i ()Ll

BIOLOGICAL SEX AND COMMUNICATIONAPPREHENSION

James C. McCroskeyTimothyJ. SimpsonVirginiaP. Richmond

Based upon earlier research which has indicated that males and females may differ in theirlevels of communication apprehension and shyness, this study explored the possible impactof biological sex on general communication apprehension, shyness, and apprehension aboutbroad communication contexts. Samples of 778 college students and 106 secondary schoolteachers completed measures of general communication apprehension, shyness, and ap-prehension about communication in the contexts of public speaking, meetings, small groups,and interpersonal conversation. Results indicate that males may be slightly more shy thanfemales, females may be slightly more apprehensive about public speaking than males, butfemale and males do not differ meaningfully in terms of general communication apprehension.

James C. McCroskey (Ed.D., Pennsylvania State University, 1966) is Professor and Chairperson of Speech Com-munication at West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV26506. Timothy J. Simpson (M.A., California State University,1980) is a doctoral candidate in Speech Communication and Educational Psychology at West Virginia University.Virginia P. Richmond (Ph.D. University of Nebraska, 1977) is Associate Professor of Speech Communication at WestVirginia University.

Communication apprehension (CA). the fear oranxiety associated with either real or anticipatedcommunication with another person or persons,has been the subject of over 200 reported studiesover the past decade. Biological sex, althoughsometimes controlled for, has seldom beenexamined in these studies. Conclusions and sum-mary statements about CA (McCroskey, 1977)usually fail even to mention any possible relation-ship between sex and CA.

In contrast, writers concerned with shyness havedirected specific attention to the relationship be-tween that variable and biological sex. Zimbardo,for example, in a study of 2,482 American studentsfound that 44% of the men reported being shy,while 39% of the women gave a similar report(Zimbardo, 1977). Given the size of this sample,this difference is highly significant statistically, al-though the actual difference is not large.

In the only previously reported study involvingboth CA and shyness which examined biologicalsex, Talley found opposing results for the relation-ships between sex and shyness and sex and CA(Talley, 1979). Employing the same 119 male and94 female subjects, Talley found the males to besignificantly more shy than the females, but thefemales were found to have higher CA than themales. Interestingly, the results of this portion ofthe study were not included in the published reportof the research (Talley and Richmond, 1980). Thisexclusion may be attributed to the fact that the rela-

tionship between sex and shyness accounted foronly 1% of the variance and that between sex andCA accounted for only 2% of the variance. Thesesmall, even though statistically significant, effectsmay provide an explanation of why previous re-search reports generally have ignored the biologi-cal sex variable.

Additional findings reported by Talley (1979),however, suggest that discounting the sex variablemay be premature. In her research, gender orienta-tion, sometimes referred to as androgony orpsychological sex, was a powerful predictor of bothshyness (20% of the variance) and CA (18% of thevariance). Androgynous subjects were found to besubstantially lower than other subjects in both shy-ness and CA, and subjects classified as masculinewere somewhat lower than subjects classified asfeminine in both shyness and CA. These resultswere consistent with earlier research reported byGreenblatt, Hasenduer and Friemuth (1980) andMcDowell, McDowell, Hyerdahl and Steil (1978).

These results are particularly significant in thatthey suggest orientations that are acculturated (Le.,gender orientation) are meaningfully associatedwith shyness and CA. Similar patterns relating toanxiety-type responses have been observed inother fields. For example, math anxiety has beenfound to be experienced much more commonty byfemales than by males. Any findings linking anxietyresponses to biological sex are very difficult to ex-plain biologically. Such differences, generally, are

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY, Vot. 30, No.2, Spring 1982 129

more parsimoniously explained by the differentialacculturation of the two sexes. It may be, then., thatwithin a given culture, in this case the UnitedStates culture, males or females are conditioned tobe more anxious generally about communication.Or, it may be that males are conditioned to bemore anxious about some communication situa-tions, but females are conditioned to be more anx-ious about other communication situations. Thepresent study was designed to investigate thesepossibilities. Specifically, the research questionsposed were:

A, 00 females and males differ in their generallevels of shyness or communication ap-prehension? .

02 Do females and males differ in their levels ofapprehension about communication withinbroad contexts?

Method

Samples

Two samples of subjects were employed in thisinvestigation. The primary sample was 778 collegestudents voluntarily enrolled in basic classes incommunication. This sample was chosen to becompatible with those employed by both Talley(1979) and Zimbardo (1977). The sample included419 males and 359 females. The second samplewas coposed of 106 secondary school teachers: 44males and 62 females. This sample was selectedbecause previous research has indicated the dis-tribution of CA among public school teachers isapproximately the same as that commonly foundamong college student populations, but the sub-jects, due to increased age (median = 37), repre-sent a wider variety of acculturation experiences.The second sample was voluntarily enrolled ingraduate classes in instructional communication.All subjects completed the research instruments atthe beginning of the term prior:to any discussion ofshyness or CA.

Measurement

The same instruments were employed for bothgroups of subjects. Each subject was asked to in-dicate her or his sex. In addition, they were askedto complete three general measures of CA, twogeneral measures of shyness, and an apprehen-sion measure for each of four broad contexts ofcommunication - public speaking, meetings, smallgroups, and conversations.

General CA. The 25-item Personal Report ofCommunication Apprehension (PRCA-25) de-veloped by McCroskey (1970, 1978) was the firstinstrument employed to measure general CA. Thisis the most widely used instrument in CA researchand has a strong record for both reliability and va-

130

lidity (McCroskey, 1978). In this investigation, thereliability was .95 for the student sample and .93for the teacher sample.

Although the PRCA-25 is reliable and has shownstrong predictive validity across communicationcontexts, it is heavily dominated by items which arespecifically related to public speaking (10 items)and includes. several other items for which thecommunication context is not clear. Thus, twoother instruments presumed to measure generalCA were included. Neither of these has the publicspeaking bias of the PRCA-25, and both havebeen found to correlate in the neighborhood of .90with the PRCA-25. The first of these was the Per-sonal Report of Communication Fear (FEAR). Thisis a 14-item scale originally designed by McCros-key to be used with pre-literate children as '.Veilasolder children and adults (McCroskey et aI., 1981).In this investigation, the FEAR had an internal re-liability of .90 for both the student sample and theteacher sample. The other instrument employedwas a new version of the PRCA, a 24-item scalewhich includes an equal number of items repre-senting the contexts of public speaking, meetings,small groups, and conversation (McCroskey,1981). In this investigation, the PRCA-24 had aninternal reliability estimate of .96 for both the stu-dent sample and the teacher sample.

Shyness. The first measure of shynessemployed in this investigation was the single-item,forced choice instrument previously employed byZimbardo (1977). It reads: "00 you presently con-sider yourself to be a shy person? - yes -no" Zimbardo reports no reliability data for this in-strument, and since it is a single item, no internalreliability estimate was possible. Consequently, thestudent sample was asked to complete the instru-ment a second time, four months after they hadfirst completed it. The test-retest reliability estimatewas .61, a level of reliability distinctly less than de-sirable but within the range generally consideredacceptable by psychologists.

The second measure of shyness employed wasthe Shyness Scale (SHY) developed by McCros-key (McCroskey et aI., 1981). This is a 14-itemmeasure with previously reported high reliability. Inthis investigation, SHY had an internal reliability es-timate for the college sample of .92 and an esti-mate of .95 for the teacher sample. The test-retestreliability over a four month period was .79.

Context CA. Ten-item instruments designed tomeasure CA with regard to four general communi-cation contexts were developed by McCroskey andRichmond (1980). The contexts for which the in-struments were designed were public speaking(PUBLIC), meetings (MEETiNG), small groups(GROUP), and interpersonal conversations (CON-VERSE). Although no previous reliability or validitydata have been reported, each instrument has

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY SPRING 1982

more parsimoniously explained by the differentialacculturation of the two sexes. It may be, then', thatwithin a given culture, in this case the UnitedStates culture, males or females are conditioned tobe more anxious generally about communication.Or, it may be that males are conditioned to bemore anxious about some communication situa-tions, but females are conditioned to be more anx-ious about other communication situations. Thepresent study was designed to investigate thesepossibilities. Specifically, the research questionsposed were:

01 00 females and males differ in their generallevels of shyness or communication ap-prehension? .

02 00 females and males differ in their levels ofapprehension about communication withinbroad contexts?

Method

Samples

Two samples of subjects were employed in thisinvestigation. The primary sample was 778 collegestudents voluntarily enrolled in basic classes incommunication. This sample was chosen to becompatible with those employed by both Talley(1979) and Zimbardo (1977). The sample included419 males and 359 females. The second samplewas coposed of 106 secondary school teachers: 44males and 62 females. This sample was selectedbecause previous research has indicated the dis-tribution of CA among public school teachers isapproximately the same as that commonly foundamong college student populations, but the sub-jects, due to increased age (median = 37), repre-sent a wider variety of acculturation experiences.The second sample was voluntarily enrolled ingraduate classes in instructional communication.All subjects completed the research instruments atthe beginning of the term prior.to any discussion ofshyness or CA.

Measurement

The same instruments were employed for bothgroups of subjects. Each subject was asked to in-dicate her or his sex. In addition, they were askedto complete three general measures of CA, twogeneral measures of shyness, and an apprehen-sion measure for each of four broad contexts ofcommunication - public speaking, meetings, smallgroups, and conversations.

General CA. The 25-item Personal Report ofCommunication Apprehension (PRCA-25) de-veloped by McCroskey (1970, 1978) was the firstinstrument employed to measure general CA. Thisis the most widely used instrument in CA researchand has a strong record for both reliability and va-

130

lidity (McCroskey, 1978). In this investigation, thereliability was .95 for the student sample and .93for the teacher sample.

Although the PRCA-25 is reliable and has shownstrong predictive validity across communicationcontexts, it is heavily dominated by items which arespecifically related to public speaking (10 items)and includes. several other items for which thecommunication context is not clear. Thus. twoother instruments presumed to measure generalCA were included. Neither of these has the publicspeaking bias of the PRCA-25, and both havebeen found to correlate in the neighborhood of .90with the PRCA-25. The first of these was the Per-sonal Report of Communication Fear (FEAR). Thisis a 14-item scale originally designed by McCros-key to be used with pre-literate children as "Veil asolder children and adults (McCroskey et aI., 1981).In this investigation, the FEAR had an internal re-liability of .90 for both the student sample and theteacher sample. The other instrument employedwas a new version of the PRCA, a 24-item scalewhich includes an equal number of items repre-senting the contexts of public speaking, meetings,small groups, and conversation (McCroskey,1981). In this investigation, the PRCA-24 had aninternal reliability estimate of .96 for both the stu-dent sample and the teacher sample.

Shyness. The first measure of shynessemployed in this investigation was the single-item,forced choice instrument previously employed byZimbardo (1977). It reads: "00 you presently con-sider yourself to be a shy person? - yes -no" Zimbardo reports no reliability data for this in-strument, and since it is a single item, no internalreliability estimate was possible. Consequently, thestudent sample was asked to complete the instru-ment a second time, four months after they hadfirst completed it. The test-retest reliability estimatewas .61, a level of reliability distinctly less than de-sirable but within the range generally consideredacceptable by psychologists.

The second measure of shyness employed wasthe Shyness Scale (SHY) developed by McCros-key (McCroskey et aI., 1981). This is a 14-itemmeasure with previously reported high reliability. Inthis investigation, SHY had an internal reliability es-timate for the college sample of .92 and an esti-mate of .95 for the teacher sample. The test-retestreliability over a four month period was .79.

Context CA. Ten-item instruments designed tomeasure CA with regard to four general communi-cation contexts were developed by McCroskey andRichmond (1980). The contexts for which the in-struments were designed were public speaking(PUBLIC), meetings (MEETING), small groups(GROUP), and interpersonal conversations (CON-VERSE). Although no previous reliability or validitydata have been reported, each instrument has

COMMUNICATIONaUARTERLY SPRING 1982

good face validity. Hence, these were chosen foruse. In the present investigation, the internal relia-bility estimates for the measures for college stu-dents and teachers, respectively, were: PUBLIC.88, .86; MEETING .92, .94; GROUP .91, .91; andCONVERSE .86, .87. Since the PRCA-24 instru-ment includes six items for each of these contexts,sub-scores for each could be computed. The esti-mated internal reliabilities for each sub-score forcollege students and teachers, respectively, were:PUBLlC-6 .88, .83; MEETING-6 .93, .93;GROUP-6 .89, .88; and CONVERSE-6 .i32,.75. .

Data Analyses. The data were subjected to aseries of single-classification analyses of variancewith sex as the classification variable and each ofthe multiple-item measures serving as dependentvariables. The single-item shyness (Zimbardo) datawere subjected to chi-square analysis. The esti-mated power for the analyses of variance was .79for a small effect, .99 for a medium effect, and .99for a large effect ~or the college sample (Cohen,1977). For the teacher sample, the estimates were.29 for a small effect, .94 for a medium effect, and.99 for a large effect. Power estimates for the chi-square analyses were as follows: College sample.79 for a small effect, .99 for a medium or largeeffect; teacher sample .17 for small effect, .87 formedium effect, .99 for large effect. Although mul-tivariate analyses of variance also were computed,they provided no insight beyond that obtained fromthe univariate results and, thus, will not be reportedhere.

Results

College Sample.

The means for all measures for females andmales are reported in Table 1. As noted in thattable, females were found to score significantlyhigher than males on the PRCA-25. However, this

difference accounted for only 1% of the variance inPRCA-25 scores. No significant differences be-tween the sexes were observed on the other twogeneral measures of CA, PRCA-24 or FEAR. Asignificant difference was observed on the SHYscale, with males reporting themselves as moreshy than females. Again, however, only 1% of thevariability in shyness was accounted for by this dif-ference. This pattern of higher male shyness wasalso observed in the data from the Zimbadro scale(see Table 3). While 25% of the females consid-ered themselvs shy, 30% of males reported them-selves to be shy. Approximately 2% of the variancewas explained by the sex variable.

No significant differences between males andfemales were observed on either the ten- or six-item measures of CA in either meeting or smallgroup contexts. Both measures, however, gener-ated significant differences between the sexes inthe public speaking and interpersonal conversationcontexts. Females reported slightly more CA con-cerning public speaking, while males reportedslightly more CA concerning interpersonal conver-sations.

Teacher Sample.The means for all measures for females and

males are reported in Table 2. Females were foundto score significantly higher than males on thePRCA-25, the differences accounting for 3% of thevariance. The only other significant differences ob-served were on the two measures of CA in the pub-lic speaking setting. On both measures, thefemales were found to score higher than the males,with the difference accounting for 4% of the var-iance.

Although none of the results relating to shynesswere statistically significant (see Tables 2 and 3),the pattern of results compares closely to that ofthe college sample. On the SHY scale, males re-

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY SPRING 1982 131

Table 1Scale Means by Sex: College Sample

Female-MaleScale Female Male Difference F-ratio Variance

PRCA-25 71.2 68.8 2.4 4.31 .01PRCA-24 65.2 64.1 1.1 .94 ...

FEAR 36.6 36.1 .5 .72 ...

SHY 37.0 39.2 -2.2 10.09 .01PUBLlC-10 33.8 31.5 2.3 15.36 .02PUBLlC-6 20.2 18.8 1.4 17.01 .02MEETING-10 27.5 27.4 .1 .08 ...

MEETING-6 16.3 16.1 .2 .30 ...

GROUP-10 25.9 25.7 .2 .50 ...

GROUP-6 15.3 14.9 .4 .92 "

CONVERSE-10 22.7 23.7 -1.0 4.99 .01CONVERSE-6 13.4 14.3 -0.9 10.21 .01

"Not statistically significant. p>.05.

Table 2Scale Means by Sex: Secondary Teacher Sample

Female-MaleScale Female Male DifferencePRCA-25 70.3 66.3 4.0PRCA-24 65.0 62.3 2.7FEAR 36.6 36.5 .1SHY 39.6 41.4 -1.8PUBLlC-10 31.8 29.4 2.4PUBLlC-6 19.2 17.6 1.6MEETING-10 28.8 27.0 1.8MEETING-6 17.0 15.7 1.3GROUP-10 25.0 25.3 - .3GROUP-6 14.7 14.8 - .1CONVERSE-10 23.6 23.7 - .1CONVERSE-6 14.1 14.3 - .2

*Significant, p<.05, one-tailed test.UNot statistically significant, p>.05.

Table 3Frequency of Reported Shyness

College Sample"Female Male

Shy 89 (25%) 127 (30%)Not Shy 270 (75%) 292 (70%)

*Chi-square = 117.07, Phi = .15, Variance = .02, p<.001UChi-square = .57, Phi = .07, NSD.

ported higher scores, and more males reportedbeing shy (27%) than did females (21%). While nottoo much should be made of differences that arenot statistically significant, given the low power ofthese tests, small effects were not detectable inthese analyses. Thus, is it more likely that real, al-though small, differences do exist which are ap-proximately of the magnitude of those found in thecollege sample. .

Conclusions

Our first research question inquired about possi-ble differences between females and males withregard to general levels of CA and shyness. Thequestion cannot be answered with a clearcut yes orno. With reference to CA, the appropriate answerseems to be no. Although significant differenceswere found on the PRCA-25 for both samples, withfemales scoring higher than males, no significantdifferences were found on either the FEAR orPRCA-24 measures. Since the PRCA-25 has abias in items directed toward public speaking whichis not present in the other instruments, the bestexplanation of these discrepant results is that theobserved effects are a function of public speaking

132

Teacher Sample**Female Male

13 (21%) 12 (27%)49 (79%) 32 (73%)

CA rather than general CA. This negative conclu-sion is also supported by the fact that, even withthe substantial number of public speaking items onthe PRCA-25, the amount of variance attributableto sex was only 1% for the college sample and 3%for the teacher sample. Also pointing in this direc-tion is the fact that the PRCA-25 and PRCA-24were found to correlate .93 for the college sample,the correlation between PRCA-25 and FEAR was.85, and that between PRCA-24 and FEAR was .83(correlations for the teacher sample were virtuallyidentical). Thus, these instruments appear to bemeasuring approximately the same thing, andbiological sex appears to be, at most, very margin-ally related.

With regard to shyness, the appropriate answerto our question appears to be yes. In the collegesample, males were found to be significantly moreshy than females both on the SHY scale and theZimbardo scale. Although the differences for theteacher sample were not significant statistically(most likely because of low power as a function oflow sample size) the differences observed followedthe same pattern as those observed with the col-lege sample. The social significance of this obser-vation, however, is questionable. The observed ef-

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY SPRING 1982

F-ratio Variance2.79 .03*1.26 **

.00 **

.61 **

4.03 .044.23 .041.71 **

2.21 **

.02 **

.00 **

.03 ..*

.06 **

fects accounted for only 1 to 2% of the variance inshyness. The best conclusion, therefore, may bethat males tend to be more shy than females, butnot much more so.

Our second research question inquired aboutpossible differences between females and maleswith regard to their levels of apprehension withindiffering general communication contexts. Again,we cannot respond with a simple yes or no re-sponse. With regard to the contexts of meetingsand small groups, since no difference even ap-proached significance and there was very highpower at least in the analyses of the college data,we may feel safe in concluding that no meaningfuldifference exists between females and males. Theresults concerning the public speaking context, onthe other hand, clearly indicate higher CA in thiscontext for females than for males, accounting for 2to 4% of the variance. An opposite pattern, ac-counting for only 1% of the variance, was observedfor the interpersonal conversation context for thecollege sample. Thus, while males may be slightlymore apprehensive than females in the conversa-tional context, the difference, if it exists throughoutthe population, likely is socially inconsequential.

The results involving the public speaking contextmay be of some importance. Although the varianceattributable to the biological sex variable, 2 to 4%,is not large, it may represent somewhat of a barrierto advancement of women within our society gen-erally. Many occupations require public presenta-tions, particularly as a person moves into higherpositions. To the extent that women are generallymore apprehensive about this communication con-text, we might expect a lower proportion of them(compared to men) to seek training in this type ofcommunication, to volunteer to communicate in thiscontext, and, as a result, to advance within occu-pations in which such communication is required.Even 2% of the variability, therefore, may representa meaningful barrier to the economic and socialadvancement of women in the society.

Finally, we wish to note the strong correspon-dence between the results of this investigation andthose in the Talley (1979) and Zimbardo (1977)studies. The variance in general CA and shynessattributable to biological sex observed in thesestudies is virtually identical to that observed by Tal-

ley (1979). Similarly, Zimbardo (1977) reports that5% more males are shy than females, and wefound the exact same difference in our collegesample and 6% in our teacher sample. This strongsimilarity of results enhances our ability togeneralize the results of the combined studies. Wefeel reasonably confident in concluding, therefore,that within the United States culture, males may beslightly more shy than females, but females areslightly more apprehensive about communicatingwithin the public speaking context than males,even though females and males do not differ withregard to general level of communication ap-prehension.

Given these results and those obtained by Talley(1979) concerning androgyny we would cautio!'} fu-ture researchers to expect a much higher associa-tion between shyness or communication ap-prehension and psychological sex (gender orienta-tion) than has been observed with biological sex.Acculturation rather than biology, is likely to be ameaningful predictor of communication orientationssuch as communication apprehension and shy-ness.

REFERENCES

Cohen. J. Statistical power anaiysis (or the behaviora( sciences. (RevisedEd.). New York: Academic Press. 1977.

Greenblatt. L.. Hasenaur. J. E. and Friemuth, V. S. Psychological sax typeand androgyny in the study of communication variables: Self-disclosureand communciation apprehension. Human Communication Research,1980.6. 117-129.

McCroskey, J. C. Measures of communication.bound anxiety. SpeechMonographs. 1970.37, 269-277.

McCroskey. J. C. Ora! communication apprehension: A summary of recenttheory and research. Human Communication Resarch. 1977.4, 78-96.

McCroskey, J. C. Validity of the PRCA and an index of oral communclationapprehension. Communication MonographS, 1978. 45, 192.203.

McCroskey, J. C. Communication apprehension: Reconceptualization and anew look at measurement. Paper presented at the annual Central StatesSpeech Association Convention. Chicago. 1981.

McCroskey, J. C., Andersen, J. F.. Richmond. V. P. and Wheeless, L R.Communication apprehension of elementary and secondary students andteachers. CommunicationEducation, 1981.30. 120-132.

McCroskey. J. C. and Richmond. V. P. The quiet ones: Communication ap-prehension and shyness. Dubuque, Iowa: Gorsuch-ScansDrlck. 1980.

McDowell. E. E.. McDowell. C.. Hyerdahl. J. and Steil. L K. A muttivariatestudy of demographics. psychological sex-roles, and communication ap-prehension. Paper presented at the annuaJ Speech Communication As-sociation Convention. Minneapolis. 1978.

Talley, M. A. The relationship of gender orientation to communicator style.Thesis. West Virginia University. 1979.

Talley, M. A. and Richmond. V. P. The relationship betWeen psycholOgicalgender orientation and communicator style. Human C<Jmmunication Re-search, 1980.4, 326-339.

Zimbardo. P. G. Shyness: Whatit is, and what ro do about it. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley, 1977.

Henry Fair1ie.The Seven Deadly Sins Today. NotreDame. Indiana:Universityo( Notre Dame Press. 1979.These essays were onglnallypublished inNew Republic and reprinted in many newspapers. They are on a topic that is not generally popular. sin. andthey lake a position thaI contradicts much popular opinion about it. Fair1ieis an extraordinarilyliterate man. His views on the relatiOnshipof sin andsoclery are Imponant conSiderations tor those who attempt to theorize about how and why people communicte with one another.

Consider. lor examole. how Sincould be used as a basis tor goal setting. What do people seek when they communrcate? One person's altruISmiscleany another person's decadence. The comolexlty of the exchanges possible in a sIOoparadigmsuggests some original conceptions in motivationsand communication goalS.

Though It aopears :0 be a bOOkon theology, it is more a study in politicaJ and social psychology. It provides a structure tor the study at the dark sideat human behavIOr and motivations. and provides a clue to some of the lurking and hidden motives that makes the communrcatinghuman so defiant atlogiCal construCtions and govenlng generalizatiOns. For those interested in the means of persuasion available in the given case. and why they arepersuasive. this book will be an Interesting Jog 10Imaglnalion.

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY SPRING 1982 133