PsychologicalReports, 1990, 67, 515-522. O Psychological Reports 1990
PERSONALITY CORRELATES O F ANXIETY ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING ' JENNIFER SLOAN AND STEVE SLANE Cleveland State Universiy
Summary.-McCroskey (1982) has hypothesized that there are various forms of apprehension about communication some of which are situation specific and some of which are best thought of as traits. Other research has established a relationship between personality variables and a trait conception of apprehension about communication. If McCroskey's distinction between trait and situation-based state is appropriate, personality variables ordinarily associated with trait apprehension about communication should not correlate as highly with forms defined as more situation specific, such as anxiety about public speaking. Multiple regressions were performed using trait measures of apprehension about communication (the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension) and situation-based anxiety (the public speaking factor of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension) as dependent variables. As hypothesized, contributions of personality were less for trait than situation-specific apprehension about communication. The inclusion of self-monitoring as a moderator variable added additional information about the contributions of personality to situation-specific apprehension about communication, with personality being more predictive of apprehension about public speaking for low self-monitors.
Much of the research done to explore possible associations of personality with anxiety in communication situations has focused on the broad constructs of reticence and apprehension about communication. The former is defined as incompetent communication (Phillips, 1980) while the latter is viewed as "an individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons" (McCroskey, 1982, p. 136). I n his initial discussion of reticence, Phillips (1968) examined the diary items of highly inadequate oral communicators. H e found that reticent individuals saw themselves as "excessively quiet" and socially withdrawn, implying a self-perception of introvertedness. Phillips also points to socialization practices and inadequately developed social skills as primary bases of reticence. While investigating characteristics associated with reticence, Rosenfeld and Plax (1976) administered a battery of personality questionnaires to subjects assessed on the reticence dimension by the Phillips and Erickson "R" Scales (Phillips & Erickson, 1974). Their results enabled them to construct a function to discriminate between reticent and nonreticent individuals that
'Address correspondence to either author, Department of Psychology, Cleveland State University, Euclid Avenue at East 24th Street, Cleveland, OH 44115.
516
J. SLOAN AND S. SLANE
was composed of Dominance, Socialization, and Achievement via Conformance from the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1956); Nurturance, Deference, Test Consistency, Affiliation, and Aggression from the Edwards' Personal Preference Schedule (Edwards, 1959); Social Self-concept and Physical Self-concept from the Tennessee Self-concept Scale (Fitts, 1965). This function correctly classified 77% of all subjects. Studies have also sought to identify personality traits associated with apprehension about communication. Gillunson (1942) reported correlations of .46 and .58 between his Personal Report of Confidence as a Speaker and Social Adjustment for men and women, respectively. McCroskey, Daly, and Sorensen (1976) correlated scores on the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (McCroskey, 1970, 1978, 1986) with individual factor scores on Cattell's 16 Personality Factor questionnaire (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970) and found moderate to high negative correlations between Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scores and Emotional Maturity (-.33), Surgency (-.52), Adventurousness (-.54), and Self-control (-.35). There was also a negative relationshp between self-esteem and communication apprehension operationalized by McCroskey7s Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, & Falcione, 1977; Snavely & Sullivan, 1976). Daly (1978) found moderate relationships between measures of apprehension about communication and social anxiety, and Deffenbacher and Payne (1978) found that people with high apprehension about communication (measured by the PRCA-20) were less assertive in social situations. Most studies examining the relationships between personality and the broader constructs of apprehension about communication support the position that elements of personality involving interactive functioning in social situations are of primary importance in the prediction of anxiety. Two major problems arise concerning the application of this knowledge to anxiety in a public speaking context. The first involves the state versus trait nature of apprehension about communication. Initially, McCroskey treated the construct as a trait variable (McCroskey, 1970). However, other research has produced evidence of associated state features (McCroskey, 1977; Richmond, 1978). In order to accommodate this, McCroskey (1982) modified his original concept to include four basic types: Traitlike, Generalized-context, Persongroup, and Situational apprehension about communication. McCroskey based his taxonomy (McCroskey, Richmond, & Davis, 1986) on the conceptualization of trait and state anxieties set forth by Spielberger (1966). Trait apprehension about communication is "a relatively enduring, personality-type orientation toward a given mode of communication across a wide variety of contexts" (McCroskey, 1982, p. 147). Generalized-context is defined as apprehension within a particular communication context that does
PERSONALITY, ANXIETY ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING
517
not generalize to other situations. Public spealung anxiety is regarded as Generalized-context apprehension, since it is not manifested in other social situations such as dyadic interactions. If McCroskey's distinctions are appropriate, personality should be more predictive of trait apprehension about communication than of apprehension based on a particular situation. As the apprehension becomes more situationally based, the relative contributions of personality should decrease. A practical problem arises concerning the degree of predictability associated with trait- and context-related anxieties. In the case of public speaking anxiety, which is a form of Generalized-context anxiety, personal skills and the situation are equally important. Therefore, the basis for apprehension may be the situation, characteristics of individuals who experience the anxiety, or a combination of both factors. If personality variables are less important in predicting anxiety about public spealung, an assessment of situational importance in apprehension might serve as a means of increasing predictabllity. One method of accounting for situational importance is the inclusion of the moderator variable of self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974). The construct of self-monitoring describes the extent to w h c h behavior is guided by situational influences. High self-monitors are especially sensitive to the social demands of the situation, whereas the behavior of low self-monitors tends to be more determined by internal characteristics (Snyder, 1986). I t is reasonable to expect that individuals whose behaviors are more situation specific (high self-monitors) would display weaker relationships between personality and all types of apprehension about communication. Conversely, trait-oriented individuals (low self-monitors) would exhibit stronger relationships between person&ty and public speaking anxiety. In summary, the purpose of the current investigation was to determine the relative contributions of person&ty to the prediction of both trait apprehension about communication and anxiety about public speaking. A second objective was to examine the situational component of public speaking anxiety through the moderating effects of self-monitoring. METHOD Two hundred twelve undergraduate students in psychology responded to the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) (McCroskey, 1978), a 30-item version of the Repression-Sensitization Scale (Byrne, Barry, & Nelson, 1963), the Self-monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974), the Affiliation subscale of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Edwards, 1959), the Dominance and Socialization subscales from the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1956), and the Adventurousness and Anxiety subscales from the 16 PF (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970). Scores on the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension were
518
J. SLOAN AND S. SLANE
factor analyzed with a principal components procedure with a varimax rotation, using the mainframe version of SPSSX. The resulting factor structure showed that the first factor dealt exclusively with items related to a public speaking context. These results are consistent with research findings which have factor analyzed responses to this and a previous version of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (Burgoon & Hale, 1983; Hansford & Hattie, 1982). This first factor, which accounted for 41.9% of the total variance, was subsequently used as the objective assessment of public speaking anxiety (situational apprehension), while the total score was used to assess trait apprehension about communication.
Trait Apprehension About Communication To assess the relative contributions of personality to situation-specific and trait-oriented apprehension about communication, a multiple regression was performed using the total score on the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension as the dependent measure of trait apprehension. This analysis resulted in a multiple R of .86 for an equation consisting of the Adventurousness, Dominance, Affiliation, and Socialization variables. The regression structure for t h s analysis is presented in Table 1 . These results are consistent with previous research (McCroskey, Daly, & Sorensen, 1976) on personality correlates of apprehension about communication as measured by the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension. TABLE 1
REGRESSIONEQUATIONS FOR TRAIT AND A N E ~ABOUT ~ U E L I CSPEAKING Dependent Variable Regression Variables Multiple R Trait: Communication Apprehension
Public Spealung Anxiety
Adventurousness Dominance Affiliation Socialization Adventurousness Repression-Sensitization
.86 .64
Public Speaking Anxiety To assess the contributions of personality to a more situation-specific form of apprehension, a multiple regression was performed using the public spealung factor of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension as the dependent variable. This regression analysis gave a multiple R of .64 for an equation consisting of the Adventurousness and Repression-Sensitization variables. The regression structure is presented in Table 2.
PERSONALITY, ANXIETY ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING TABLE 2 GROLJPSO N A N E ~ABOUTP m u c SPEAKING REGRESSIONS FORSELF-MONITORING Ranae 1-10 Law
n
71
Regression Variables Adventurousness Repression-Sensitization Affiliation
11-13
Medium
61
Adventurousness Dominance
14-25
High
80
Adventurousness
Multiple R
.71
.59
Self-monitoringas a Moderator Variable The relative importance of trait and situation was also examined through the moderating effects of self-monitoring. The sample was split into equal thirds based on the Self-monitoring Scale scores. These analyses gave multiple Rs of .71, .71, and .59 for low, intermediate, and high self-monitors, respectively, with the Public Speaking Factor of the Personal Report of Communication apprehension as the dependent variable. The variables contributing to each equation differed with the exception of the Adventurousness variable, which loaded first in each equation. Regression structures for each group are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 REGRESSIONS FORSELF-MONITORING GROUPSO N TRAITCOMMUNICATION APPREI-IENSION Range 1-10
n
Regression Variables
Low
71
Adventurousness Dominance
11-13
Mehum
61
Adventurousness Dominance Affiliation
14-25
High
80
Advenmrousness Dominance
Multiple R .86
.86
For comparative purposes, a second set of regression analyses was run using the total Personal Report of Communication Apprehension score as the dependent variable. The regression equations for the self-monitoring groups all had multiple Rs of .86. Adventurousness was the first variable to enter each equation, but the variables entering after it were different for each group of self-monitors. Table 3 dustrates the regression structures for each group. One explanation for these results is that situational orientation is not relevant in a trait conceptualization of apprehension about communication. A second possibility is that the personality variables explain a maximum of variance in trait apprehension about communication so that including self-monitoring adds nothing.
520
J. SLOAN A N D S. SLANE
Conclusions and Implications This research provides support for McCroskey's distinctions between trait- and situation-related apprehension about communication. Personality measures were more predictive of trait apprehension than the more situation-specific public speaking anxiety. These results also suggest that personality variables chosen for investigation based on their previously established relationship to the constructs of reticence and apprehension about communication are relevant to an objective assessment of public speaking anxiety. Additional information about the relative contributions of personality in both contexts was obtained by the use of self-monitoring as a moderator variable. I n the trait apprehension analyses, self-monitoring did not influence the degree of relationship between personality and apprehension, although the independent variables which contributed to the regression coefficients varied slightly for high and low self-monitors. In the analyses of public spealung anxiety, personality variables explained more variance in anxiety scores for low or intermediate than for high self-monitors. I n addition, fewer personality characteristics were associated with anxiety for high selfmonitors. Thls is consistent with the definition of low self-monitors as trait-oriented and high self-monitors as situation specific in behavior. One criticism of the current study may be the use of the first factor of Public Speaking Anxiety instead of the whole scale. There were two reasons for this approach. First, since the Public Speaking Anxiety factor is a purer assessment of the construct, any analyses using the single factor as a dependent variable should yield stronger relationships with other variables. However, in this study the opposite was the case. Second, research on the psychometric properties of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension has pointed to the emphasis on public speaking as an argument against the questionnaire's ability to assess general apprehension about communication. This apparent bias has been criticized elsewhere (Sloan & Slane, 1990). The differential contributions of personality may provide important information about the attribution of anxiety. For people who employ situational factors to guide their behavior (High Self-monitors) the presence of relevant personality characteristics becomes less important in determining their anxiety. The reverse is true for Low Self-monitors, who base their behaviors on stable personality traits. W i l e the o v e r - d level of anxiety experienced in the ~ u b l i cspeaking context may not vary significantly as a function of self-monitoring, its determinants for the two groups would differ. The focus of apprehension is on the public speaking situation for High self-monitors and on the traits appropriate to the situation for the Low Self-monitors.
PERSONALITY, ANXIETY ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING
52 1
This differential attribution of anxiety would also serve as an explanation for mixed success reported for studies which have employed various therapeutic techniques to reduce anxiety about public speaking. For example, therapy which emphasizes behavioral techniques for reducing anxiety (Osberg, 1981) and cognitive restructuring in the presence of the phobic stimulus (Grayson & Borkovec, 1978) have reported only moderate success in reducing apprehension. Therapeutic techniques may be effective only for those individuals whose behavioral orientation is the focus of the intervention. I n other words, techniques which focus on situational factors may be an appropriate method for anxiety reduction with High but not Low self-monitors. Therapy which targets the focus of apprehension for individuals based on their self-monitoring orientation should yield greater levels of success in reducing anxiety. This study has provided evidence for differential contributions of personality for trait versus state apprehension about communication, as well as for the behavioral orientation described by the construct of self-monitoring. A more thorough investigation employing multiple assessments for these personahty variables, in addition to a more rigorous assessment of apprehension about communication, would clarify these relationships. Additional research on the effects of self-monitoring and personality in actual communication settings is also required to establish vahdity for t h s approach to the study of apprehension about communication. REFERENCES BURGOON, J. K., & HALE,J. A. (1983) A research note on the dimensions of communication reticence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 238-248. BYRNE,D., B a y , J., & NELSON,D. (1963) Relation of the revised repression-sensitization scale to measures of self-description. Psychological Reports, 13, 323-334. CATTELL,R. B., EBER, H. W., & TATSUOKA,M. M. (1970) Handbook for the Sixteen PersonaliQ Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing. DALY,J. A. (1978) The assessment of social-communicative anxiety via self-report: a comparison of measures. Commtinication Monographs, 45, 204-218. DEFFENBACHER, J. L., & PAYNE,D. M. (1978) Relationship of a prehension about communicacal 42, 370. tion to fear of negative evaluation and assertiveness. ~ s ~ c r t o i o ~ iReportr, E D ~ ~ A R A. D S L. , (1959) Manual for the Edwards Personal Preference Scale. New York: The Psychological Corp. F m s , W. H. (1965) Manual for the Tennessee Self-concept Scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recorhngs & Tests. GILKINSON, H. (1942) Social fears as reported by students in college speech classes. Speech Monographs, 9 , 141-160. GOUGH,H. G . (1756) Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. GRAYSON, J. B., & BORKOVEC, T. D. (1978) The effects of expectancy and imagined response to phobic stimuli on fear reduction. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2 , 11-24. J-~ANSFOKD, B. C., & I-Inme, J. A. (1982) Communication apprehension: an assessment of Australian and United States data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 225-233. LEVINE,T. R., & MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1990) .Measuring trait communication apprehension: a test of rival measurement models of the I'KCA-24. Communication Mononra~hs. 57.
522
J. SLOAN AND S. SLANE
MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1970) Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269-277. MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1977) Oral communication apprehension: a summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78-96. MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1978) Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication appi-ehension. Communication Monographs, 45, 192-203. MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1982) Oral communication apprehension: a reconceptualization. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook G. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pp. 136-170. MCCROSKEY, J. C., DALY,J. A,, RICHMOND, V. P, & FALCIONE, R. L. (1977) Studies of the relationship between communication apprehension and self-esteem. Human Communication Research, 3, 269-277. MCCROSKEY, J. C., DALY,J. A., & SORENSEN, G. A. (1976) Personality correlates of comrnunication apprehension: a research note. Human Communication Research, 2, 376-380. MCCROSKEY, J. C., RICHMOND, V. P., & DAVIS,L. M. (1986) Apprehension about communicating with supervisors: a test of a theoretical relationship between types of communication apprehension. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 171-182. OSBERG, J. W. (1981) The effectiveness of applied relaxation in the treatment of speech anxiety. Behavior Therapy, 12, 723-729 PHILLIPS, G. M. (1968) Reticence: pathology of the normal speaker. Speech Monographs, 35, 39-49. PHILLIPS, G. M. (1980) On apples and oruons: a reply to Pagc Communication Education, 29, 105-108. PHILLIPS, G. M., & ERICKSON, E. E. (1974) "R" Scales. (llnpubhshed manuscript, Washington State Univer, Pullman) RICHMOND, V. P. (1978) The relationship between trait and state communication apprehension and interpersonal perceptions during acquaintance stages. Human Communication Research, 4, 338-349. ROSENFELD, L. B., & PLAX, T. G. (1976) Personality discriminants of reticence. Western Speech Communication, 40, 22-31. SLOAN, J., & SLANE,S. (1990) The relacionship between communication a prehension and public s eaking anxiety: a factor analytic approach. Paper presentei at the Midwestern ~ s ~ g o l o ~ iAssociation cal Convention, Chicago, IL. SNAVELY, W. B., & SULLIVAN, D. L. (1976) Components of self-esteem as predictors of oral cornmunicacion apprehension. (Unpublished manuscript, Univer. of Nebraska-Lincoln) SNYDER,M. (1974) Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537. SNYDER,M. (1986) Public appearances/private realities: the psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman. SPIELBERGER, C. D. (1966) Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 3-20.
Accepted August 23, 1990.
PERSONALITY CORRELATES O F ANXIETY ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING ' JENNIFER SLOAN AND STEVE SLANE Cleveland State Universiy
Summary.-McCroskey (1982) has hypothesized that there are various forms of apprehension about communication some of which are situation specific and some of which are best thought of as traits. Other research has established a relationship between personality variables and a trait conception of apprehension about communication. If McCroskey's distinction between trait and situation-based state is appropriate, personality variables ordinarily associated with trait apprehension about communication should not correlate as highly with forms defined as more situation specific, such as anxiety about public speaking. Multiple regressions were performed using trait measures of apprehension about communication (the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension) and situation-based anxiety (the public speaking factor of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension) as dependent variables. As hypothesized, contributions of personality were less for trait than situation-specific apprehension about communication. The inclusion of self-monitoring as a moderator variable added additional information about the contributions of personality to situation-specific apprehension about communication, with personality being more predictive of apprehension about public speaking for low self-monitors.
Much of the research done to explore possible associations of personality with anxiety in communication situations has focused on the broad constructs of reticence and apprehension about communication. The former is defined as incompetent communication (Phillips, 1980) while the latter is viewed as "an individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons" (McCroskey, 1982, p. 136). I n his initial discussion of reticence, Phillips (1968) examined the diary items of highly inadequate oral communicators. H e found that reticent individuals saw themselves as "excessively quiet" and socially withdrawn, implying a self-perception of introvertedness. Phillips also points to socialization practices and inadequately developed social skills as primary bases of reticence. While investigating characteristics associated with reticence, Rosenfeld and Plax (1976) administered a battery of personality questionnaires to subjects assessed on the reticence dimension by the Phillips and Erickson "R" Scales (Phillips & Erickson, 1974). Their results enabled them to construct a function to discriminate between reticent and nonreticent individuals that
'Address correspondence to either author, Department of Psychology, Cleveland State University, Euclid Avenue at East 24th Street, Cleveland, OH 44115.
516
J. SLOAN AND S. SLANE
was composed of Dominance, Socialization, and Achievement via Conformance from the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1956); Nurturance, Deference, Test Consistency, Affiliation, and Aggression from the Edwards' Personal Preference Schedule (Edwards, 1959); Social Self-concept and Physical Self-concept from the Tennessee Self-concept Scale (Fitts, 1965). This function correctly classified 77% of all subjects. Studies have also sought to identify personality traits associated with apprehension about communication. Gillunson (1942) reported correlations of .46 and .58 between his Personal Report of Confidence as a Speaker and Social Adjustment for men and women, respectively. McCroskey, Daly, and Sorensen (1976) correlated scores on the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (McCroskey, 1970, 1978, 1986) with individual factor scores on Cattell's 16 Personality Factor questionnaire (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970) and found moderate to high negative correlations between Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scores and Emotional Maturity (-.33), Surgency (-.52), Adventurousness (-.54), and Self-control (-.35). There was also a negative relationshp between self-esteem and communication apprehension operationalized by McCroskey7s Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, & Falcione, 1977; Snavely & Sullivan, 1976). Daly (1978) found moderate relationships between measures of apprehension about communication and social anxiety, and Deffenbacher and Payne (1978) found that people with high apprehension about communication (measured by the PRCA-20) were less assertive in social situations. Most studies examining the relationships between personality and the broader constructs of apprehension about communication support the position that elements of personality involving interactive functioning in social situations are of primary importance in the prediction of anxiety. Two major problems arise concerning the application of this knowledge to anxiety in a public speaking context. The first involves the state versus trait nature of apprehension about communication. Initially, McCroskey treated the construct as a trait variable (McCroskey, 1970). However, other research has produced evidence of associated state features (McCroskey, 1977; Richmond, 1978). In order to accommodate this, McCroskey (1982) modified his original concept to include four basic types: Traitlike, Generalized-context, Persongroup, and Situational apprehension about communication. McCroskey based his taxonomy (McCroskey, Richmond, & Davis, 1986) on the conceptualization of trait and state anxieties set forth by Spielberger (1966). Trait apprehension about communication is "a relatively enduring, personality-type orientation toward a given mode of communication across a wide variety of contexts" (McCroskey, 1982, p. 147). Generalized-context is defined as apprehension within a particular communication context that does
PERSONALITY, ANXIETY ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING
517
not generalize to other situations. Public spealung anxiety is regarded as Generalized-context apprehension, since it is not manifested in other social situations such as dyadic interactions. If McCroskey's distinctions are appropriate, personality should be more predictive of trait apprehension about communication than of apprehension based on a particular situation. As the apprehension becomes more situationally based, the relative contributions of personality should decrease. A practical problem arises concerning the degree of predictability associated with trait- and context-related anxieties. In the case of public speaking anxiety, which is a form of Generalized-context anxiety, personal skills and the situation are equally important. Therefore, the basis for apprehension may be the situation, characteristics of individuals who experience the anxiety, or a combination of both factors. If personality variables are less important in predicting anxiety about public spealung, an assessment of situational importance in apprehension might serve as a means of increasing predictabllity. One method of accounting for situational importance is the inclusion of the moderator variable of self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974). The construct of self-monitoring describes the extent to w h c h behavior is guided by situational influences. High self-monitors are especially sensitive to the social demands of the situation, whereas the behavior of low self-monitors tends to be more determined by internal characteristics (Snyder, 1986). I t is reasonable to expect that individuals whose behaviors are more situation specific (high self-monitors) would display weaker relationships between personality and all types of apprehension about communication. Conversely, trait-oriented individuals (low self-monitors) would exhibit stronger relationships between person&ty and public speaking anxiety. In summary, the purpose of the current investigation was to determine the relative contributions of person&ty to the prediction of both trait apprehension about communication and anxiety about public speaking. A second objective was to examine the situational component of public speaking anxiety through the moderating effects of self-monitoring. METHOD Two hundred twelve undergraduate students in psychology responded to the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) (McCroskey, 1978), a 30-item version of the Repression-Sensitization Scale (Byrne, Barry, & Nelson, 1963), the Self-monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974), the Affiliation subscale of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Edwards, 1959), the Dominance and Socialization subscales from the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1956), and the Adventurousness and Anxiety subscales from the 16 PF (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970). Scores on the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension were
518
J. SLOAN AND S. SLANE
factor analyzed with a principal components procedure with a varimax rotation, using the mainframe version of SPSSX. The resulting factor structure showed that the first factor dealt exclusively with items related to a public speaking context. These results are consistent with research findings which have factor analyzed responses to this and a previous version of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (Burgoon & Hale, 1983; Hansford & Hattie, 1982). This first factor, which accounted for 41.9% of the total variance, was subsequently used as the objective assessment of public speaking anxiety (situational apprehension), while the total score was used to assess trait apprehension about communication.
Trait Apprehension About Communication To assess the relative contributions of personality to situation-specific and trait-oriented apprehension about communication, a multiple regression was performed using the total score on the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension as the dependent measure of trait apprehension. This analysis resulted in a multiple R of .86 for an equation consisting of the Adventurousness, Dominance, Affiliation, and Socialization variables. The regression structure for t h s analysis is presented in Table 1 . These results are consistent with previous research (McCroskey, Daly, & Sorensen, 1976) on personality correlates of apprehension about communication as measured by the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension. TABLE 1
REGRESSIONEQUATIONS FOR TRAIT AND A N E ~ABOUT ~ U E L I CSPEAKING Dependent Variable Regression Variables Multiple R Trait: Communication Apprehension
Public Spealung Anxiety
Adventurousness Dominance Affiliation Socialization Adventurousness Repression-Sensitization
.86 .64
Public Speaking Anxiety To assess the contributions of personality to a more situation-specific form of apprehension, a multiple regression was performed using the public spealung factor of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension as the dependent variable. This regression analysis gave a multiple R of .64 for an equation consisting of the Adventurousness and Repression-Sensitization variables. The regression structure is presented in Table 2.
PERSONALITY, ANXIETY ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING TABLE 2 GROLJPSO N A N E ~ABOUTP m u c SPEAKING REGRESSIONS FORSELF-MONITORING Ranae 1-10 Law
n
71
Regression Variables Adventurousness Repression-Sensitization Affiliation
11-13
Medium
61
Adventurousness Dominance
14-25
High
80
Adventurousness
Multiple R
.71
.59
Self-monitoringas a Moderator Variable The relative importance of trait and situation was also examined through the moderating effects of self-monitoring. The sample was split into equal thirds based on the Self-monitoring Scale scores. These analyses gave multiple Rs of .71, .71, and .59 for low, intermediate, and high self-monitors, respectively, with the Public Speaking Factor of the Personal Report of Communication apprehension as the dependent variable. The variables contributing to each equation differed with the exception of the Adventurousness variable, which loaded first in each equation. Regression structures for each group are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 REGRESSIONS FORSELF-MONITORING GROUPSO N TRAITCOMMUNICATION APPREI-IENSION Range 1-10
n
Regression Variables
Low
71
Adventurousness Dominance
11-13
Mehum
61
Adventurousness Dominance Affiliation
14-25
High
80
Advenmrousness Dominance
Multiple R .86
.86
For comparative purposes, a second set of regression analyses was run using the total Personal Report of Communication Apprehension score as the dependent variable. The regression equations for the self-monitoring groups all had multiple Rs of .86. Adventurousness was the first variable to enter each equation, but the variables entering after it were different for each group of self-monitors. Table 3 dustrates the regression structures for each group. One explanation for these results is that situational orientation is not relevant in a trait conceptualization of apprehension about communication. A second possibility is that the personality variables explain a maximum of variance in trait apprehension about communication so that including self-monitoring adds nothing.
520
J. SLOAN A N D S. SLANE
Conclusions and Implications This research provides support for McCroskey's distinctions between trait- and situation-related apprehension about communication. Personality measures were more predictive of trait apprehension than the more situation-specific public speaking anxiety. These results also suggest that personality variables chosen for investigation based on their previously established relationship to the constructs of reticence and apprehension about communication are relevant to an objective assessment of public speaking anxiety. Additional information about the relative contributions of personality in both contexts was obtained by the use of self-monitoring as a moderator variable. I n the trait apprehension analyses, self-monitoring did not influence the degree of relationship between personality and apprehension, although the independent variables which contributed to the regression coefficients varied slightly for high and low self-monitors. In the analyses of public spealung anxiety, personality variables explained more variance in anxiety scores for low or intermediate than for high self-monitors. I n addition, fewer personality characteristics were associated with anxiety for high selfmonitors. Thls is consistent with the definition of low self-monitors as trait-oriented and high self-monitors as situation specific in behavior. One criticism of the current study may be the use of the first factor of Public Speaking Anxiety instead of the whole scale. There were two reasons for this approach. First, since the Public Speaking Anxiety factor is a purer assessment of the construct, any analyses using the single factor as a dependent variable should yield stronger relationships with other variables. However, in this study the opposite was the case. Second, research on the psychometric properties of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension has pointed to the emphasis on public speaking as an argument against the questionnaire's ability to assess general apprehension about communication. This apparent bias has been criticized elsewhere (Sloan & Slane, 1990). The differential contributions of personality may provide important information about the attribution of anxiety. For people who employ situational factors to guide their behavior (High Self-monitors) the presence of relevant personality characteristics becomes less important in determining their anxiety. The reverse is true for Low Self-monitors, who base their behaviors on stable personality traits. W i l e the o v e r - d level of anxiety experienced in the ~ u b l i cspeaking context may not vary significantly as a function of self-monitoring, its determinants for the two groups would differ. The focus of apprehension is on the public speaking situation for High self-monitors and on the traits appropriate to the situation for the Low Self-monitors.
PERSONALITY, ANXIETY ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING
52 1
This differential attribution of anxiety would also serve as an explanation for mixed success reported for studies which have employed various therapeutic techniques to reduce anxiety about public speaking. For example, therapy which emphasizes behavioral techniques for reducing anxiety (Osberg, 1981) and cognitive restructuring in the presence of the phobic stimulus (Grayson & Borkovec, 1978) have reported only moderate success in reducing apprehension. Therapeutic techniques may be effective only for those individuals whose behavioral orientation is the focus of the intervention. I n other words, techniques which focus on situational factors may be an appropriate method for anxiety reduction with High but not Low self-monitors. Therapy which targets the focus of apprehension for individuals based on their self-monitoring orientation should yield greater levels of success in reducing anxiety. This study has provided evidence for differential contributions of personality for trait versus state apprehension about communication, as well as for the behavioral orientation described by the construct of self-monitoring. A more thorough investigation employing multiple assessments for these personahty variables, in addition to a more rigorous assessment of apprehension about communication, would clarify these relationships. Additional research on the effects of self-monitoring and personality in actual communication settings is also required to establish vahdity for t h s approach to the study of apprehension about communication. REFERENCES BURGOON, J. K., & HALE,J. A. (1983) A research note on the dimensions of communication reticence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 238-248. BYRNE,D., B a y , J., & NELSON,D. (1963) Relation of the revised repression-sensitization scale to measures of self-description. Psychological Reports, 13, 323-334. CATTELL,R. B., EBER, H. W., & TATSUOKA,M. M. (1970) Handbook for the Sixteen PersonaliQ Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing. DALY,J. A. (1978) The assessment of social-communicative anxiety via self-report: a comparison of measures. Commtinication Monographs, 45, 204-218. DEFFENBACHER, J. L., & PAYNE,D. M. (1978) Relationship of a prehension about communicacal 42, 370. tion to fear of negative evaluation and assertiveness. ~ s ~ c r t o i o ~ iReportr, E D ~ ~ A R A. D S L. , (1959) Manual for the Edwards Personal Preference Scale. New York: The Psychological Corp. F m s , W. H. (1965) Manual for the Tennessee Self-concept Scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recorhngs & Tests. GILKINSON, H. (1942) Social fears as reported by students in college speech classes. Speech Monographs, 9 , 141-160. GOUGH,H. G . (1756) Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. GRAYSON, J. B., & BORKOVEC, T. D. (1978) The effects of expectancy and imagined response to phobic stimuli on fear reduction. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2 , 11-24. J-~ANSFOKD, B. C., & I-Inme, J. A. (1982) Communication apprehension: an assessment of Australian and United States data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 225-233. LEVINE,T. R., & MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1990) .Measuring trait communication apprehension: a test of rival measurement models of the I'KCA-24. Communication Mononra~hs. 57.
522
J. SLOAN AND S. SLANE
MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1970) Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269-277. MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1977) Oral communication apprehension: a summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78-96. MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1978) Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication appi-ehension. Communication Monographs, 45, 192-203. MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1982) Oral communication apprehension: a reconceptualization. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook G. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pp. 136-170. MCCROSKEY, J. C., DALY,J. A,, RICHMOND, V. P, & FALCIONE, R. L. (1977) Studies of the relationship between communication apprehension and self-esteem. Human Communication Research, 3, 269-277. MCCROSKEY, J. C., DALY,J. A., & SORENSEN, G. A. (1976) Personality correlates of comrnunication apprehension: a research note. Human Communication Research, 2, 376-380. MCCROSKEY, J. C., RICHMOND, V. P., & DAVIS,L. M. (1986) Apprehension about communicating with supervisors: a test of a theoretical relationship between types of communication apprehension. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 171-182. OSBERG, J. W. (1981) The effectiveness of applied relaxation in the treatment of speech anxiety. Behavior Therapy, 12, 723-729 PHILLIPS, G. M. (1968) Reticence: pathology of the normal speaker. Speech Monographs, 35, 39-49. PHILLIPS, G. M. (1980) On apples and oruons: a reply to Pagc Communication Education, 29, 105-108. PHILLIPS, G. M., & ERICKSON, E. E. (1974) "R" Scales. (llnpubhshed manuscript, Washington State Univer, Pullman) RICHMOND, V. P. (1978) The relationship between trait and state communication apprehension and interpersonal perceptions during acquaintance stages. Human Communication Research, 4, 338-349. ROSENFELD, L. B., & PLAX, T. G. (1976) Personality discriminants of reticence. Western Speech Communication, 40, 22-31. SLOAN, J., & SLANE,S. (1990) The relacionship between communication a prehension and public s eaking anxiety: a factor analytic approach. Paper presentei at the Midwestern ~ s ~ g o l o ~ iAssociation cal Convention, Chicago, IL. SNAVELY, W. B., & SULLIVAN, D. L. (1976) Components of self-esteem as predictors of oral cornmunicacion apprehension. (Unpublished manuscript, Univer. of Nebraska-Lincoln) SNYDER,M. (1974) Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537. SNYDER,M. (1986) Public appearances/private realities: the psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman. SPIELBERGER, C. D. (1966) Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 3-20.
Accepted August 23, 1990.
