.
.y Communication Research Reports
• ll
V°L
^
N°' 3> A"gliSt 2°°9'
^
228~236
|"%
S*
/Communication Apprehension and
^Imagined Interactions
n5
/
/James M. Honeycutt, Charles W. Choi, &
R. DeBerry
xJohn
/ Communication apprehension (CA) is associated with fear of anticipated communication.
I Yet, imagined interactions (Us) can help reduce fear of communication in which
\ use mental imagery before and after to prepare and review communication.
/ ^ series of regression analyses in which characteristics of Us were the independent
\ was used to predict overall CA, as well as in four different contexts. The regresI sion analysis indicated that CA could be predicted by the II characteristic of discrepancy
I across multiple contexts. The II catharsis function was predictive in one context.
I
Results are discussed in terms of cognitive modification as a therapeutic technique for
treating CA.
V—.»
Keywords: Communication Apprehension; Imagined Interactions
Since the time of its conceptualization, communication apprehension (CA) has been
the subject of extensive study within the field of communication. According to
McCroskey (1977b), CA can be defined as "an individual's level of fear or anxiety
with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons"
(p. 78). A critical word in this definition is "anticipated," and it is important to note
that the anxiety regarding a future communicative encounter can be as powerful
as the real interaction itself. The transitive verb, anticipated, implies foresight, which
is a quality of imagined interactions (Us). Us are defined as the "process of social
f" James M. Honeycutt (PhD, University of Illinois, 1987) is a professor in the Department of Communication
n/
I Studies at Louisiana State University. Charles W. Choi (MA, Louisiana State University, 2002} is a doctoral stu^\ tj JL
/
<s dent in the Department of Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. John R. DeBerry (MA,
j | \
A jj-^
\y of Wyoming, 2003) is an independent consultant. Correspondence: James M. Honeycutt, Department
<S\
I of Communication Studies, Louisiana State University, 136 Coates Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; E-mail:
^ ij
(_ [email protected]
ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) © 2009 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/08824090903074423
Communication Research Reports 229
cognition whereby actors imagine and therefore indirectly experience themselves in
anticipated and/or past communicative encounters with others" (Honeycutt, 2003,
p. 2). From this definition, one can see how Us could function with CA. An
individual is able to directly affect his or her own anxiety by experiencing a future
conversation through one's imagination. A major characteristic of Us is proactivity
in which individuals envision encounters beforehand to rehearse messages. We examined how catharsis and rehearsal functions of Us, as well as discrepancy, facilitate or
reduce the level of CA in conversations, groups, meetings, and public speaking
engagements.
Communication Apprehension
iC
CA can be thought of as an "internally experienced feeling of discomfort"
/|0'
(McCroskey, 1983, p. 16) that causes ineffective communication when experienced
^; I
/
in high amounts. CA describes how people feel about communication, not about
f
i((l
now ^y commun icate (McCroskey, Richmond, Berger, & Baldwin, 1983). CA can
/£ falso be defined as an individual's " . . . anxiety syndrome associated with either real
/, \r anticipated communication with another person or persons" (McCroskey, 1977a,
\j '
p. 28). Although high levels of CA can act as an active hindrance to public speech or
to any type of communication for that matter, experiencing CA does not automatically mean that communication will suffer. There are, in fact, times when CA can
help somebody focus and improve performance. The problems with CA occur when
it is experienced at chronically high levels. For example, people with high levels of
speech anxiety engage in a variety of preparation actions that limit the effectiveness
of their presentations (Daly, Vangelisti, & Weber, 1995). In general, individuals who
suffer from high levels of CA are viewed negatively by their peers (McCroskey &
Richmond, 1976) and often withdraw themselves from communication interactions
(McCroskey, 1976; McCroskey & Richmond, 1976).
Because CA has been found to affect at least 20% of the population (McCroskey &
Richmond, 1979), there has been strong support for more information regarding the
subject. Observing the impact CA has had on individuals, researchers have thus been
able to monitor its potent influences. Many of these studies have examined CA as a
trait or enduring personality disposition across different communication contexts
and across time (e.g., Daly, McCroskey, Ayres, Hopf, & Ayres, 2009; Richmond &
McCroskey, 1998). Here, however, we examine CA in terms of a contextual approach
across dyadic conversations, group meetings, and public speaking engagements.
Imagined Interactions
Us refer to the cognitive process of individuals indirectly experiencing themselves in
anticipated or future communication interactions with others through the process of
imagination (Honeycutt, 2003, 2008). Us may be important in coping with CA
because of their benefit in helping individuals define situations and reduce uncertainty. Honeycutt (2003, 2009) reviewed numerous studies detailing how Us help
individuals define views of themselves, others, and situations through the process
230
/. M. Honeycutt et al.
of rehearsing for future, and reviewing previous, communication interactions
(Honeycutt & Ford, 2001). A self-awareness occurs through this practice of II that
allows the individual to examine one's own and other's communicative objectives.
Us aid people through clarifying thoughts and feelings and, thus, enable them to
uncover opposing or differing aspects of the self. Zagacki, Edwards, Honeycutt
(1992) indicated that those Us involving conflict increase understanding oFthe self
as individuals ruminate about their positions after arguments. Furthermore, jSerkos,
Allen, Kearney, and Plax (2001) discussed how Us can be used to help individuals
define a situation and cope with the changes associated with violated norms.
Us have their theoretical foundation in symbolic interactionism and script theory.
Mead (1934) discussed the internalized conversation of gestures in which individual
actors are able to consciously monitor social action by reviewing alternative endings
of any given act in which they are involved. Individuals use internal dialogues to
explore within their minds the various possible scenarios of an event in advance of
the act. Relational scripts are partly formed through the process of mental imagery
and daydreaming in which individuals often think about conversations with significant others (Honeycutt & Bryan, in press).
II research has spent considerable time examining message rehearsal (Honeycutt,
2003). This use of Us is linked to cognitive editing, which allows adjustments to
messages after their potential effects on a given relationship have been assessed
(Meyer, 1997). The implication here is that individuals rehearse messages, presumably through the use of Us, and make changes as necessary for achieving desired
outcomes.
The catharsis function of Us refers to the ability of Us to help individuals release
the stress and tension associated with others' actions (Honeycutt, 2009). Research
demonstrates that Us are often utilized to practice behaviors for future scheduled
or anticipated interactions (Honeycutt, 2003, 2008). In fact, both the catharsis and
rehearsal functions have been shown to help individuals reduce their fears and
prepare for particular situations (Gotcher & Edwards, 1990). Also, we wondered if
these functions may decrease CA in some contexts.
Discrepancy is an II characteristic that provides for the incongruity between
imagination and the actual interaction. Studies show that individuals with weak
communication skills find discrepancy in their actual encounters when compared
to the rehearsed Us (Honeycutt, Zagacki, & Edwards 1990). In addition, having an
anxious or ambivalent attachment style is associated with discrepancy (Honeycutt,
1999). Anxious attachments imagine relational encounters and then find that the
actual interaction is different from what was constructed in the mind. It is possible
that ambivalence evolves after a series of discrepant encounters. The individual
wishes to be prepared but learns that planning for encounters is to no avail. Discrepancy has also been found to be negatively associated with communication
competence, forensic success, and positively associated with loneliness (Edwards,
Honeycutt, & Zagacki, 1988; Gotcher & Honeycutt, 1989; Honeycutt et al., 1990).
Therefore, we examined how discrepancy is associated with CA in different
contexts.
Communication Research Reports 231
.
~:==a--x
Hypotheses J
Ayres (1996) found that individuals high in apprehension tended to focus on
non-communicative means for preparing for speeches. Furthermore, individuals with
high CA tended to avoid thinking about impending interviews, and instead focused
on note taking for preparation (Ayres, Keereetaweep, Chen, & Edwards, 1998). This
research indicates that individuals with higher levels of CA do not want to think
about their future interactions because the thought process increases their levels of
apprehension and discomfort. Based on this analysis, the following hypotheses are
tested:
HI: As CA levels increase, use of the II catharsis function will decrease.
H2: As CA levels increase, use of the II rehearsal function will decrease.
The discrepancy characteristic of Us is of interest to this study given previous
research indicating that introversion, shyness, and loneliness are all associated with
high levels of CA. For instance, Opt and Loffredo (2000) observed that individuals
with high levels of CA also exhibited high levels of the personality trait of introversion. Such findings are consistent with McCroskey and Richmond's (1979) work
demonstrating that individuals with high levels of CA have fewer interpersonal relationships and increased levels of shyness compared to individuals with low levels of
CA. The relationship between loneliness and CA is thus well documented; however,
as noted earlier, Honeycutt et al. (1990) found that loneliness was also related to II
discrepancy. More specifically, these researchers observed that II discrepancy was
higher among lonely (vs. non-lonely) individuals, and this finding was probably
due to their poorly developed communication skills and lack of cognitive scripts.
This research thus indicates that individuals with higher levels of CA should also
experience highly discrepant Us. Based on this assumption, the following hypothesis
is advanced:
H3: As CA increases, II discrepancy will increase.
Participants
Participants for the study were taken from undergraduate communication classes at a
large Southern university, who participated to satisfy course requirements from a
variety of research options (N= 174). The gender of the participants within the
sample was 49.4% male (n — 86) and 50.6% female (n = 88), and their ages ranged
from 18 to 33 years (M=20.0, SD= 1.78). This research had institutional review
board approval. To maintain anonymity, the cover page was detached, which
explained the study and requested demographic data, as well as a signed agreement
to participate in the study. After gathering informed consent, participants filled out
the surveys.
232
/. M. Honeycutt et al.
Instrumentation
The survey packet included the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension
(PRCA-24; McCroskey, 2005) and a modified version of the Survey of Imagined
Interactions (SII) (Honeycutt, 2009). The PRCA-24 was given to participants to test
for their levels of CA. Previous research with the PRCA-24 has shown the instrument
to be reliable with reliability estimates above .90, even when compared to other CA
scales (Levine & McCroskey, 1990; McCroskey, 1978). The PRCA-24 is a 24 item survey that uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). The instrument determines an individual's overall CA, as well as context specific CA in the areas of group discussions, meetings, interpersonal interactions, and
public speaking engagements. Sample items for each context are as follows: group CA
("I dislike participating in group discussions."), meeting CA ("I am afraid to express
myself at meetings."), dyadic CA ("Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in
conversations."), and public speaking CA ("Certain parts of my body feel very tense
and rigid while giving a speech."). Reliabilities of the scales were as follows: group
discussion CA (.86), meetings CA (.85), dyadic CA (.86), public speaking CA
(.88), and overall CA (.93).
Participants were given the SII to determine their use of Us. Although discrepancy
questions remained unchanged from the original scale, the questions for the rehearsal
function and the questions for the catharsis function were modified so they reflected
a general use of these functions. Participants were asked to answer questions from the
SII using a 5-point Likert scale. Sample items include discrepancy ("When I have a
real conversation that I have imagined, the actual conversation is very different from
what imagined."), rehearsal ("Imagined interaction helps me plan what I am going to
say for an anticipated encounter."), and catharsis ("Imagined interactions help me
relieve tension and stress."). The reliabilities of the scales were as follows: discrepancy
(.83), rehearsal (.79), and catharsis (.76).
. v//
Ay
Q R /(
.*" . ft i
{!'
f
»
Results
—*
The five CA variables (total, group, meeting, interpersonal, and public speaking CA)
were the dependent variables in a series of simultaneous regression models. The
independent variables were the II indexes. Table 1 presents the analysis of variance
tests for the overall significance of each model, variance accounted for, and the
standardized regression coefficients.
HI received partial support, as increased levels of CA lead to decreased levels for
the II catharsis function in the public speaking context, F(2, 173) = 17.59, p< .001.
This model accounted for 17% of the variance. II catharsis was negatively associated
with CA only within the public speaking context (/? = -.30). Table 1 reveals that
within the contexts of interpersonal, group, meeting, and overall CA, II catharsis
proved to not to be a significant predictor of the CA. The data did not support
H2. The analysis revealed that II rehearsal was not a significant predictor of CA,
regardless of context. However, the data fully supported H3. As shown in Table 1,
CA levels were predicted by discrepancy across all contexts, as well as the total CA,
Table 1 Simultaneous Regression Models Predicting Communication Apprehension
Dependent variable
Total CA
t
X\
\
Group CA
F
r2
(1, 173) = 12. 15**
.17
(1, 173) = 3.45.*.
.06
Predictors
II discrepancy
(1, 173) = 8.80**
.13
^
Interpersonal CA
Public speaking CA
(1, 173) = 22.30**
(2, 173) = 17.59**
.12
.17
.410
f
6.60*.'
II rehearsal
-.050
-0.70
II catharsis
-.080
-1.12
II discrepancy
II rehearsal
Meeting CA
B
.300
-.010
II catharsis
.000
II discrepancy
.360
II rehearsal
.030
II catharsis
.020
II discrepancy
.340
3.19*
-0.09
-0.03
5.12**
0.38
-0.21
4.72"
II rehearsal
-.090
-1.19
II catharsis
-.080
-1.11
II discrepancy
.400
5.76*
II rehearsal
-.150
0.26
II catharsis
-.300
-2.14*
Note. CA -- communication apprehension; II — imagined interaction.
'p<.01. **p<.001 (one-tailed).
F(l, 173) = 12.15, p<.001; r2 — .17'. Furthermore, as hypothesized, the data revealed
a positive association between CA and discrepancy (/? = .41).
findings present some interesting implications for the study of CA. First, the data
revealed that II catharsis was a predictor of higher levels of CA only when the CA was
for public speaking. This finding is not surprising given that previous research has
shown that CA is a common problem of students in public speaking courses (e.g.,
Adler, 1980; Daly, Vangelisti, Neel, & Cavanaugh, 1989; McCroskey, 1977b).
However, the fact that significant findings were not found in the other three areas,
and with overall CA, is interesting. It is possible that the public speaking situation
elicits the most amount of CA and, as such, would be the most likely to be detected
233this finding supports the research of McCroskey,
within the sample. Furthermore,
Richmond, and Davis (1986), who reported that situational contexts are a stronger
predictor of audience-based CA than the trait predispositions of people. As such,
further research should analyze the differences between the situational CA types
tested on the PRCA-24 to determine why differences in II catharsis would exist
between them.
The study also revealed that rehearsal was not a significant predictor of CA. This
finding is contrary to the previously reviewed research suggesting that individuals with
high CA levels focused on non-communicative rehearsal methods, like note taking. Yet,
these results suggest that, although individuals high in CA might focus more on note
\ Research Reports
Communication Research Reports
235
Adler, K. b. (7980). Integrating reticence management into the basic communication curriculum.
Communication Education, 29, 215—221.
Ayres, J. (1996). Speech preparation processes and speech apprehension. Communication Education,
45, 228-235.
Ayres, J., & Hopf, T. S. (1987). Visualization, systematic desensitization, and rational emotive 265
therapy: A comparative evaluation. Communication Education, 36, 236-240.
Ayres, J., & Hopf, T. S. (1989). Visualization: Is it more than extra-attention? Communication
Education, 38, 1-5.
Ayres, J., Keereetaweep, T., Chen, P. E., & Edwards, P. A. (1998). Communication apprehension
and employment interviews. Communication Education, 47, 1-17.
Berkos, K. M., Allen, T. H., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (2001). When norms are violated: Imagined
interactions as processing and coping mechanisms. Communication Monographs, 68, 289-300.
Daly, J. A., McCroskey, J. C, Ayres, J., Hopf, T., & Ayres, D. M. (2009). Avoiding communication:
Shyness, reticence, & communication apprehension (3rd ed.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L, Neel, H. L, & Cavanaugh, P. D. (1989). Pre-performance concerns
associated with public speaking anxiety. Communication Quarterly, 37, 39-53.
Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L., & Weber, D. J. (1995). Speech anxiety affects how people prepare
speeches: A protocol analysis of the preparation processes of speakers. Communication
Monographs, 62, 383-397.
Edwards, R., Honeycutt, J. M., & Zagacki, K. S. (1988). Imagined interaction as an element of social
cognition. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 23-45.
Friedrich, G., & Goss, B. (1984). Systematic desensitization. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.),
Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 173—187).
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Glaser, S. R. (1981). Oral communication apprehension and avoidance: The current status of treatment research. Communication Education, 30, 321-341.
Gotcher, J. M., & Edwards, R. (1990). Coping strategies of cancer patients: Actual communication
and imagined interactions. Health Communication, 2, 255-266.
Gotcher, J. M., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1989). An analysis of imagined interactions of forensic
participants. National Forensic Journal, 7, 1-20.
Honeycutt, J. M. (1999). Differences in imagined interactions as a consequence of marital ideology
and attachment. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 18, 269-283.
Honeycutt, J. M. (2003). Imagined interactions: Daydreaming about communication. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton.
Honeycutt, J. M. (2008). Imagined interaction theory: Mental representations of interpersonal
communication. In L. A. Baxter & D. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal
communication (pp. 77-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Honeycutt, J. M. (2009). Physiology and imagined interactions. In J. M. Honeycutt (Ed.), Imagine
that: Studies in imagined interaction (pp. 43—64). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Honeycutt, J. M., & Bryan, S. P. (in press). Scripts and communication for relationships. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton.
Honeycutt, J. M., & Ford, S. G. (2001). Mental imagery and intrapersonal communication: A
review of research on imagined interactions (Us) and current developments. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.) Communication Yearbook 25 (pp. 315-345). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Honeycutt, J. M., Zagacki, K. S., & Edwards, R. (1990). Imagined interaction and interpersonal
communication. Communication Reports, 3, 1-8.
Levine, T. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Measuring trait communication apprehension: A test of
rival measurement models of the PRCA-24. Communication Monographs, 57, 62-72.