View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Reluctance to Speak in College Classrooms: Academic Causes and Consequences

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Reluctance to Speak in College Classrooms: Academic Causes and Consequences
Language: English
Authors: Brooke Erickson, Robert Dunbar (ORCID 0000-0001-8719-7886), James Winchip, Abraham Ayebo, McKenzie Englund
Source: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal. 2025 28(1).
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Student Participation, Classroom Communication, Barriers, Small Colleges, Student Attitudes, Grade Point Average, Academic Achievement, Controversial Issues (Course Content), Criticism, College Faculty, Teacher Student Relationship, Social Media, Peer Relationship, Speech Communication, Undergraduate Students, Student Surveys
DOI: 10.1007/s11218-025-10063-3
ISSN: 1381-2890
1573-1928
Abstract: Controversial topics are important parts of academic discussions, and due to the nature of these topics, students may be reluctant to speak freely about them in college classrooms. This study aims to explore factors that influence students' reluctance to speak at a small midwest college, and the effect this may have on academic performance. We surveyed 233 undergraduates to evaluate the connection between campus expression and academic performance through the hypothesis that there is an inverse relationship between reluctance to speak and grade-point-average. A t-test was used to examine whether the number of topics students are reluctant to speak about is related to GPA, and found that the average GPA of students who are reluctant about a moderate number of topics is higher than those reluctant about an extreme number. We also explored the hypothesis that students who are reluctant to speak about controversial topics in the classroom are more concerned that peers will criticize their views as offensive than they are about criticism from professors or on social media. A McNemar's Chi-Square test was used to analyze the results to determine which factor students were more concerned about. Students were more concerned about their peers than about their professors or being posted on social media. These results may highlight targets in classroom structure for attempting to decrease reluctance to speak.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1469570
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEeB6r2Aq3_fQ2g3rkeD2IrAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJMzfHppp_YdUXCdPQIBEICBm_vPamYw0DpYO7gOCVUZTmfR9hJ6DO-HWa35zQA_GKDZlw2mayF_utNDbVf4_6GI6wvzVNK6A4itcG8MW5yU36Tbj_dBqpELGZb-o3VIdJbreACGcwhXEYbwLSSEwoQjbsE9Qb0LrevaoreRpHkBjn31q2s3pDwIO71aoBD8Cp2H2eKu8HvOo9XlM_OubIvqr7K6O4s643PQbq_5
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184871471;luo30apr.25;2025May05.05:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184871471-1">Reluctance to speak in college classrooms: academic causes and consequences </title> <p>Controversial topics are important parts of academic discussions, and due to the nature of these topics, students may be reluctant to speak freely about them in college classrooms. This study aims to explore factors that influence students' reluctance to speak at a small midwest college, and the effect this may have on academic performance. We surveyed 233 undergraduates to evaluate the connection between campus expression and academic performance through the hypothesis that there is an inverse relationship between reluctance to speak and grade-point-average. A t-test was used to examine whether the number of topics students are reluctant to speak about is related to GPA, and found that the average GPA of students who are reluctant about a moderate number of topics is higher than those reluctant about an extreme number. We also explored the hypothesis that students who are reluctant to speak about controversial topics in the classroom are more concerned that peers will criticize their views as offensive than they are about criticism from professors or on social media. A McNemar's Chi-Square test was used to analyze the results to determine which factor students were more concerned about. Students were more concerned about their peers than about their professors or being posted on social media. These results may highlight targets in classroom structure for attempting to decrease reluctance to speak.</p> <p>Keywords: Controversial topics in education; Classroom engagement; Academic performance; Peer influence; Adolescent egocentrism</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-2">Background</hd> <p>In a world of increasing social polarization (Dimock and Wike, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]), any endeavor to understand potential sources of division may contribute significantly to reducing conflict as well as promoting communication and learning. Controversial topics are concepts that lead to conflicting opinions or viewpoints (Choi et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>]). Topics perceived as controversial have the tendency to result in polarization and group formation (Auxier, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]; Barroso, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>]; Green, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref5">47</reflink>]). However, controversial topics are also critical for promoting peoples' understanding of the outside world. Discussions about controversial topics introduce a broad range of perspectives and promote critical thinking of topics, leading to greater tolerance of others (Hillygus, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref6">56</reflink>]; Kelly-Woesner and Woesner, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref7">68</reflink>]). Being exposed to ideas and information regarding controversial topics and outgroups has been shown to reduce prejudiced thinking and attitudes, and foster future political participation (Fournier-Sylvester, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref8">35</reflink>]; Hahn & Tocci, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref9">49</reflink>]; Miklikowska et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref10">89</reflink>]; Sidanius et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref11">116</reflink>]). However, recent work suggests that students may be unwilling to participate in discussions pertaining to controversial topics. For example, Zhou and Barbaro ([<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref12">143</reflink>]) summarized the results of a 2022 report on the Campus Expression Survey. They found that 58.8% of the 1,564 college students surveyed are reluctant to speak about at least one of the five controversial topics the survey asks about. The descriptive results from their summary specifically showed that students are most reluctant to speak about politics (40.7%), and least reluctant to speak about gender (22.1%). Overall, the majority of college students report that they are reluctant to speak about controversial topics in the classroom.</p> <p>People often hesitate to speak on controversial topics because they form rigid schemas about what is "true," even without all the facts, and tend to distrust expert opinions (Barzilai et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>]). This is rooted in <emph>belief perseverance</emph>, which states that individuals have a tendency to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs while ignoring opposing viewpoints (Dickinson, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref14">23</reflink>]; Frimer et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref15">38</reflink>]; Jones & Sugden, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref16">65</reflink>]). This clinging to discredited beliefs is often more automatic than the willingness to reconsider them (Gilbert, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref17">39</reflink>]; Guenther & Alicke, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref18">48</reflink>]; Ross et al., [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref19">112</reflink>]). <emph>Confirmation bias</emph>, influenced by cognitive dissonance, further exacerbates this reluctance as individuals experience discomfort when confronting conflicting ideas (Frimer et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref20">38</reflink>]; Graesser & D'Mello, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref21">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, the language used to discuss controversial topics is frequently trivialized, with terminology scrutinized and subject to mockery and irony, which diminishes the impact of what is being said (Heuman, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref22">54</reflink>]). This trivialization discourages individuals, particularly students, from participating in discussions about controversial issues in the classroom. Consequently, their willingness to engage in these conversations is significantly affected. The present study aims to explore both the causes and consequences of this reluctance on a small college campus.</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-3">Value of classroom participation</hd> <p>Engagement in classroom discussions, including those that pertain to controversial topics, plays a definitive role in active learning (Hand & Levinson, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref23">52</reflink>]; O'Connor, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref24">97</reflink>]; Rocca, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref25">109</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref26">117</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref27">118</reflink>]). Discussions in general have been shown to be effective at increasing high-level comprehension of course content, further indicating their importance (Murphy et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref28">92</reflink>]). Participation in class is also significantly correlated with higher grades and exam scores (Precourt & Gainor, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref29">101</reflink>]). Therefore, students who are reluctant to speak or participate in classroom discussions may be missing out on these academic benefits, and see a corresponding effect on their grades. In addition to increasing academic performance by promoting critical thinking and expanding exposure to differing ideas, discussion of controversial topics through classroom participation can help increase tolerance for outgroups and decrease prejudice of students (Hillygus, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref30">56</reflink>]; Kelly-Woesner and Woesner, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref31">68</reflink>]; Miklikowska et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref32">89</reflink>]; Sidanius et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref33">116</reflink>]).</p> <p>Many college campuses, both nationally and at the university used for this study, are moving towards incorporating active learning classrooms which are student-centered and designed to promote student cooperation and group work by utilizing technology and flipped classrooms (Rezaei, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref34">106</reflink>]). Students believe that they learn better and benefit more from active learning classrooms (Rezaei, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref35">106</reflink>]). These classrooms have produced higher grades and lower failure rates than traditional classrooms (Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref36">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, students who are more engaged in these settings tend to have stronger academic and life goals, particularly when they feel a connection to their class (Van Dusen & Otero, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref37">126</reflink>]). Higher engagement is also directly related to increased academic performance and persistence in higher education from the first year to the second (Kuh et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref38">73</reflink>]; Lei et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref39">76</reflink>]). The learning environment of students affects their academic self-efficacy, which has a direct correlation with their academic performance and the emotions that the students demonstrate toward learning (Akomolafe, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]; Honicke & Broadbent, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref41">59</reflink>]; Multon et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref42">91</reflink>]). Students with lower self-efficacy have decreased positive emotions about learning, which affects study habits, self-regulation, and some cognitive abilities (Mega et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref43">87</reflink>]). The effect of attitude and behavior on academic performance offers an opportunity to explore students' negative attitudes and ideas toward participating in class.</p> <p>Students face several potential barriers when expected to participate in classroom discussions, including fear of expressing their views and an overall lack of confidence in themselves (Ahmad, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>]; Fassinger, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref45">32</reflink>]; Weaver & Qi, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref46">134</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref47">143</reflink>]). When students are uncomfortable speaking, their engagement may decrease, resulting in decreased academic self-efficacy and academic performance (Honicke & Broadbent, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref48">59</reflink>]; Van Dusen & Otero, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref49">126</reflink>]). Studying the potential reluctance to speak of students expressing their views on controversial topics in college classrooms allows us to explore targets for increasing comfort in the classroom and, potentially, contribute to a more complete understanding of how to facilitate learning and boost academic performance. A specific aspect of comfort levels that can be studied is the cause of discomfort when speaking about controversial topics. Many students feel uncomfortable due to concern of judgment or criticism from others, which influences their behavior in the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-4">Variables influencing classroom participation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184871471-5">Professors</hd> <p>One factor that can influence comfort in the classroom is relationships with faculty (Abdulla et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]). Students who have better relationships with their teachers have a greater sense of belonging in the classroom as well as increased behavioral and emotional engagement (Chiu et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]; Quin, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref52">103</reflink>]; Quin et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref53">104</reflink>]). Furthermore, students' perceptions of these teacher-student relationships play a role in engagement, with positive perceptions being related to increased engagement and academic performance and negative perceptions being related to decreased engagement and performance (Mallik, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref54">83</reflink>]). Perceptions of teachers as highly supportive are influenced by a well-structured learning environment, fair and clear expectations for the classroom, and emotional support from instructors (Havik & Westergård, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref55">53</reflink>]; Klem & Connell, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref56">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>Existing research indicates that teachers can have direct influences on behavior and academic performance through self-fulfilling prophecies (McKown & Weinstein, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref57">86</reflink>]; Rosenthal & Jacobson, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref58">111</reflink>]; Trusz, [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref59">123</reflink>]). When teachers have higher expectations for a student, including anticipating greater intellectual achievement and growth, they often treat them differently, and consequently, the students adapt their behavior to align with these expectations, leading to increased intellectual achievement (McKown & Weinstein, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref60">86</reflink>]; Rosenthal & Jacobson, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref61">111</reflink>]; Trusz, [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref62">123</reflink>]).</p> <p>While professors exert some influence on student behaviors and comfort levels within the classroom, evidence indicates that peer relationships play a more significant role. The nature of student-teacher relationships diverges from traditional authority-subordinate dynamics, characterized by a more balanced distribution of power (Elias & Mace, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref63">29</reflink>]; Quin, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref64">103</reflink>]). Despite the formal authority professors hold, both students and professors perceive their relationship as relatively egalitarian, which diminishes conventional power dynamics of obedience and conformity (Quin, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref65">103</reflink>]). Empirical research suggests that faculty influence on students' political affiliations and retention rates is minimal (Bank et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref66">8</reflink>]; Horowitz, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref67">60</reflink>]; Mariani & Hewitt, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref68">84</reflink>]; Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref69">138</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref70">139</reflink>]). Studies examining students' perceptions of professors' use of power reveal that informational power—defined as the use of logical reasoning and explanation to achieve compliance—is the only type of power students find appropriate (Elias, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref71">27</reflink>]; Elias & Loomis, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref72">28</reflink>]). Regardless of the type of power employed, both students and professors generally view the exercise of power positively, especially when prosocial power is utilized, resulting in favorable outcomes (McCroskey & Richmond, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref73">85</reflink>]; Reid & Kawash, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref74">105</reflink>]). Rather than depending on authority and power, effective teacher-student relationships are founded on personal and emotional connections that emphasize support and addressing students' needs (Rimm-Kaufman & Sandilos, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref75">107</reflink>]). This supportive relationship dynamic fosters a positive learning environment, enhancing student engagement and comfort within the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-6">Peers and adolescent egocentrism</hd> <p>Most humans have a fundamental need to belong, and regularly seek social interactions in order to feel this sense of belonging (Baumeister and Leary, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref76">11</reflink>]; Hoffman et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref77">58</reflink>]). They want to form and maintain positive relationships with each other, often doing so by seeking validation from their peers (Baumeister and Leary, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref78">11</reflink>]). Belonging, or the lack of belonging, has a large impact on mental health and may influence the development of depression or anxiety (Gopalan & Brady, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref79">44</reflink>]; Gopalan et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref80">45</reflink>]; Newman et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref81">94</reflink>]).</p> <p>In order to feel a sense of belonging from peers, adolescents and young adults tend to conform and synchronize their behaviors toward those from whom they seek approval (Bainter & Ackerman, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref82">7</reflink>]; Khan et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref83">69</reflink>]; Lodder et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref84">78</reflink>]; Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref85">108</reflink>]). However, the behaviors and norms that they attempt to conform to are often skewed because adolescents often exaggerate the degree to which their peers engage in behaviors (Ciranka and van den Boss, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref86">21</reflink>]; Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref87">108</reflink>]). Therefore, in addition to conforming to actual social norms or societal pressures, adolescents conform to non-existent, fabricated ideas of them (Ciranka and van den Boss, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref88">21</reflink>]). For example, adolescents are more likely to report that more of their peers engage in risky behaviors (such as underage drinking) than those who actually report engaging in risky behaviors (Ciranka and van den Boss, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref89">21</reflink>]; Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref90">108</reflink>]; Trucco et al., [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref91">122</reflink>]). <emph>Adolescent egocentrism</emph> describes the failure of individuals, particularly those throughout the adolescent stage of development, to recognize that their own cognitions differ from the cognitions of others (Elkind, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref92">30</reflink>]; Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref93">114</reflink>]). This theory includes both the imaginary audience, in which people believe others are more concerned about them than they actually are, and the personal fable, in which the individual believes they are unique and special as compared with others (Elkind, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref94">30</reflink>]; Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref95">114</reflink>]). Despite its name, adolescent egocentrism has been shown to extend into adulthood, thus influencing the cognitions and interpersonal understandings of college-aged students (Frankenberger, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref96">36</reflink>]; Lapsley & Murphy, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref97">74</reflink>]). A similar theory, the <emph>Spotlight Effect</emph>, explains the phenomenon in which people believe that they play a larger role in the perspectives of others than they actually do (Gilovich et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref98">41</reflink>]). Thus, students care about what others think, but often do not fully understand the extent to which other people actually think about them. This misconception can be even more extreme with regard to negative attitudes and behaviors of the ingroup, which are concerns of students when speaking in classrooms (Zingora et al., [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref99">144</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-7">Peer influence in the classroom</hd> <p>Peer influence on adolescent behavior is prominent in the classroom setting. A sense of belonging and peer influence on behavior have effects on academic motivation, engagement, and performance (Eisenkopf, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref100">26</reflink>]; Goldsmith-Pinkham & Imbens, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref101">42</reflink>]; Goodenow, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref102">43</reflink>]; Lomi et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref103">79</reflink>]; Steenberghs et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref104">120</reflink>]; Winston and Zimmermann, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref105">37</reflink>]). In the classroom, peers dominate the dynamics and set norms followed by other students, such as not speaking up about controversial topics (Abdulla et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref106">1</reflink>]; Fassinger, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref107">32</reflink>]). Perceived support from peers results in an increase in engagement in the classroom and an increase in academic performance (You, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref108">142</reflink>]). Peers also affect motivation, which is positively linked with academic performance (Akomolafe, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref109">3</reflink>]; Eisenkopf, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref110">26</reflink>]; Fortier et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref111">34</reflink>]; Goodenow, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref112">43</reflink>]). Alternatively, students who are judged for their thoughts, or fear being judged for their thoughts, have lower self-esteem, which results in a decrease in academic performance (Burrow & Rainone, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref113">14</reflink>]; Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref114">141</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are some external factors that contribute to peer influence. Small class sizes allow for a greater amount of peer interaction and promote the formation of peer relationships, thus leading to increased peer influences on each other. (Olagbaju and Nnorom, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref115">98</reflink>]; Zingora et al., [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref116">144</reflink>]). This peer influence and its related effects are seen regardless of the number of close friends a student has in their class (Giletta et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref117">40</reflink>]). Thus, the peer relationships formed within the class, have a greater effect on behavior (Giletta et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref118">40</reflink>]). Another factor that potentially affects peer influence in the classroom is gender. This topic is relevant to the current demographics of college campuses today which are composed of a higher percentage of women (58%) than men (42%) (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref119">93</reflink>]). The gender gap of the university used in the present study is particularly wide, with 81% of the student population identifying as women. Women tend to be more apt to partake in social comparison, and therefore are generally more negatively affected by social factors (Boulton et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref120">13</reflink>]; Lopes et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref121">80</reflink>]). Social factors include social interactions with others, both in person and online (Boulton et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref122">13</reflink>]; Lopes et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref123">80</reflink>]). However, the literature shows conflicting evidence for the existence and significance of gender peer effects, and for which contexts these may appear under (Eren, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref124">31</reflink>]; Ficano, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref125">33</reflink>]; Han & Li, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref126">51</reflink>]; Hoxby, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref127">61</reflink>]; Lavy & Schlosser, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref128">75</reflink>]; Oosterbeek & van Ewijk, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref129">99</reflink>]). If these factors influencing conformity in the classroom are affecting engagement in the classroom, there can be negative effects on students' academic performance.</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-8">Social media and peer influence</hd> <p>Peer influences are evident through in-person interactions and on social media. As of 2015, 90% of young adults aged 18–29 used at least one form of social media (Perrin, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref130">100</reflink>]). Adolescents use social media primarily to communicate with and establish relationships with their peers, driven by their inherent desire for social interaction (Armstrong-Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref131">4</reflink>]). However, social media can also foster environments where people become stuck in echo chambers, promote negativity, and exert power over others (Cinelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref132">20</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref133">119</reflink>]). Moreover, experiences of victimization by peers through these mediums often correlate with diminished self-esteem and social acceptance (Boulton et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref134">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>As a platform for peer interaction social media is logically an extension of the ways peers are influencing behavior both inside and outside of the classroom. A sense of belonging shapes behaviors on social media and in-person, suggesting parallels between these virtual and physical domains (Kashy-Rosenbaum & Aizenkot, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref135">67</reflink>]; Liu & Guo, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref136">77</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-9">Hypotheses</hd> <p>Given the increasing concern among students regarding peer judgment in classroom settings and the established correlation between active learning environments and academic performance, we hypothesize an inverse relationship between reluctance to speak and academic performance. Specifically, we propose that students who exhibit a higher reluctance to speak about controversial topics in the classroom will have a lower overall grade point average. Additionally, we hypothesize that students who are hesitant to discuss controversial topics in the classroom are more apprehensive about peer criticism than they are about criticism from professors or the potential of their opinions being shared on social media.</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-10">Methods</hd> <p>The current study utilized the Campus Expression Survey from the Heterodox Academy to sample students at a small midwestern university (IRB Protocol STUDY00005129: UMR Heterodoxy). The aim of this survey is to collect data on how comfortable undergraduate students are with speaking about the controversial topics of gender, politics, race, religion, and sexuality, and on noncontroversial topics in their college classrooms (Campus Expression Survey, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref137">16</reflink>]). After collection of participant responses, de-identified performance data were incorporated into results, including grade-point-average (GPA) for each term. The survey was voluntary and administered primarily to undergraduate students in Introduction to Psychology classes on the university's campus. The survey was first administered on this campus in 2020, and has been re-administered to new sets of students each Fall and Spring semester through Spring 2023. Data were collected from 233 students. Since the survey has been administered over the course of several years, some students who responded to the survey may not still be included in the overall population of all students currently enrolled in the university. The current population of this small university consists of 630 students as of December 2022. At the time of enrollment, 510 (81%) of the students identified as female and 120 (19%) identified as male. The data collected from the students surveyed was very representative of the overall student population. Of the survey respondents who chose to disclose their gender, 182 (80.9%) described themselves as females and 43 (19.1%) described themselves as males (Table 1).</p> <p>In order to address potential demographic bias, we conducted proportion tests to compare whether the majority demographic group and the minority demographic group responded similarly about their reluctance to speak on the topic corresponding to that demographic. For example, we tested whether the proportion of female students who are reluctant to speak about gender is different from the proportion of male students who are reluctant to speak about gender. Table 2 shows the results of this two-tailed proportion test, performed for each of the five topics. While our survey demographics listed in Table 1 show a female majority, the results of the proportion test in Table 2 which suggest there is no difference between the responses of Females and Males in regard to reluctance to speak about gender give explanation as to why it was unnecessary to further break down our analyses by gender. Table 3 shows the results of one-tailed proportion tests, to test the hypothesis that the majority group for each demographic is more reluctant to speak about the corresponding topic. Table 3 revealed disparities in the impacts of majority and minority group responses. Due to the variability in majority versus minority differences, and the amount of demographics that were assessed, we determined that controlling for demographic variables would deter from the overall assessment of classroom-level trends, and may obscure potential insights gathered from the data.</p> <p>Table 1 Demographics of students surveyed</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Demographic Group</p></th><th align="left"><p>Percent Demographic on Survey</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Female</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>80.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Democrat</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>40.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Republican</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>White</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>67.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-White</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>33.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Christian</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>55.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-Christian</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>44.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Straight</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>77.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-Straight</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>22.7</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2 Reluctance to speak based on corresponding demographic group</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Topic</p></th><th align="left"><p>Demographic</p></th><th align="left"><p>Percent Reluctant to Speak</p></th><th align="left"><p>Proportion Test <italic>P</italic>-Value (Two-tailed)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>Female</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>29.1</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>0.441</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>23.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Politics*</p></td><td align="left"><p>Democrat</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>37.9</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>0.002</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Republican</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>65.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Race*</p></td><td align="left"><p>White</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>42.3</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>0.002</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-White</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>22.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Religion</p></td><td align="left"><p>Christian</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34.4</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>0.584</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-Christian</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>30.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Sexuality*</p></td><td align="left"><p>Straight</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>36.2</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>0.002</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-Straight</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.5</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note: * = p-value < 0.05</emph> </p> <p>Table 3 P-values for traditionally marginalized population being less reluctant to speak</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Topic</p></th><th align="left"><p>Comparison / Null Hypothesis</p></th><th align="left"><p>Proportion Test <italic>P</italic>-Value (One-tailed)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>Female students are less reluctant to speak than Male students.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.780</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Politics</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students who identify as Republicans are less reluctant to speak than students who identify as Democrats.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.999</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Race*</p></td><td align="left"><p>Non-White students are less reluctant to speak than White students.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Religion</p></td><td align="left"><p>Non-Christian students are less reluctant to speak than Christian students.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.292</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sexuality*</p></td><td align="left"><p>Non-straight students are less reluctant to speak than Straight students.</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.001</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note: * = p-value < 0.05</emph> </p> <p>In order to test our first hypothesis regarding reluctance to speak and GPA, we recorded the number of topics students were reluctant to speak about. The responses were first binned into "Not Reluctant," which included students who were reluctant to speak about zero of the topics, and "Reluctant," which included students who were reluctant to speak about at least one of the five topics. These were then matched with the students' term one GPAs and a t-test comparing the means of these two groups was performed using MicrosoftExcel. We then wanted to focus on the distribution within the "Reluctant" group, including concern about each number of topics one through five. The GPAs of these groups were converted into z-scores for a more standardized view for graphing. We were particularly interested in exploring whether students who were concerned about a moderate number of topics (two, three, or four) had a significantly higher GPA than the rest of the students (either those who were concerned about one topic or about all five topics). The remaining students were grouped together into an "extreme" group, as a student who is concerned about only one topic could be viewed as having a particularly strong view on that specific topic, while a student concerned about all five topics is extremely reluctant to speak in general. The unscaled GPA data was binned into "Moderate" number of topics, which includes concern about two, three, and four topics, and "Extreme" number of topics, which includes concern about one and five topics. The average GPA for each of these bins was calculated, and a t-test was performed using MicrosoftExcel to determine if the mean GPA for students concerned about a moderate number of topics was significantly greater than the mean GPA for students concerned about an extreme number of topics. These were tested at a 0.05 alpha value.</p> <p>For the purpose of this study and our second hypothesis, a specific subset of the 116 questions included in the Campus Expression Survey was used. Figure 1 shows how the survey flowed through each of the questions, repeating the same structure for each of the five controversial topics. Descriptions of each topic or any additional specifications regarding the questions were not given as part of the survey and were open to interpretation. The survey additionally asks questions about how students would respond should a "non-controversial topic" be brought up in a classroom (using the same format as the five controversial topics of the survey, again leaving the definition and examples of the topic open to interpretation), other variables for why students are reluctant, and demographic information.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Demonstrates the sequence of the specific questions asked by the Campus Expression Survey for given responses. This was repeated for each of the five controversial topics throughout the survey as shown in Fig. 1a. In place of the word [TOPIC], the survey asked questions regarding gender, politics, race, religion, and sexuality</p> <p>Data collection and initial analyses were completed using Qualtrics. Given that the data collected is bivariate data from a non-random sample, we organized the responses pertaining to these questions into contingency tables that compare those who are concerned about professor criticism and those who are concerned about peer criticism. An example of one of these contingency tables is pictured in Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4 Concern of professor criticism against concern of peer criticism for the topic of gender. Values shown are count followed by percentage in parentheses</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Concern of Professor Criticism</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Concerned</p></th><th align="left"><p>Not Concerned</p></th><th align="left"><p>Total</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Concern of Peer Criticism</p></td><td align="left"><p>Concerned</p></td><td align="left"><p>45 (68.2)</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>9 (13.6)</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>54 (81.8)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Not Concerned</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>3 (4.6)</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>9 (13.6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>12 (18.2)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left"><p>48 (72.7)</p></td><td align="left"><p>18 (27.3)</p></td><td align="left"><p>66 (100)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: McNemar's test analyzes the difference between the boxes in bold</p> <p>After collecting these data, RStudio was used to perform a McNemar's chi-square test to find the difference in the number of students who were concerned about peer criticism but not professor criticism and students who were concerned about professor criticism but not peer criticism. The values being compared are shown in bold font in Table 4. This process was repeated for comparison of students concerned about peer criticism and students concerned about being posted on social media and for comparison of students concerned about professor criticism and students concerned about being posted on social media. These tests were performed at a 0.05 alpha value.</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184871471-12">Hypothesis 1</hd> <p> <emph>There is an inverse relationship between reluctance to speak and academic performance</emph> </p> <p>Figure 2 below shows the comparison of GPAs between students who are reluctant to speak about at least one of the five controversial topics and those who are not reluctant to speak about any. The result of the t-test performed on these means was not significant, therefore we are unable to conclude that students who are reluctant to speak about controversial topics in the classroom have a lower GPA than those who are not reluctant. Figure 3 below shows the results of graphing the average GPA for each number of topics reluctant to speak about. This graph allowed us to identify a trend that the "Moderate" values in the middle corresponded with higher GPAs than the "Extreme" values on either end of the x-axis. This observation led to Fig. 4, which shows the results of the t-test performed on these two bins. The p-value was 0.009, which is significant at the 0.05 alpha level. This result allows us to conclude that on average, students who are reluctant to speak about a "Moderate" number of topics have a higher GPA than students who are reluctant to speak about an "Extreme" number of topics.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Average GPA for students not reluctant to speak about any of the controversial topics (n = 47) compared to the average GPA for students reluctant to speak about at least one topic (n = 95). Error bars show sample standard deviations. A t-test was performed on the means, resulting in a p-value of 0.397 which is not significant at the 0.05 alpha level</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Average term one GPAs for students reluctant to speak about each number of topics one through five. Data were converted to z-scores for a more standardized view</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Shows the average term one GPAs for students after data were binned into "Moderate" number of topics reluctant to speak about (n = 53), which includes reluctance to speak about two, three, and four topics, and "Extreme" number of topics reluctant to speak about (n = 42), which includes reluctance to speak about one and five topics. Error bars show sample standard deviations. A t-test was performed on the means, resulting in a p-value of 0.008 which is significant at the 0.05 alpha level</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-13">Hypothesis 2</hd> <p> <emph>Students who are reluctant to speak about controversial topics in the classroom are more concerned that peers will criticize their views as offensive than they are about criticism from professors or on social media.</emph> </p> <p>The results of the McNemar's chi-square test show that students are more concerned about peer criticism than professor criticism of their views for the topics of Politics, Race, Religion, and Sexuality, but no significant difference was found for the topic of Gender. The results indicate that students are more concerned about peer criticism than being posted on social media for all five topics. Finally, we did not find a significant difference in the number of students who are concerned about their professors and the number concerned about being posted on social media. Table 5 below shows the p-value results of the McNemar's chi-square test for each topic and each variable, indicating the values that are significant. Figures 5, 6 and 7 below show the overall counts of those who are concerned about each of the three variables, divided into each pairing to represent the statistical tests performed.</p> <p>Table 5 P-values comparing concern of peers, professors, and social media for each topic using a McNemar's test</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Comparison</p></th><th align="left"><p>Gender</p></th><th align="left"><p>Politics</p></th><th align="left"><p>Race</p></th><th align="left"><p>Religion</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sexuality</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Peer and Professor</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.148</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.006*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.016*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Peer and Social Media</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.010*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>< 0.001*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.002*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.006*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Social Media and Professor</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.332</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.405</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.211</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.383</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.646</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note: * = p-value < 0.05</emph> </p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Shows the percentage of students who were reluctant to speak about each controversial topic that were concerned about peer criticisms and those who were concerned about professor criticisms. Data were significant (p-value < 0.05, denoted by *) for politics, race, religion, and sexuality</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 6 Shows the percentage of students who were reluctant to speak about each controversial topic that were concerned about peer criticisms and those who were concerned about being posted on social media. Data were significant (p-value < 0.05, denoted by *) for all five controversial topics</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 7 Shows the percentage of students who were reluctant to speak about each controversial topic that were concerned about being posted on social media and those who were concerned about professor criticisms. Data were not significant (p-value < 0.05, denoted by *) for any of the five controversial topics</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-14">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to explore potential reasons for college students' reluctance to speak on college campuses and the effect this may have on their academic performance. We hypothesized that reluctance to speak is inversely related to GPA. However, our study shows that students who are reluctant to speak about a moderate number of topics have a higher GPA than those who are reluctant to speak about either an extremely low number of topics or an extremely high number of topics. We looked at GPA because it allowed us to measure how comfort in the classroom could potentially relate to academic success on an overall scale rather than in specific classes associated with controversial topics. Greater selectivity in the types of topics a student engages in may be viewed as a strategic approach to avoiding polarization by not creating an environment where students discredit different viewpoints and create echo-chambers (Price et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref138">102</reflink>]; Turner, [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref139">125</reflink>]). This open-mindedness displayed by the "Moderate" students may be related to their learning capacity and therefore their GPA (Lord, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref140">81</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moderately comfortable students may be more likely to engage constructively with their peers, benefiting from diverse perspectives and collaborative learning (Armstrong-Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref141">4</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref142">119</reflink>]). These students are likely to experience an optimal level of cognitive challenge, promoting better learning and retention (Graesser & D'Mello, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref143">46</reflink>]; Hamm et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref144">50</reflink>]). Constructive or interactive participation, such as sharing ideas and discussing aloud in class, has been shown to be more effective for academic performance than passive listening, as it promotes deeper engagement with the material (Bavishi et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref145">12</reflink>]; Chi, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref146">17</reflink>]). Alternatively, extreme levels of comfort or discomfort can impact cognitive load and stress levels. If a controversial topic is personally significant, sensitive, or emotionally charged for a student, it may have greater emotional salience than the other topics (Winstone & Kinchin, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref147">137</reflink>]). This salience can cause the topic to dominate the student's emotional and cognitive resources, therefore increasing cognitive load in a similar manner that concern about all five controversial topics may (Nielsen & Sarason, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref148">96</reflink>]; Wyble et al., [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref149">140</reflink>]). Both extremes may result in high stress levels that can impair academic performance (Córdova et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref150">22</reflink>]). Therefore, a moderate level of comfort in discussing controversial topics in the classroom appears to strike a balance that fosters engagement, critical reflection, effective learning strategies, and positive peer interactions, all of which contribute to higher academic performance.</p> <p>Overall, our findings align with our second hypothesis, which is that students are more concerned that their peers will criticize their views as offensive than they are concerned that their professors will criticize them or that their opinions will be posted on social media. While our data indicate that students report some concern for criticism from professors and on social media, we also saw that for four out of five controversial topics, concern of peers was significantly higher than either of these variables. These findings support the ideas that peers and relationships with peers have considerable influences on students' thoughts, feelings, and likely behavior in the classroom and that relationships with professors have less of an effect on behavior than might be expected from a traditional authority figure (Abdulla et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref151">1</reflink>]; Ciranka and van den Boss, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref152">21</reflink>]; Fassinger, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref153">32</reflink>]; Gilovich et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref154">41</reflink>]; Mariani & Hewitt, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref155">84</reflink>]; Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref156">138</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref157">139</reflink>]). Out of the three variables explored, it appears that the influence of peers is an important barrier in participating in classroom discussions on controversial topics. This result suggests that the influences of affiliation, a sense of belonging, and conformity are important factors to consider when attempting to decrease reluctance to speak in the classroom.</p> <p>Our results also suggest that students are more concerned about their peers criticizing them directly than they are about their peers posting comments about them on social media. This result may be due to the way questions were interpreted; criticism of peers may have been viewed as a broader category, and opinions being posted on social media being interpreted as a specific subset of the question regarding peers. It may also reflect the idea that in-person peer relationships are stronger than online relationships, and that direct in-person criticism or traditional bullying is more influential than the fear of being posted on social media and receiving negative feedback or being cyberbullied online (Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref158">15</reflink>]; Mesch & Talmud, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref159">88</reflink>]).</p> <p>While the concern of being posted on social media was not the greatest worry of students, it remains plausible that social media plays a role in students being afraid of criticisms of their peers and ultimately speaking about controversial topics in the classroom. However, social media can also foster environments where people become stuck in echo chambers, promote negativity, and exert power over others (Cinelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref160">20</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref161">119</reflink>]). Victimization by peers leads to decreased self-worth and social acceptance (Boulton et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref162">13</reflink>]). A major contributor to victimization today is cyberbullying on social media (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref163">66</reflink>]; Tokunaga, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref164">121</reflink>]; Tsitsika et al., [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref165">124</reflink>]). Cyberbullying includes many of the same characteristics of bullying, but has some additional defining features such as anonymity, persistence, decreased responsibility for one's actions, and occurs in various types of media (Kowalski et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref166">72</reflink>]; Kowalski & Limber, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref167">71</reflink>]; Watts et al., [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref168">133</reflink>]). Cyberbullying and social media have an impact on self-esteem (Burrow & Rainone, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref169">14</reflink>]; Hamm et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref170">50</reflink>]; Hoff & Mitchell, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref171">57</reflink>]). More precisely, they have the ability to evoke negative emotions associated with social interactions and peers (Burrow & Rainone, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref172">14</reflink>]). These interactions on social media have the ability to translate into offline social interaction with others (Heyman et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref173">55</reflink>]; Kashy-Rosenbaum & Aizenkot, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref174">67</reflink>]; Liu & Guo, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref175">77</reflink>]). One type of interaction on social media is "cancel culture" (Ng, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref176">95</reflink>]). This term refers to the actions taken to defame someone and decrease their support after they have behaved in a way that is generally regarded as problematic or socially unacceptable (Ng, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref177">95</reflink>]). Cancel culture has escalated into a mass movement used on social media to criticize, target, and punish those with differing opinions, often in an attempt to reinforce a power imbalance (Romano, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref178">21</reflink>]; Rotolo, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref179">113</reflink>]; Shibley and Barnes, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref180">115</reflink>]; Vogels et al., [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref181">127</reflink>]). With the frequent use of social media by adolescents and young adults today, most college students will have encountered "cancel culture" at some point in their lives (Atske, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref182">5</reflink>]; Perrin, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref183">100</reflink>]; Vogels, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref184">127</reflink>]). They have seen that voicing their opinions can make them a target for criticism and even harassment which can manifest in emotions regarding face-to-face interactions within the classroom by influencing self-esteem and behaviors (Burrow & Rainone, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref185">14</reflink>]). Thus, because students fear their peers online, they are led to fear that their peers will criticize their views as offensive in-person. This fear may be amplified if <emph>surveillance culture</emph> is a factor. <emph>Surveillance culture</emph> is the idea that, due to the pervasiveness of social media, people are constantly aware that they are being observed by others, which leads them to believe that everything they say and do is being monitored by others (Lyon, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref186">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>Campus culture can be driven by the expectations and norms set by the majority, which at the small university data were collected from, is females, comprising 81% of the student body. This composition may be why we see that students at this school are more concerned about criticisms from their peers than about their professors or social media. There is some evidence that women's personalities tend to be more linked to sociability and that they are more likely to engage in social comparison, making them more affected by negative social interactions, such as bullying and peer pressure, with their ingroups (Boulton et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref187">13</reflink>]; Lopes et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref188">80</reflink>]). Evidence on the significance of peer effects in regards to gender is conflicting (Eren, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref189">31</reflink>]; Ficano, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref190">33</reflink>]; Han & Li, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref191">51</reflink>]; Hoxby, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref192">61</reflink>]; Lavy & Schlosser, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref193">75</reflink>]; Oosterbeek & van Ewijk, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref194">99</reflink>]), however there is still a possibility of potential influences of gender demographics of this campus on our results. This university also has smaller class sizes (20 students on average) compared to larger universities, which causes more interactions with peers and greater interpersonal relationships with other students, leading to a greater chance of peers having an effect on behavior and engagement (Olagbaju and Nnorom, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref195">98</reflink>]; Zingora et al., [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref196">144</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-15">Limitations</hd> <p>One potential criticism of this study is that the sample sizes used to perform the McNemar's chi-square tests are small. While this is a limitation, there are no sample size requirements for this test, therefore no statistical rules have been violated. However, it is still important to note that small sample sizes may affect the reliability and conclusiveness of the results found. Another way we are addressing this concern is by continuing to administer this survey and adding additional data points in order to increase the sample sizes. Another limitation is that the sample was a voluntary convenience sample of students at the university in which the data were collected. However, the survey continues to be administered every semester in Intro to Psychology sections, which are required for most students to graduate from this university, while also being promoted across campus spaces. This sample is limited in that it consists mainly of White, female students attending a small mid-western University, which could potentially affect the generalizability of our results. Some evidence suggests that women may be more influenced by their peers than men (Boulton et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref197">13</reflink>]; Lopes et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref198">80</reflink>]), which may skew the results of our sample, however there is conflicting evidence on the impact of gender on peer influence (Eren, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref199">31</reflink>]; Ficano, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref200">33</reflink>]; Han & Li, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref201">51</reflink>]; Hoxby, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref202">61</reflink>]; Lavy & Schlosser, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref203">75</reflink>]; Oosterbeek & van Ewijk, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref204">99</reflink>]). We also recognize that comfort speaking in the classroom is not a direct proxy for the overall feeling of comfort a student has in the classroom. Students may feel comfortable being present in the classroom, but not comfortable voicing their thoughts in that same environment.</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-16">Future directions</hd> <p>Relationship building is a fundamental part of the human experience (Baumeister and Leary, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref205">11</reflink>]). Individuals seek to gain a sense of belonging with their peers, and students enrolled in higher education are no different (Baumeister and Leary, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref206">11</reflink>]; Winston and Zimmermann, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref207">136</reflink>]). The relationships built between these students are crucial for both academic success and personal development (Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref208">62</reflink>]). The introduction of constructive controversy into these relationships has been proposed as an instructional tool to further student development in these areas (Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref209">62</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref210">63</reflink>]). It is the role of the teacher to effectively introduce such controversial topics, and the role of the students to discuss openly and share ideas on these topics, even if they conflict (Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref211">62</reflink>]). Without these two key factors, controversial discussions may be harmful rather than constructive (Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref212">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, fostering an environment that encourages open discussion can be challenging. In addition to decreased sense of belonging potentially contributing to reluctance to speak, reluctance to speak may also contribute to lack of belonging, as students are not interacting with their peers and therefore unable to form meaningful relationships with them. If students are unwilling to participate in these activities due to concern of being criticized by other students, then they will be unable to gain the benefits of achievement and effective socialization that result from these discussions (Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref213">62</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref214">63</reflink>]). Lack of a sense of belonging, or fear of being rejected, is related to poorer academic performance, thus interventions have been proposed in order to diminish this psychological factor (Walton & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref215">130</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref216">131</reflink>]). The ability to form meaningful relationships with peers is also directly related to retention, and a lack of close friends can be a student's primary motivation for choosing not to continue their education at an institution (Wilcox et al., [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref217">135</reflink>]).</p> <p>Due to the detrimental consequences that arise when students fail to participate in discussion, it is important to find ways to overcome these obstacles. We have several recommendations for addressing the results of our study. Since we found that reluctance to speak does relate to academic performance, we ultimately want to decrease students' reluctance to speak in order to prevent barriers to achievement. There are several potential ways we could work to facilitate this change. It should be the faculty's responsibility to ensure an environment where students are not concerned about their peers. They should establish classroom norms and culture around peer to peer judgment and around social media posts that may be posted relating to classroom conversations. Classroom groups should be structured in ways that increase equity, promote a sense of belonging, and establish healthy peer-to-peer relationships. This goal can be achieved by assigning groups in class and allowing them to build and sustain relationships for the duration of the term (Eddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref218">25</reflink>]). In addition, activities performed by these groups should promote positive interdependence by encouraging members to achieve a common goal (Eddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref219">25</reflink>]). It may be beneficial for the instructor to act as a "devil's advocate" or introduce constructive controversy in order to facilitate alternative thinking in a potentially uniform environment, in a way that does not encourage students to become argumentative (Johnson & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref220">64</reflink>]; Walker, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref221">129</reflink>]). Some conversations on controversial topics should be low-risk by not having a grade associated with them (Misco, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref222">90</reflink>]). This method may allow for students to feel less threatened and defensive about their opinions and thus more likely to contribute to discussion. A constructive environment may allow students to move from insecurity about their opinions to an informed confidence in their knowledge and greater comfort sharing these opinions. There should also be clarity both directly on the syllabus and at the start of classroom discussions about the consequences of students being posted on social media, in addition to administrative policies regarding social media and cyberbullying (Washington, [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref223">132</reflink>]).</p> <p>We suggest that future studies gather more information as to why students are more concerned about peer criticisms than other variables associated with speaking about controversial topics. Specifically, we propose exploring how social media manifests in the behaviors of students and influences their social interactions. This further research could be supplemented by additional questions added to the survey or by conducting qualitative research in the form of one-on-one interviews with survey participants. We also encourage further exploration as to why we observed the trends seen with reluctance to speak and GPA. We suggest further exploration into how we can produce a change in this classroom reluctance. Since classroom participation appears to be impacted by concerns of peer criticism, it is crucial to further this research by discovering how we can change students' perceptions of their peers and the influence of peer effects in the classroom. These changes may be implemented through modifying the way in which classrooms are structured and through additional instructional activities to facilitate peer acceptance for each other. Research in this area would work to decrease students' concern and increase their comfort speaking about controversial topics in the classroom, therefore increasing their participation in this crucial aspect of the classroom, increasing their engagement, and ultimately increasing their academic performance (Honicke & Broadbent, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref224">59</reflink>]; Mega et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref225">87</reflink>]; Multon et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref226">91</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-17">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors thank the University of Minnesota's Office of Undergraduate Research for helping support this project.</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-18">Author contributions</hd> <p>Brooke Erickson contributed to the majority of paper writing and analysis. Robert Dunbar contributed significantly at the conceptual level, coordinated and directed the project, and made significant editorial contributions to the paper. James Winchip contributed at the conceptual level and provided editorial contributions. Abraham Ayebo provided direction and guidance for the analyses as well as provided editorial contributions. McKenzie Englund provided conceptually and administratively to the project origins as well as providing editorial contributions. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-19">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184871471-20">Ethical approval</hd> <p>The authors have complied with all IRB protocol under STUDY00005129: UMR Heterodoxy, including obtaining informed consent from all human participants in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-21">Competing interests</hd> <p>The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.</p> <hd id="AN0184871471-22">Publisher's note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0184871471-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref50" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abdullah MY, Bakar NRA, Mahbob MH. Student's participation in classroom: What motivates them to speak up?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 51: 516-522. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref44" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmad CV. Causes of students' reluctance to participate in classroom discussions. ASEAN Journal of Science and Engineering Education. 2021; 1; 1: 47-62. 10.17509/ajsee.v1i1.32407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Akomolafe, M. J, Ogunmakin, A. O, & Fasooto, G. M. (2013). The role of academic self-efficacy, academic motivation and academic self-concept in predicting secondary school students' academic performance. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref131" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong-Carter, E, Garrett, S. L, Nick, E. A, Prinstein, M. J, & Telzer, E. H. (2022). Momentary links between adolescents' social media use and social experiences and motivations: Individual differences by peer susceptibility. Developmental Psychology, No Pagination Specified(No Pagination Specified). https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref182" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Atske, S. (2021, April 7). Social media use in 2021. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://pewresearch-org-preprod.go-vip.co/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Auxier, B. (2021, February 1). About one-in-five Americans who have been harassed online say it was because of their religion. Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/02/01/about-one-in-five-americans-who-have-been-harassed-online-say-it-was-because-of-their-religion/">www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/02/01/about-one-in-five-americans-who-have-been-harassed-online-say-it-was-because-of-their-religion/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref82" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bainter TEG, Ackerman ML. Conformity behaviors: A qualitative phenomenological exploration of binge drinking among female college students. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. 2022; 20; 4: 2103-2114. 10.1007/s11469-021-00501-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref66" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bank BJ, Slavings RL, Biddle BJ. Effects of peer, faculty, and parental influences on students' persistence. Sociology of Education. 1990; 63; 3: 208. 10.2307/2112838</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Barroso, A. (2020, July 7). 61% of U.S. women say 'feminist' describes them well; many see feminism as empowering, polarizing. Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/07/61-of-u-s-women-say-feminist-describes-them-well-many-see-feminism-as-empowering-polarizing/">www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/07/61-of-u-s-women-say-feminist-describes-them-well-many-see-feminism-as-empowering-polarizing/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barzilai S, Thomm E, Shlomi-Elooz T. Dealing with disagreement: The roles of topic familiarity and disagreement explanation in evaluation of conflicting expert claims and sources. Learning and Instruction. 2020; 69: 101367. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101367</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baumeister, R. F, & Leary, M. R. (1995) (0801). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bavishi, P, Birnhak, A, Gaughan, J, Mitchell-Williams, J, & Phadtare, S. (2022). Active learning: A shift from passive learning to student engagement improves Understanding and contextualization of nutrition and community health. Education Sciences, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070430. Article 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boulton MJ, Smith PK, Cowie H. Short-term longitudinal relationships between children's peer victimization/bullying experiences and self-perceptions: Evidence for reciprocity. School Psychology International. 2010; 31; 3: 296-311. 10.1177/0143034310362329</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burrow AL, Rainone N. How many likes did I get? Purpose moderates links between positive social media feedback and self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2017; 69: 232-236. 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell M, Spears B, Slee P, Butler D, Kift S. Victims' perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying, and the psychosocial correlates of their victimisation. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. 2012; 17; 3–4: 389-401. 10.1080/13632752.2012.704316</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campus Expression (2022). Survey. Heterodox Academy. https://heterodoxacademy.org/campus-expression-survey/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chi MTH. Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science. 2009; 1; 1: 73-105. 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chiu MM, Pong S, Mori I, Chow BWY. Immigrant students' emotional and cognitive engagement at school: A multilevel analysis of students in 41 countries. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2012; 41; 11: 1409-1425. 10.1007/s10964-012-9763-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, Y, Jung, Y, & Myaeng, S. H. (2010). Identifying controversial issues and their sub-topics in news articles. Intelligence and Security Informatics, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13601-6_16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cinelli, M, De Francisci Morales, G, Galeazzi, A, Quattrociocchi, W, & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ciranka S, van den Bos W. Social norms in adolescent risk engagement and recommendation. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2021; 39; 3: 481-498. 10.1111/bjdp.12369</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Córdova A, Caballero-García A, Drobnic F, Roche E, Noriega DC. Influence of stress and emotions in the learning process: The example of COVID-19 on university students: A narrative review. Healthcare. 2023; 11; 12: 1787. 10.3390/healthcare11121787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickinson, D. L. (2020). Deliberation enhances the confirmation bias in politics. Games, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/g11040057. Article 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dimock, M, & Wike, R. (2020, November 13). America is exceptional in the nature of its political divide. Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-political-divide/">www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-political-divide/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eddy SL, Brownell SE, Thummaphan P, Lan MC, Wenderoth MP. Caution, student experience May vary: Social identities impact a student's experience in peer discussions. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2015; 14; 4: ar45. 10.1187/cbe.15-05-0108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenkopf G. Peer effects, motivation, and learning. Economics of Education Review. 2010; 29; 3: 364-374. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.08.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elias SM. Influence in the Ivory tower: Examining the appropriate use of social power in the university classroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2007; 37; 11: 2532-2548. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00269.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elias SM, Loomis RJ. The effect of instructor gender and race/ethnicity on gaining compliance in the classroom1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2004; 34; 5: 937-958. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02578.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elias SM, Mace BL. Social power in the classroom: Student attributions for compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2005; 35; 8: 1738-1754. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02193.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elkind D. Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development. 1967; 38; 4: 1025-1034. 10.2307/1127100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eren O. Differential peer effects, student achievement, and student absenteeism: Evidence from a large-scale randomized experiment. Demography. 2017; 54; 2: 745-773. 10.1007/s13524-017-0552-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fassinger PA. Professors' and students' perceptions of why students participate in class. Teaching Sociology. 1996; 24; 1: 25-33. 10.2307/1318895</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ficano CC. Peer effects in college academic outcomes– Gender matters!. Economics of Education Review. 2012; 31; 6: 1102-1115. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.07.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fortier MS, Vallerand RJ, Guay F. Academic motivation and school performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 1995; 20; 3: 257-274. 10.1006/ceps.1995.1017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fournier-Sylvester, N. (2013). Daring to debate: Strategies for teaching controversial issues in the classroom. College Quarterly, 16(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1018000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frankenberger K. Adolescent egocentrism: A comparison among adolescents and adults. Journal of Adolescence. 2000; 23; 3: 343-354. 10.1006/jado.2000.0319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman, S, Eddy, S. L, McDonough, M, Smith, M. K, Okoroafor, N, Jordt, H, & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frimer JA, Skitka LJ, Motyl M. Liberals and Conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another's opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2017; 72: 1-12. 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert, D. T. (1991)(0701). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.2.107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giletta, M, Choukas-Bradley, S, Maes, M, Linthicum, K. P, Card, N. A, & Prinstein, M. J. (2021) (1202). A meta-analysis of longitudinal peer influence effects in childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 147(7), 719. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000329</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilovich, T, Medvec, V. H, & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldsmith-Pinkham P, Imbens GW. Social networks and the identification of peer effects. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. 2013; 31; 3: 253-264. 10.1080/07350015.2013.801251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodenow, C. (1992). School motivation, engagement, and sense of belonging among urban adolescent students. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED349364</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gopalan M, Brady ST. College students' sense of belonging: A National perspective. Educational Researcher. 2020; 49; 2: 134-137. 10.3102/0013189X19897622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gopalan M, Linden-Carmichael A, Lanza S. College students' sense of belonging and mental health amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2022; 70; 2: 228-233. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.10.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graesser, A. C, & D'Mello, S. (2012). Emotions during the learning of difficult material. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 183–225). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00005-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, T. V. (2021, November 23). Republicans and democrats alike say it's stressful to talk politics with people who disagree. Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/23/republicans-and-democrats-alike-say-its-stressful-to-talk-politics-with-people-who-disagree/">www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/23/republicans-and-democrats-alike-say-its-stressful-to-talk-politics-with-people-who-disagree/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guenther CL, Alicke MD. Self-enhancement and belief perseverance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2008; 44; 3: 706-712. 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hahn CL, Tocci CM. Classroom climate and controversial issues discussions: A five Nation study. Theory & Research in Social Education. 1990; 18; 4: 344-362. 10.1080/00933104.1990.10505621</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamm MP, Newton AS, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Sundar P, Ennis H, Scott SD, Hartling L. Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: A scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatrics. 2015; 169; 8: 770-777. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han L, Li T. The gender difference of peer influence in higher education. Economics of Education Review. 2009; 28; 1: 129-134. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hand M, Levinson R. Discussing controversial issues in the classroom. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2012; 44; 6: 614-629. 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00732.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Havik T, Westergård E. Do teachers matter? Students' perceptions of classroom interactions and student engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 64; 4: 488-507. 10.1080/00313831.2019.1577754</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heuman A. Trivializing Language correctness in an online metalinguistic debate. Language & Communication. 2022; 82: 52-63. 10.1016/j.langcom.2021.11.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heyman JL, Kerr LG, Human LJ. Social media use predicts greater liking in in-person initial interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2022; 48; 9: 1393-1405. 10.1177/01461672211040964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillygus DS. The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education and political engagement. Political Behavior. 2005; 27; 1: 25-47. 10.1007/s11109-005-3075-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoff DL, Mitchell SN. Cyberbullying: Causes, effects, and remedies. Journal of Educational Administration. 2009; 47; 5: 652-665. 10.1108/09578230910981107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman M, Richmond J, Morrow J, Salomone K. Investigating sense of belonging in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research Theory & Practice. 2002; 4; 3: 227-256. 10.2190/DRYC-CXQ9-JQ8V-HT4V</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honicke T, Broadbent J. The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review. 2016; 17: 63-84. 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horowitz, D. (2007). Indoctrination U: The left's war against academic freedom. Encounter Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoxby, C. (2000). Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation (NBER Working Paper No. 7867). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w7867</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson DW. Student-student interaction: The neglected variable in education. Educational Researcher. 1981; 10; 1: 5-10. 10.3102/0013189X010001005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson DW. Teaching students to manage intercultural conflicts constructively. European Journal of Intercultural Studies. 1998; 9; 2: 155-163. 10.1080/0952391980090205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher. 2009; 38; 1: 37-51. 10.3102/0013189X08330540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones M, Sugden R. Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information. Theory and Decision. 2001; 50; 1: 59-99. 10.1023/A:1005296023424</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones LM, Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D. Trends in youth internet victimization: Findings from three youth internet safety surveys 2000–2010. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2012; 50; 2: 179-186. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.09.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kashy-Rosenbaum G, Aizenkot D. Exposure to cyberbullying in whatsapp classmates' groups and classroom climate as predictors of students' sense of belonging: A multi-level analysis of elementary, middle and high schools. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020; 108: 104614. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104614</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly-Woessner A, Woessner M. Conflict in the classroom: Considering the effects of partisan difference on political education. Journal of Political Science Education. 2008; 4; 3: 265-285. 10.1080/15512160802202789</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khan, H. A, Kamal, Y, & Saleem, S. (2016). Peer influence on young adults' products purchase decisions. Business & Economic Review, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.22547/BER/8.SE.6. 8(Special Edition).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klem AM, Connell JP. Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health. 2004; 74; 7: 262-273. 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kowalski RM, Limber SP. Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2007; 41; 6: S22-S30. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kowalski, R, Giumetti, G, Schroeder, A, & Lattanner, M. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh GD, Cruce TM, Shoup R, Kinzie J, Gonyea RM. Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education. 2008; 79; 5: 540-563. 10.1353/jhe.0.0019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lapsley DK, Murphy MN. Another look at the theoretical assumptions of adolescent egocentrism. Developmental Review. 1985; 5; 3: 201-217. 10.1016/0273-2297(85)90009-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavy, V, & Schlosser, A. (2007). Mechanisms and impacts of gender peer effects at school (NBER Working Paper No. 13292). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w13292</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lei H, Cui Y, Zhou W. Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal. 2018; 46: 517-528. 10.2224/sbp.7054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu CT, Guo YM. The role of sense of belonging in social media usage: A Tale of two types of users. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems. 2015; 25; 2: 403-422. 10.14329/apjis.2015.25.2.403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lodder GMA, Scholte RHJ, Goossens L, Engels RCME, Verhagen M. Loneliness and the social monitoring system: Emotion recognition and eye gaze in a real-life conversation. British Journal of Psychology. 2016; 107; 1: 135-153. 10.1111/bjop.12131</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lomi A, Snijders TAB, Steglich CEG, Torló VJ. Why are some more peer than others? Evidence from a longitudinal study of social networks and individual academic performance. Social Science Research. 2011; 40; 6: 1506-1520. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.06.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lopes, L. S, Valentini, J. P, Monteiro, T. H, Costacurta, M. C, de Soares, F, Telfar-Barnard, L. O. N, L, & Nunes, P. V. (2022). Problematic social media use and its relationship with depression or anxiety: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0300</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lord, M. (2015). Group learning capacity: The roles of open-mindedness and shared vision. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00150</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyon D. Digital citizenship and surveillance| surveillance culture: Engagement, exposure, and ethics in digital modernity. International Journal of Communication. 2017; 11; 0: Article0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mallik B. Teacher-student relationship and its influence on college student engagement and academic achievement. Anatolian Journal of Education. 2023; 8: 93-112. 10.29333/aje.2023.817a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mariani MD, Hewitt GJ. Indoctrination U.? Faculty ideology and changes in student political orientation. PS: Political Science & Politics. 2008; 41; 4: 773-783. 10.1017/S1049096508081031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCroskey JC, Richmond VP. Power in the classroom I: Teacher and student perceptions. Communication Education. 1983; 32; 2: 175-184. 10.1080/03634528309378527</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKown C, Weinstein RS. Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology. 2008; 46; 3: 235-261. 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mega, C, Ronconi, L, & De Beni, R. (2013) (0701). What makes a good student? How emotions, self-regulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 121. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033546</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mesch G, Talmud I. The quality of online and offline relationships: The role of multiplexity and duration of social relationships. The Information Society. 2006; 22; 3: 137-148. 10.1080/01972240600677805</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miklikowska M, Rekker R, Kudrnac A. A little more conversation a little less prejudice: The role of classroom political discussions for youth's attitudes toward immigrants. Political Communication. 2022; 39; 3: 405-427. 10.1080/10584609.2022.2032502</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Misco T. Teaching about controversial issues: Rationale, practice, and need for inquiry. European Journal for Education Law and Policy. 2011; 7: 7-18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Multon KD, Brown SD, Lent RW. Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1991; 38; 1: 30. 10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy P, Wilkinson I, Soter A, Hennessey M, Alexander J. Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students' comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009; 101: 740-764. 10.1037/a0015576</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics (2023). Undergraduate enrollment. Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved June 20, 2024 from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cha</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newman B, Lohman B, Newman P. Peer group membership and sense of belonging: Their relationship to adolescent behavior problems. Adolescence. 2007; 42: 241-263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng E. No grand pronouncements here... reflections on cancel culture and digital media participation. Television & New Media. 2020; 21; 6: 621-627. 10.1177/1527476420918828</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nielsen SL, Sarason IG. Emotion, personality, and selective attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981; 41; 5: 945-960. 10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.945</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor KJ. Class participation: Promoting in-class student engagement. Education. 2013; 133; 3: 340-344</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olagbaju O, Nnorom SU. Effects of class size and peer influence on senior secondary students' achievement. Journal of Research in Education Science and Technology. 2019; 4; 2: 61-69</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oosterbeek H, van Ewijk R. Gender peer effects in University: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Economics of Education Review. 2014; 38: 51-63. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perrin, A. (2015, October 8). Social media usage: 2005–2015. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/">www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Precourt E, Gainor M. Factors affecting classroom participation and how participation leads to a better learning. Accounting Education. 2019; 28; 1: 100-118. 10.1080/09639284.2018.1505530</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price E, Ottati V, Wilson C, Kim S. Open-minded cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2015; 41; 11: 1488-1504. 10.1177/0146167215600528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quin D. Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–student relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research. 2017; 87; 2: 345-387. 10.3102/0034654316669434</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quin D, Hemphill SA, Heerde JA. Associations between teaching quality and secondary students' behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement in school. Social Psychology of Education. 2017; 20; 4: 807-829. 10.1007/s11218-017-9401-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reid LF, Kawash J. Let's talk about power: How teacher use of power shapes relationships and learning. Papers on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching. 2017; 2: 34-41. 10.11575/pplt.v2i.42628</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rezaei A. Groupwork in active learning classrooms: Recommendations for users. Journal of Learning Spaces. 2020; 9; 2: 1-21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rimm-Kaufman, S, Sandilos, L. (2015). Improving Students' Relationships with Teachers to Provide Essential Supports for Learning. American Psychological Association. https://<ulink href="http://www.apa.org/education-career/k12/relationships">www.apa.org/education-career/k12/relationships</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson E, Jones A, Christiansen P, Field M. Drinking like everyone else: Trait self-control moderates the association between peer and personal heavy episodic drinking. Substance Use & Misuse. 2015; 50; 5: 590-597. 10.3109/10826084.2014.991407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rocca K. Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education. 2010; 59; 2: 185-213. 10.1080/03634520903505936</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Romano, A. (2021, May 5). What does cancel culture even mean in 2021? Vox. https://<ulink href="http://www.vox.com/22384308/cancel-culture-free-speech-accountability-debate">www.vox.com/22384308/cancel-culture-free-speech-accountability-debate</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenthal R, Jacobson L. Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review. 1968; 3; 1: 16-20. 10.1007/BF02322211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross L, Lepper MR, Hubbard M. Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1976; 32; 5: 880. 10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.880</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rotolo, A. J. (2022). Cancel culture in academia: Social media self-presentation in the context of imagined surveillance (Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University). ProQuest. https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2654209094/abstract/835F35AC7B32477BPQ/1">www.proquest.com/docview/2654209094/abstract/835F35AC7B32477BPQ/1</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz PD, Maynard AM, Uzelac SM. Adolescent egocentrism: A contemporary view. Adolescence. 2008; 43; 171: 441-448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shibley, R, & Barnes, T. (2022, July 27). Cancel culture empowers the powerful—at everyone else's expense. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. https://<ulink href="http://www.thefire.org/news/cancel-culture-empowers-powerful-everyone-elses-expense">www.thefire.org/news/cancel-culture-empowers-powerful-everyone-elses-expense</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sidanius J, Sinclair S, Pratto F. Social dominance orientation, gender, and increasing educational exposure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2006; 36; 7: 1640-1653. 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00074.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith DG. College classroom interactions and critical thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1977; 69; 2: 180. 10.1037/0022-0663.69.2.180</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science. 2009; 323; 5910: 122-124. 10.1126/science.1165919</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, L. M, Zhu, L, Lerman, K, & Kozareva, Z. (2013). The role of social media in the discussion of controversial topics. 2013 International Conference on Social Computing, 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1109/SocialCom.2013.41</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steenberghs, N, Lavrijsen, J, Soenens, B, & Verschueren, K. (2021). Peer effects on engagement and disengagement: Differential contributions from friends, popular peers, and the entire class. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.726815</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tokunaga RS. Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior. 2010; 26; 3: 277-287. 10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trucco EM, Colder CR, Wieczorek WF. Vulnerability to peer influence: A moderated mediation study of early adolescent alcohol use initiation. Addictive Behaviors. 2011; 36; 7: 729-736. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.02.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trusz S. Four mediation models of teacher expectancy effects on students' outcomes in mathematics and literacy. Social Psychology of Education. 2018; 21; 2: 257-287. 10.1007/s11218-017-9418-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsitsika A, Janikian M, Wójcik S, Makaruk K, Tzavela E, Tzavara C, Greydanus D, Merrick J, Richardson C. Cyberbullying victimization prevalence and associations with internalizing and externalizing problems among adolescents in six European countries. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015; 51: 1-7. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner, C. (2023). Online echo chambers, online epistemic bubbles, and open-mindedness. Episteme, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2023.52</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Dusen, B, & Otero, V. (2014). July 30–31). From fear to self-expression: The contextual nature of physics students' motivations. Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference 2014, Minneapolis, MN. https://<ulink href="http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=13500%26DocID=4095">www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=13500%26DocID=4095</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vogels, E. A. (2022, June 9). A growing share of Americans are familiar with 'cancel culture.' Pew Research Center. https://pewresearch-org-preprod.go-vip.co/fact-tank/2022/06/09/a-growing-share-of-americans-are-familiar-with-cancel-culture/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vogels, E. A, Anderson, M, Porteus, M, Baronavski, C, Atske, S, McClain, C, Auxier, B, Perrin, A, & Ramshankar, M. (2021, May 19). Americans and 'cancel culture': Where some see calls for accountability, others see censorship, punishment. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/">www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker SA. Socratic strategies and Devil's advocacy in synchronous CMC debate. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2004; 20; 3: 172-182. 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00082.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton GM, Cohen GL. A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007; 92; 1: 82-96. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton GM, Cohen GL. A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science. 2011; 331; 6023: 1447-1451. 10.1126/science.1198364</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Washington ET. An overview of cyberbullying in higher education. Adult Learning. 2015; 26; 1: 21-27. 10.1177/1045159514558412</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watts LK, Wagner J, Velasquez B, Behrens PI. Cyberbullying in higher education: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 69: 268-274. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weaver RR, Qi J. Classroom organization and participation: College students' perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education. 2005; 76; 5: 570-601. 10.1353/jhe.2005.0038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilcox P, Winn S, Fyvie-Gauld M. It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people': The role of social support in the first‐year experience of higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 2005; 30; 6: 707-722. 10.1080/03075070500340036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winston, G, & Zimmerman, D. (2004). Peer effects in higher education. In College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 395–424). University of Chicago Press. https://<ulink href="http://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/college-choices-economics-where-go-when-go-and-how-pay-it/peer-effects-higher-education">www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/college-choices-economics-where-go-when-go-and-how-pay-it/peer-effects-higher-education</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winstone NE, Kinchin IM. Teaching sensitive issues: Psychological literacy as an antidote to pedagogic frailty. Psychology Teaching Review. 2017; 23; 1: 15-29. 10.53841/bpsptr.2017.23.1.15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woessner M, Kelly-Woessner A. I think my professor is a Democrat: Considering whether students recognize and React to faculty politics. PS: Political Science & Politics. 2009; 42; 2: 343-352. 10.1017/S1049096509090453</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woessner M, Kelly-Woessner A. Why college students drift left: The stability of political identity and relative malleability of issue positions among college students. PS: Political Science & Politics. 2020; 53; 4: 657-664. 10.1017/S1049096520000396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wyble B, Sharma D, Bowman H. Strategic regulation of cognitive control by emotional salience: A neural network model. Cognition and Emotion. 2008; 22; 6: 1019-1051. 10.1080/02699930701597627</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang X, Liu RD, Ding Y, Hong W, Jiang S. The relations between academic procrastination and self-esteem in adolescents: A longitudinal study. Current Psychology. 2021. 10.1007/s12144-021-02075-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> You S. Peer influence and adolescents' school engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011; 29: 829-835. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, S, & Barbaro, N. (2023). Understanding student expression across higher ed. Heterodox Academy's annual Campus Expression Survey. Heterodox Academy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zingora T, Stark TH, Flache A. Who is most influential? Adolescents' intergroup attitudes and peer influence within a social network. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2020; 23; 5: 684-709. 10.1177/1368430219869460</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Brooke Erickson; Robert Dunbar; James Winchip; Abraham Ayebo and McKenzie Englund</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Brooke Erickson Brooke Erickson Brooke Erickson has a Bachelor's Degree in Health Science from the University of Minnesota Rochester, USA and currently holds a Graduate Research Appointment at the Mayo Clinic. Her research and professional interests focus on healthcare education, clinical practice, and the psychological and behavioral aspects of health.</p> <p>Robert Dunbar Robert Dunbar Dr. Robert Dunbar is an associate professor of Neuroscience and Psychology at the University of Minnesota Rochester, USA. He holds a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from the University of Minnesota and a Master's degree in Biology from Drake University. His research and teaching focus on neuroscience, psychology, happiness and well-being, and student success, with a particular interest in exploring factors that foster student flourishing and academic achievement.</p> <p>James Winchip James Winchip James Winchip earned his Masters in Social Psychology at the University of Northern Iowa. James has been teaching and doing research at the University of Minnesota for over ten years. His research interest is primarily focused on the psychosocial variables impacting learning and student outcomes.</p> <p>Abraham Ayebo Abraham Ayebo Dr. Abraham Ayebo is an Associate Professor of Mathematics Education at the University of Minnesota Rochester, USA. He holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics Education. His research focuses on understanding how students' attitudes, beliefs, emotions, and motivations influence their engagement and performance in mathematical and statistical learning environments.</p> <p>McKenzie Englund McKenzie Englund McKenzie Englund holds a Bachelor's degree in Health Science from the University of Minnesota Rochester, USA, with additional training in neuroscience, psychology, and integrative healing. Her work explores the intersection of science and spirituality, specializing in ketamine-assisted therapy and identity reprogramming to facilitate deep healing, emotional resilience, and lasting transformation.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref186"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref208"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl128" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl129" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl130" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref220"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl131" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl132" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref222"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl133" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref223"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1469570
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Reluctance to Speak in College Classrooms: Academic Causes and Consequences
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brooke+Erickson%22">Brooke Erickson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Robert+Dunbar%22">Robert Dunbar</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8719-7886">0000-0001-8719-7886</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22James+Winchip%22">James Winchip</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Abraham+Ayebo%22">Abraham Ayebo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McKenzie+Englund%22">McKenzie Englund</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Social+Psychology+of+Education%3A+An+International+Journal%22"><i>Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 28(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Participation%22">Student Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Communication%22">Classroom Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Small+Colleges%22">Small Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+Point+Average%22">Grade Point Average</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Controversial+Issues+%28Course+Content%29%22">Controversial Issues (Course Content)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Criticism%22">Criticism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Media%22">Social Media</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Speech+Communication%22">Speech Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Surveys%22">Student Surveys</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11218-025-10063-3
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1381-2890<br />1573-1928
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Controversial topics are important parts of academic discussions, and due to the nature of these topics, students may be reluctant to speak freely about them in college classrooms. This study aims to explore factors that influence students' reluctance to speak at a small midwest college, and the effect this may have on academic performance. We surveyed 233 undergraduates to evaluate the connection between campus expression and academic performance through the hypothesis that there is an inverse relationship between reluctance to speak and grade-point-average. A t-test was used to examine whether the number of topics students are reluctant to speak about is related to GPA, and found that the average GPA of students who are reluctant about a moderate number of topics is higher than those reluctant about an extreme number. We also explored the hypothesis that students who are reluctant to speak about controversial topics in the classroom are more concerned that peers will criticize their views as offensive than they are about criticism from professors or on social media. A McNemar's Chi-Square test was used to analyze the results to determine which factor students were more concerned about. Students were more concerned about their peers than about their professors or being posted on social media. These results may highlight targets in classroom structure for attempting to decrease reluctance to speak.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1469570
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1469570
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11218-025-10063-3
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Small Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade Point Average
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Controversial Issues (Course Content)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Criticism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Media
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Speech Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Surveys
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Reluctance to Speak in College Classrooms: Academic Causes and Consequences
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brooke Erickson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Robert Dunbar
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: James Winchip
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Abraham Ayebo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McKenzie Englund
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1381-2890
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1928
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1