-
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'
-
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