Mk,

ED-218 $80

' AUTHORTITLE

PUB DATENOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

O

\ DOCUMENT RESUME.

-

s . CS 503, 864

... .

Greene, JAn,O.; Sparks, Glenn G.Towards a Meconceptualization of. CommunicationApprehension: A Cognitive-Approach. .'

May 82 , ,. ...

43p..; Paper presented at the Animal Meeting of the 4'e;

International CommUnication Association'(Boston, MA,May 2-5, 1982).

, ,

--

MF01/PCO2.Plus Postage..

,

Sognitive Deil7elopment.; Communication (Thought,Transfer); *Communication Apprehension;*Communication Research;.*Goal Orientation; ,*Interactioal' Interpersonal Competence; *Mbdels; ,

'*pelf Concept.. -, ,.

.4,;0,724

,

\ABSTRACT-. ,. : fr

V

o Among the characteristi'cs of communicative. \ . .. #

apprthensive\indiiiiduaIS are fearful reactions to communication .

situations, perceptions.of low personal competency, an inability toidentify appropriate social behaiiiors, and an anticipation of .

,negati e outcomes to interaction. One proposed model for -

I:4e' commun cation apprehension assumes that a..state.of apprehension,-.., arises as a result of an inability to 'identify communication

.. behaviors'expecfed to lead' to a realizatign of the.interiction goal ,,(perceived outcome). The chaqce of arriving af'an expectation of goal '' ,

accomi5lishment'is increased as the number of alternativesunderconsideration is inc eased. Th#se eipectations arise as a result ofi acognitive evaluation process tlitik may involve both-personility and.situational factors.'Thp model assumes that the task of the ,

identify coma' hPhavio_r_or=behavioral strategy which,when.ekacted in the presence of .,one's co-interactant, will *result inthe accomplishment, of some end. An initial test of the model to,determine its use to predict the occurrence of a state cii

A comoRnicaltion apprehension showed that expected success ing

accomlishiii4 an interaction goal and expected self-image maintenance' 'were both significant predictors of anxiety. (HOD)

. .e..

, O

o s

),

***************************************************************4***1**_

* Reproductions supplied -by EDRS are the best that can be madeIv

, from-the original dodument. - *****************************************-******W**t*********************

*O.

°ToWards a Recon.ceptualization of Communication Apprehension:

2

A Cog nitive ApproaCh

t

, John 0. Greene

Glenn G. SparksV

,Department of Communication Arts

University of Wisconsi4:dison

Wisconsin 53706

(608) 263-2039

:VERMISSIONTOREPRODUCETMSMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

` 7:161-16-Greene

Glann,G Sparks_

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFQRMATION CENTER (ERIC)"

,

a

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUVATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

NIC.

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or. organizetionoriginating it I

i I Minor changes have been made to !mproye

reproduction quality

Points Of view or ()Pinions stated in this docu

melt do not necessarily represent official NIE

position or policy

Paper presentedat the,Interdational Communication AssoC.iationConvention,:-Rotton, MA, 1982

(1;3.. The authors wish, to express their thanks t!PrOfeSsorS JosepliN.

.0:,

Cappella, Mary Anne_Fitzpatrick, and Dean E. Hewds,fortheir

(13 , . comments 'on earlier versions of this manuscript.

r et

10,.

..--... .

(4 :

9

7ofAs communication theorists are. caught up in the rising tide of

. .

d.ognitivism there is' increasing concern with the nature of.thementai

processes Which give rise te, communicative behaviors (Craig, 1979; Miller,, , l .

. . ..

1.969; 1976; Planalp & Hewes, in press). Nowhere is this trend more welco e4

than in the area Of anxious.and fearful reactions to communicative inter-4 .

.

,changes. ReCentlythetrists have come to address issues of communication. .

,. _ .

anxiety in terms of learning processes,(e., Daly & Friedrick, 1978; McCroskeyV- 9

!IP197,7; 1981; see also Kelly, 1982), expectation formation (e.i.:,.Glaser,', .

.1.- . . ,-

-, « I«« . .

., .- .$

1981; McCrdskey;/198,1), and-outc.ome evaluation '(e.4., McCrOskey & RichMond,( r, , Ir.-' ', , 4

am,

.4.

*977; Phillips, 1977-;.Phill.ips.

A 'pokolo,ff 1979).' HOweize, as of- there , 's

. I A 4 t %r

.%

. 4s sis 'little indicetlbn of'the-sliecific...natUre of these cognItiite'proc -ses or

. .... ,

k, -00f ..their posf6,cn,in a .gemeral.model'of psichological.functions:

.

.. .1i . :

. .

.

. . . - .15resent effort repres.ents an attempt. to further the development of cdp.itive

. c. .

r ,

C .

- Approaches to.

communication apprehension -by.presenting an initial model of. %,, .

. a

v .

S

the relebant mental processes.

Characteristics of the Apprehnsive Individual

In order to inform our theorizing'abbut the-nature bf the Cognitive

1processes which lead to a state bf fear oe anxiety in a communicative

s.'ituation we need first ,to inqui;,e af ter the characteristics Of such

apprehensive individuals., Perusal of the relevant literature reveals a,--,. 1 -

. .

nuraber of characte istits Which provide an invtluabIe clue to the nature

. . :

. of the cognitive p esses which lead to a state of apprehension. The most,. o

. / .- .. e '''.. ,

. ,

obviods chaiaCteiisiics are, of course, the'withdrawal, fearful, and '

anxious react,bns to communication situations (McCroskey, 1970;.' Phi',Iips,. ..-

. .!..Y.,;;.. ,

..;,-

.;19680`, Thus,Thus, any.model of communication apprehension must eventually )!7;_.f.

.

A , .

account 'for these responses. Beyond these respon,,ses, are other, character- .

Istics which have been suggested, by a number of autTlorS, among these are. .

.

I

I. .

1

.°

2

e<1) 'percepions of low personal.competency, (2). an inability_ to identify

, .1

el -.appropriate social behaviors and (3Y anticipation of negative outconles to

1

interaction.

o

.lerceoptions ef,Low Personal Competency, A number of authors have oft

^ 4. . 4

-reported empirica or conceptual atidnships between Communication

APprehbnsion, or related constru ts, and a generalized perception pf a) / --.

i'

_.

lack of personal competency. ,,Self- esteem has beenfouncLto besignifiCentry .

f

correlated wit .Communicatiod-ApPrehensioh In seliaral, cases (Lustig, '1i7:A; _-- . `..

. v. ''..

k.

I - . . . kt ., . -, ' . ..,MtCroskey,-Dely, Richmond & Falcione,'1.977; Snavely, Merker,BeRice

.

.Book,Book,. . 4 0

... '.4

,1976). In.

additiOn, Cotnmunicatipn APprehensiod has been, linked to lin.,...

,, ),..

...A '1'

external contrbl. Q

brientation.and a lack a confidence cEroskey, Daly & ...,'

a o ,aNo I

ip \ Sorenspn4-1976).. Simi#rly, Phillips and Metzger (1973) report, that .

.

; \- _. i

.. Reticent. individuals perceive others to be more skillful at'communicaion- .

. -.

than-Chemseives. This point is supportad by fin*ngs of significant.

empirical relationShips betweenymeasutes of aettcence and,lm., self-

evaluations (Rosenfeld & Plax; 1976). .

.

. . :

Perceptions of 16w perSotal competency h.Ae lso.been linked to al, *

number of other constructs which are conceptually and empirically relatedother

iv"

1.to communicati n apprehension.! For, example, Zimbardo (1977) hasisug-,

gested that shyness is related 'to self- esteem. Predispositions T6wArd,

416rVerbal Behavior, which is in part an assessment, an individual.s pet-

ceptsions of his/hen frequency and duration,of communication, has been

shown to be-correlated with self-esteem and a sense of powerlessness 4 .

(Mortensen '& Arntson, 19174;..Mortensen, Arnton & Lustig, 1977) .

r1

t

Unwillidgness to Communicate, which represents "a.4chronic tendency to

pl'

avoid and/or 7ii communication" (Burgoon, 1976,.p. 60) ls Com-,1

47tredlly linked to low self-esteem and anomie and alidnaeion O Rurgoo 6;

.

` .Burgoon,,, 1974; Burgoon, 1976). , -'

-.., 1'

,. I 4

. So. ."' , 1/4,- :

.

,

Inability to Identify appropriate Social Behavior: A number of If

authors have suggested.thatthose individuals prone to anxious

reactions in social situations are often unable to identify,,appropriate

doodaI behaviors. Indeed, Retfcence is seen as primarily due to a lack '

of-communication skill t (Kelly,, 1982). Phillips and Metzger (1973)

emphasize that0Reticent individuals often exhibie indecisiveness which

'appeaes.to result from uncertainty concerning their social obligations:

Indecisiveness appears to result, inmost cases, eitherfrom not being aware of what the 'communication require -.,

Tents- are-im a givers situation, or from understanding. ,the requirementt bdt nnt-Iglowing what behavior is needed,

e at,a given time.and,p1ace (p: 225).. . . ',fie _suggest thatthere appears to be aproblem of perception of self

0 related to many situations, which, combined with leek of .

skill, makes a reticent person unaware of alternatives,or, if aware .of them, unable to apply them (p. 2,27) .

4,

SiMilarlys,, a skills deficit has been proposed to account for anxious.

,

. -'reactions to , neterosqxual-social. anxiety (Curran, 1977) as well as Communi-

cation Apprehension (Daly &' Friedrich, 1978; Glaser, 1981)./

Amt-i-c-ipa t-ion of Negatlye-:Cutcpmes to Communication. "Finally, com-'

munication.apprehension appears'to e related tp the anticipation of

negativeour.a,ames to communicative'interchanges. McCroskey (1981) has

recently proposed a 1.-alarneU helplessness approach to State Communication

Apprehension. On this view the arousal of 'a state of fear or anxiety it

seen to,occur as he resurNof-negative expectations coricernihgtommuni-.

cative-odtmes. Such an approadh is in keeping with McCroskey and

o

. 17ifichmond's-(1977.) arlier hypothesis e-high Communicatiom'Apprehensives

.

perceive that th -y engage in'less self disclosur because they wish to

prevent others rom frming negative'iMpressions of them. F rther, a. _ ..' °

number of othe authors have Suggested tVat expectations of adverselkon-,

. . 4 '. -

sequences and rceptions of insufficient abilities will lead'ko anxious

1977; Giffin & Gilham, 1971; Glaser; 1981). Filly,

, 0-, , , ..

, .reactions (

4

1

r-t.)

.

ft

e

the expectation-of negative outcomes. is also implied by the gains/losses

conceptualization of Reticence ("Phillips, 1977; Phillips & Metzger, -1973;'.

Phillifs &Sokoloff, 1979; S.okoloff,& Phillps,1976):

, ;

Towards a Reconceptualization of Communication Apprehension_.

-_- , s..-.. .

It is important-to realize

'that an understanding bf communication

. . i. . .

apprehension cannot'come from a delineation of the characteristics of.,

the apprehensive individu'al.- This understanding .can only come through

the explication and pest of models of the processeing to-communi-.

cation Apprehension.

The aim of the..remainder of this pap =r is to present just such .4.

. model which purports ta'acCOUnt for state co" unicatio apprehension. In

. .' .So doing, we believe that the nature of trait ommunication apprehension,

---,

that is; individual differences in'the tendency experience communication. . .

anxiety,,will'adso beclarifie,

Give the 'characteristics of the reticent outline'd above; we wish

/

o propose that communication apprehension is a response to a situation

.

,.in which they individual has a negative outcome expectation du,e to his/ee

OR

her inability to identify or engage in behaviors expeCted to lead tot

.

.,.

.. 4 .

.

positive outcomes. "Positive outcomes," :here, refers to tSe accomplj,:phmentk= .

. . . -I. .

of interaction goals. Perceptions of-personal communication competency..,

l...--.- ,

.,

should be expected to be related to communication apprehension because_

,- . -. -,_ _

they play a key role in theevaluat,ion pf 'potential outcome success. This.

.,, . 4.. a o

apprehensive respOse,is-Characterized by a state of anxiety and a sense. . _! ,..

.

.of'uncertainty,concerning.

appropriate" beffaviOfs. For this reason indivi-,

. . k. I 's I

duals may demonstrate eirrldrsin speech produLion (Reynolds & Paivio, 1968;,..°

%Siegman & Pope, 1965)':or avoid or withdraw from interaction.

' Support for this generalfproPosieion be, found in a number of

terI

4

r

M

r.s

N.

0

$

t -ip--.4" I

cognitive approaches to anxiety and' emotiop, Particularly relevant, in,.

this respect is tkre theory of anxIetresented by ;fandler (Mandler,,197,2;.

1976; Mandieratitson,ii)66)..landlei's position is representative ofs*,

what'Epsteit (1972) 1as termed "response unaveila5ility"'approaches-to

\-

anxiety. 'Despite important dfferences,in underlyin% assumptions. and

Y.A

theoretical constructs (see Lazarusgnd Averili, 1972; May, 1950), these

approaches are similar in that-'they each hold that the inail4ty to

identify siEuationally-relevant behaviors is a"dhacteristic of anxiety.

..-....

.

. ..

Mandler makes use oPan extension of two-factor theory Of" 'emotion e. ...: . , -.

Schacheer, 1966_; 1970, 1973; Schachr & Singer,'19621 $Cbachter.S

1.

Wheeler;1962) in specifying the natur of anxiety.2

Bastic to Handler's.

position is the assumption of the existence of a hierarchyof cognitive

structures which are resontitqe for br"perceptuai processing and

0 / .

execution of behavior. ,fn the:ivent,

that the cognitive system, is unable. i ,

. -,.

to handle either input or action requirements,Mandler :b4Ads that an

''''

.-. . ,'1 ;

; .

,,

,°' "interruption" of cognitive activity willsoccur. Forexapple, unexpect.-,-

0

. ..

.

or novel stimuli are,interruptiVe because they cannot be easily accom- 4

. .

modated ot'assimilated by.exisiMmg cognitive structures., ThiS interruption

is' characterized by a state of autonomic arousal and cognitive coping

activities. 1. °

0

These cognitive coping activities include a gearchfor alternative

means'of puruing the interrup ted activity. According to Mandler,:a

.

sease'-of "helplessness" will arise when the individual* cannot identify, . 1

,4..

any "tak--gr.situationally--,relevant plans or actions" (Mandler,. 1975,. .

p. 207) . In other words, helplessness is_ the. result of'aeinability.ed.

.

identify any appropriate behavfrior. Mandler holds that it is eh is sense ."'* t. - . .

..

of .helplessness coupled'With-the heightened arousal due tiLinter,r(Otioe .A N . .S.

.. . -. . 'I -- ,, , 0 -

which lead's to 'tit pilenomenal experience of anxiety.'So important ;-is.

. . p. .

7..

4

.`

the availability of*aPpr6priaie behavioral.responses that M'Lldler'claims.

-. . .

',."it shOuld be possible to maiipul4 e,the degree of aegatiliet.affeceby., . * ..

.-.,..

varying the responses available to' the organism immediately following

. ...

. . i co . 4, t. ,

Q. 4 0 0' the interruption" (Handler, 1975; p.-1.64)

1

r

able that will achieve desirable, ends, then heloleOkness

In addifion to interruption. and helplessness, a Olird,cbnstruccr. t

employed by Mandler- which ispeli ent to the present inquiry is that of .

.,,.

...

1 . .

"hopelessness.' While helplessness is the result oft an inability to..

.

identify a reldvant behavior in a particular situation, hopelessnessft A 11Ak f

A V 1 1 A A,, t ,

refers to a. generalized perception of personal inability to identify', `;,,..%:. 4appropriate behavioris. Thus, hopelessness which Mandler,sees.as relat,ed

..,,,

t -... . 1

to self-esteem,'may-lead to anxiety'llcause perceptions of a lack- of .

competence or control wig result in a. reduced estimate of .the likelihood, \

of accomplishing the current goal.

In conclusion, and tt the posible cost of over-redundancy,'we wish

,

tc'emphasize that the crucial point is that: '. , .

Whenever a.search of appropriate action systems indicate?

s

.-

.. that because of past experiences or the generalized.c

evaluation of personal competence, no actions are avail-

4

3t. hopelessness will result. These means and ends need

- ,not 'be associated. Isith he avoidance of aversive events;

they may jrtst as well relate to-the unattainability of

desrabl tafes (handler, 1975, pp. 211,--212) [emphasis added].

Additional-support for the conceptualization of anxiety. proposed

here comes from the cybernetic model of embtions prdsented by Pribram and

Melg)as (1969; se4 also- SimOnov: 1981).. While Ma ndler;s model is repre-. . .-.

. .

sentative of traditional psyEhological appvaCh.ds,', that of Pribram and-....

, .

Melte is based upon-neurophysi ological foundations.' Pribram and Melges

0

1'

--,,' this,decision'is made via an-assessmen 'processiih which'ihe individual4':',., .

--

,,, , ,

.-421

considers past experiences in order to determine how hest to.deal with

At .

the_discrepant inputs. Awl' is seen't6 arise when this assessment

qv"

,. 7

. . .< s

. ,..--

1

---,,conceive of the mind as a hidrarchy of servomechanisms which serve to

.

. ,..detect incongruities 9etweekinputs afa'neural structUres. These servo-

.

'

. ,

. . \--,......

mechanisms act to ceintrol, discrepant in.puts.which disturb the equiliblium.-

.s

of the neural-system. Pribram and Melges have'' identified twd.

processes.

,0 .

by which an individual may regain a homeostatiC state-after encountering

incongruouspUts. Participatory processes are thosein*wkich the.

4 ... .

individual orients toward the disrupting inputs in order to.facilitlite1

reit. ructuring of the neural structu4, ther) ebyir eseOring equilibrium.'. .

., . ./

.

Preparatory. processes, on the other tend, are thpse idlwhich the iffdividual ;i 4.

-,,,acts to change or avoid the incongruous input---

\--The important point, given our.presej concerns, is how the individual

chooses to deal with disrupting input. Pribram andHelges Npten d. that

-.

process leads to the expectation that neither participatory nor preparatqry,.e

processes will le _to a returnato a homeosta&costate.

In summary; Pribram and Melges see anety at che outcome of a

situation in which an-individual perceives no means by which perceptual-

control goals may be accoMplished. Despite the fact that the theoriesI,of emotion presented" by Mandler and by Pribram; and Meiges are reresenta-

.tive of two different traditions of inquiry they exhibit several striking

similarities. In both cases anxiety is seen to be the result og an

A

appraisal process in which the individual is unable td identify behaviors

expected to lead to accomplishment of his/her current goal: These 1.

/ theories art representative of a variety of formulatio2% which view.

expectations of outcome success as the prime 'factor in determining'

effective; or behavioral responses (Bandura, 1977; Bandura., AdaMs & Beyer,)

1,14

1977; "Carver, ,

' .

t -..

'''' .,' . ,.

As a prelude to.the introduction of the model of communication

,.' ' . 4,1". -e.

. apprehension develope4 here we wish to present a more general model of '.

,,

the Cognitive processes ,assumed' tplunderlie the production of all tom-

3 j .

mutidative behal4or. This Teneral model of the &5gnitive.optput system,.

4,

i: .

.

provides a framewo'rk for the model of commdnicatj.on apprehension and. '.

., . . . ..

\., , . . Callow, us to cast ..our work Idath)n the mainstream of current COliw.tiv,e(

.

4,

. ._ ,.: , ..

.=,.

P.A F

.f

theory. .. ,AA \

. ,o

eI

,

At the hearttof this model of production is,a distincgion between

,.

pprocedural.

'

and conceptual memory (Andsod,_1976). The procedural store, , g t .* . r

is conceived; as_` a-repository of cox ditioA-aaion records upon which an... .

..- )1-,. .

indi,viduai may draw in order toacteffitaciou4y in his/her social

t . .x

envitonment:1 "These condition- action

.records are conceived as modular

v.

_entities whiny impact upon some 4mAed'aspect of the stieam,of behavior

(Hayes-Roth & Hayes-Rot, 1979; Rifeger, 1976; Schmidt, 1975). Associated

with record at any given title:/i an,activetion level (Anderson, 976;

Collins' & Loftus,. 1975; Hayes-Roth, 1977). fn order to play a role .in' .-.

....- . \ .-

4output processing this activation level must exceed some thFesKOl& value

,

(McClelland & ;Rumelhart, 1981; Norman,:1981). The activating conOtions.

for any record of knowledge are goal plus relevant,initial

- . . ,

condition'(Schmidt, 10,5), thus, uthen a particular goal is encountered

the activation level of all the records relevant to

,

that goal will be.

increased.' la ,

, .o-

: .'

. ,

ThiA activation process is to occur in parallel and.

. ... ,

automaticAllyp That is to say that it does not require any'consLous' '0 s 4 Or Os

4 .r...-

search Of the memory,store nor does it makesigngicant demands dp7on' ,

, , _

central processing capacity (Kaffneman, 1973; Sohneide) & SAiffrigv 1977'; '

Staffrip & Schil

14

r, 1977). Rowerer, at any, mom nt

4

number of

r

9

"p6cedtral records will be

.

active and the process of integrating these

records does require processing capacity ('Allport, 1979; Logan, 1978).,.

The fesult of such integration processes is a representation.of the action k

,to be taken. We propose that this frepresentatioh-of action exists .

-:.'

simultaneously at different.levels of abstraction. Specifically,we%WP , y / ' i k

(' assume that an individual may arrive at a verypgenecal.).

inagge of an entire ,'o ,

,

..

. . ., . .

'

interaction even before

ton for the duration of

the' ,individual will cont

tie interaction begins and retain this represents

the interchange. During the.interaction itself

inually-pdate the representAtibn of his/her

e. Finally; in keep.next utteraricin1., with this general model we assume

. ,

. .? ,

°,

, ,--that Ripple are capable of reflecting upon these representations of.actions

'.o . ...e

tibe taken in order to eva/Late thee} according t li'kelihootl'bf success, .

. , }

. . 0.

in accomplishing desirld ends. Like the integra ion process',athis editing

?..

moot . .

process is, conscious and'isdassilmed.to make considerable demands upoh .t,

v -* %

processing capacity. '

.-----% .

_Given eflis brief overview of the cognitive output system let us°

turn our matention to the issue of communlcation apprehension. The view

of communicationapprehehSibp takehere is that it is a state of anxiety

%, which lrises.when an,,ipdividual is unable to identifILy'behaviors which. are. . .

...,

expected to,iead to the accomplishment of some interaction goal. Given. t fl ,

that Olerappeafs to be considerable support for; this general proposition,'

we wish to advance a speculative, yet suggestive, model of the cognitiveN!/

processes and variables assumed to underlie the arousal. of communication

apprehension. Let'us consider the significance of each of theSe factors

in turn.

-insert. Fig. 1,here

"1

'OK

;

Os

O.

T

1 \x

10 L, ,

',.

Interaction Goan ,. This oonstruct refers to perceivXd'ken.d; ,,which. - . , i r ,

., ...an individual wfshes to accomplish through coamiunitat ion with one dr '-- .-'.

1- . \more. others. In. other words,an individual is capable' of, giving a 1.k,rbeal* , _ ,

report of these goals,,- al..thoup, these goals may vary greatly in their. ,

tdegree of articulat-idn. We do not wish/to deny,' that there. may .-. --..- -

. I . I , \ . , ..conscious motivations for Interaction, but these uncdEecidus gOals are .

r .,. . I"

not likely to le'ad to processes of 4raluatiog of poten0..a.f.behaviorsim,r

4 whiCh the p,resen model assumes. ,

--,A second point 4 that in the preserrt-context interaction goals. 4 e /C

. s. I

.are restricted only to those goals associated with the productionOf. .

lit, .. :. '. 4, c,"t ' .

,,

verbalmesgages. Our Concern 'here is witti'developing a model of oral. . .. .

, .ccommunication apprehension - -a state of anxiety associated wi;h the pro-

.-\. .,

. .. 1/4 . -_. , .1

tiuctkon of verbal messages. It is Ellis notion, of ota,1 communication 'v .. t . 4 . r

. I a

apprehension. which has been 'captured liy pf evious ,treatients of the Cora-1 .

alunicatil Appreheksion.c.-cnstrudicCroskey, 1970, 1977, 1978) . Thus,, , ,,,

e

-. ., . .

otA conception of intera:cti\on goals sfiittild not- include tite.se goals which.,/, , . ,/ e ., <

,/

. are, not associated with theiSrdduction of ve messages.- For example,, .,,. '4

,A s \.. . c .

goals slish as Wanting, to,achkeyeOdersfaildilig are oriented toward. . , .

- . . ,. -.1 . . ,recepti,on vather VianVodtrica. Wheeless (Scott ,S,' Wheeless, _1977;`

. .., t,.... .4 ' ,.,

..._.: Wheeless; 1975) has distinguitiled,..recdiver apprehension" from Communica-:

.. ,. :f s. s

0.

1.

tion Apprehension in identifying. receiver apprehension as "t(he .degree. ,

. s , . .: ,,

to v/Mx individuals are fearfitl about aasintetpreting, iseldequately... . .

. Processing and/or bei unable tbiadjlist psychologically 'to messages':,_,, -

4 ..,. ( Sc6tt & Wheeless, 1977, p. 248). We can speculate:that because-raceiver

.. s- -,.

apprehension is related to negative outcome expectations a model similar' -,

. * , _, "-.., .-

to that developed, could be developed for receiver' apprehension. '..4 .--- ,. .

As currently defined, interaction goeils may include such objectivese .

,as persuading someone to comPlY faiih,ou'r wis)les/ to intorm another, toA

12,

11-

Make oneself undersE'boa, or td engender favorable interpersqnal perceptions

pr affect on the part of theAller. .Notice that each of these goals is.0

.

concerned with cognitive or behavioral responses by the co-interactapt'. 4

however, any interaction goal about which here is some degree ofUncertainty

of fuifillment could lead to a state of communication apprehension.

This em hasis on perceived interaction goals allows us to make a-

concep ual distinction between withdrawal associated with ommunicatiod

appre enkion. and wit.bdrawal from interaction due to other actors. We

can distinguish communication apprehension from the case in which an

individual is silent because s /the has no interaction goals, or theis

situation in whith remaining silent aids in the accompliMiment of some

interaction goal.

Onset ,of'Planfui Activity The preseAt modeZ assumes that a state of

communication apprehension,i,arises as a result Of an iiia.tility.to identify... ,

. -

communicatiehaviors expected to lead to realizaeion of the interactionl

' S

s

'--.---'-'..-11 kpal* We hold that this identification-process is a cdffscioul, planful

activity involving generatioi and evaluation of potential communicative

. ...

.

behavifrs.' Of course, communication often proceeds fairly automatically

with little conscious planndpt,tanger, Blank & Chanowitz, 1978)., Thus

21.w.,, -

an adequate model must indAc..41p,when such planful activity will arise.- --

. 4

.We believe that the generatioh-evaivation process is invoked when there

is doubt about the achievement of.intePection oals such that 'scripted or

automatic communicative behavior ispot expected tq lead to successful

outcomes., Wewould. expect that novel communicative situations, ituations

in which'the interaction goal is seen as,Adifficult to..accOmplish, or .,

situations in whiCh.the iadividUal recalls similar past, experiences which

resulted in failure as Ise which would give _rise to planful activities

of generation an evaluation (Norman& Shallice, '198.0).

4 .

0

'

Generation of Potential Behaviors This particular stage of the

assessment. process involves the fc?rmulation o behaviors anbehaVioral

0.

. ., -, ! _ ,

strategies for acComplishing the interaction g al.° In' terms of the

general model developed abo-Ve this generation rocess involves the

activation and integration of elements of the, p ocedural store. Further;

12.

the representation of these potential behaviors ma,. be quite vague,as in

the case of antlpating an interaction which has not yet begun. The number

\

- of pcnt,ial behaviors generated at this0

stage may varytas a function of an

individual's leAl of communicative. comptence or range of past communi-an0

cation experience.\ That is, those indiiduals with limited-commurfication .

\

skills' or experience may be able to gene rate few potentia behaviors.0 s

A related point, suggested by candler' (1975, p:,21\ ) , iS that the low,,,

self-esteem individual will search for fewei4,eltern tive behavioral

strategies.'

The ability to generate a range of potential behaviors is ,,important

APbecause a large number of alternatives increases the chances of arriving

Iat a behavior whiph is expected to lead to a successful outcome. In

46,

other words', the chute of arriving at an expectation of goal accomplish-,

ment is increased as-the number of alternatives under consideration is.

461.increased. Conversely, communication apprehensionsshould be related to

the inability to identify a large number of potential behaviors: Thus,o

Phillips and Metzger'q (1973) repor that reticent individuals are un- .

aware of communication alternativeS is to be expected. Finally, in ther

potential behaviors,

and according to the

extreme case in which the individual identifies noo .

avoidance of communicateion must necessarily-occur,-

pese*model, anxiety will arab arise.

Evaluation of Potential Behaviors %ce a , potential behavior-, or

behavioral strategy, has.been generated it Must be evaluated with respect

, 4.

.0

13

tO*.iqs efficacy and feasibility. This, evaluation process corresponds to

the editing function proposed in the gderal model f production. In phis

,stage the indiviaual attempts to determine whether a given behavior or

'Strategy is possible in that situation and'whether it would lead to ac-

cpmplishment of the interaction gbal: Such an assessment process is at',

the heart of the models of anxiety examined-above. e4 , 4

In performing this assessment process the individual may consider

a number of factors, the most important of which may be the person's own

perceptions of his/her communication competency. These perceptions of

Commppicative Competency are assumed to result from Past experiences and

41so to be'situationally

differences in the degree to whip'

1973).. Thus, some people may have only a very genefalized perc

although ther are probably Individualit,

situations are distinguished (Miachel,

. .

'themselves as poor communicators while others.see themselves as'. ,

..

effective only in public speaking situations. 'This".:perceptiOn of personal

tion pf

,

communicative competence is assumed to be related to, but not isomorphic

with, the more general notion of self- esteem.. Perceptions of petsonal

communicative tompetenCe-May constitute elements of global self-esteem.

HoT4ever, th4 dei,xee.to which such perCeptions,ase-salient probably.varies

between individuals,such hat Tor,sothe iadividuLs,percePtions of personal

communicative- cow are nOttelevant (Bem & Allen, L974) .t

1

, . AboVe it was noted perceptions of low=personal competency, JJ ^

,might-reduce-the number of behavibr's'identified_in thegeneration'pro-.,

cess; yetc'eption'S of low communicative competency will also influence the

S

evaluation profess in that individuals who see 'themselves as pool- cm-.

municators are less likely to judge potential behaviors as feasible for

them, and re'also less- iDNly 6 expect positive outcomes toe their\ 'AsOk

communiCati ..

efforts. Perceptions..

low communication competence should

14

thus be related to negative outcome expectations and the resultant com-

munication appreAnsion;,, In support of this point Clark and Arkowitz

\(1975) found that socially anxious individuals had no observable 'skill

deficit pt.they did have low perceptions of their .own social-abilities:

Further, because perceptions of communication competence are assumed to

be related to self-esteem, we are in a position to account for the pre-

vyusly noted relationship . between serf-eSteem and communication appre-

hens'on by recourse to our outcome expectancy model.

In addition to perceptions of personal communication competence>

there are a number of other factors which an individual ,may consider in

'determining the efficacy and fe1sibility of potential behaviors; these

include: (1) perceived situationallOnstraints on behavior, (2) the

perceived nature of the other(s), and (3) the nature of the interaction

goal itself.I

Situational constraints play a role in the assessment process i-4

V use they serve to limit .the rangeA PoteAtiai behaviors, and thereby

to reduce the probability of arriving at an expectation of a successful4

. --. ., 6 . .

outcome. In-ather words, I may be able to idehtify at,beklavfor wtkich I.,

.

believe will be:efficacious but the nature of situation makes that

particular behavior inappropriate.

The perceived nature of one's co-interactants is taken hdreto refer

to their perceived propensity to demons.trate. the cognitive or behaVioral

responses consistent with one's goaTh.,For examples, if my interaction

goals are to persuade another and also to engender .positive affect on the

part of that other, then the perceptioof that other as non-compliant or

as acrimonious will probably lead to.negative outcome expectations.

Similarly, the nature of the interaction goal itself may be an

impOntant factor in the assessment process. Goals'which are perceived'1

ame,riatAnkritov.neye.

ko)....verre....11..

C

L.°

'l5

to bekyery difficult to achieve (e4., persuading a-otranger to lend money)

willlikely lead to negative outcome expectationS more often than less

difficult interaction g"oalq (e.g., persuading another'to pass the salt)..

Before concluding this-discuSsion of the generation-evaluation process. . _

,

V °,: ,

a caveat, is in order':' It'should be noted here that we have only specified

14k

a set pf factors which logically might be considered in the assessment of,, . r

potential behaviors;if the assumptions arid reasoning here are correct,-'

-,:-.

thei experimental manipulatiOn'of these factors should produce significant- :

:,:k. . _.

effects. for anaggregate of'subiects. However, it is. that 'any

individual wfl .._consider each of these factors .during ,e'q generation-

. . .

., ...,,-

0.

, .evaluation Indeed,. we suspect that the initial stages of the* . . 3.

.4-- ,

generation-evaluation process will inyo recourse to episodic memory

(Tulving, 1972) such that the individual will seek to.detei-mine whether

s/hehas had any simi lar past experipnces and what the outcomes of those

.

experiences were. Such a procedure is similar to thedecision-making

process suggested by Abelson (1976). Rather than considering one_gr more

4 of the iogical_factorsedeveloped above, these factors may'eerve4o define

similar past experiences. Thus, two,situatio0a4n which I have tie same

,

inEeraetiop gOal with the same co-interactant would `be highly

\.-..)"sand recall of th f " t would be very Usef41 In the generation-evaluation,

,.

-- .

ocess associated with the second. If a search of epiSodic meMory fails

Fo

.

Produce allehavior expected to lead to a positive outcome then an

individualilmay-Nresort'to a, generation-evaluation process in which one

re'a 'or more of the'factorS* listed above e're explicitly considered.

ITermination of the Generation-EvaluationProtess . As can be seen ie.'

Figure 1, an individual may continue to cycle through the "Generation of

'Potential Behaviors" and "Evaluation of Potential Behavior" sthges of the

model- This simply- amounts to identifying a behavior, evaluating it with

1:7

. J

respect to its expected outcome acrd then repeating.the prodtss for ,another

behavior or beha4iors.

This generation-evaluation loop may be terminated by, any of several

events. \First, the identification of a behavior or behavioral strategy,

.which is-expected to lead to goal accomplishment will cause a cessation

,ofthe generation-evaluatiotfprocee and subsequent engagement in that

behavior. A second possibility is that an individual's interaction goals

Imay be changed by situational factors or that other interaction goals

became pre-eminent. As an example, consider the case in which an

individual vacillates over whether to make apoint for so long that the

point is no longer relevant.

The final two termtnaSpd e-Acpts are most interesting given our

i! of these will result in a state of-snxietTt°.: ,

individual will exhaust his/her potential

preS6nttconcerns"because,eithe

First, it is possible thatNan.

. behaviors before s/he has identified a behavior expectdd to lead tb a

positive outcome. A final osdibility iS.that tame constraints may4 1,,

\_ ,-necessitate cessation of the,generation-evaluatioh loop; in other words,

J : the individual mayl forced to behave before s/he has identifLed an

.

appropriate behavior.,

,. ,

4 Again, we wish to emphasize that.the pOpose of the assessment pro-

cess is to identify efficacious and feasiblego'al-directed behaviors. If

a behalilor is 4.itpectell to lead to accomplishment of the interaction goal,

Athen t1ie individual will engage in that behavior. Anxiety will arise in

thosesituations in which the individual is unable to identify a behavdor410

expected to-lead to a successful outcome.

Necessity of Interaction Goals In those cases in which a state of... . :

. . .

communication apprehension has developed an individual'itiay either with-,,

draw or attempt td communicate despite his/her anxiety; thus, any model,.

1

41.'N/

4

r

17

_which Seeks to account for the behavior of the reticent individual must .

..

,

,. ..

eventually deal with this issue. The position to be taken here 'd that,

.

.

_ ,,,

the necessity, or 'Urgency, of the interaction goal will determic whether. .

avoidance occurs. In some situatiofis the naturq of the interaction goal

is such that the individual is forcedJo communicate. For, an example

one need only consider the case of the person who must fulfill the re-.

quirements of his/her public speaking course. In such a case the-indivi-,

/dual is forced to engage in' behavior which io not expected to be

.\,

successful, a -situation which may further heighten his/her anxiety.

Monitoring of Pr press Toward the Interaction Goal finalaf *-

element in the proposed model represents an attempt to capture the

dynamic nature of human interaction and of the cognitive processes in--9

volved. TIN elements 'of the model reviewed to this point are.pre-

.intecanti in that they-are assumed to occur primarily before the

initiation of verbal output. HoweVer, it is also the case that as 'they.

act in pursuit of their interaction goals people will receive and process

, 4feedback about the effectiveness of their behavi4r. It is possible that

.,abehavioral strategy initially expected to le4d to goal attainment will

°

'be re- appraised as the interaction continues. Converse/y, a behavior. l

'which is not expected t' lead/to a successful outcome may actually.do ',so,

'*!

'resulting in a,diminution Of anxiety. 1

. .

,

. As can be seen' in Figure 1, the"Monitorint of Progress Toward

,.. t ..,- .,:'

, ,

Goals" may .feed back' into any of thee different stages of the model.- e

,. .

,p.

An individual may monitor responses on theart of the co-in;eractant in.

m. .

order to determine whether the interaction goals have been reached and

L'also Eo stimulate-the generation and d-evaluation of,subsequent behaviors.

,,e47

An interesting-point is_that perceptions of progress toward the

interaction goal are subject toihstortion by outcome expectations.

t

3

18',

Mandler (1975, p. 210) hypothesizes that low self-esteem individuals are

most sensitiVe to any signal of failure. Thus, perceptions of low cm-%

mu catjAre.competence or,expectations of ne gative outcomes may bias the

441

A monitoringproCess toward an interpretation of failure. -

An Initial Investigation

Predictions. In an 'initial test of the model presented here we

Aattempted to

4ascertain whether the propositions of the mo

. .,-

use to predict tshe occurrence of a state of communication' apprehension.

might be

More specifically, we expected that a subject's rating of likelihood of

successioin accomplishing an interaction goal would be a signifiCant pre-

4 dictor of anxiety experienced in pursuit of that goal. In addition,

following aisubjectively expected utility formulation (Edward's, 1954) we

also hypothesized that the multiplicative product of expected success'

1i %and goal importance, or necessity; would'be a sgnificant predi orof

anxiety. Further, because we assume that goals of self -image managevilt

chaacterize all interactions (McCall and :Simmons, 1978), people's .

o'expectations for engendering a po§itive perception of themselves in '

ot,hers should also be related to anxious reactions. Finally, the Model"

. presented here is taken to be a general repreSentation of the processes

leading to a state of anxiety.' For this reason it was expected that the

ability 'to predictamdbus reactions would not differ between sexed or'3

across experimental conditions.

Subjects. Thirty-five male and twenty -nine pmale underlgraduates944 4,1

pticipated in the experiment and received extra'credit in a group

discussion1

class for their participatiOn. Males and females separately

were randomly assigned to-,the to experimental conditions.4

- Procedure. One week prior to the experiment,, subjects; were admin-

r

J(V0'

3

ti

19

./istered- an "issue inventory" during the group discussion classwhith

described existing or propobed legislation'oo opr-issues of'impOrtante

to undergradUate 'tudents. For each

respond on a 7-point bi-polar scale,

. .

subjects aksed to.0,

indicatirig their degree of agreement'

A ,-- _.with the legislation. After completing the issue' inventory, they signed -

/ .. .

:4

/up for the experimental session and-cere told'to report to th4ldesignaoed

,

loaTion at ,the aseigneONTime..

Upon afriving'for the experiEentak%.session, an experimenter took4.

/ , 41.6

-t'he subject td a small roOmiand.:obtained wripk.00nenR tidcontinue the

experimental procedure. At this point; subjects were told that they had

already earned the extra credit for participating and could withdraw_

4at any time without penalty. Subjects were then 0

r,

taken to another room and seated a a table., They were given instructions

,about the experimen

elpLned thatduring e experiment,

monitored. A 2 1/2-mile baserlevel

their participation

0 =

from a tape recording. The initial instructions .,..initial

.the subject's heart rate wopidjoe""',.

.-'k- ...,

heart rate measure Was taken a# ..., t,

. .;;;;;, ,.e.,..4 .z,

...,

A finger clip, to One.middle finger'

non-writing hand and proceeded. to record the heartnatek

every 15 seconds throughout the$ast 1 1/2 minutes ot, the bgie-laver :

,C." /' .,

period. Tlig. hearttrate monitor was turned so that subjects tould Rot

0,ehis time. The

r.

of the subject's

experiirientdr attached

i-

'sview,theif measured pulsle-or %receive other feedback of their'physio7,'

, i .- . ..

The subject was told not to.move,the hand from.V - : e. .t4r: '

,24

. 1, ,

0; :k. . . . ...,

logical responses: .

the heart rate measures were being taken.

,After this peiiod, the taped instructions

.''

h esue inventory that had been filled. out ar.

4: ,.

were correctly told which issue that "they--.

;,, A' '

the subject had rated

J of

(This wasthe.issue

direction on the 7..

reminded ,the.stiOject'Of

week earlie r. 'S'Ubjetts

,

most strongly. about,

$

most extret:. - =

ix ,either

At this point , 'subjects were q

t

1

k

x.;

I

%.3

.**

4

:#'. -

6 - ' 01: . + ' ' . ., 6 . .

0

',of tWo things dependIng upon their atitinment to either the "agreement".. ..,..-- - . ,

1' '01,-'..Ap " .. . :condition'or the " debate" condition.54:'1' "-" t'Yn e agreemen con id't"

20

ion, they. . < i / ., - , 42 k , .. I .rz, . ,

were told that the p6rpose of the experi A ,?...;.tast,C0 investigate verbal,.

.9 i 4t 4 , -. 4a I

non-verbal and 'physiological correlates nofcc/nNt4jalicineof agreement.It

.0. .'Subjects in this dond;ition were told that the -exile rimenters'.had selected

...- ,,. ..ct4-5. . . ..,

another person from theit group discuss n 'elass'whq hact'':assumesd-; "they 5 c s

4._ ., .0 IV . 4

theysame ,position---as yours," on the selected, issue. .'In addition, they were... ./,. . .. . e`1told that .thiA other person was wait ng In7another,room`a,, would be

- /c. r, 6-

-brought in .to, join them momentarily and that 4leir task in the experiment0

was to simply discuss the, selected issue.'AO 1, Subjects were then given, a cbpy of an issue .inventory, ostensibly

.filled- out by. the 'other person, whichconfirined -what te-'subject had just

. i-

been told' a out the other's positioridon ,the selected -is4Ue.. They were =

..

._

1 , ''.. ' . (told to s udy the inventory.for three minutes and think abott_what they/ . 1..

Clould 4say in their conversation. During this three-minite.,pregaraLon,.). $ptriod , the experimenlier again recorded heaiit rate, every 15 seconds. In

, . . ..., ... 0 . 1...4 f; .. - Iboth the wuagreentent" and "debate" conditions, the 'fictitious inventory

t ,was signed with a name of a person. of the same sex' as thevsubject. In

k".

.. .,-order to enhance the subject's belief .that someone would oin.tfiem for. ... r

,. .

.

j

N. .......... \a conversation, SW emp y..chair was placed oat the opposite side of th4. .

;.,....

table and an identic heart rate finger clip Was obtrusively placed on.4 ^

the table and appeared to be connected to the heart rape'rtionitor.

.d. Those. su-bj e in' the . "debat e" condition were. tc;ia that "argumenta-4

eive activity'' was the focus of the study. In addition,, these subjects --,..

wire told' that the other 'person liad been selected from another.campus. .

, egroup outside the group discussion class and had assumed the pOsition.opposite to their own on the selected issue. The task assigned to sub-

jects in the "debate- -condition was to upersuade.the,other persifn to adopt

. - ,11

'-

your position" on the selected issue;

21

'44.4

Following the three-minus preparation period, the taped instructions

informed the subject that there were a few forms to be filled out while

the experimenter was going to get thg other person. The experimenter

gave the subject tiese forms, disconnected the heart rate clip andleft

0

the room. Uppn returning to the room after the toms had been completed,

'the experimenter tolda.

the subject's written

the subject what the experiment was over and obtained

pledge to refra4 from discussing the experiment

until the final data had been collected.

1

r

Apparatus. Hearttgte was measured with a Whittaker P420 Pulse

Watch via, a finger clip. The machine has 'a meter whi0, at any instant,

indicates the heart rate in beats per minute.

endent Measures. The' "srate,portion of

Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger, Gorusch & Lushene,

to assess how,anxioud subjects were just prior to their "conversation."

the State-Trait Anxiety

1970) was administered

Heart rate during the preparation period served as another dependent

measure of anxiety and b4se-level heart rate was used a covariate.

The two heart rate measures werekalculated by averaging, oer the heart.

ratesduring the two respective periods.

k I

Independent Measures. Thrte separate measures were obtained on 7-

point bi-Tolar scales i<icating: (1) the subtect's degree of expectation..

._,

. .

for success ully accomplishing the goal=in'the interaction, (2)_ how..'

_....,

important the interaction goalwas to the subject, and (3) the kind of

.- ;;.,

1)''- '-- -self -image (high vs: low) that the subject expedted to proiject during thelk.-.

....

upcoming "conversation." 1. ..,./

AM.

r

aI

Iq

e I

4

Results

a22

;\Because all*the dificulty of the interaeion golag.,,we expecteii sub- .

A

jects in thedgbate condition to'experience mote anxi ty than subjects in-

1

the agreement condition. In,order to determine if this was ehe caseI

mean ratings4of'state ahxietyland mean heart rate change scores (the

'difference-between baseline heart rate and pryeparation period heart rate)

were co4aTed sing t-tests. State anxiety was higher in the debate. ,

.

ion (X=.42.5) than in the agreement condition (1=39.2)..) likewise,

4-

heart rate change was greater in the debate condition (T=6.1) than in

/- tile agreement condition (,T=4.6). "174ile these dtfAences were-in tht-

'direction of our e ectatioris,,they failepl'to achieve the conventional-

level of significance [state anxiety: t=-1.29, p_<,10; heart rate

change: t=-1,47; 2.<.07].. .._ okA step-up multiple-regression proce ure was empltyed in which state-

.

;

. _I, Ok .

,

anxie-tAid preparation perio heart rate were s arately regred.sed upon. ,

1 . , 7fr--

the predictor variables in the following order: a) successful goal.

accomplishment, b) expected'self-image projection, c) importate of inter-

action goal, and d) the riitatiplicati4e interaction between'duccessful

goal ackompliihment 'and/ importance of the interaction goal. In the heart

4 :/-yrate analysis, the base- heart rate waSientered a sf the first term in

the negKession analogue to analysis of covariance Cohen & Cohen, 1975;

pp, 345-348)._,Table i shows the coerelations among'the predictor variables.

I

TABLE 1 ABOUT HTERE

Before-theid-analyses were undertaken on all subjects (N=64),

separate analyses were abnducted to determine if sex orexperimental

. condition significantly improved predictidh of. the depeldent valitables.A-

Sex andOondition were dummy -coded and,' in, separate analyses, each termI

6

*.

1

it . ) 23

Ng

wa's entered into -the'regression equation and followed by all ofTEhe inter-

lkaction terms between the-dummy variable an 'the predictor variables

....

already in the equatiion,

4

Thee analyses reve.alL

a

that neither sex nor.

4

contition accounted, for a signiiit,ant propOrtion ofoiariance in either '

,of the two dependent variables.' Hence, all blects were included in

. -

.

the regressions of interest.

.Table 2 shows the results of the regression analysis filir state-.

anxiety. The entire model accounts for 31% of the variance 4'the.

-dependent variable. Three of the four terms in the model are significant

0predictors at the .05 level. The "F" v alues associated witheach,term

are as follows: (1) Success (F(1,62)=11.36, 11<.005], (2 Self-image

,[F(1,61)=:4189, p_<.05] , (3) Importakce LF1(1,60=4.12, .a<r.05], and (4)

,".

Success X Importance [F(1,59)=3.73-, 2..<,06].

tag 2' ABOUT HERE

+,6

A similar analysis using prdparation period heart rate ta s a depen-

dent measure and the baseline heart rate a's a covariate, yielded one

significankt predictor. Th4 "important k" term (F(1,59)=4.18, IL4.65]

accounted for 7% of the variance which remained after the:baseline co- "-

/A

variate and thesuccess and self - image terms had been entered int(. theA

equatipn.

,However,-the entire Model faildcf to account for,a significant

f.

portion of .the variance which' remained after the cdvariat,term tid

been entered (F(4,58)=1.26, n:s.].

Discussion

A .

The multiple reireSsinanalysis 'of the" state anxiety'scores revealed.- \'Nz,

.strong support for the model presented here. Ai the model led us to

//--

.

at

oL

.410114k

I :. ,

. predict, eXpectedsuCcestF6omplishing an i teraction goal and expected

,self-ima6 maintenance were b6th significant predictors of anxiety. In.r : .

. .---- ------.

addition.... , the multiplicative product-fa-it-,...,goal importance and likelihood of?,,:,.....t.

24

Q

compliShing the goal Was aldo a margiitaily significant predictor.

Finally, subject sex arldf:experiminial. c9

power of the model.

n did notAcprove the pre-.

.6

71/4Ntte s

The results the analysis Of thehearrate data were not Andicative, .

X /

of support. fox the model. Thi

4factors. First, previous res.e

response patterns to stressfu

oily som le migheisg eXpe

increased he

increase7 teartrate

-(Behnke Carl,ile, 19

'is also the case -t.

Syyhe result of sevenal-

rc diCates different physioloiical

situations across individuals such:tbil

4- 0ted td-respond to such situations with

,

Lak..y:&.Lacer,'1958). Further, while.

017,,, logical indicant of anxiety

JgmeS). ftliott,'1966),. .

110 -in heart rate may accompany periods Of : ..

'anticipation liket preparatpon.p4d in the current study (Deane, 1966;

EpStein% Clark, 197/0).10tonsistent wits 'Chia 4r phenomenon is the finding.

.

ttet self-r pbAped anxiety pcores are sigrIgicantIyCor elated with-,,c.

. .. ....: c 7 .. '4:k_

heart rate asures take during the act of Speaking bu4 e not 'signi

.. i. ..-

.'

.

ficantly coxrela;ed wi h the same measures taken, as in the .careht study,'AK e=

6 '

1

, ju-st prioio the speech act ,Behnke & Catlile, 1971). -Our tonclusibn,* '

0

; .

then, is thi the failure to account for*44,54n ificant portion of. theI

, 00.../..I,

model

.

variance in heart rate is hot an indict:lite-it of the model presented herd.. 4

+.04,41, %

..\ o.

I

The focuS of the model presented herd-has been u4On-those factors.

which lead to a state of communicationtanprehedsion, and there has beenlee

Miicons iderabless concern with the notion of. "trait communication'appre-:

!. .

S. 4*,

44(4111111114:72 8 . .

.1 : i .

` 1 .2

I N

di '5,

henSiOn" However, previous treatments of Communication Apprehension have

4ocused primarily upon a trait conceptualization (Beatty, Behnke '45, McCallum,

S71978; Lae), 1972; Lohr, Rea, Porter& Hamberger, 1980; McCroskey, 1977;

1978 b t see McGroskey, L981).

'As a: basis for the state=trait distinction with retpect.to. Communi-

cation Apprehension, MdCroskey (1973) has drawn upon the work'of

Spielberger (1966). Spielberger'S (1972,'p. 39) position is ehat:".

State anxiety ,(A-State) may,be_conceptualized as .a trans-itory,emotionalstate-orTdOnd*ion of the human organismthat'varies iaries in intensity 'and fluctuates over time. Thiscondition is characterized by subjective, consciouslyperceived. feelings of tension and apprehension, andactivation of"the autonomic nervous system. . : Trait

0 anxiety (A-Trift) refers to relatively stable individualdifferences in anxiety proneness, that is, to differencesin the disposition, to ,perceive a Wide range` of stimulus,situations as 4angerous o'r threatening, and in the tendency ,to respond to such threats with A-State reactions.

To be. consistent' with Spielberger, Trait Communication Apprehension

should be definedfas an indiVidual's tendency to experience State Communi-_

'cation Apprehension. Thus; it is inappropriate to conceive of, a continuum

bounded at onewend by Trait Communication Apprehension and at the'other

Abpfehension", aiid woulerepresent relative tendencies to experience a

by State Communication Apprehension'(McCroskey,1981; Richmond, 1978),

Rather; the appropriate continuum would be.bounded"by the designation's

"high, trait communicationapprehension"--and''low trait communication

state oflcommunication apprehension:

Given the preceeding conceptual" formulation we can conceptualize

"trait'commtnication apprehension" as the tendency to arrive at negative'.

outcome' expectatiOnS concerning the fulfillment Of interaction goals.

This termaoes appear t)e useful in capturing the notion of individual

differented ink typical results of the generation-evaluation process.

. That is: some indiViduals may hnsistently arrive at negative outcome

04**4

A

26

expectations while others do so infrequently or only in a particular type .

of communication situation. A number of factors Might lead to the

experience of:anxiety in a range of situations. For example, an individual

.may have low perceptions of communicative. ability fora gutber.of different

Situations, or his/her perception of communiCative-abilitypnbe

,relativelyundifferentiated and low. Another example is'the case in,.....

..:.

which a person's.-attrutional procsses lead him/her to see most others.A e.

. ,..

x

as-- unlikely to respond as"depired...

'While the use of the teria "trait communication' apprehension" may be

useful with-reference to individual differencesin anxiety-proneness, wepo .

'should not allow, .its use to obscure the nature of the cognitive processes4. 4, a,

underlying the arousal of a state' of- Anxiety. As we have seen, it is

Aa consideration of these processes -which allows(a move toward the con-

struCtion of a theory of communication apprehension-es opposed to a

collectionof empirical generalizations.,.,.......,,, -

- ..:r-t' ,..

A'second implication ofthe approach taken here Concerns distinctions,

. ., ., C . .,.

which have been proposeanongvarioug'constructS such as Communication

, lb ..

.

Apprehensions Reticence, unwillingness to communicate; and sbyness.(Kelly,.

. 1982; McCrOskey, 1980; 1981; Page, '1980; Phillips, 1980)., These ais-.

tinations are typical*.predicated upon presumed.dilferences in causes

of dySfunctional,reactionV.. However,-there is very little evidence con-,

cerning the nature of these 'causal relations. The present view is that

anxiety, lack of skilis', perceptions Oklack of skills and previous

outcomes to communication experiences "are allcausallyinterrelated

chrotigh expectatione,fOr communicative out owes. Future empirical analysis

is neadeli to further e?camine'these relations and their implications for

subsequent- conceptual -1 -ion..

.

A final point, which merits our attention is the issue of the nature4!

-*" w

, 0.8

4

E

4

4 -

t.

27 J e

. ,

of,the situational factors which.give rise to communication apprehension.\ . .. .

.

4

Curre ily it 'is held\Nhat ,ammuniCation Apprehension is evoked in a broad

. ,

range of communicative situations and that arousal of Communication Appre-

hension is Onter4ent upon a number of contextual variables (McCroskey,

1977; Richmond, 1978). Adequate prediction thus requires that we have some

means of assessing and situational variables. However, while. . . f. .

it is one thing to aclewiedge the importance of situational variables,

it is qii!.teanothe to specify the relevant attributes of the situation. .

9r."to,,show why those particular variables are important.

The view of communication apprehension presented here is that it is

a state of anxiety which arises when an individual is unable to identify

,behaviors expected to lead to accomplishment of interaction goals. These

expectations concerning outcomes -are seen to arise as a result of a '

cognitive evaluation'proce5s which may involve, both personality and situ-

ational factors. The cArrent model thus falls within the realm of inter-A

actional approaches to human behavior which-Imphasize the role of both

national and individual factors in determining responses (Ekehammar,

1974; Endler, 1975; MagnuOon & Endler, 1977; Pervin, 1978a). It follows,'

then, that the ability to predict behavfor is increased by alConsideration

of relevant situational' variables. Recognizing this, interactional

psychologists have proposed a number of different approaches to thedevelop-,

ment of taxonomias of situations.or situational dimensioris (Frederiksen,

1972; Pervin,,1978b; Sells, 1963). The approach to be taken here 2alto

;generate a logical taxonomy of sitilationai attrifbute; (Frederiksen, 1972;

Pervin, 1978b) which .should play a significant role in the arousal of

communication rp-r'grension.

The current emphasis,on the accomplishment of interaction goals.

allows us to specify the relevant situational dimensions as those which

might possibly affect the attainment of such.goals.`5 The present model

assumes that the task of the individual is to identify dome behavior or

behavioral strategy whichwhen enacted in the presence ofane's co-

interactant, will result in the accomplishment of some end. When viewed

from this perspective, it can be seen that there-are Onlythree situational

factors which might affect goal attainment: (1) the nature of the goal

itself (the relative, ease with which,the response may be elicited), (2),

the perceived nature of theco-interactant(s) -(their perdeived tendency.0

to respond as desired), and (3) perceived situational constraints on

28..

behavior. Our contention is that this taxonomy of situational attributes

is exhaUstive. It should'be'possible to articulate a taxonomy of situ-/

ations by 'grouping situations along thesedimensions.,

Conclusions, ,Our purpose in this paper has beew_tkargue the desirability of a

cognitive approach to the,study of-

communication,appsehension. To this. - g-,

end we have relied upon psychological approaches to anxiety in positing. -

Al

an outcome-expectancy model of communication apprehension.

.

4 Clearly there is,a wealth of empirical research suggested sin this.%,,,

1.I'r,.

s"'"kt4- y .. .

,- ,

paPer. In addition, there are a number of conceptual issues yet to. be.

. **14 ,

-. ...

examined. For example, ve have notOdressed the crucial issue of the. . . .,

.

degree of anxiety which an individual eXperiences in a communication

situation, although our.think at'this point is that the degree of.

. ,. , ...

anxiety,varies as a function-Ofthe necessity of interaction goals. A.r-

, , ,

second possibility is that ;degree of 'anxiety is related to the level of,

04 :',

'uncertainty of outcome success associated with a given 'potenlal behavior..,

ii second issue which merits-attention is that bf- muitipie.inter-A - ,''' - ±.. -

\action goals. Th assumption here has been that multiple interaction

. . '

O

r

°

r 4

O

O

goals are the rule at- hee- than the, exception, yet we have not considered-.

Athe nature essment proces for multiple goals. Forc'example,

'what haPpe s when-we Pct a behav ral strategy to accamplish one goal

bdt.notanther? Does.t rela e or absolute necessity of such goals

affect the ocess?

Ih concl n, much of this paper is speculative and must await

experimental-test.' In other parts, what may appear to the reader to be

- crucial issues aiy.points may have been left out,. Whether central

Athts is of this paper` is eventually accepted or found lacking, we can

only benefit critical review, debate, and explorativ of-these points.

09

"INNIft

*4

4

4

1

4Nbtes 4

For purpoies of referentialiclarity the terms "Communication Appre-hension" and "geticencehare capitalized when they are used to refer tothe conceptualization offered by McCroskey. and Phillips respectively.

2-It is interesting to note that there are "(response unavailability"

.approaches to anxiety which, do not make use of the two-factor formulationupon which Mandler's theory relies. Lazarus and Averill's' (1972) con-eeption of anxiety is an extension of their more generdl theory of emotionwhich views emotions as "complex syndromes of loosely intertwined'cotponentreact ons" (Lazarus and Averill, 1972, p. 244. See also:. Averill-,:I9.69;Averil Opton, 1968; Averill, Opton & 'Lazarus, 1969; Lazarus, 19684P-.Lazarus, erill & Opton, 1970).

More specifically, Lazarus'and Averill distinguish between "primary"and "secondary" appraisal processes. Primary appraisal involves an eval-

$. uation of the 'relevance or threat which-a situation holds for the individual.uThreit" here is conceived as a .challenge to the integrity of cognitivestructures responsible for perceptual processing. Primary appraisal isthus related to the ability of the individual to give meaning to perceptualinputs. Secondary appraisal involves "a judgement about'the forms ofcoping available for mastering anticipated harm, or fqr facilitatingpotential benefits" (Lazarus & Averill, 1972, p. For, Lazarus andAverill 'anxiety.is conceived as ) response pattern characterized.by aninability to identify-app'ropriate coping behaviors due to the failure or'inadequacy in the meaning analysis -of perceptual inputs. -

3,This general model of the cognitive output system is developed, in

considerable detail in Greene, J.0., A cognitive'theoretical approach tothe study of interpersonal interaction:. University of t4isconsin-Madison;Communication Research Center, unpublished manuscript. The reader should1also see Bock (1982) ; Allport (1979), and Schmidt (1g75.).

40n the issue'of the relationship between communication strategies

,

and commuricatiOn apprehension Lustig and King (1980) have.recently re-ported,no

ol

difference in strategy use by high- and low-cOmmufticaiionapprehension groups. However, in this study subjects were Provided withthe alternative strategies and were not required to generate them thems'elves.Thus, these, findings are .o little consequence to the discussion at hand.

5These experimental conditions-bear no specific. relationship to the

content of'the.mOdel. Thdy were chosen simply to test our expectation thatthe pvidictive power of the model was not, situation specific.

6Behnke & Carlile's (1971) correlation between self- reported anxiety

and heart rate was .24. This was nearly identical to the correlation we. found (r=.22).

0 32

4

wx

Q

''.Referencea.

31

Abelson, R.P. Script processing in attitude formation and decisiori-making.

In Carroll and,J.W, Payne (Eds.),Cognition and social behavior.Hillsdale, N.J.: .Lawrence Erlbaum, 1976.

Allpore, D.A. Conscious and unconscious cognition: A computationalmetaphor for the mechanism kf'antention and integration. In L.

t Nilsson (Ed.), Perspectivesonmemory research. Hillsdale, N.J.:»Lawrence Erlbaum, 1979.

4iderson, Language,.memory, and thought, ',Hillsdale, N.J..: Lawrence

Erlbaum, 1976. 0.

4,0

Averill, J.R. Autonomic response patterns during sadness and mirth.Psychophysiology, 1969, 5, 399-414.,

111

verill, J.R., & Opton; E.M., Jr. ,Psychophysiological assessment:Rationile and problems. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in

psychological assessment. Palto Alto, CA: Science and Behavior

Bookd, 1968.

Averill, OPton, E.M., & Lazarus, R.S. Cross-cultural studies of.psychophysiological.responses during stress and emotion. _Inter-national Journal of Psychology, 1969, 4, 183-202.;

Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying 't4ory of behavioral

change. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 1912l5.

Bandura, A., Adams, N.E., & ,Beyek( J. Cognitive processes mediating

behavioral change. Journal of Rersoriality and Social Psychology,

1977, 35, 125-139. , .4

Behnke, & Carlile, L.W. Heart rate as an index, of sp ch anxiety.

Speech Monographd, 1971, -38, 65--6V..01-,--- ,

04Beal, D.J., & Allen, A. On dieting some ofThe search ,for cross-situational consisPsychological Review, 1974, 81, 506-5

. a .

.2 Beatty, K.J., Behnke, R.R., &,McCale, K. Situat onal determinants of

: coimunication,apprehension, Communication Monographs; 197.8, 45,

..187-191.

)1110e6ple some of the time:ef in behaviOr.

Bock, J.K. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing

contribution's to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 1982,

89, 1-47..

Bond.; A.J., James, D.C.,40 Lader,,M.H. Physiological andpsychologicalmeasures in anxious patients. Paychological Medicine, '1974, 4,

,364-373.

Burgoon, J.K. The unwillingness-to-communicate scale: Development and

validation. Communication Monographs, 1976, 43cr

60-69.

a

Ca.

1:*

32.

. ,

Burgoon, J.K., & Burgoon, M. Unwillingness to c ommunicate, anomie-alienation, and communication apprehension as predictors of stallgroup communication. Journal of. Psychology,. 1975, 88, 31-38.,

Carver, C.S. "A cybernetic model of self-attention processes. ,Journal ofPersonality andSociar-Psychology, 1979, 37, 1251-1281.

,Clark, J.V., & Arkowitz, r Social anxiety and self evaluation of inter-personal performance. Psychological Reports, 1975, 36, 211-221.

ItCohen, J., & Cohen, P. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis

for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum,175.

"Collins, A.M., & Loftus, E..F. A sprAading-activation t eory of emantic

processing. Psychological Review, 1975, 82, 407-4

Craig, R.T. Information systems theory and research: Am o ervieW ofindividual information` processing. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communicatio'yearbook 3. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1979.

Curran, J.P. Skills training ai an approach to the treatment of heterosexual-social anxiety: ,A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 140-157.

Daly, J.A., & Friedrich, G. The development -Of commumicat,ion apprehension:A reirospective analysis of some contributory correlates. Paperpresented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, ,

Minneapolis, 1978.

Deane, G.E. Human heart-rate responses during experimentally inducedanxiety: Effects of instructions on acquisitibn- Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 1966, 71, 772-773.

a

Edwards, W. The theory of decision making..Psychological Bulletin, 1954;

51, 380-418. r--4 t

A

Ekehammar, B. Interact ionism inpersOnality.from a historical per'spective.Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81%,1026-1048.

,

Elliott, R. Eftects of uncertainty about the nature and advent of noxious.?,

stimulus (shock) upon heart rate. Journal of Personality and .SocialPsycholo0',"a966, 3, 353-356.

. .

. -

. Enaler, N.S. 'A person-situation interaction model for anxiet . .In C.D.4 e

Spidlberger & G. Satason.(Eds.'.), Stress, and anxiety, 1. 1.

New York: Wil , 1975..

< -.A.

1.Engel, B.J. Stim.)us- response and individual response speCifi,city. AMA.

Archives of General Psychiatry; 1960, 305-313. .

. .

Epstein, S.' TN nature anxiety with emphasis upon its relationship toexpectancy. . In C..D..Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends intheory-and research, Vol. 2 New York: 'Academic Press, 1972...

.

40'

o 34I

O

9.,

4.

"Epstein, _S., 4 ciai* ri_ r ate-' :._. aad-: .:skincohd_uc.tance ddrini.eXPerimentlly--indfee _a 46y;:'EffectsOf ant dipat#4 intoensiEy._

6 of noxious -stipiUlation,-arid-eiperience.i, Jo f Experimental::10L-15sychology,19f0-, -84;];16,,-7112.:- .---"

.'-'

-^,33 .

Frederiksen, N. Toward a'ta01011/10illY cif---0Xdabions.

1972, 27, 114,,F123%

re \

_ -,

American.:. .

giffin, K.& Gilham, Relationship een -speech-angiety andmotivation,. Speech Mvnotat3he*,---1971,- 69%43.

1 r

.Glaser, S.R. Oral communication apprehension and avoidance: Thecdrrent

status' of treatment research. CommunidatiOn "education, 1981, 30,321-341. --' % ',-.. ,

_ - _

. . -

. -,

°Sayes-.Roth, B. Evolution of'cognitivestruccFes and, processes. VsYChoP.Ogical.Review, 1977, 84, 260478.

Hayet-Eoth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. A cognitive' model oScience, 1979, 3, ,2757310.

planning. Cognitive

Kahneman, D. Attention and .effort. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,{Hail, 1973.

Prentic-

Kelly, L. A rose by any other name A still a rose:_ A comparativeanalysis of reticence, communication. apprehension,' unwillingness to'communicate, and shyness, Human COmmuhication Research, I9in4 8, i-,

Lacey, J.L., & Lacey, B.C. Verification- of autonomic response-stereotypy.

Psychology, 1958, 71, 50-73. .

,

and extension of the pThe American Journal o

nciple

1""

Lamb, D.H. Speech anxiety: Towards a theoretical concelptualizationmendpreliminary scale development.. Speech-Monographs,.1972,

Langer, E., Blank, A.,. & Chanowitz; B. The mindlessness of ostensiblythodghtful action: The role of placebidPinformation in inter-personal interaction. -Journal of Personality and Spcial psychology,1978,'36, 635-642. _\

Lazaru4, R.S. Emotions arid'adaptation: Conrelation: In W.J. Arnold (Ed:)%,Ne1968. Lincoln: University-Of Neb(

Lazarus; R.S., & Averilt,

eptualand.empiriCal z _

ska symposium on/Motivation,Press; 1968.

Emot .n and cogreference to iet 'In C.D qpielbergertrends in theory and research, Vol. 2. --Pew

A

ition: 'With ecial- ":'"- 16

(Ed.), Anxi Current

ork: 'Ace emic Press, 1972.

Ayerill, J.R., & Opton, E.M., Jr. ,Towal s aognitive:theory of 'emotion. In M.B. Arnold (Ed.), Feelin:- and emotions:The Loyola symposium. New York: Academic -Press, 1970.

V

a

-,YeleXt

s .

Logan, G.D. Attention' in chAracter-classiflwation tasks: Evidence forthe atuomaticity, of component stages. Journal of ExRerimental

.

Psychology: General, 1978, 107, 32-63. b'

Rea, R.G., Porter, B.B., & Hemberger, L.K. Cangunication, .

fear: A correlational study of trait generality. Hurtan

cation Research, 1980, 6, 280-284.

4

Lustig, M510. Verbalreticence:. recanceptualization and p'iliminarscale development. Paper'presened'to the Speech CommunicatponAssociation 3onvention, Chicago, 1974. :

0 ,

Lustig, M.W., & King, S.W. The effect of communication apprehension,and

(.-situation on communication strategy choices. Humell,communitation\Research; 1980, 7, 74-82.

Magnusson, D., & Endler, N.S. Interactional psychology: Present statusand future prospects. In D. Magnusson & N.S. Endler (Eds.),Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in. interactionalpsychology! New York: Wiley, 1977, 0

Mandler, G. Helplessness: TheorySpielberger- (Ed. )% Anxiety:

'Vole. 2. -Nes.; York: Academic

and research, on anxiety. oIn C.D.Current trends in theory and research,Press, 19Z2p

Meddler, G. Mind an4 emotion. New York:

"*-4

Mandler, G., & Watson;'D.L. Anxiety andIn C.D. Spielberger (Ed.), AnxietyAcademic Press, 1966.

Wiley, 1975.

the interruption of behaviOr.and behavior. New York:'

.

May, R.. The meaning of anxiety. Net- York: Ronald Press, 1950.

aCC:111, G.J., & Simmons,,OL. Identities and 'interactions: An ekamination.

of human associations in reryday life, revised edition. 'New York:Free Press-acmillan, 1978.

McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. An,interactive activatipn model of m'J context effects in letter perception: Part:1. pi account of ,basic,

.findings. psychological Review, 1981, 88% 375-407: , -.10v

McCroskey, J.C. Measures of communication -bound anxiety: 'Speech Matt=

e4graphs,'1976, 37, 260-277.

MOCroskey, J.C. Oral communication apprehension: A:summary of recent 0

theory and research. amen Cammunication:Research, 1977, 4, 7.8-961

McCroskey, J.C. Validity of the PRCA as an inde x of oral Amdnicationapprehension. Communication Monographs, 1978, 45, :192-app. ,

McCoskey',-.A.C. On communication competence and communication apprehension:A response to Page. Communication Education, 1900, 29, 109111. '=,

36",o

if

rN

I .35

McCroskey, J.C. Oral communication apprehension:, ReconAptualization anda new look at measurement. Paper presented at the Central'StacesSpeech Association Convention, Chicago, 1981.

MtCroskey, J.C.; Daly,\J.A. Rihmond, V.P. f & Falcioae, R.. Studiedof the relationship betweem-&-;Mmunication apprehension' and self-esteem. Hun Communication Research, 1977, 3, 269-2.17:

J.C., Daly, J.A., & Sorensen, G. Personality correlatecommunication' apprehension: A.research note. Human CommunicationResearch, 1976, 2, 376-380.

McCr Oskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. Commuzliation apprehension as a pre-, dictor of self-disclosure. Communication Quarterly, 1977, 25,

40-43. -A

Miller, G.R. Human information processing: Some research guidelines.In A. Kibler & L. Varker (Eds.), Conceptual frontiers in speechcommunication. New York: Speech Association of America, 1969.

, 4Miller, G.R. The person as actor--Cognitiye psychology of the attack.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1976, 62, 82-87*.

, 4Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive sociglearning reconcePtualization of

personality. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 252-283. .

lk

Mortensen, C.D., & Arntson, P.R. The ffect of predispositions' towardverbal behavior on interaction p tterns in dyads. QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 1974, 40, 421-430.

."---

Mortensen,\C.D., Arntson, p.H., & Lustig, M. The measurement of verbal,predispositions: Scale development and application. Human Com-munication Research, 1977, 3, 146r158.

0.

Norman, D.A. Categorization of action slips.. PsychologicalReview, 1981,

488.---'1-15.

t ,

, --.:i,.

Norman, D.A., & Shallice, T. Atte tion to actiolft: Willed and \automaticcontrol of behavior. Center for Human Information Processing,technical report, 99, 1980.

Page, W.T. Rhetoritherapy versus behavior therapy: Issues and evidence.Communication Education, 1980, 29, 95-104.

'

Pervin, L.A. theoretica,1 approaches to the analysis of individual -0 enviro went' interaction. In L.A. gervin & M. Lew,is (Eds.),

Ferspecivg-lNinteractional psychology. New York: Plenum; 1978a.

Pervin, L.A. Definitiong, measurements, and classifications of stimuli,situations, and env4onments. Human Ecology, 1978b, 6, 71-105.

Phillips, G.M. Reticence: Pathology of the normal speaker. SpeechMonographs, 1968, 35, 39-49.

37

lb

. ,

a

G.H. Rhetoritherapy versus the medical model:" Dealing withrettence. Communication Education, 1977, 26, 34-43. .

36

Phillips, G.M. Onmpples and onions: A reply to Page. CommunicatiopEducation, 190, 29, 196$ w-

Phillips, G.M., & Metzger, N.J. The reticent syndrome: Sode theoreticalconsiderations about etiology and treatment. Speech Monograph,1973 40, 220-23T. A

Phillips, & SokoloM, K.A. An end. to anxiety treating speechrOblems with rhetoritherapy. journal o unication Disorders,979, 12, 385-397. 4 {w

Planalp, S., & He es, D.E. A cognitive approach.to communication theory:Cogito'ergo7alco? In M. Burgoon '(Ed.) , Communication yearbook 5,in press.

Pribram, F.T. Psychophysiologic1 basis of emotion. In

P.J. Vinken }Lyn (Ede. )r, Handbook of clinical neurology,Vol. 3. Amsterdam:. North-Holly al Publishing Co., 1969.:

Reynolds, A., & Taivio, A. Cognitive and emotional determinants of speech.' Canadian Journal of Esycholoay, 1968,, 22, 164-175-

Richmond, V. The'relatiOnship between trait and'state communitationappreheision a.'hdinterpersonal perceptions during acquaintance

stages. Human Communication Research01968, 4, 338-349:

Rieger, C.. An Organiation'of knowledge for problem solvin d languagecomprehension. Artificial Intelligence, 1976, 7, 89- 27. v

.

Rosenfeld, L.B., Personality discriminants of reticence. 6Western SpeiCE'Communication, 1976, 40, 22-31.

.0 ..,

Schachter,-S. The interaction of cognitive and phy iological deter-minants of emotional state. In C.D. Spielberge (Ed..), Anxiety..and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966.

., .

. .

Sdhachter,0 S. The assumption of identity and-'peripheralist-centralistcontroversies in motivation and emotion. In M.B. Arnold. (Ed.);

Feelings ard emotions: The Loyola symposium. New York: 'Aca,demic

Press, 1971). Ao

.

Schachter, S. 'Second though s on biological and psychological bcplana-:`4ons.of behavior; In . Berkowitz .), Cognitive theories in .,

.social psychologx: Papers from advan s in'experimental social.psychology. New York: Academic Press; 1978. A

6 ,Schachter., S.; & Singer, J.E. Cognitive, social, and physiological

determinants'of emotional state. Psychological Review, 1962,,69 379399.

38

Schachter, S., & Wheeler, L. Epinephrine, Chlorpromazine, and amusement.Journal of Abnormal and Sociel'Psychology, 1962, '65, 121-128.

Schmidt, R.A.Psychol

Schneider, W.process

R'eview,

A schema theory of-',discrete motor skill learning.ogical Review, 1975, 82, 225-260.

, & Shlffrin, R.M. Controlled and automatic human informationing; I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological'1977, 84, 1 -66.

Scott, M.D., &'Wheeless, L.R. The relationsilip of three types of .

communication'apprehension toc4ssroom achievement. The SouthernSpeech Communication Jotrnal, 1977, 42, 246-255.*

Sells, S.B., Stimulus determinants of behavior: New York: Ronald; 1963.. ,

Shiffrin, & Schneider, W. *COntDolled an&automatic Iluman iftformationprocessing: II. Perceptual learning,- automatic attendfng, and ageneral theory. ychologiCS1 Rview, .1977, 84, 127 -190.

Siegman, A.W., & Pope, B.,,Effects of question.specificty and anxiety. .producing .messages on verbal. fluency in the initial interview,

Journal of Personality *and Social Psychology, 1965, 52/7530..

Stmonov,,p)1, Need-informational in er ction of brain structlires, The.

:->.--.,k

Pavlovian J urnaliof Biological ience; 1981, 16, 125-120. t

Snavely, W.B. -; Merker, G.E., Becker, L., & Book,' V. .Predictionsl'of

interpersonal communication apprehension in the acquaintance/cpntext. Paper presented at the Speech. Communication Asbociationtannual.conventi-on;"San Francicro,.1§.76. : '

. - 4

Sokoloff; K.A., SelPhillips,"-G.M. A refinement of the c'oncgpt. "reticence."Journal of Communication Disorders, 1976, 9, 331-347.:

.

Spielberger, C.D. Theotl'Iand research on-anxiety. In C.D..Saeielbergerqd:), Anxiety' and behavior. 'NewYork: Academic Press, 1966..

. t

Spielberger, Anxiety as an emotional state., tIn C.D. Spielberger(Ed.)1,Anxiety: Current trends' in theory and research, Vol- 1..New york: ,Academic Press, 1972. .

Spielberger,, Lushene, R.E. Manual for thestate-trait anxiety itrentory. Pflo Alto: Consulting PsychologistPress, 1970.

2

Tulving, E. Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving and(Eds.) The organization of meuory. New York: Academic

. .

WheOess, L.R. jrinVestigation of receiver apprehension andcontext dimensions of communication apprehengion. -The

- Teacher, 1975, 2.4, 261-268.

Zimbardo, P.G. Shyness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977.

Speech

Press, 1972.

social

-10

119

1

P1/4 4

4 Success .54 ' .45 - .61

Self-Image .26 -

1

4Correlations between Predictor Variables (N=64)

4

Self -Image Importance Success X Importance

,

1`

Importance ,35

I,

t

S

14

a

--.4.

g

6

41.

t,

40

144

4-

o

4,

"

4-1j

Mb

44.

1 .4

TABLE 2

Summary of Reiression Analysis for State-Aniiety (N=64)

(F=6.87 df=4/59, 2C.001))

'4

0 .0

Variable Mult. R R. R2 Simple R Beta

Success

.Self-Image

Importance

Success XImportance

.393

.466

.517

.558

.155

.218

' :268

.311

.155

. .063.

.050

.043

.393

- .424

.017

J, .480

.193

- .274

- .19,9 ,

'.571,

- Note. The "b" term is not included because the'multi-colliheaity evident from,Table 1 renders this

-term uninterpretable:

.1

2

.t

4

4i.

39

\

ti-

4A

FIGURE: 1- I

SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES UNDERLYING THE AROUSAL OFCOMMUNICATION APPREHENSION

'PROGRESSl'oROGRESS

TOWARDGOAL(S)

a

4*

INTERACTION-----

GENERATION EVALUATIONGOAL(S) of 's of `ACCEPT (EXPECTED SUCCESS)

POTENTIAL POTENTIALBEHAVIORS BEHAVIORS

r

NONE REJECT

(ANXIETY)

HIGH

jNECESSITY OFINTERACTIONGOAL(S)

(ANXIETY5

tiLOW

'ffNGAGE.. .

IN

BEHAVIOR

ENGAGE.

IN

BEHAVIOR

AVOIDANCE