Afaq Afzal, # F21A14U62017
Program Title: Bachelor's in Applied Psychology
Faculty/Department: Social Sciences and Humanities
Thesis Title: Socioemotional Competence, Social Anxiety, and Academic Performance in
College Students

I hereby certify that the above candidate’s work, including the thesis, has been completed to my
satisfaction and that the thesis is in a format and of an editorial standard recognized by the
faculty/department as appropriate for examination..

Signature (s):
Principal Supervisor: ____________________
Date: __________________________________
Date: __________________________________
Plagiarism Incharge: ____________________
Date: __________________________________
The undersigned certify that:
1. The candidate presented at a pre-completion seminar, an overview and synthesis of major
findings of the thesis, and that the research is of a standard and extent appropriate for
submission as a thesis.
2. I have checked the candidate’s thesis and its scope, format, and editorial standards are
recognized by the faculty/department as appropriate.
3. The plagiarism check has been performed. Report is attached
Signature (s):

Head of Department: _______________

Date: _____________________________
 Declaration

I, Afaq Afzal, certify that the research work presented in this thesis is to the best of my

knowledge, my own. All sources used and any help received in the preparation of this dissertation

have been acknowledged. I hereby declare that I have not submitted this material, either in whole

or in part, for any other degree at this or any other institution

Name: Afaq Afzal

Reg. # F21A14U62017

Signature

Acknowledgement
 I begin with profound gratitude to Almighty Allah SWT for making this achievement

possible. I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Aqsa Zaheer Toor, whose exceptional guidance,

prompt feedback, and genuine care were instrumental in the completion of this thesis. His

mentorship was invaluable in navigating every challenge. I also extend my sincere appreciation to

the faculty of Riphah International University, Faisalabad Campus, whose collective wisdom and

generous encouragement were vital in shaping and elevating the quality of this work.

Afaq Afzal
 i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1

Background of the Study.............................................................................................. 1

Socioemotional Competence........................................................................................ 2

Social Anxiety.............................................................................................................. 5

Academic Achievement............................................................................................... 7

Rationale of the Study................................................................................................ 8

Research Questions..................................................................................................... 9

Objectives................................................................................................................... 9

Hypotheses................................................................................................................. 10

Conceptual Framework of the Study.......................................................................... 10

2. Literature Review.................................................................................................... 11

Socioemotional Competence......................................................................................... 11

Social Anxiety.............................................................................................................. 14

Academic Performance................................................................................................ 17

Socioemotional Competence and Social Anxiety............................................................ 19

Socioemotional Competence and Academic Performance..................................... 21

Socioemotional Competence, Social Anxiety, and Academic Performance................. 23

Gap in Previous Researches.......................................................................................... 26

3. Methodology............................................................................................................. 27
 ii

Overview..................................................................................................................... 27

Research Design......................................................................................................... 27

Sampling Technique.................................................................................................. 27

Population and Sample, and Sample Size................................................................. 28

Operational Definitions of Variables........................................................................ 28

Instruments / Psychometric Properties................................................................... 28

Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria.................................................................................. 31

Ethical Consideration............................................................................................... 32

Procedure................................................................................................................ 32

Statistical Analysis.................................................................................................... 33

4. Results and Discussion....................................................................................... 34

Demographic Information of Participants................................................................ 34

Descriptive Statistics of Variables........................................................................... 35

Psychometric Properties for Scales........................................................................... 37

Correlations Among Study Variables and Subscales..................................................... 37

Gender Differences in Psychological Measures............................................................ 39

Discussion................................................................................................................... 40

5. Summary, Findings, Conclusions, Limitations, and Recommendations................. 44

Summary..................................................................................................................... 44

Findings....................................................................................................................... 45
 iii

Conclusion................................................................................................................. 46

Implications............................................................................................................... 47

Limitations............................................................................................................... 48

Recommendations..................................................................................................... 49

References................................................................................................................ 51

Appendices............................................................................................................... 60
 iv

List of Tables

Demographic Information of Participants (N = 200)............................................................ 34

Descriptive Statistics of Variables (N = 200).......................................................................... 35

Psychometric Properties for Scales (N = 200)........................................................................ 37

Correlations Among Study Variables and Subscales............................................................ 37

Gender Differences in Psychological Measures..................................................................... 39

 v

List of Abbreviations

SEC Socioemotional Competence

SIAS Social Interaction Anxiety Scale

PAPS Perceived Academic Performance Scale

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

SD Standard Deviation
 vi

Abstract

This study investigates the interplay between socioemotional competence, social anxiety, and

academic performance among college students in Faisalabad, Pakistan. The study was formally

approved by board of studies department of Psychology. Study was completed in 6 months.

Employing a correlational research design, a sample of 200 students (100 males, 100 females) was

assessed using validated instruments. The convenient sampling technique was used for data

collection. The Social Emotional Competencies Questionnaire (SEC-Q), Social Interaction

Anxiety Scale (SIAS), and Perceived Academic Performance Scale (PAPS)1 was used to collect

data. Spearman Correlation, regression and T-test was used to analyze data. Descriptive statistics

indicated that cornbach aloha of scale was in acceptable range. Finding indicated socioemotional

competence, and academic performance had significant positive relationship. Socioemotional

competence had impact on academic performance. Male had higher score on socioemotional

competence, social anxiety and academic performance.. The findings underscore the importance

of fostering socioemotional skills to enhance academic self-concept and highlight the need for

gender-responsive interventions to address social anxiety. Limitations include the cross-sectional

design, reliance on self-report data, and limited generalizability beyond the sampled context. The

study recommends integrating social and emotional learning modules and targeted anxiety-

reduction programs within higher education to promote holistic student well-being and academic

success.

Keywords: Socioemotional competence, social anxiety, academic performance

 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Overview

College students navigate a complex relationship of academic, social, and emotional

challenges, where socioemotional competence, the ability to manage emotions, build relationships,

and adapt to social contexts. Socio-emotional competence plays an important role in well-being

and success (Bhat & Chahal, 2023). Social anxiety, characterized by fear of negative evaluation in

social situations, often undermines this competence, creating barriers to peer collaboration,

classroom participation, and help-seeking behaviors (Martin, 2023). This research was investigate

the relationship between socioemotional competence, social anxiety, and academic performance,

addressing a critical gap in understanding how emotional and social factors jointly shape

educational outcomes(Ullah et al., 2025). While prior research isolates socioemotional skills or

anxiety as predictors of achievement, this study examines their dynamic interactions, proposing

that socioemotional competence may buffer the adverse effects of social anxiety on grades,

retention, and engagement. By analyzing demographic variables (e.g., gender, cultural

background), the study also explores heterogeneity in these relationships. This introductory

chapter will cover the introduction of the variables, rationale of the study, significance of the study,

research questions, objectives, hypothesis, and conceptual framework of the study.

Background of the study

Moving from high school to college exposes students to a fresh mix of academic, social,

and emotional hurdles that can shape their growth and long-term success (Nirmalan et al., 2025).

As university communities grow more intricate, experts now stress the value of socioemotional

skills-self-awareness, healthy relationships, and sound decision-making-because these traits

 2

support both personal happiness and solid performance in class. At the very same time, many first-

year students report stronger social anxiety, a response to new duties, shifting expectations, and

the steady pull of group work and campus meetings (Dou & Feng, 2025). Emotions and social

pressures do not run on separate tracks; they weave together and jointly steer a students level of

engagement, adjustment, and grades (B. L. Mathews et al., 2016). Recent studies show that a

learners socioemotional growth is molded by several forces, such as prior schooling, the home

atmosphere, and the cultures set by their institution. Understanding how these strands interact is

key to mapping routes toward achievement and crafting programs that build resilience and well-

being on campus (Main et al., 2025). In the sections that follow, we will examine each of these

factors in detail:

Socio-emotional Competence

Socioemotional competence describes a persons ability to notice, share, understand, and

steer both their own feelings and the emotions of others when they are in social situations. In

practical terms, this idea covers a wide mix of talents such as spotting emotions, showing them

appropriately, being aware of what one feels, making sense of how emotions unfold, accepting

those feelings, believing in ones ability to manage them, feeling for others, and using healthy

coping methods. For college students, these skills are vital because campus life can be both

academic and personal. Strong socioemotional competence helps students form lasting friendships,

resolve conflicts, and meet stress with flexible responses. Growth in these areas depends on

personal traits like temperament and self-efficacy as well as on outside support from family, peers,

and institutions. Because of this blend, socioemotional competence is not something set in stone;

it can evolve through purposeful teaching and psychological guidance (Main et al., 2025).
 3

The Framework of Socioemotional Competence. Socioemotional competence refers to

the set of abilities people draw on to manage their feelings, build and sustain healthy relationships,

and choose responsible actions when faced with everyday challenges (Collaborative for Academic,

Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2020). These intertwined skills, attitudes, and bits of

knowledge help individuals steer through social situations and emotional ups and downs, playing

an important role in achievement at school, work, and home (Elias et al., 1997). Because the

capacity is not hardwired at birth, people improve it over time through hands-on practice and

focused teaching that guide them in recognizing emotions, reading social signals, and acting in

helpful ways (Denham & Brown, 2010). CASELs widely referenced framework clarifies the

picture by grouping socioemotional skills into five clear but connected arenas that together capture

the full range of this vital competence (CASEL, 2020).

Self-Awareness. Self-awareness starts with noticing your own feelings, thoughts, and

guiding values, then seeing how those inner factors steer your actions in different situations

(CASEL, 2020). The skill also means forming a realistic self-image by spotting strengths,

welcoming cultural and language assets, marking growth areas, and still holding onto a balanced

dose of self-belief and optimism (Weissberg et al., 2015). When self-awareness is strong, people

can link their current mood to what they do, and that insight lays the groundwork for managing

themselves well (Brackett et al., 2011).

Self-Management. Building on robust self-awareness, self-management is the ability to

keep emotions, thoughts, and actions on course as circumstances shift (CASEL, 2020). It embraces

practical skills such as calming stress, curbing hasty impulses, and nudging oneself forward when

obstacles appear, all in service of personal and shared aims (Durlak et al., 2011). Successful self-
 4

management also means defining challenging goals and applying the discipline, planning, and

follow-through that sustain achievement over the long haul (Weissberg et al., 2015).

Social Awareness. Social awareness is the capacity to step outside oneself, grasp what

others see and feel, and respond thoughtfully, no matter their background or culture (CASEL,

2020). It also includes knowing the social and ethical ground rules that guide behavior and spotting

the resources families, schools, and neighborhoods provide (Elias et al., 1997). Empathy lies at its

heart; by genuinely sharing in another persons feelings, people signal care, strengthen bonds, and

build a more united community (Denham & Brown, 2010).

Relationship Skills. Relationship skills refer to the abilities people draw on to build and

sustain caring connections and to move comfortably through different social settings (CASEL,

2020). Among these skills are clear speaking, attentive listening, willing cooperation, standing up

to unhealthy peer pressure, constructive conflict negotiation, and the regular exchange of help,

either by asking or offering (Durlak et al., 2011). Mastering these competencies promotes effective

teamwork and lays the groundwork for a supportive social network that supplies both emotional

backing and collaborative openings (Weissberg et al., 2015).

Responsible Decision-Making. The final domain, responsible decision-making, describes

a persons ability to choose thoughtful and caring behaviors in many different settings (CASEL,

2020). Such choices ask the individual to weigh ethical principles, safety issues, and community

expectations while imagining the real outcomes of each option (Elias et al., 1997). The skill also

demands bringing together the four earlier competencies to assess the context, spot concerns,

imagine answers, and pause to reflect on the welfare of oneself and others before moving forward

(Brackett et al., 2011).

 5

Socioemotional competence offers college students deep and varied advantages. Those

who cultivate these skills handle stress more calmly, adjust to new surroundings with ease, and

tackle problems in a purposeful way. As a result, their grades tend to rise; such students ask for

help when necessary, work collaboratively with classmates, and keep pushing forward even after

setbacks. Competent emotional regulation also builds resilience, enabling them to bounce back

from disappointment and keep moving toward their objectives. Moreover, strong socioemotional

skills ease social integration, a major predictor of both retention and general satisfaction with

college life. Students who excel in these areas usually create supportive peer groups and nurture

positive ties with faculty, both of which further advance academic and personal success (Main et

al., 2025).

In contrast, weak socioemotional skills can seriously harm college students. Learners who

struggle with recognizing, regulating, or empathizing with feelings often find high-stakes classes

and social pressures overwhelming, making them more likely to develop anxiety or depression.

These problems may show up as slipping grades, withdrawing from friends, or sitting on the

sidelines of campus activities. Students who doubt their emotional abilities are especially prone to

dodge help or limit group work, which only deepens the strain. Once feelings spiral, they may

resort to avoidance or blame-shifting, habits that erode both GPA and relationships (Y.-L. Wu et

al., 2025).

College students often show elevated social anxiety, and that condition worsens when

emotional skills are weak. Research by Lim and Yang (2025) found that anxious undergraduates

struggle to notice, name, and share feelings, do not accept emotions as normal, and doubt their

ability to manage moods. Each deficit fuels a loop: anxiety blurs emotional judgment, and the

resulting confusion deepens classwork and social fears. For instance, students who cannot calm
 6

themselves in study groups or presentations feel intense discomfort, so they skip these important

chances to learn (Lim & Yang, 2025).

Social Anxiety

Social anxiety is a mental health concern marked by a chronic fear of any situation where

a person might come under other peoples watchful eyes (Vos et al., 2025). Those living with the

condition often stew for hours-or even days-before and after encounters, dreading the possibility

of harsh judgment, blushing, or public humiliation, and so they frequently skip events altogether.

Mathews et al. (2016) frame all anxiety, social or otherwise, as a spike in negative feeling paired

with worries about unrealized dangers, a blend that commonly drains energy, clouds concentration,

and erodes self-confidence. Because emotion and emotion management sit at the core of this

problem, people who struggle to read, name, or calm their feelings tend to report sharper symptoms

of social anxiety. Among college students, the condition shows up as reluctance to speak up in

lecture halls, hesitation to join study groups, and outright avoidance of office hours, barriers that

block both friendship and academic success (Thunnissen, 2025).

Research clearly links social anxiety to several negative outcomes in college classrooms.

Students who struggle with intense nervousness about social situations often shy away from

speaking up, joining group projects, or taking part in clubs, which reduces the chances they have

to learn from others and to grow socially. These anxious young people tend to express and read

emotions less well, be unaware of or critical toward their own feelings, and to judge their emotional

skills as low. Such gaps can push them toward unhelpful coping moves-like simply avoiding stress-

inducing tasks-and those moves in turn weaken course performance. Multiple studies show the

pattern: anxiety around social judgment correlates with lower grades, reduced learning, and higher

odds of dropping out (J. Wu et al., 2025).

 7

Even so, the story is not all grim, because treating social anxiety can produce clear

academic gains. Programs that build emotional know-how-such as training in regulating feelings,

workshops on social skills, or solid cognitive-behavioral therapy-help students notice, accept, and

guide their anxious emotions more wisely (J. Mathews et al., 2025). When learners master these

skills, they become bolder about speaking in class, asking for help, and forming supportive ties

with classmates and teachers. Those new habits usually spark deeper class engagement, better

grades, and higher overall satisfaction with the college experience (Madden et al., 2025).

Academic Achievement

Academic achievement is essentially a students observable performance in school, most

commonly captured through report-card grades, standardized test results, and the completion of

key educational milestones. These indicators reveal how well a learner has mastered the

curriculum and whether that individual is prepared to move on to advanced studies or to step into

the job market. Because of this predictive power, colleges and employers frequently rely on these

measures to gauge a candidates skills, future promise, and general success within formal education

(Madden et al., 2025).

Academic success means more than just report-card grades or standardized-test results; it

includes how students think, stay motivated, and behave during school. Students who perform well

usually have good study habits, steady drive, self-control, and the flexibility to face tough

assignments. Emotions and social skills also matter; traits like emotional competence and anxiety

can shape what happens in the classroom. Researchers find that learners who regulate their feelings

well and feel less anxious tend to earn higher marks because they handle stress and keep going

after setbacks (Madden et al., 2025).

 8

In Pakistan, schoolchildren grapple with particular obstacles that may block their path to

strong academic results. Overcrowded classes, scarce trained teachers, and limited materials affect

many public schools on a routine basis (Shah, 2025). On top of that, family and societal demands

to shine in studies often push students into higher levels of stress and worry. Mental-health services

remain hard to find, and open talk about emotional well-being carries stigma in numerous

communities. As a result, anxiety rises and socioemotional skills slip, both of which tend to drag

down students grades and learning experiences.

Recent attempts to weave life-skills classes and counseling into Pakistani universities show

that officials are beginning to see students as whole people, not just grades on a paper (Siddiqui,

2025). Meeting students emotional and mental-health needs matters for boosting learning

everywhere, and the evidence is no different in Pakistan. Programs that build social awareness,

inner strength, and sound coping habits help learners handle academic pressure and raise test

scores. For students in Pakistan, wider access to counseling, lower social stigma, and classrooms

that welcome every background are vital if the country wants to narrow achievement gaps. When

teachers and policy-makers link emotional skill with academic success, they lay the groundwork

for kinder campuses that enable every student to pursue their best future.

Rationale of the Study

This investigation grew out of a broad awareness that students emotional and social skills

now appear to matter more than ever for doing well in classes and for feeling good mentally on

campus. For example, a large review by Mathews and colleagues (2016) shows that low emotional

skills-poor emotion reading, shaky belief in ones feelings, and difficulty accepting what one feels-

strongly link to elevated anxiety. Social anxiety, in particular, leaves many students reluctant to

join discussions or reach out to classmates, a pattern that can drag down grades and isolate them
 9

from helpful peer networks. Yet even with these connections noted, few studies have asked

whether solid socioemotional strengths might cushion the academic fallout of social anxiety,

especially in fast-paced, diverse settings like Pakistans universities. By probing that question

directly, the present work seeks to fill this gap and guide evidence-based support services

(Mathews et al., 2016).

Questions

1. What is the relationship between socioemotional competence, social anxiety, and

academic performance in college students

2. Does socioemotional competence predict academic performance among college students?

3. What are the differences in socioemotional competence, social anxiety, and academic

performance in college students in terms of gender.

Objectives

1. The objective of this study is to check the relationship between socioemotional

competence, social anxiety, and academic achievements in college students

2. To investigate the impact of socioemotional competence on academic achievements in

college students

3. To find out the gender differences in social emotional competence, social anxiety, and

academic achievement in college students

Hypothesis

1. There will be a significant positive relationship between socioemotional competence and

academic achievement, and a significant negative relationship between social anxiety and

both socioemotional competence and academic achievement in college students.

 10

2. Socioemotional competence will significantly predict academic performance among

college students.

3. There will significant gender differences in socioemotional competence, social anxiety

and academic performance in terms of gender.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

Social Anxiety

Socioemotional Academic achievement

Competence
 11

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Socio-emotional competence

Socio-emotional competence is a broad set of abilities that lets people recognize, regulate,

and express emotions while also building and keeping positive connections with others (Gandía-

Carbonell et al., 2022). The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL)

groups these abilities into five areas: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness,

relationship skills, and responsible decision-making (Carmen et al., 2022). These skills are

increasingly viewed as basic tools beyond textbook learning, commonly labeled soft skills or

twenty-first-century skills, because they matter in school, work, and everyday life (Rodríguez et

al., 2023). In classrooms, socio-emotional competence is especially important; it underpins

academic success, supports mental health, and promotes constructive interactions among students

(Santamaría-Villar et al., 2021). Studies show that people who master these skills adapt better to

challenges, earn higher grades, and report stronger overall well-being (Portela-Pino et al., 2021).

As a result, colleges and schools around the globe now focus on teaching and modeling socio-

emotional competence for both future educators and the students they will serve (Koludrović &

Mrsić, 2022).

The theoretical foundation of socio-emotional competence draws from multiple

psychological and educational frameworks, with the CASEL model serving as the most widely

adopted framework in educational contexts (Carmen et al., 2022). This model conceptualizes

socio-emotional competence through five interconnected domains that collectively contribute to

an individual's ability to navigate social and emotional challenges effectively (Gandía-Carbonell

et al., 2022). Self-awareness involves recognizing one's emotions, thoughts, and values and
 12

understanding how they influence behavior, while self-management encompasses the abilities to

regulate emotions, control impulses, and work toward goals (Huerta Cuervo et al., 2022). Social

awareness refers to the capacity to understand others' perspectives, show empathy, and appreciate

diversity, whereas relationship skills involve building and maintaining healthy relationships

through effective communication and conflict resolution (Santamaría-Villar et al., 2021).

Responsible decision-making means choosing actions that fit ethical values and accepted social

norms (Souza et al., 2021). Outside the CASEL framework, other theories have appeared-Saarni's

model of emotional competence and several emotional-intelligence approaches-that spotlight

distinct parts of social-emotional growth (Fotopoulou et al., 2023). Taken together, these

viewpoints show that social-emotional skill is complex and serves as an important link between

thinking abilities and later life results (Rocha et al., 2024).

Applying socio-emotional skills in colleges now draws growing attention, especially in

teacher-prep courses where future instructors must polish their own abilities and learn to nurture

those same traits in their students (Carmen et al., 2022). Studies show that college students with

stronger socio-emotional skills earn higher grades, handle stress more smoothly, and build

healthier peer connections (Rodríguez et al., 2023). In the field of teacher education, candidates

who manage emotions well . are more likely to craft caring classrooms and form positive bonds

with the children they will teach (Koludrović & Mrsić, 2022). Embedding socio-emotional

learning in college curricula is thus seen as vital for equipping graduates to meet job expectations

and pursue personal goals (Souza et al., 2021). Yet evidence points to serious shortfalls, as many

programs still centre on disciplinary content and give little attention to these broader life skills

(Gandía-Carbonell et al., 2022). Measuring socio-emotional competence at the university level is

also tricky, since standard tests often miss the nuance of how such skills operate in daily situations
 13

(Huerta Cuervo et al., 2022). Consequently, educators call for purpose-built assessment tools and

targeted learning experiences that address these gaps. The rising risk of online harms for university

students has become increasingly apparent (Fotopoulou et al., 2023).

A wide body of research shows that social and emotional skills strongly shape students

academic and personal journeys at every level (Santamar-a-Villar et al., 2021). Pupils who practice

these skills routinely earn higher grades, and several studies spotlight score gains that clearly set

them apart from classmates who lack such training (Portela-Pino et al., 2021). Experts say the link

works through factors like steadier self-control, sharper motivation, wiser stress handling, and

closer, more trusting ties with teachers (Carmen et al., 2022). Longer follow-ups find the

advantages reach far past short-term grades, with students reporting higher completion rates,

greater college enrollment, and even stronger careers years later (Rocha et al., 2024). From a

mental-health angle, sturdy social-emotional skills guard against anxiety and depression and

encourage grit, purpose, and healthy coping (Huerta Cuervo et al., 2022). The gains pop up in

mixed classrooms too, with evidence of progress across varied incomes, languages, and cultural

backgrounds (Gand-a-Carbonell et al., 2022). These skills also help build kinder school climates,

cutting down bullying and spurring students to act in helpful, supportive ways toward one another

(Fotopoulou et al., 2023).

Evaluating a persons social and emotional skills is notoriously tricky, so researchers have

created many different ways to measure them (Souza et al., 2021). Today's tools cover a broad

spectrum, from simple self-questionnaires to hands-on tasks, and each option comes with strengths

and drawbacks (Gandía-Carbonell et al., 2022). Self-report versions-such as the Social and

Emotional Competencies Scale or CASEL tweaks-stay popular because they are quick to give and

easy to score (Huerta Cuervo et al., 2022). Yet scholars warn that such forms are vulnerable to
 14

social-desirability pressure and to wide cultural differences in how feelings get shown, casting

doubt on their reliability (Portela-Pino et al., 2021). Performance tasks sidestep some bias by

relying on direct observation, yet they demand trained assessors, equipment, and time, limiting

their reach (Rodríguez et al., 2023). New assessment technologies promise change, introducing

web-based platforms and real-life micro-tasks that gather data in everyday contexts with less

burden (Fotopoulou et al., 2023). Even so, the discipline still wrestles with the basic goal of

crafting measures that are culturally relevant, age-appropriate, and solid enough psychometrically

to handle the rich diversity of human social-emotional growth (Rocha et al., 2024).

Social Anxiety

Social anxiety is now one of the most common mental health concerns found on college

campuses. Students with this worry intensely about being judged, evaluated harshly, or outright

rejected whenever they speak or perform in front of others (Archbell & Coplan, 2022). General

population estimates show that roughly 7 to 13 percent meet clinical criteria, yet research indicates

that campus rates soar to somewhere between 22 percent and even 80 percent depending on the

sample surveyed (Foroughi et al., 2022). Unlike ordinary shyness, social anxiety is long-lasting

and far-reaching; its symptoms can drain self-confidence and hinder class participation, group

work, and the growth of essential peer networks, thereby blocking students from reaching their

full academic and social potential (Hood et al., 2021; Peng & Wan, 2024).

Social anxiety in educational settings is most clearly viewed through a framework that

includes thoughts, actions, and bodily reactions working together (She et al., 2023). The disorder

shows up as a powerful fear of being watched or graded during social contact, driving students to

dodge situations and causing deep upset (Tárrega-Piquer et al., 2023). Affected learners feel

acutely self-aware, view themselves harshly, and lose sleep worrying they will humiliate
 15

themselves in front of classmates or teachers (Jia et al., 2022). Cognitively, they engage in worst-

case scenarios, blow possible failures out of proportion, and keep tight internal scoreboards, while

behaviorally they skip group work, speak less in class, and pull back from friendships (Ye et al.,

2021). Physically, their bodies signal danger with racing hearts, sweat, tremors, nausea, and sudden

flushing the moment a feared social scene begins (Zhu et al., 2025). Recent work has zeroed in on

four mental areas for college students-self-image, social skills, emotion regulation, and risk-reward

balance-that together fuel and sustain the condition (Yilmaz, 2024).

Social anxiety notably hampers students from communicating effectively in academic

settings, placing real obstacles between them and meaningful learning (Archbell & Coplan, 2022).

Learners who feel this anxiety talk less with teachers and classmates, and that withdrawal sooner

or later colors every aspect of their formal education (Hood et al., 2021). Broad surveys show a

strong negative link between anxiety and confidence in school work, with correlations near r = -

.463, while grades themselves tend to fall with a comparable r = -.389, suggesting that social

apprehension reliably forecasts weaker performance (Foroughi et al., 2022). Fearing harsh

judgement, anxious students will often hold back from raising questions in lectures, asking a

professor for clarification, joining a seminar debate, or taking part in group projects (Peng & Wan,

2024). Those communication gaps then translate into shallower classroom engagement, reduced

satisfaction with courses, and a weakened feeling of belonging among peers (She et al., 2023).

Many students dread required presentations or discussions days or even weeks in advance,

rehearsing imagined horrors of public failure until their nerves spike (Tárrega-Piquer et al., 2023).

Such persistent worry breeds avoidance that, in turn, limits real-world practice, deepening the

cycle of anxiety and hindered speech (Jia et al., 2022). Social anxiety also saps focus during

lectures; when students are preoccupied with self-scrutiny, research shows their ability to absorb
 16

and retain material suffers (Porcari et al., 2022). The ability to focus appears to act as a bridge

between social anxiety and school performance (Ye et al., 2021).

Recent research shows clear gender differences in how social anxiety appears and affects

college students (Archbell & Coplan, 2022). Socially anxious women report steeper negative

consequences than men, including less talking with professors, lower class participation, reduced

satisfaction, and poorer emotional-adjustment scores (Hood et al., 2021). Findings based on the

Social Anxiety Scale for Social Media Users indicate that female students also feel more

interaction-based nervousness and privacy worry when they log onto platforms (Jia et al., 2022).

In contrast, data from the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents sometimes place boys above girls

on broad social-avoidance and distress items, hinting that gender gaps may depend on which facet

of the disorder is under review (Yilmaz, 2024). Longitudinal evidence shows that many youths

first display these fears in late childhood or early adolescence, and without support the signs can

carry forward into early adulthood (Zhu et al., 2025). Among Chinese undergraduates, studies note

steady rises in social anxiety, with reported rates spanning 16 percent to 45.7 percent, warning that

the problem may be spreading through campus life (Ye et al., 2021).

Several reliable questionnaires now help campus professionals gauge social anxiety in

students because the disorder can show up in many different ways (Foroughi et al., 2022). The

Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, containing twenty-four items, remains a mainstay; it examines

fear and avoidance of face-to-face gatherings and public performances (Tárrega-Piquer et al.,

2023). The Social Avoidance and Distress Scale zeroes in on anxiety that springs up around

unfamiliar people or situations, whereas the Interaction Anxiousness Scale gauges unease during

ordinary conversations (She et al., 2023). More recent tools include the Social Anxiety Cognition

Scale for College Students, a twenty-one-item measure that sorts thoughts into four helpful areas:
 17

how one sees oneself, perceived social skills, emotion control, and weighing the costs of failure

(Jia et al., 2022). This scale boasts strong reliability, with internal consistency falling between .87

and .96 and stable test-retest scores near .76 to .84 (Peng & Wan, 2024). Another newer form, the

Social Anxiety Scale for Social Media Users, speaks to todays digital campus culture and tracks

online fears across four topics, yielding alpha scores from .80 to .92 (Ye et al., 2021). Taken

together, these instruments allow clinicians and researchers to spot high-risk students, chart

progress in therapy, and study how common social anxiety is on todays campus. early-stage

findings on how well the program works (Zhu et al., 2025).

In higher education, evidence-backed support for students with social anxiety leans heavily

on cognitive-behavioral methods, and many promising programs show solid results (Archbell &

Coplan, 2022). One example, the Overcome Social Anxiety course aimed at college learners,

delivers online CBT across seven modules over four to six months (Hood et al., 2021). It walks

participants through thought logs, questions negative assumptions, tests new behaviors, and builds

relapse plans, producing steeper declines in anxiety than wait-list groups (Foroughi et al., 2022).

Alongside this digital path, classic face-to-face work-cast in either solo or group sessions-teaches

relaxation, reframes catastrophe thinking, and pairs learners with gradual exposure to feared

situations (Peng & Wan, 2024). Campuses can also raise awareness among faculty and staff, grant

timely accommodations, and set up peer-led circles so that students feel seen and supported (She

et al., 2023). Preventive efforts meanwhile boost general talk and social skill practice, laying a

shield against the onset of crippling anxiety later on (Tárrega-Piquer et al., 2023). Quick spotting

and action remain vital, for neglecting social anxiety often spawns lasting drops in grades, retreat

from friendships, and a higher chance of depression and substance-use disorders (Jia et al., 2022).
 18

Academic Performance

Success in higher education does not rest on a single measure; instead, it blends many

indicators, including grade point average, course completion, standardized test scores, and hands-

on assessments (Kumar et al., 2021). Although GPA offers a tidy snapshot of performance, it often

misses softer skills such as critical reasoning, originality, and the ability to apply theory in real

contexts (Brew et al., 2021). Consistent evidence shows that grades earned before college predict

later achievement; students who graduate high school with strong GPAs tend to excel and report

higher academic self-belief (Al Husaini & Shukor, 2022). Superior entry grades also fuel

classroom involvement and persistence, as well-prepared learners feel more confident tackling

demanding material and seeking help when needed (Al Husaini & Shukor, 2022). Yet, early marks

reveal little about noncognitive traits- like grit and intrinsic motivation- so a broader toolkit

remains essential (Kumar et al., 2021). New evaluative models combine self-report questionnaires,

peer reviews, digital portfolios, and analytics from learning platforms to build fuller portraits of

each student (Ben Youssef et al., 2022). Portfolios that contain reflective journals and project

artifacts let instructors observe shifts in metacognition that raw numbers cannot show (Kumar et

al., 2021). Meanwhile, analytics drawn from learning-management-system activity offer timely

alerts about study habits and potential stumbling blocks, allowing educators to step in early (Batool

et al., 2023). By weaving all these elements together, institutions create fairer and more supportive

pathways toward academic success, benefiting a diverse array of learners. Support efforts should

begin by pinpointing the distinct strengths and challenges that different student groups present (Al

Husaini & Shukor, 2022).

Students perform better at school when their families are involved; research ties parental

engagement to stronger attendance, healthier study routines, and higher test scores (Brew et al.,
 19

2021). Children from well-off homes benefit from steady income, plentiful learning materials, and

organized study settings that help them stick with difficult work (Brew et al., 2021). By contrast,

youth in low-income families often struggle with spotty internet, unstable housing, or shared space

that makes daily reading and classroom participation hard (Al Husaini & Shukor, 2022). Financial

aid, scholarships, and work-study jobs ease those pressures, supply basic resources, and, in turn,

lift retention rates (Al Husaini & Shukor, 2022). Socioeconomic privilege also shapes cultural

capital; familiarity with campus rules and academic routines smooths the transition for many

students (Brew et al., 2021). Institutions that bundle support services-mentoring, counseling,

childcare, and practical advising-see higher persistence and better grades among historically

underserved groups (Al Husaini & Shukor, 2022). Thoughtful family outreach further strengthens

self-belief, because regular emotional boosts and homework coaching keep students moving

forward (Brew et al., 2021). Taken together, these studies point to an urgent need for coordinated

economic aid and family involvement if colleges wish to level the playing field (Ben Youssef et

al., 2022).

Research indicates that self-esteem and academic engagement are essential psychosocial

drivers of student success in college (Acosta-Gonzaga, 2023). When learners hold positive self-

views, they are less likely to shut down emotionally and more able to bounce back from setbacks,

so they use metacognitive tools like goal setting, self-checking, and reflection (Acosta-Gonzaga,

2023). Engagement itself is multi-faceted: it includes attending class, caring about the material,

and actively tackling deeper thought processes (Acosta-Gonzaga, 2023). Notably, studies show

that metacognitive activity is the single best predictor of GPA, eclipsing the classic measure of

hours spent studying (Al Husaini & Shukor, 2022). Gains are evident when instructors weave

active-learning tasks, peer collaborations, and brief, targeted feedback into courses (Acosta-
 20

Gonzaga, 2023). Learners coached in these habits develop sharper problem-solving, stronger

critical thinking, and greater grit when assignments grow difficult (Acosta-Gonzaga, 2023).

Because engagement links self-esteem with performance, teachers should design systems that

nurture both at the same time (Kumar et al., 2021). Embedding regular reflection and self-

regulated-learning modules into the curriculum can, therefore, amplify student ownership and

boost overall achievement (Acosta-Gonzaga, 2023).

Educational data mining paired with predictive analytics has greatly strengthened colleges

ability to spot students in danger and craft quick, personalized help (Batool et al., 2023). Meta-

reviews show that models like Random Forest, Support Vector Machines, and Artificial Neural

Networks reach accuracy levels above 85% when fed demographic, engagement, and grades data

(Batool et al., 2023). AI checks built into blended courses also produce live snapshots of

participation, powering early-alert systems for learners who may fall behind (Hamadneh et al.,

2022). Tools such as Student-Performatulator merge broad sets of traits to streamline models and

boost classification quality (Hussain & Khan, 2023). Convolutional networks applied to Moodle

logs raise dropout forecasts, allowing staff to deliver help exactly where it is needed (Abuzinadah

et al., 2023). Strong governance that tackles privacy, bias, and other ethics issues is vital to keep

support fair for all students (Batool et al., 2023). When analytics mesh with sound teaching, they

expand a institutions ability to offer tailored pathways and deploy resources wisely (Hamadneh et

al., 2022). Together, these tools form a unified performance system that uses human judgment and

evidence-based insights to steer academic success (Hussain & Khan, 2023).

Strong institutional infrastructure-both physical spaces and online tools-lies at the heart of

good performance in college-level study (Al Husaini & Shukor, 2022, p. 123). Classrooms that are

well furnished, along with library services that anyone can reach, keep learners engaged and
 21

prompt deeper understanding (Al Husaini & Shukor, 2022, p. 124). When COVID-19 swept

through, the gaps in internet access became plain, and research showed that students without

reliable connections lost roughly 0.19 standard deviations in grades (Clark et al., 2021). Basic

digital competence also mediates the link between time spent online and academic results, which

means that targeted training must accompany blended courses if they are to achieve their promise

(Ben Youssef et al., 2022). In addition, AIdriven feedback embedded in learning platforms offers

instant, personalized tips and thus narrows achievement gaps among varied student groups

(Hamadneh et al., 2022). Faculty who use active-learning techniques and give timely low-stakes

comments see noticeable gains in students critical thinking and retention (Brew et al., 2021).

Campuses that provide peer mentoring, inclusive policies, and solid mental-health care help at-

risk populations build resilience and stay on track (Brew et al., 2021). Together, coordinated

spending on bricks-and-mortar assets, teaching innovation, and psychosocial support forms a

broad strategy for lifting both student success and overall institutional stature (Al Husaini &

Shukor, 2022).

Socioemotional Competence and Social Anxiety

Socio-emotional skills enable people to notice, make sense of, steer, and deploy their

feelings so they act adaptively and build healthy ties on campus (Souza, Faiad, & Rueda, 2021).

According to CASEL, the main parts are self-awareness, self-management, social awareness,

relationship skills, and responsible decision-making (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and

Emotional Learning, 2020). Whereas emotional intelligence speaks broadly, socio-emotional

competence zeroes in on how those abilities play out in schools, easing stress, settling disputes,

and boosting teamwork (Rodríguez, 2023). In higher education, these habits become vital soft

skills that fuel student engagement, resilience, and general well-being during evaluative social
 22

exchanges (Simion, 2023). Strong programs blend theory, hands-on tasks, reflection, and timely

feedback so learners gradually build each facet (Palacios Garay et al., 2022). Tools like the Socio-

Emotional Skills Scale for University Students then give researchers and staff evidence-based

ways to measure strengths, spot gaps, and fine-tune support (Souza et al., 2021).

Fear of being judged sits at the heart of social anxiety in university students, and that fear

often pushes them to skip questions in class, dodge presentations, and sideline themselves in group

work (Archbell & Coplan, 2022). Research suggests that roughly 22% to 40% of undergraduates

show these tendencies, a rate far above what national surveys report, and the condition typically

shows up as racing hearts, negative thought spirals, and general withdrawal (Archbell & Coplan,

2022). Higher anxiety in social settings also links to fewer conversations with professors and

classmates, shallower classroom engagement, and a noticeable drop in how much students enjoy

the course (Archbell & Coplan, 2022). On top of that, anxiety often strolls hand in hand with

feelings of depression and loneliness, and together they form a hard-to-break loop of avoidance

that drags down both grades and overall well-being (Mella, Pansu, Batruch, & Bressan, 2021). In

response, training students in emotion-handling and people skills looks like a hopeful way to

interrupt that loop, giving them the tools they need to face evaluative situations with greater ease

and confidence (Bispo Silva & Vasconcelos, 2024).

Well-organized socio-emotional training cuts social anxiety and raises academic

involvement among college students (Palacios Garay et al., 2022). In a quasi-experimental study,

Palacios Garay and Malca ran a ten-week course on emotion control, assertiveness, and empathy,

which noticeably lowered anxiety and improved attendance and participation (Palacios Garay et

al., 2022). Bispo Silva and Vasconcelos found that nursing students scoring high in emotional self-

management and grit reported less social anxiety, suggesting these traits shield against it (Bispo
 23

Silva & Vasconcelos, 2024). Successful programs blend role play, mindfulness, group talk, and

peer feedback, while follow-up sessions help keep skills fresh (Palacios Garay et al., 2022 ).

Adding such courses to college curricula builds lasting resilience and supports students in reaching

their academic goals.

Accurate evaluation of students socio-emotional skills is vital for measuring how well

programs work and for customizing the help each learner receives (Souza et al., 2021). In one

study, Souza, Faiad, and Rueda designed a 42-item questionnaire that divides the domain into six

clear factors-self-management of emotions, social awareness, responsible decision-making,

perseverance, emotional self-awareness, and relationship skills-each showing strong internal

consistency (α .70) in Brazilian college samples (Souza et al., 2021). Rodríguez later used similar

tools with Spanish students and found that empathy, social skills, and mindfulness subscales

retained their structure and meaning across cultures (Rodríguez, 2023). Pairing self-report surveys

with quick behavioral tasks limits the tendency to look good on paper, and delivering everything

through a digital platform lets learners see feedback right away and receive an intervention plan

that fits their strengths and challenges (Simion, 2023). Collectively, these measurement designs

help ensure that socio-emotional programs match what individuals actually need and respect the

values of the communities they serve.

Universities ought to weave short socio-emotional learning modules into orientation,

required courses, and campus activities, so students gradually build skills and feel less social dread

(Simion, 2023). Faculty training sessions can show instructors how to model healthy emotional

habits and create classrooms that genuinely welcome students (Collaborative for Academic,

Social, and Emotional Learning, 2020). Peer mentors and small, guided workshops provide low-

pressure spaces where learners can try out talking and relating to others (Palacios Garay et al.,
 24

2022). Future studies need long-term designs that track whether gains last, test whether self-belief

and support pathways matter, and compare effects of face-to-face and online formats for different

student groups (Simion, 2023). Understanding how socio-emotional skills influence anxiety in

digital chats and video classes is an urgent new frontier, given the rise of online learning (Simion,

2023). By pairing trusted assessment tools, proven activities, and ongoing feedback, colleges can

build broad, cohesive plans that strengthen emotional savvy and ease students social fears.

Socioemotional Competence and Academic Performance

Socio-emotional competence describes the intertwining personal and social abilities that

help people notice feelings, control them, build good connections, and make choices they can stand

behind (Portela-Pino, Alvariñas-Villaverde, & Pino-Juste, 2021). Schools often frame these

abilities within Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), which spells out five areas: self-awareness,

self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making (Mella,

Pansu, Batruch, & Bressan, 2021). Studies show that learners who master these skills adjust better

to school demands, bounce back faster from stress, and keep a more positive view of their work

(Gruijters, Raabe, & Hübner, 2024). Increasingly, educators see these traits as key drivers of

engagement and achievement, adding depth to long-valued measures such as IQ and past grades

(Bhat & Chahal, 2023). When classrooms teach emotion regulation and people skills through SEL,

students report feeling more linked to peers and teachers, which cuts anxiety and boosts motivation

(Carmen, Olga, & Beatriz, 2022). A solid grasp of the theory behind socio-emotional competence

thus lays the groundwork for investigating how these skills impact learning, both directly and in

quieter, indirect ways (Portela-Pino et al., 2021; Mella et al., 2021).

A growing body of research confirms that certain socio-emotional abilities reliably predict

how well students perform in school. Portela-Pino and their team (2021) showed that secondary
 25

learners who made thoughtful decisions and managed relationships well tended to earn higher

GPAs, with decision-making standing out as the strongest link. Chiappetta-Santana, Jesuino, and

their colleagues (2022) reached a similar conclusion, finding that motivation paired with good

socio-emotional skills helped elementary students achieve better grades, largely because self-

regulation acted as an important middle step. Gruijters and co-authors (2024) even reported that

these socio-emotional traits forecast academic success nearly as strongly as classic indicators of

intelligence, raising hopes that targeted training could narrow existing achievement gaps.

Supporting this idea, Carmen, Olga, and Beatriz (2022) demonstrated that teachers self-belief

partly explains why their socio-emotional competence transfers into better classroom impacts, in

turn benefiting student learning. Taken together, these studies from varied age groups and cultural

settings suggest that socio-emotional predictors are broadly relevant across education (Portela-

Pino et al., 2021; Chiappetta-Santana et al., 2022; Gruijters et al., 2024).

Intentionally designed programs that build socio-emotional skills have been shown to

lower social anxiety and increase involvement in school work. Tobón and Lozano-Salmorán

(2024) applied a socio-formative approach in which teachers were trained in eight specific

practices; student gains were statistically significant one year later. Gebre, Demissie, and Yimer

(2025) reviewed over fifty studies on teacher SEL workshops and found moderate benefits for

student performance when lessons focused on naming and managing feelings. Simion (2023) noted

that campus-wide SEL courses reduced stress and raised self-efficacy in college students, who

then earned higher grades. Likewise, Palacios Garay and Malca (2022) tracked undergraduates in

a ten-week group and noted sharp drops in social anxiety along with greater classroom

involvement. Taken together, these reports indicate that weaving SEL into everyday teaching
 26

creates an environment that supports both emotional health and academic achievement (Tobón &

Lozano-Salmorán, 2024; Gebre et al., 2025; Palacios Garay & Malca, 2022).

Accurate assessment of students' socio-emotional skills remains crucial for gauging

program success and personalizing support. To this end, Souza, Faiad, and Rueda (2021) crafted

a forty-two-item questionnaire for college learners, covering emotional self-awareness, self-

management, social awareness, relationship skills, decision-making, and perseverance; each scale

showed reliability above .70. Rodríguez (2023) later confirmed similar tools for empathy, social

skills, and mindfulness among Spanish undergraduates, reinforcing their factorial validity across

cultures. Meanwhile, Bhat and Chahal (2023) adapted existing surveys for adolescents, stressing

the importance of measures grounded in local lived experience. Advances in learning analytics

now permit real-time monitoring of classroom behaviors tied to SEL goals, offering timely alerts

for students at risk (Rodríguez, 2023; Souza et al., 2021). Nonetheless, researchers warn that self-

report data may reflect social approval rather than truth, and they urge complementing surveys

with task-based evidence and peer ratings (Souza et al., 2021; Bhat & Chahal, 2023). When

grounded in such pluralistic evidence, measurement systems enable schools to embed SEL

strategically, increasing the chances that students flourish both personally and academically

(Souza et al., 2021).

Whether social and emotional skills actually boost grades depends on the wider context

and the self-management, while girls surpassed boys in relationship management; differing

emphasis on students background. Portela-Pino and colleagues (2021) found that boys

outperformed girls in each skill could therefore sharpen results. Bhat and Chahal (2023) reported

that rural teenagers showed less social awareness than their urban counterparts yet achieved similar

grades, pointing to other local supports at work. Martinez, Fuentes, and Jurado (2023) traced
 27

common threads-emotional intelligence, resilience, and bullying-to engagement and performance

in Latin American youth. Carmen and co-authors (2022) added that teachers faith in themselves

and concrete school backing strengthen any social-emotional learning program. Taken together,

these studies argue for culturally attuned, context-aware initiatives that narrow demographic gaps

and build on local strengths (Portela-Pino et al., 2021; Bhat & Chahal, 2023; Martinez et al., 2023;

Carmen et al., 2022).

Socioemotional Competence, Social Anxiety, and Academic Performance

Socio-emotional skills refer to the ability to notice, understand, manage, and share

emotions in healthy ways so that people can handle daily social interactions and school demands .

They include five areas: self-awareness, meaning knowing how you feel; self-management, or

calming those feelings and acting wisely; social awareness, the practice of seeing things from

another persons eyes; relationship skills, like clear talk and peaceful problem solving; and

responsible decision-making, which weighs both ethics and the common good before choosing .

During the teenage years, becoming fluent in these areas smooths school life by cutting anxiety,

building helpful friendships, and boosting the desire to learn . School adjustment itself describes

how well a student settles into class and campus, covering things like fitting in with rules, feeling

competent, managing nervousness, and keeping attention and homework on track . Studies show

that solid socio-emotional skills strengthen each piece of adjustment, forming a cycle that lifts

academic results . For instance, teens who handle emotions well report less school-related worry

and more active participation, a change that usually shows up as higher grades and fewer missed

days .

Cross-sectional studies consistently show that adolescents social-emotional skills, school

adjustment, and academic performance are positively linked . In research involving 3,400 French
 28

vocational high-school learners, greater empathy, sharper emotion understanding, and better

emotion regulation forecasted stronger results in core subjects like math and language arts . These

gains operated through school adjustment; students with stronger emotional abilities felt more

aligned with school rules and better integrated with peers, which in turn boosted their self-rated

competence and actual grades . By contrast, high levels of school-related anxiety eroded those

gains, pushing anxious pupils to withdraw from class discussions and complete less homework.

Together, the findings highlight how self-regulatory practices-attention control, goal-setting, and

sustained effort-serve as the bridge between emotional know-how and tangible academic progress.

Because the pattern appeared across varied educational settings, the results suggest that

deliberately cultivating these social-emotional and adjustment capacities could lift students

achievements almost anywhere.

Research on intentional socio-emotional training shows that college students report less

social anxiety and greater classroom involvement, suggesting similar benefits might reach younger

teens. A ten-week, quasi-experimental project with 600 undergraduates used role-playing and

reflection to teach emotion regulation, assertiveness, and empathy, producing clear drops in

anxiety and more active participation. Parallel work with nursing cohorts found students who

excelled in self-management and grit tended to feel less anxious socially and perform better

academically, hinting at these traits protective power. Follow-up sessions and peer-support groups

proved crucial for keeping gains, implying that such abilities need regular, real-life practice to

stick. Introducing comparable programs in high schools could lower adolescent school-related

anxiety, raising attendance, engagement, and performance. Together, these findings encourage

schools to weave structured socio-emotional curricula into everyday lessons, nurturing both mental

health and academic achievement.

 29

Careful measurement of students social-emotional strengths and adjustment to school life

is essential when researchers want to test the success of a program or fine-tune support in cross-

sectional work. In this area, Souza, Faiad, and Rueda created a 42-question Socio-Emotional Skills

Scale for university students that taps six traits-emotion self-management, social awareness,

relationship skills, responsible decision-making, emotional self-awareness, and perseverance-with

reliability above .70 and clear factor structure. Rodríguez, meanwhile, used multi-part instruments

on empathy, social skills, and mindfulness with Spanish undergraduates, affirming cross-cultural

fit and strong subscales. Pairing self-reports with direct tasks and teacher ratings lessens social-

desirability effects and deepens validity. Digital tools and learning analytics add another layer by

tracking behaviors and adjustment in real time, offering early alerts for students who may be

struggling. Altogether, these wide-ranging approaches let cross-sectional studies show how socio-

emotional skills, school adjustment, and academic results interact, thus informing evidence-based

policy in education.

Even though plenty of school-based surveys link social-emotional skills to better grades

through smoother adjustment, important blind spots still exist. Most studies are correlational, so

we cannot say one variable causes another; longitudinal work or experimental mediation is needed

to show whether adjustment factors-institutional fit, perceived competence, and self-regulation-

truly carry the effect over time. Cultural and local contexts receive little attention, suggesting that

new measures and interventions must be cross-validated in diverse settings. In addition, the rise of

online and hybrid classes since the pandemic makes it urgent to study how digital social-emotional

skills shape adjustment in those spaces. Lastly, evidence is stronger when we collect ratings from

students, teachers, and peers along with direct behavioral data, so multi-informant, multi-method
 30

designs should be standard. Filling these gaps will clarify how social-emotional strengths and

school adjustment together build academic resilience during the teenage years.
 31

Chapter 03

Methodology

Overview

This chapter outlines the methodology employed in this research, detailing the research

design, population, sample, and sample size. Additionally, it was define the variables, describe the

measurement scales, and explain the procedures followed. It will also cover the statistical methods

used, along with ethical considerations. In essence, this chapter serves as a comprehensive guide

for the entire research process.

Research Design

The analysis used a correlational research design. Correlational research design examines

the relationship between two or more variables without manipulation, identifying the strength

and direction of their association to predict outcomes (Creswell, 2014).

Sampling Technique

This research uses convenience sampling techniques. Convenience sampling technique

involve selecting subjects who are readily available and easily accessible, often leading to a

sample that may not accurately represent the entire population (Chen & McCormick, 2020).

Population and Sample and Sample Size

The sample population for this research study consisted of students. In statistical terms,

"population" refers to a specific geographic area and administrative units that share a relevant unit

of analysis for the study. The participants were students from higher education institutions. Each

college student represents a segment of the larger population, allowing for conclusions and

recommendations that can be applied to others within this demographic. The sample consisted of

200 college students, determined according to the guidelines set by G Power statistical software,
 32

which indicated that 200 participants would be necessary to detect a medium effect size (Cohen's

d = 0.5) with 95% power. The significance of sample size is evident, as it directly impacts the

accuracy, reliability, and validity of the results obtained (Kazerooni, 2001).

Operational Definitions of Variables

Socioemotional Competence

Socioemotional competence is the integration of knowledge and actions about oneself and

others, sustained by awareness, expression, regulation, and handling of emotions to enhance well-

being (Gondim et al., 2014)

Social Anxiety

Social anxiety is characterized by intense fear or anxiety in social situations where

individuals may be exposed to possible scrutiny by others, often resulting in avoidance and distress

(Stein & Stein, 2008).

Academic performance

Academic performance is commonly defined as the extent to which a student achieves

educational goals, typically measured through grades, test scores, or completion of academic

assignments (Liu et al., 2024)

Instruments / Psychometric properties

Social Emotional Competencies Questionnaire (SEC-Q)

The Social Emotional Competencies Questionnaire (SEC-Q), created by Zych, Ortega-Ruiz,

Muñoz-Morales, and Llorent in 2018, measures key socio-emotional abilities in adolescents and

young adults. The goal was to develop a single tool that taps self-awareness, self-management and

motivation, social awareness and prosocial action, and decision making. The finished SEC-Q

includes 16 statements answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly

 33

agree) and does not use any reverse-scored items. Items cluster into four subscales that line up

with the four skills. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses involving 643 university

students and 2,139 adolescents confirmed the four-factor model, explaining 62.8% of variance in

young adults and 50.8% in adolescents. Internal consistency is solid, with overall omega (ω) .87

and Cronbachs α .87 for young adults, and ω .80 and α .80 for adolescents. Subscale alphas range

from .73 to .83, and concurrent validity is shown by negative links with alexithymia (r = .28 to

.38) and positive links with perceived emotional intelligence (r = .44 to .78).

Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS)

The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS), created by Mattick and Clarke in 1998,

measures anxiety that crops up when people talk one-on-one or in small groups. The goal is to

separate worries about interacting with others from fears tied to performing in front of an audience,

which the sister measure-the Social Phobia Scale-addresses. The questionnaire includes twenty

statements rated on a five-point Likert scale that ranges from 0 (not at all true of me) to 4

(extremely true of me). Researchers usually add up seventeen of the straightforward items, calling

this total the SIAS-S, and set aside three reverse-scored questions that hint at extraversion.

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses back a single-factor model for the clear-cut items,

yet the overall fit climbs when the extraversion factor is also included. Internal consistency is

excellent, with Cronbach s alpha falling between .88 and .93 for the full scale and around .93 for

the SIAS-S. Test-retest reliability over periods of four to twelve weeks remains strong, producing

correlations above .91. Convergent validity appears in robust links to fear of negative evaluation

and similar measures, and clinical trials show SIAS scores respond noticeably to cognitive-

behavioral therapy and medication.

 34

Perceived Academic Performance Scale

The Perceived Academic Performance Scale, revised by Verner-Filion and Vallerand in

2016, captures how students think their work measures up. It includes five statements, such as I

meet the official performance requirements expected of a student, each graded on a five-point

Likert scale that ranges from 1 do not agree at all to 5 very strongly agree; higher totals reflect a

brighter self-view. The instrument has no subscales and does not use reverse-scored items.

Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a single-factor model and separated the measure from

related ideas such as perfectionism and passion. Across studies, internal consistency was

outstanding, with Cronbachs alpha averaging .83 and later samples yielding scores between .83

and .87. Construct validity appeared when the scale showed the anticipated relations with passion,

affect, and academic adjustment in both adolescent and adult groups.

Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

1. Before conducting the study, the requirements and steps of the study was be appropriately

determined and planned. It will be determined that the study’s participants must be between

the ages of 14 to 20 to participate in this study

2. The study were include participants who were enrolled colleges in Faisalabad city.

3. Participants provide informed consent to take part in this study.

4. The research focuses on specific geographical locations to maintain consistency and

relevance.

5. This study includes college students, but it not include the elderly or children

Exclusion Criteria

1. Participants outside the defined age range were excluded from the research.
 35

2. Participants who did not understand or communicate effectively in the language of the

questionnaire were excluded

3. Participants from locations outside the defined geographical scope of the study excluded

from this study

Ethical Consideration

Safety measures were put into place before the concept and the execution of the research

was carried out. The psychology department’s research board first provided the preliminary

approval on the topic which was followed by the Board of Study (BOS). The design of the study

kept in consideration the dignity and respect of the participants. The researcher took care of the

rights of the people involved in the research. Participants received complete information regarding

the research objectives and procedures concerning confidentiality. Participants were informed that

they could withdraw from the study at any time. Also, participants were informed beforehand that

they would not receive any incentives for participation. Consent forms were signed and all the

information required was given by the participants. The copyrights of the different approaches in

psychology applied in the presentation were cited and acknowledged. The data pertaining to the

Research Study was encrypted and stored safely on the University's servers. The data was

password protected and could only be accessed by authorized personnel. Confidentiality of the

participants was protected by means of unique identifiers, ensuring anonymity. To help the

participants who might experience feel distressed, a referral scheme to the University Counseling

Services was developed. Informed consent was acquired stressing participant's right to withdraw

at any point in time whenever they wanted to. After participating in the study, a debriefing

statement with the available resources for mental health was provided.
 36

Procedure

When the Synopsis was approved by the Psychology Department of Riphah International

University, we proceeded to contact different colleges in Faisalabad for assistance with data

collection. We briefed the concerned persons on the aims and objectives of the study, and they

agreed to allow us to gather data from their students. An appointment was set up for the first

interaction with the college management. They were required to provide us with some consent

forms, and based on that, they were then instructed to fill out a demographic information sheet.

After that, they were given three questionnaires to fill out. If participants had questions or found

statements or questions difficult, the investigator was readily available, and it was encouraged for

them to ask questions. The investigator provided materials to participants in an attempt to clear

their confusion. When the data collection exercise was completed, we were happy to thank the

participants as well as the college management for their support and willingness to assist us.

Statistical analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was SPSS-23 is the software applied for

analysis. As primary computations, the descriptive statistics relevant to the research participants’

demographics were calculated. Descriptive statistics were also employed to determine the

measurement of the variables. A reliability analysis was performed to calculate the reliability of

the scales. The relationships between various factors were calculated using Pearson correlation

analysis. To find the differences among the variables, independent sample t-tests were conducted.

Regression analysis was used to assess the relation of several independent variables with a

dependent variable. The effect of sleep quality as a mediating variable was evaluated using

mediation analysis. Additional analyses were performed to assess the influence of hypothesized

moderator variables with other variables

 37

Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (N = 200)
Variable Category Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Gender Male 100 50.0

Female 100 50.0
Socioeconomic Status Lower 15 7.5
Middle 166 83.0
Upper 19 9.5
Marital Status Single 199 99.5
Married 1 0.5
Family Structure Joint 102 51.0
Nuclear 98 49.0

The sample population had an equal gender ratio with 100 males and 100 females. Most

participants belonged to the middle socioeconomic class (83%), while lower and upper classes

were less represented (7.5% and 9.5% respectively). Nearly all participants were single (99.5%),

which illustrates the marital status of university students. Family structure was almost evenly split

between nuclear families (49%) and joint families (51%), showing a slight majority living in joint

families. This distribution suggests the sample was young, unmarried adults from primarily

middle-class demographics living in Faisalabad which allows for thorough consideration of

psychological and social factors within this population.

 38

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Variables

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

SEC 200 49.00 106.00 81.0508 12.26899
SIAS 200 20.00 90.00 59.3604 13.66125
PAPS 200 5.00 25.00 17.0850 4.07687
Valid N (listwise) 200

The descriptive statistics from Table 2 outline the main study variables of interest for 200

participants. The balance of SEC scores was 49 to 106 with a mean of 81.05 (SD = 12.27),

suggesting a moderate to high level within the sample. SIAS scores presented from 20 to 90 with

a mean of 59.36 (SD = 13.66) which shows considerable variation in this construct. PAPS scores

ranged from 5 to 25, averaging at 17.09 (SD = 4.08), indicating a moderate scoring tendency

among participants. The large span of the range and standard deviations for every variable

illustrates that there is a great deal of response diversity, which further enhances the sample's

representativeness. These findings serve as a robust baseline to perform further inferential analysis

such as determining correlations or regressions among the psychological variables of interest.

 39

Table 3.

Psychometric Properties for Scales

Scale Items Cronbach’s α

SEC 25 .77
PAPS 5 .79
SIAS 20 .89
Note. SEC = Socio-Emotional Competence, PAPS = Perceived Academic Performance Scale,
SIAS Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
As shown in Table 3, the measurement instruments utilized in the study possess strong

psychometric properties. The Socio-Emotional Competence (SEC) scale obtained a Cronbach’s

alpha of .77 for a 25 item scale, indicating good internal consistency. The Perceived Academic

Performance Scale (PAPS), with 5 items, also demonstrated solid reliability (α = .79). The Social

Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) of 20 items showed excellent reliability (α = .89), well above the

widely accepted benchmark of .70 for psychological instruments. These results indicate that all

three scales capture the intended constructs with sufficient reliability within this sample, increasing

confidence in the consistency of the data. The high reliability of these findings strengthens the

validity of any socio-emotional competence, academic performance, and social anxiety analyses

conducted afterward.
 40

H1: There will be a significant correlation between socioemotional competence, social anxiety,
and academic performance among college students.
Table 4
Correlations for Study Variables
Variables 1 2 3

1. SEC — -.07 .37**

2. SIAS — .07
3. PAPS —

**p < .01 (2-tailed).

Note. SEC = Socio-Emotional Competence, PAPS = Perceived Academic Performance Scale,
SIAS Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
Correlations among the key study variables, Socio-Emotional Competence (SEC), Social

Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS), and Perceived Academic Performance Scale (PAPS) are

presented in Table 4. There is a positive correlation SEC and PAPS, with a correlation coefficient

of .37 and p value <0.01. This indicates that greater socio-emotional competence correlates with

higher perceived academic performance. This means that students with better emotion and social

interaction management skills tend to rate their academic performance more positively as

compared to students with lower socio-emotional competence. On the other hand, SEC and SIAS

show a weak negative correlation (r = -.07), while SIAS and PAPS demonstrate a weak positive

correlation (r = .07); neither of these is significant. These results highlight the distinct influence of

socio-emotional competence on the perception of one's academic performance. In the context of

this study, social interaction anxiety seems to have a limited direct relationship with either socio-

emotional competence or perceived academic performance.

 41

H2: Socioemotional Competence will predict academic performance among college students
Table 5.
Regression Analysis Summary for SEC Predicting PAPS
Variable B R²adjusted β t p

(Constant) 7.04 — 3.88 < .001

SEC 0.12 .13 .37 5.57 < .001
SEC = Socio-Emotional Competence, PAPS = Perceived Academic Performance Scale, SIAS
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
As revealed by the regression analysis, Socio-Emotional Competence (SEC) is a significant

predictor of Perceived Academic Performance (PAPS) (β = 0.37, p < .001) whereby a unit rise in

SEC corresponds to a 0.12 rise in PAPS. The model accounts for 13% of the variance in PAPS

(R²adjusted = .13), indicating that while SEC meaningfully contributes to the self-perception of

academic performance, it is not the sole factor. The SEC constant (B = 7.04, p < .001) provides

the PAPS score as 7.04 when SEC is zero. The 95% confidence intervals for these parameters also

reinforce strong estimates as both SEC (0.08 – 0.17) and the constant (3.48 – 10.60) do not include

zero. Although the effect size is considered moderate, the R² indicates that other variables,

including but not limited to, cognitive competencies, study habits, or available supportive

institutional frameworks, significantly shape the perception of academic performance.

 42

H3: There will be a significant difference in socioemotional competence, social anxiety, and

academic performance in terms of gender among college students.

Table 6.

Differences between Genders on Psychological Measures (SEC, SIAS, PAPS): Results of

Independent Samples t-Tests

Variables Male (n=100) Female (n=100) T p 95% CI Cohen’s

M SD M SD LL UL d

SEC 82.87 10.95 79.29 13.24 -2.06 .041 -7.00 -0.16 -0.29

SIAS 54.55 13.92 64.22 11.56 5.31 < .001 6.08 13.28 0.76

PAPS 18.31 3.93 15.86 3.87 -4.45 < .001 -3.54 -1.36 -0.63

Note. SEC = Socio-Emotional Competence, PAPS = Perceived Academic Performance Scale,

SIAS Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
The independent samples t-tests found significant psychological gender differences on all

three measures. Males scored higher on both Socio-Emotional Competence (SEC) (M = 82.87 vs.

79.29, d = -0.29, p = .041) and Perceived Academic Performance (PAPS) (M = 18.31 vs. 15.86, d

= -0.63, p < .001). Conversely, females exhibited significantly greater scores on Social Interaction

Anxiety (SIAS) (M = 64.22 vs. 54.55, d = 0.76, p < .001). The medium effect size for PAPS

indicates that at least some portions of the male sample’s self-perception of academic achievement

are significantly and meaningfully inflated, perhaps due to confidence or societal expectations.

The large effect for SIAS supports earlier findings of greater social anxiety among females, likely

due to social expectations and biases. The small but significant SEC difference (d = -0.29) suggests

the existence of gender-based differences, albeit subtle, in the ability to emotionally regulate and

relate to others.
 43

Discussion

The present study examined how socioemotional competence, social interaction anxiety,

and perceived academic performance interrelate among 200 college students (MacCann, Fogarty,

Zeidner, & Roberts, 2019). It tested three hypotheses: that socioemotional competence, social

anxiety, and academic self-perceptions would significantly correlate; that socioemotional

competence would predict academic self-evaluations; and that gender differences would emerge

across these measures (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Participants’

demographics and scale reliabilities—SEC (α = .77), SIAS (α = .89), and PAPS (α = .79)—

provided a solid foundation for analysis (Shujja, Malik, & Khan, 2015). By integrating

correlational, regression, and t-test analyses, this investigation extends emotional intelligence and

educational psychology literature by clarifying how emotional skills and anxiety impact college

students’ academic self-concept in higher education settings (Corcoran, Cheung, Kim, & Xie,

2018).

Socioemotional competence and perceived academic performance were significantly and

positively correlated (r = .37, p < .01), indicating that students with stronger emotional skills tend

to rate their academic success more highly (MacCann et al., 2019). Prior meta-analyses report

moderate associations between emotional intelligence and GPA (ρ = .20 to .28), attributing this

link to improved emotion regulation techniques and peer support networks that enhance study

engagement (Quílez-Robres, Usán, Lozano-Blasco, & Salavera, 2023). Conversely,

socioemotional competence and social interaction anxiety yielded a weak negative correlation (r

= –.07, ns), suggesting that emotional strengths can coexist with anxiety through compensatory

coping strategies (Corcoran et al., 2018). The weak positive association between social anxiety

and academic self-perception (r = .07, ns) aligns with findings that anxious students often
 44

compensate by increasing individual study time or choosing low-stakes tasks to maintain

confidence (Ejaz, Riaz, & Naeem, 2020).

Linear regression demonstrated that socioemotional competence significantly predicted

perceived academic performance (β = .37, p < .001), accounting for 13% of variance in self-ratings

(Shujja et al., 2015). Similar studies in secondary and tertiary contexts report that emotional

intelligence explains an additional 1.7%–3.9% of academic variance beyond cognitive ability and

personality traits (MacCann et al., 2019). Cross-cultural research with Urdu-speaking adolescents

found that socioemotional factors such as self-efficacy account for up to 15% of variance in GPA

scores, highlighting the universal relevance of emotion regulation and decision-making skills in

academic contexts (Shujja et al., 2015). Effective emotion regulation fosters resilience by enabling

students to cope adaptively with stressors, while sound decision-making promotes goal setting and

persistence, further supporting academic success (Aurah, 2013). These non-cognitive assets

provide key leverage points for educational interventions aiming to bolster student achievement.

Independent-samples t-tests revealed that males scored higher on socioemotional

competence (M = 82.87 vs. 79.29, p = .041) and perceived academic performance (M = 18.31 vs.

15.86, p < .001), whereas females reported greater social interaction anxiety (M = 64.22 vs. 54.55,

p < .001) (Zentner, Lee, Dueck, & Masuda, 2022). These gender patterns reflect socialization

influences wherein males are encouraged toward assertive emotional strategies and confidence-

building, while females often face heightened evaluative concerns that amplify anxiety in social

contexts (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012). Meta-analytic reviews confirm that females consistently

report higher levels of test and social anxiety, which can undermine academic self-concept even

when objective performance is comparable (Barnes & Liu, 2021). Understanding these

discrepancies is critical for designing gender-responsive interventions, such as targeted anxiety-

 45

reduction modules and tailored socioemotional learning programs that address the unique

emotional needs of female students (Patel & Elmusharaf, 2019).

The robust link between socioemotional competence and academic self-perception echoes

longitudinal trials demonstrating that social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions yield

academic gains (d = 0.35) by enhancing self-management and social-awareness skills (Durlak et

al., 2011). Research on self-efficacy further affirms its dual role as an academic and psychosocial

resource, with correlations of r = .36 for achievement and r = –.46 for anxiety reduction (Aurah,

2013). In contrast, longitudinal analyses of social anxiety indicate non-significant direct effects on

GPA, supporting the current weak SIAS–PAPS link (Strahan, 2003). Emerging evidence from

pandemic-era studies reveals moderate negative impacts of heightened anxiety on concentration

and performance (r ≈ –.21), suggesting that contextual stressors can exacerbate anxiety’s academic

toll (Tang & He, 2023). These convergent findings underscore the need for multifaceted strategies

that simultaneously enhance socioemotional skills and mitigate contextual stressors to optimize

academic outcomes.

The findings underscore socioemotional competence as a pivotal lever for improving

students’ academic self-concept and pinpoint social anxiety as a distinct target for intervention.

Campus-wide SEL workshops, mindfulness modules, and anxiety-management programs have

produced GPA improvements of 0.12–0.18 points and 25%–30% reductions in social anxiety

symptoms in experimental trials (Jones, Brown, & Aber, 2020); (Patel & Elmusharaf, 2019).

However, reliance on cross-sectional, self-report measures limits causal inference and may

introduce social desirability biases (Leary & Kowalski, 1995). Future research should employ

longitudinal and experimental designs, incorporate behavioral assessments (e.g., peer-rated social

skills, objective exam scores), and examine moderators such as cultural background and disability
 46

status (Quílez-Robres et al., 2023). Additionally, developing gender-responsive SEL modules that

integrate anxiety-coping exercises can address female students’ specific needs, promoting

equitable academic success (Barnes & Liu, 2021).

 47

Chapter 3

Summary, Findings, Conclusion, Implications, Limitations,

and Recommendations

Summary

Chapter 1 introduces the study’s focus on socioemotional competence, social anxiety, and

academic performance among college students, outlining the research problem and rationale for

examining their dynamic interplay within higher education contexts. It defines key constructs—

socioemotional competence as emotion regulation and relationship management, social anxiety as

fear of negative evaluation, and academic performance as self-reported grades—and emphasizes

their significance for student well-being and success. The chapter reviews demographic and

contextual factors influencing these variables and highlights gaps in existing literature regarding

their joint effects and potential buffering roles. Finally, it presents the study’s objectives, research

questions, and hypotheses guiding the inquir .

Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive literature review on socioemotional competence,

social anxiety, and academic achievement, grounding the study in theoretical and empirical

frameworks. It synthesizes findings on the five CASEL domains—self-awareness, self-

management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making—and their

associations with resilience and school adjustment. The review also examines prevalence,

dimensions, and outcomes of social anxiety in university settings, including its cognitive,

behavioral, and physiological components. Additionally, it evaluates measurement instruments for

each construct, critiques their psychometric properties, and identifies methodological limitations

in past research. The chapter concludes by articulating the conceptual framework linking

socioemotional skills, anxiety, and performance.

 48

Chapter 3 details the study’s methodological design, employing a correlational approach

to explore relationships among variables in a sample of 200 college students. It describes a

convenience sampling procedure, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and ethical considerations,

including informed consent and confidentiality safeguards. Operational definitions of

socioemotional competence, social anxiety, and academic performance are specified, and validated

instruments—the SEC-Q, SIAS, and PAPS—are introduced along with their psychometric

properties. Data collection procedures, from demographic surveys to questionnaire administration,

are outlined, and the use of SPSS for descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, Pearson correlations,

t-tests, and regression analysis is justified.

Chapter 4 presents the study’s results, beginning with sample demographics showing equal

gender distribution, predominantly middle socioeconomic status, and balanced family structures

among 200 participants. Descriptive statistics reveal moderate to high socioemotional competence

(M = 81.05, SD = 12.27), varied social anxiety (M = 59.36, SD = 13.66), and moderate perceived

academic performance (M = 17.09, SD = 4.08). Reliability analyses confirm acceptable internal

consistency for SEC (α = .77), SIAS (α = .89), and PAPS (α = .79). Correlation results show a

significant positive SEC–PAPS association (r = .37, p < .01) but weak non-significant links for

other pairs. Regression analysis identifies SEC as a significant predictor of PAPS (β = .37, p <

.001), accounting for 13% of variance, and t-tests reveal gender differences favoring males in SEC

and PAPS and higher SIAS scores among females.

Findings

The study’s sample comprised 200 college students evenly split by gender (100 males, 100

females), predominantly single (99.5%), and largely from middle socioeconomic backgrounds

(83%), with nearly equal representation of joint (51%) and nuclear (49%) family. Descriptive
 49

statistics revealed moderate to high levels of socioemotional competence (SEC; M = 81.05, SD =

12.27), considerable variation in social interaction anxiety (SIAS; M = 59.36, SD = 13.66), and

moderate perceived academic performance (PAPS; M = 17.09, SD = 4.08). All instruments

demonstrated acceptable internal consistency: Cronbach’s α was .77 for the SEC scale, .89 for the

SIAS, and .79 for the PAPS, indicating reliable measurement of socioemotional skills, anxiety

levels, and academic self‐perceptions among participants.

Correlation analyses supported a significant positive association between socioemotional

competence and perceived academic performance (r = .37, p < .01), indicating that students with

stronger emotional and relational skills reported higher academic self‐ratings. In contrast,

associations between socioemotional competence and social anxiety (r = –.07, ns), as well as

between social anxiety and academic performance (r = .07, ns), were weak and non‐significant,

suggesting distinct dimensions with limited direct influence on one another. Hierarchical

regression further demonstrated that socioemotional competence significantly predicted perceived

academic performance (β = .37, p < .001), accounting for 13% of the variance in academic self‐

evaluations, thereby underscoring the role of noncognitive skills in academic self‐concept.

Independent‐samples t‐tests revealed that male students scored significantly higher on

socioemotional competence (M = 82.87 vs. 79.29, p = .041) and perceived academic performance

(M = 18.31 vs. 15.86, p < .001), whereas female students exhibited significantly greater social

interaction anxiety (M = 64.22 vs. 54.55, p < .001). Effect sizes indicated a small gender gap in

socioemotional competence (d = 0.29) and medium to large differences in perceived academic

performance (d = 0.63) and social anxiety (d = 0.76), highlighting the importance of gender‐

responsive interventions to support female students’ emotional well‐being and academic

confidence.
 50

Conclusion

This study examined the interplay of socioemotional competence, social anxiety, and

perceived academic performance in a sample of 200 college students. Findings revealed that higher

socioemotional competence significantly predicted academic self‐evaluations, explaining 13% of

variance in self‐reported performance. Social interaction anxiety showed weak, non‐significant

associations with both socioemotional competence and academic self‐perception, indicating that

compensatory strategies may buffer its impact. Gender analyses demonstrated that male students

scored higher on socioemotional competence and perceived academic performance, while female

students reported elevated social anxiety levels, highlighting the need for gender‐responsive

support. These results align with meta‐analytic evidence emphasizing the academic benefits of

social and emotional learning programs. The robust link between socioemotional competence and

academic outcomes supports integrating evidence‐based SEL interventions into higher education

curricula to enhance resilience and engagement. Limitations such as the cross‐sectional design and

reliance on self‐report measures suggest caution in inferring causality. Future research should

employ longitudinal and experimental designs, incorporate multi‐method assessments, and explore

mediators such as self‐efficacy and moderators including cultural and socioeconomic factors.

Overall, prioritizing socioemotional skill development represents a promising strategy to foster

student well‐being and optimize academic achievement in university settings, informing

institutional support.

Implications

• Embedding structured social and emotional learning workshops into the college curriculum

enhances students’ emotion regulation and decision-making skills, leading to improved

academic self-perceptions and outcomes.

 51

• Implementing targeted cognitive-behavioral and mindfulness interventions for socially

anxious students reduces avoidance behaviors and fosters greater classroom participation,

thereby supporting academic engagement.

• Developing gender-responsive learning modules that strengthen socioemotional skills and

address female students’ heightened social anxiety promotes equitable academic

confidence across genders.

• Incorporating peer and instructor ratings alongside self-report measures yields a

comprehensive assessment of students’ socioemotional competencies and anxiety,

reducing bias and guiding tailored support.

• Leveraging learning analytics to monitor behavioral indicators of socioemotional strengths

and social anxiety enables early detection of at-risk students and timely intervention before

academic decline occurs.

• Training faculty in emotion-inclusive pedagogy and trauma-informed teaching strategies

creates supportive classroom climates that reinforce students’ socioemotional growth and

mitigate anxiety triggers.

• Expanding accessible counseling services and peer-mentoring programs focused on social

anxiety provides critical psychosocial resources that enhance resilience and academic

persistence.

• Aligning university policies with evidence from social and emotional learning research

ensures noncognitive skill development is prioritized alongside academic benchmarks,

fostering holistic student success.

 52

• Conducting longitudinal and multi-cohort evaluations of social and emotional learning and

anxiety-management initiatives clarifies their long-term impact on GPA, retention, and

well-being, guiding resource allocation and program refinement.

• Adapting socioemotional and anxiety-reduction interventions to reflect diverse cultural

contexts within the student body enhances relevance and effectiveness, supporting

inclusive learning environments.

Limitations

1. The reliance on a cross-sectional research design limits causal inferences, as temporal

precedence among socioemotional competence, social anxiety, and academic performance

cannot be established.

2. The exclusive use of self-report questionnaires introduces social desirability bias,

potentially overestimating socioemotional skills and underestimating anxiety levels.

3. Convenience sampling of students from Faisalabad restricts generalizability, since this

nonprobability method may not represent broader or diverse educational contexts.

4. Conducting the study within a single cultural and geographical setting (Pakistani university

students) limits cross-cultural applicability and overlooks variations in emotional

expression and anxiety prevalence.

5. Only gender and socioeconomic status were considered; other demographic factors such

as age, academic major, and living arrangements were omitted, possibly excluding

important moderators.

6. The absence of observational or performance-based assessments prevents triangulation of

self-reported data with objective indicators like classroom participation or peer evaluations

.
 53

7. No longitudinal follow-up was conducted, so changes in socioemotional competence and

social anxiety over time and their evolving impact on academic trajectories remain

unexamined.

8. Potential confounders—such as baseline mental health conditions, personality traits, or

academic motivation—were not controlled, which may influence observed relationships.

9. Although the thesis recommends SEL and anxiety-management programs, it lacks

experimental or intervention data to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of such

approaches within the sample.

10. Perceived academic performance was measured via self-evaluation rather than objective

metrics (e.g., GPA, exam scores), which may not accurately reflect actual achievement.

Future Recommendations

1. Embedding structured social and emotional learning workshops into the college curriculum

enhances students’ emotion regulation and decision‐making skills, leading to improved

academic self‐perceptions and outcomes.

2. Implementing targeted cognitive‐behavioral and mindfulness interventions for socially

anxious students reduces avoidance behaviors and fosters greater classroom participation,

thereby supporting academic engagement.

3. Developing gender‐responsive learning modules that strengthen socioemotional skills and

address female students’ heightened social anxiety promotes equitable academic

confidence across genders.

4. Incorporating peer and instructor ratings alongside self‐report measures yields a

comprehensive assessment of students’ socioemotional competencies and anxiety,

reducing bias and guiding tailored support.

 54

5. Leveraging learning analytics to monitor behavioral indicators of socioemotional strengths

and social anxiety enables early detection of at‐risk students and timely intervention before

academic decline occurs.

6. Training faculty in emotion‐inclusive pedagogy and trauma‐informed teaching strategies

creates supportive classroom climates that reinforce students’ socioemotional growth and

mitigate anxiety triggers.

7. Expanding accessible counseling services and peer-mentoring programs focused on social

anxiety provides critical psychosocial resources that enhance resilience and academic

persistence.

8. Aligning university policies with evidence from social and emotional learning research

ensures noncognitive skill development is prioritized alongside academic benchmarks,

fostering holistic student success.

9. Conducting longitudinal and multi‐cohort evaluations of social and emotional learning and

anxiety‐management initiatives clarifies their long‐term impact on GPA, retention, and

well‐being, guiding resource allocation and program refinement.

10. Adapting socioemotional and anxiety‐reduction interventions to reflect diverse cultural

contexts within the student body enhances relevance and effectiveness, supporting

inclusive learning environments.

 55

References

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (4th ed.). SAGE 1.

Paulhus, D. L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, &

R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 224–

239). Guilford Press .

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and

purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4 .

Heine, S. J. (2016). Cultural psychology (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton .

Smith, T. W. (2011). Handbook of health survey methods. Wiley .

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2005). Mobbing at work: Escalated conflicts in organizations.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 1–1 .

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and

event occurrence. Oxford University Press .

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson .

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011).

The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of

school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432 .

Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university

students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387 .

Archbell, K. A., & Coplan, R. J. (2022). Too anxious to talk: Social anxiety, academic

communication, and students’ experiences in higher education. Journal of Emotional and

 56

Behavioral Disorders, 30(4), 287–299 .

Foroughi, B., Griffiths, M. D., Iranmanesh, M., & Salamzadeh, Y. (2022). Associations

between Instagram addiction, academic performance, social anxiety, depression, and life

satisfaction among university students. International Journal of Mental Health and

Addiction, 20(4), 2221–2238 .

Hood, S., Barrickman, N., Djerdjian, N., Farr, M., Hagen, S., Johnson, C., … & Robertson-

Honecker, J. (2021). “I like and prefer to work alone”: Social anxiety, academic self-

efficacy, and students’ perceptions of active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education,

20(2), ar23 .

Jia, G., Dai, H., Chu, Y., Wang, X., Hao, Y., & Wang, S. (2022). Psychometric evaluation of

the Chinese version of the Social Anxiety Scale for Social Media Users and cross-sectional

investigation into this disorder among college students. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 116,

Article 152316 .

Peng, Z., & Wan, Y. (2024). Human vs. AI: Exploring students’ preferences between human

and AI TAs and the effect of social anxiety and problem complexity. Education and

Information Technologies, 29(8), 9561–9580 .

She, R., Mo, P. K. H., Li, J., Liu, X., Jiang, H., Chen, Y., … & Lau, J. T. F. (2023). The double-

edged sword effect of social networking use intensity on problematic social networking

use among college students: The role of social skills and social anxiety. Computers in

Human Behavior, 144, Article 107725 .

Tárrega-Piquer, I., Valero-Chillerón, M. J., González-Chordá, V. M., Cervera-Gasch, Á.,

Suárez-Alcázar, M. P., & Mena-Tudela, D. (2023). Nomophobia and its relationship with

social anxiety and procrastination in nursing students: An observational study. Nursing

 57

Reports, 13(1), 522–534 .

Ye, S., Cheng, H., Zhai, Z., & Liu, H. (2021). Relationship between social anxiety and internet

addiction in Chinese college students controlling for the effects of physical exercise,

demographic, and academic variables. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 698748 .

Yilmaz, H. (2024). The relationship between self-confidence and social anxiety in students

with and without music education. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 12(2),

45–52 .

Zhu, Y., Jin, G., Shi, H., Sun, C., Wei, H., Yang, L., … & Luo, Y. (2025). Mediating effect of

social anxiety on the association between self-esteem and internet addiction among

Chinese vocational school students. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, Article 1456789 .

Carmen, R. G., Olga, B. G., & Beatriz, M. (2022). Socio-emotional competence and self-

efficacy of future secondary school teachers. Education Sciences, 12(4), Article 234

Fotopoulou, E., Zafeiropoulos, A., Terrón-López, M. J., García-García, M. J., Tsioutas, K.,

Tsakiris, A., … & Iglesias-Pradas, S. (2023). Educardia: An ICT-enabled methodology

for assessment and improvement of socioemotional competencies of students based on in-

person and online activities. Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala,

15(1), 290–318 .

Gandía-Carbonell, N., Losilla, J. M., & Viguer, P. (2022). Strategies to assess and promote the

socio-emotional competencies of university students in the socio-educational and health

fields: A scoping review protocol. International Journal of Environmental Research and

Public Health, 19(7), Article 4081 .

Huerta Cuervo, R., Téllez, L. S., Luna Acevedo, V. H., & Nava Sevilla, I. (2022). The socio-

emotional competencies of high school and college students in the National Polytechnic
 58

Institute (Mexico). Social Sciences, 11(8), Article 334 .

Koludrović, M., & Mrsić, A. (2022). The attitudes of initial teacher education students towards

teacher socioemotional competence. Economic Research—Ekonomska Istraživanja,

35(1), 2845–2862 .

Portela-Pino, I., Alvariñas-Villaverde, M., & Pino-Juste, M. (2021). Socio-emotional skills as

predictors of performance of students: Differences by gender. Sustainability, 13(8),

Article 4374 .

Rocha, A., Borges, Á., García-Perales, R., & Renzulli, J. S. (2024). Differences in socio-

emotional competencies between high-ability students and typically-developing

students. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1347751 .

Rodríguez, F. M. M., Herrera Torres, L., & Lorenzo Lledó, A. (2023). Socioemotional

competences among university students. In New Insights Into Emotional Intelligence

(pp. 1–18). IntechOpen .

Santamaría-Villar, M. B., Gilar-Corbi, R., Navarro-Soria, I., & Veas, A. (2021). Teaching

socio-emotional competencies among primary school students: Improving conflict

resolution and promoting democratic co-existence in schools. Frontiers in Psychology,

12, Article 659348 .

Souza, R. R., Faiad, C., & Rueda, F. J. M. (2021). Construction and validity evidence of a

Socioemotional Skills Scale for University Students. Avaliação Psicológica, 20(3),

385–394 .

Bhat, T. A., & Chahal, D. (2023). The importance of socio-emotional competence for student

well-being: A review of the literature. International Journal of Social Studies and

Multidisciplinary Review, 1(2), 48 .

 59

Dou, G., & Feng, B. (2025). Social anxiety and smartphone addiction among college students:

The mediating role of depressive symptoms. Current Psychology .

Lim, J. H., & Yang, C. (2025). Mental health profiles of Chinese American adolescents and

their social–emotional and academic correlates: A dual-factor model analysis. Asian

American Journal of Psychology .

Madden, O. N., Johnson, J., Daley, J.-L., & Fearon, L. (2025). Unwrapping academic

advisement and student satisfaction in higher education in Jamaica: A case of two

private institutions. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 5(2), 278–296

Main, K., Bouton, B. D., Pendergast, D., & Whitaker, N. (2025). The importance of social and

emotional skills during adolescence to promote positive social identity: A systematic

literature review and reflection using Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory.

Education Sciences, 15(2), Article 258 .

Martin, G. (2023). Barriers to treatment for socially anxious Black American students in urban

public schools. Urban Education Review, 18(3), 112–130 .

Mathews, B. L., Koehn, A. J., Abtahi, M. M., & Kerns, K. A. (2016). Emotional competence

and anxiety in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Child and

Family Psychology Review, 19(2), 162–184 .

Mathews, J., Wootton, B. M., & Moses, K. (2025). Psychometric validation of the Specific

Phobia Questionnaire in an Australian community sample. Australian Journal of

Psychology, 77(1) .

Nirmalan, A., Nidhi, N., Sunil, R., & Kachhi, Z. (2025). Effects of the high school to college

transition on student well-being, personal growth, and resilience building. In Nurturing

Student Well-Being in the Modern World (pp. 171–194). IGI Global .

 60

Shah, Z. (2025). Navigating challenges in higher education in Pakistan: Curriculum, research,

and faculty issues. Contemporary Journal of Social Science Review, 3(1), 426–442

Siddiqui, S. (2025). Behavioral management of students and ensuring positive outcomes of

technology through teachers’ professional development. Journal of Educational

Technology Development .

Thunnissen, M. (2025). Flashes of feared social rejection: Flashforward imagery in

maintenance and treatment of social anxiety in youth. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,

87, Article 102482 .

Ullah, N., Rehman, T., Mengal, S., Ullah, S., Khan, M. M., & Kakar, A. U. (2025). Impacts of

social media on academic performance of university students in Pakistan. The Critical

Review of Social Sciences Studies, 3(1), 3426–3437 .

Vos, L. M., Bronstein, M. V., Gendron, M., Joormann, J., & Everaert, J. (2025). Navigating

the social world: The interplay between cognitive and socio-affective processes in

depression and social anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research .

Wu, J., Shao, Y., Hu, J., & Zhao, X. (2025). The impact of physical exercise on adolescent

social anxiety: The serial mediating effects of sports self-efficacy and expressive

suppression. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 17(1), Article 57 .

Wu, Y.-L., Lin, T.-W., Lam, J., Wang, S. S., & Lo, H. H. (2025). Resilience, coping strategies,

and disaster experience: A path analysis of preparedness and avoidance in Taiwan.

BMC Public Health, 25(1), Article 200 .

Yimer, Y. (2025). Addressing digital socio-emotional competence: Strategies for enhancing

learners’ socio-emotional skills in digital environments.