005

THE EFFECTS OF COMMUNICATION. APPREHENSION

ON NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

JAMES C. McCROSKEY

This paper summarizes recent research on communication apprehension indicatingthe breadth of the impact of this handicap in interpersonal communication. Drawingupon theoretical propositions generated from previous research, it provides sugges-tions for future research on the impact of communication apprehension on nonverbalelements in interpersonal communication.

A recent report from the U. S. Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare estimatesthat about 4,752,000 (somewhat over ten per-cent) of the 44,389,000 young people in pub-lic elementary and secondary schools arehandicapped.1 These figures include youngpeople who are speech impaired, learningdisabled, mentally retarded. emotionally dis-turbed, hard of hearing. deaf, crippled, par-tially sighted. or blind. As significant as thesetotals are, there is reason to believe that amajor category of handicapped young peoplewas overlooked, one that probably includesmore people than all of the other categoriescombined. These are the young people suffer-ing from the handicap of communication ap-prehension.

The fact that the HEW figures do not in-clude communication apprehension shouldnot come as a surprise. Relatively little atten-tion has been paid to the problem even byprofessionals in the field of human com-munication. and even less by teachers andadministrators in the public schools. Evi-dence is acumulating, however. that not onlyis a very large percentage of the populationaffected by this handicap, but also that com-munication apprehension may impinge on

Mr. McCroskey is Professor and Chairman of the De-partment of Speech Communication at West VirginiaUniversity.

IA. Stafford Metz. Number of Pupils with Handicaps inLocal Public Schools. Spring 1970. Department ofHealth. Education and Welfare pub. no. (OE) 73-11107(Washington. D.C.: GPO. 1973) p. 2.

aspects of these individuals' lives in waysthat would not normally be immediately rec-ognized. The purpose of this paper is to ex-amine the nature of communication ap-prehension, the probable extent of the prob-lem, and how the problem may affectpeople's lives in ways not previously consi-dered.

The Nature of CommunicationApprehension

The term "communication apprehension"was coined by McCroskey2 and refers to anaIL'<:ietysyndrome associated with either realor anticipated communication with anotherperson or persons. This syndrome is similarto "reticence." Phillips has defined a "reti-cent" person as one "for whom anxiety aboutparticipation in oral communication out-weighs his projection of gain from thesituation. "3 The person handicapped bycommunication apprehension would be ex-pected to avoid communication much of thetime because he or she would experiencenegative reactions from anxiety that wouldsurpass projected gain from interaction. This,of course, does not mean that the person

2James C. McCroskey. "Measures of Communication-Bound Anxiety," Speech Monographs, 37 (1970).269-277.

JGerald ~f. Phillips. "Reticence: Pathology of theNormal Speaker," Speech .vfonographs. 35 (1968), -l0.

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY. Vol. 24. No. 1. WINTER 1976 39

would never engage in interaction. Rather theperson would choose to do so much less fre-quently than persons not afflicted with com-munication apprehension under similar cir-cumstances. Since many benefits in our soci-ety, from good grades to good jobs, dependheavily on one's ability and willingness tointeract with other people, the highlycommunication-apprehensive person is verylikely to fail to share many of the benefitstaken for granted by non-apprehensives.Neither the high apprehensive nor the lowapprehensive may be aware of this impact.The apprehensive actually may be happy, inthat he or she is able to construct an environ-ment in which to live that prevents com-munication apprehension from intruding.

The Effects of CommunicationApprehension

For many years the field of Speech has beenconcerned with one manifestation of com-munication apprehension, stage fright inpublic speaking, and much effort has beendirected toward helping people overcomethis problem in public speaking courses. Ofcourse, highly apprehensive students usuallyavoid such courses whenever possible.Further, if they get into one it is usually a veryunpleasant, aILxiety-provoking experiencewhich accomplishes little at best and maymake the situation worse.~

Other manifestations of communicationapprehension generally have been ignored.However, it has been established that peoplesuffering from communication apprehensionalso behave differently in small group com-munication contexts. Wells and Lashbrookfound that high apprehensives interacted lessin small groups and, when they interacted,their interactions were less relevant thanthose of their peers who did not suffer fromcommunication apprehension.s Studies by

4James C. McCroskey. David C. Ralph, and James E.Barrick, "The Effect of Systematic Desensitization onSpeech Anxiety," Speech Teacher, 19 (1970), 32-36.

5Judith Wells and William B. Lashbrook. "A Study ofthe Effects of Systematic Desensitization of the Com-munication Anxiety of Individuals in Small Groups"paper presented to the Speech Communication A.ssocia-tion Convention, New Orleans, 1970.

40

Heston6 and Daly7 have also found that highapprehensives interact with less frequencythan low apprehensives. Hamilton found thathigh apprehensives showed more tension,less interest, and talked less in small groupsthan low apprehensives.8 Sorenson andMcCroskey found this same pattern in smallgroup interaction in both zero-history andin tact grou ps. 9 Weiner also obtained the sameresults in a zero-history group. to Hamiltonalso found that high apprehensives tended toavoid self-disclosure more than lowapprehensives.u These behaviors have alsobeen found to have an impact on other groupmembers. Quiggins found that high ap-prehensives were perceived by other groupmembers to be less extroverted, composed,and task-attractive than low apprehensives.Further, low apprehensive group memberssaw high apprehensives as less competentand socially attractive than other lowapprehensives.12 More recent research hasconfirmed the negative impact of communi-cation apprehension on interpersonalattraction 13 and on perceived credibility.14 It

6Judee K. Heston, "UnwiIIingness of Communicateand Conflict as Predictors of Information Processing Be-haviors," Diss., West Virginia Univ., 1974.

7John A. Daly, "The Effects of Differential Durations ofTime on Interpersonal Judgments Based on Vocal Activ-ity," M.A. Thesis, West Virginia Univ.. 1974.

sPaul R. Hamilton. "The Effect of Risk Proneness onSmall Group Interaction, Communication Apprehen-sion, and Self-Disclosure," M.A. Thesis. Illinois StateUniv., 1972.

9Gail A. Sorensen and James C. McCroskey, "The Pre-diction of Interaction Behavior in Small Groups," paperpresented to the Speech Communication AssociationConvention, New York, 1973.

10AllenN.Weiner,"Machiavellianismas aPredictorofGroup Interaction and Cohesion," M.A. Thesis. WestVirginia Univ., 1973.

IlHamilton.

12rames G. Quiggens, "The Effects of High and LowCommunication Apprehension on Small Group MemberCredibility, Interpersonal Attraction, and Interaction."paper presented to the Speech Communication Associa-tion Convention. Chicago, 1972.

13James C. McCroskey, John A. Daly, Virginia P. Rich-mond, and Barbara G. Cox, "The Effects of Communica-tion Apprehension on Interpersonal Attraction," HumanCommunication Research, in press.

14James C. McCroskey and Virginia P. Richmond. "TheEffect of Communication Apprehension on the Percep-tion of Peers." Western Speech Communication Journal,in press.

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

has also been found that high communicationapprehensives are less likely to be turned tofor opinion leadership than lowapprehensives.15

It is clear from these studies that communi-cation apprehension negatively affects thecommunication behavior of some people insmall grou p interaction. It should not come asa surprise, therefore, to find that communica-tion apprehension is also related to schoolachievement, as measured by standardizedtests, since much instruction in our schools isbased on group activity. Bashore found thatthe degree of communication apprehensionin female high school seniors was signific-antly negatively correlated to theindividual's scores on the Illinois State HighSchool test, the verbal score on the Prelimi-nary Scholastic Aptitude Test, and the verbalscore on the College Entrance ExaminationBoard Test. 16

Extent of the Problem

It should be clear from the discussion abovethat communication apprehension is indeeda handicap that harms some people in oursociety. The next question concerns howmany people are affected by this handicap.Since there has been no widespread testing ofyoung people in the public schools, answer-ing this question must depend on generaliza-tion from what sample data is available, mostof which is drawn from college populations.On the basis of samples of 1,434 college stu-dents at Michigan State University and 2,479college students at Illinois State University, ithas been estimated that between 10 and 20percent of the population suffer from extremecommunication apprehension and possiblyas many as 20 percent more suffer from com-munication apprehension to a degree that ithas some impact on their communicationbehavior. 17 Moore has found about the same

1~fcCroskey and Richmond. See also. H. Thomas Hurtand Katherine Joseph, "The Impact of CommunicationApprehension in the Process of Sodal Change,"' paperpresented to the Eastern Communication AssociationConvention, New York, 1975.

16David N. Bashore, "Relationships Among SpeechAnxiety, IQ, and High School Achievement,"' M.A.Thesis. Illinois State Univ.. 1971.

I7James C. ~[cCroskey. "The Implementation of a

WINTER 1976

distribution in a sample of 167 agedcitizens. 18Even based on the most conserva-tive figures, we can safely estimate that thereare at least as many people suffering fromdebilitating communication apprehension assuffer from all other handicaps listed in theHEW report cited previously. Communica-tion apprehension, then, may be the singlemost pervasive handicap confronting chil-dren in our schools and citizens in our soci-ety. Although methods have been developedand demonstrated to be effective in helpingpeople overcome this handicap, there areonly isolated instances where such help isbeing provided at the present time.

Communication Apprehension and Nonver-bal Behavior

Although research on the effects of com-munication apprehension is still in its in-fancv, two recent studies indicate that theimp~ct of this syndrome may be even morepervasive than previously believed. Thesestudies considered two nonverbal behaviors,both remote from one another and not closelyassociated to previous research, These be-haviors were seating choice in a small groupand housing choice. These two behaviorswere chosen for study because previous re-search has indicated that seating position in asmall group!9 and housing proximity2O bothhave an impact on subsequent communica-tion.

Research reported by Strodtbeck andHook2! and Hare and Bales22 indicates that insmall group communication settings certainseats are perceived consistently as "leader-

Large-Scale Program of Systematic Desensitization forCommunication Apprehension,"' Speech Teacher, 21(1972).255-264.

18Dennis L. Moore, "The Effects of Svstematic Desen-sitization on Communication Apprehe~sion in an AgedPopulation," M.A. Thesis, Illinois State Univ.. 1972.

19A. Paul Hare and Robert F. Bales, "Seating Positionand Small Group Interaction," Sociometry, 26 (1963).480-486,

1OLeon Festinger, Stanley Schachter. and Kurt Back,Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of HumanFactors in Housing (New York: Harper & Row, 1950).

llFred L. Strodtbeck and L. Harmon Hook. "The SocialDimensions of a Twelve-Man fury Table," Sociometry.24 (1961). 397-415.

z:Hare and Bales.

41

ship" or "dominant" positions. People inthese seats tend to be selected as leaders andto interact more frequently than people inother seats. Persons who are highly com-munication apprehensive would probablyfind such seats to cause them increased anxi-ety. since other people might have a highexpectation of interaction with them. Weinerhypothesized. therefore, that highly ap-prehensive individuals would tend to chooseseats in a small group setting that would notbe perceived as "leadership" or "dominant"positions, while low apprehensive individu-als would tend to choose the "leadership" or"dominant" positions.:::!

Weiner's study included 115 college stu-dents in a basic communication course. Thesubjects completed the Personal Report ofCommunication Apprehension (PRCA-College) developed by ~vfcCroskeyY Theyalso made choices of seats they would preferin four configurations representing five per-son groups. Subjects were also asked to "pickthe seat that you think the person whowanted to exert the most influence wouldtake" in each configuration. The results indi-cated that the seats believed to be influentialon the basis of the previous research werealso chosen as such by these subjects.

Subjects one standard deviation above themean on the PRCA were classified as highcommunication apprehensives. those onestandard deviation below the mean wereclassified as low communication apprehen-sives. Frequencies of influential seat choiceand non-choice were computed for bothgroups. The hypothesis was supported in allindividual configurations and for all config-urations taken together. High communica-tion apprehensives tended to avoid. influen-tial seats while low communication ap-prehensives tended to seek them.

This finding. in conjunction with earlierresearch indicating that people in influentialseats tend to have a disproportionate impacton the group product, suggests that com-munication apprehensives tend to placethemselves at a disadvantage in their at-tempts to avoid communication. While theirideas could be as good as any other group

ZJWeiner.

HMcCroskey. "Yleasures of Communication-BoundAnxiety."

42

member's. and significant personal benefitscould be at stake as well as group benefits.high communication apprehensives will beless likely to have an influence on groups ofwhich they are members than their less ap-prehensive peers.

. The choice of.where to live is one of themore personal decisions with which an indi-vidual is confronted. Although economic cir-cumstances certainly impinge heavily onsuch deci'sions. in most instances peoplehave some latitude of choice within theirgiven economic condition. If the impact ofcommunication apprehension is as pervasiveas is believed. it might be expected to have animpact on housing choice. McCroskey andLeppard hypothesized that high communica-tion apprehensives will choose housing unitswhere interaction with neighbors is impededwhile low communication apprehensiveswill choose housing units where interactionis facilitated.25

Festinger, Schachter, and Back::6 andBlake. Rhead. Wedge and Mouton27 have ob-served that some housing units. because oftheir location. tend to facilitate interactionamong neighbors. while people in other unitstend to have little contact with their neigh-bors. In order to test their hypothesis.McCroskey and Leppard constructed modelsof housing areas representing a dormitory, afraternity/sorority house. a trailer court. and asuburb with private houses. Within eachmodel there were areas similar to those Fes-tinger et al. found to facilitate interaction.areas similar to those in which Festinger et ai.found little interaction. and ambiguous areas.Subjects. 115 students in undergraduatecommunication classes. completed the PRCAand chose the unit from each model thatwould "enable (them) to feel the most com-fortable over an extended period of time."28High apprehensives were defined as thosescoring one standard deviation above the

Z5James C. McCroskey and Thomas Leppard. "The Ef-fects of Communication Apprehension on NonverbalBehavior:' paper presented to the Eastern Communica-tion Association Convention. New York. 1975.

z6Festinger. Schachter. and Back.

z7Robert R. Blake. Clifton C. Rhead. Bryant Wedge. andfane Srygley Mouton. "Housing Architecture and SocialInteraction:' Sociometry. 19 (1966]. 133-139.

zSMcCroskey and Leppard. p. -l.

COMMUNICATION QU ARTERL Y

mean on the PRCA, low apprehensives werethose scoring one standard deviation belowthe mean on the PRCA.

The hypothesis was supported. The resultswere significant for all housing types takentogether. High apprehensives favored hous-ing in low interaction areas while low ap-prehensives favored housing in high interac-tion areas.

Although we must take care not to over-interpret this type of data, it would appearfrom these results that communication ap-prehension does indeed have a far-ranging,pervasive influence on human behavior.Housing has been found in many studies ac-ross a wide variety of cultures to have a majorimpact on the diffusion of innovations in asociety.29 One of the best predictors of opin-ion leadership and the development of localinfluentials is housing. People in high in-teraction locations tend to have a major influ-ence on the behavior of other people in theircommunity. The results of the McCroskeyand Leppard study, then, suggest that- highcommunication apprehensives are much lesslikely to have an impact in their communitythan their less apprehensive neighbors, re-gardless of the quality of their ideas.

Future Research on CommunicationApprehension and NonverbalCommunication Behavior

The results of the recent studies on seatingand housing choices are interesting in and ofthemselves. The importance of the results,however, is most manifest in the imp licationswe can draw concerning possible additionalrelationships between communication ap-prehension and nonverbal communicationbehaviors. Previous research on communica-tion apprehension has been focused on therelationship between this variable and verbalcommunication behavior, or, more often, thelack of it. The recent findings indicate thatcommunication apprehension is a pervasivephenomenon that impacts at least somecommunication-related behaviors that arenonverbal. Clearly, there is a need for addi-tional research exploring the possible rela-

29Everett M. Rogers and Floyd F. Shoemaker.Communication of Innovations (New York: The FreePress. 19i1).

WINTER 1976

tionships between communication ap-prehension and other nonverbal communica-tion behaviors.

Future research should proceed from thetheoretical base upon which previous re-search has been founded. since considerableresearch has supported this theoretical for-mulation. Simply stated, these theoreticalpropositions are as follows:

1. People vary in the degree to which theyare apprehensive about communica-tion with other people.

2. People with high communication ap-prehension seek to avoid communica-tion.

3. People with high communication ap-prehension engage in less verbal com-munication than do less apprehensivepeople.

4. When people with high communica-tion apprehension do communicate,their communication behaviors are dif-ferent from those people who are lessapprehensive.

5. As a result of their communication be-havior, high apprehensives are per-ceived less positively by others thanare less apprehensive people.

From these propositions we may deduceseveral testable hypotheses relating to non-verbal communication behavior.

Personal Space. People in close proximityare much more likely to interact than peoplethat are more distant from one another. Sincehigh communication apprehensives desire toavoid communication, we may hypothesizethat they will establish greater personal spacedistances both in a normal interaction con-text and (as indicated in the housing studyabove) in their general lifestyle patterns. Thishypothesis. if confirmed, would suggest anadditional hypothesis. That is, high com-munication apprehensives respond to per-sonal space invasions at a greater distancethan do people with less communication ap-prehension.

Eye Contact. The establishment of eye con-tact generally increases the probability ofcommunication attempts and the continua-tion of interaction between people. Sincehigh communication apprehensives wish toavoid communication, we may hypothesizethat they engage in less direct eye contact andless prolonged eye contact than people withless communication apprehension.

Touch. The American culture is generally

43

considered by researchers in the area of non-verbal communication to be a low-touch cul-ture. In addition. touch is often considered tobe one of the most intimate forms of interper-sonal communication. Since high communi-cation apprehensives wish to avoid com-munication, we may hypothesize that theyare even more averse to being touched thanthe average person within the culture. Simi-larly, we may hypothesize that high com-munication apprehensives are less likely toinitiate touching behavior than are peoplewith less communication apprehension.

Vocal Behavior. Since people with highcommunication apprehension have been ob-served to engage in verbal communicationbehaviors that are different from the be-haviors of people who are less apprehensive,we may hypothesize that this differencewould also be manifesldd in the vocal be-havior of high communication apprehen-sives. Specifically, since vocal variety ishighly communicative. we may hypothesizethat high communication apprehensives willhave less vocal variety in their oral com-munication than will people with less com-munication apprehension.

Kinesic Behavior. Since kinesic behavior ishighly communicative and the communica-tion behavior of high communication ap-prehensives has been found to differ fromthat of people with less communication ap-prehension, we may hypothesize that thereare two differences in kinesic behavior ofhigh communication apprehensives. First.high communication apprehensives havefewer kinesic movements than people withless communication apprehension. Second,the kinesic behaviors in which high com-munication apprehensives do engage aremore constrained than the kinesic behaviorsof people with less communication ap-prehension.

Pause Time. Within each culture there is anormative pattern for the amount of time forpauses in interpersonal interaction. If personA pauses for that normative period. person B

44

is highly likely to initiate the next interactionor response. Since people with high com-munication apprehension seek to avoidcommunication and engage in less verbalcommunication than people with less com-munication apprehension, we mayhypothesize that normative pause time in in-terpersonalinteraction for high communica-tion apprehensives is longer than for peoplewith less communication apprehension.

These hypotheses do not exhaust the pos-sible relationships between communicationapprehension and nonverbal communicationbehavior, nor are they intended to. Rather, wepropose these hypotheses as suggested direc-tions for future research. These hypothesesmight also serve an heuristic function for thegeneration of additional hypotheses. For ex-ample. if any of these hypotheses are subse-quently confirmed through research, itwould deductively follow that the differ-ences observed should have a differentialimpact on perceptions of high and low com-munication apprehensives on the part ofother people. Such hypotheses, however,must await results indicating that such dif-ferences as those hypothesized above actu-ally exist.

The phenomenon of communication ap-prehension is one that has undoubtedly ex-isted for centuries, but intensive research inthis area is still in its first decade. From re-search which has been reported to date, it isreasonable to speculate that communicationapprehension may be the single most sig-nificant variable in the interpersonal com-munication behavior of many people. If thisis true, communication apprehension wouldmost certainly have a major impact on non-verbal communication behavior. Future re-search on the relationship between com-munication apprehension and nonverbalcommunication behavior has high promisefor producing meaningful results that willcontribute to the advancement of humancommunication theory.

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY