205. The moderating effect of college students’ participation in art and design activities on their social barriers

Abstract Background In the context of the prevalence of digital socialization, phenomena such as “social avoidance” and “social anxiety” are widely observed among college students, constituting varying degrees of social barriers. These barriers not only affect academic performance but also impede the development of social adaptability. Traditional group psychological counseling often suffers from low participation due to "stigma." Art and design activities (e.g., collaborative design, workshops) possess characteristics of non-verbal expression, task-oriented approaches, and creative expression, potentially offering a low-resistance intervention pathway to alleviate social pressure. This study aims to explore the moderating role of participation in collaborative art and design activities on social barriers among college students and its underlying psychological mechanisms. Methods A study screened 120 college students with Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) scores above the cutoff value (>30) and randomly assigned them to two groups: (1) Art Collaborative Design Group (n = 60), which participated in a 10-week "Campus Landscape Renovation" design workshop emphasizing teamwork, creative brainstorming, and collaborative production; (2) Theoretical Learning Control Group (n = 60), which attended equivalent-duration lectures on art history appreciation, focusing on individual lectures and independent assignment completion. Assessment tools included: LSAS for measuring social anxiety and avoidance levels; General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) for evaluating confidence in various situations. Data were collected at baseline and at the end of the intervention. Results Table 1 shows the comparison of social impairment and self-efficacy indicators between the two groups after the intervention. As shown in Table 1, after the intervention, the total LSAS score of the collaborative design group was significantly lower than that of the control group (35.2 ± 6.8 vs 48.5 ± 7.2, p