Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive
Faculty and Researcher Publications
Faculty and Researcher Publications
1994
Communication Apprehension,
Interpretive Styles, Preparation and
Performance in Oral Briefing
Thomas, Gail Fann
The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1994
http://hdl.handle.net/10945/46418
This paper introduces the constructs o/interpretive styles from the empowerment
literature. It proposes these styles as cognitive variables that shape communication apprehension (CA). We report an empirical study of oral briefings by naval
officers. Eesults show thai CA was linked to two interpretive styles: it was positively linked to deficiency focusing (the tendency to focus on what is wrong, can
go wrong, and is wrong with oneself) and negatively linked to envisioning success (the tendency to build mental images of succeeding). Results also show that
CA diminished performance on the briefing, and that greater preparation was
not an effective way of coping with apprehension.
Communication Apprehension,
Interpretive Styles, Preparation,
and Performance in Oral Briefing
Gail Farm Thomas
Naval Postgraduate School
Walter G. lymon, Jr.
Villanova Unwersity
Kenneth W. Thomas
Naval Postgraduate School
M
any people experience difficulty dealing with the anxiety that may
accompany oral communication, particularly if it occurs in a formal setting such as an interview, briefing, or presentation. Research indicates that approximately 60 percent of public speakers experience some
anxiety on the day of a speaking engagement (Smeltzer & Waltman, 1984).
When 3,000 Americans were asked "What are you most afraid of?" 42
percent said "speaking before a group." Fear of speaking outweighed fear
of heights (32 percent), insects (22 percent), sickness (19 percent), and
death (19 percent) (Mayer, 1989). In an exploratory study, 140 MBA students described communication episodes that had challenged them at
work and revealed that oral communication was the most challenging
communication arena. The study also identified "controlling nervousness
and anxiety" as the most desired communication skill or ability
(Reinsch & Shelby, 1993). Nevertheless, oral communication apprehension has been neglected in the business and managerial communication
literature.
The primary focus of this study was to test the role of interpretive styles
as a contributor to communication apprehension in public speaking. The
secondary focus was to study the relationships among communication
apprehension, performance, and preparation.
COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION
Communication apprehension (CA) is defined as ",an individual's level
of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communi311
312
The Journal of Business Communication
31:4 1994
cation with another person or persons" (McCroskey, 1970,1977, 1984).
Although CA has been examined with respect to written, telephone, and
face-to-face oral communication (Daly, 1985; Reinsch, Steele, Lewis,
Stano, & Beswick, 1990), these literatures are relatively separate from
each other. Here, we will focus on the face-to-face oral CA literature, and
the term CA wiU mean oral CA.
CA is typically divided into "state and trait" aspects. State CA is specific to the immediate communication episode that the person is facing,
for example, an interview. It is anxiety experienced in the "here and now"
(Booth-Butterfield & Gould, 1986). Trait CA has been defined as "a relatively enduring, personality-type, orientation toward a given mode of
communication across a wide variety of encounters" (McCroskey, 1981).
Thus, trait CA scores for an individual would be expected to be consistent over time and context, barring an intervention program.
Job performance has been found to be inversely related to trait CA
(Penley, Alexander, Jernigan, Henwood, 1991; Pitt & Ramaseshan, 1990).
Tb avoid communication, high apprehensives have been found to select
occupations that involve low communication requirements (Daly &
McCroskey, 1975). Additionally, high apprehensives have been reported
to be less likely to desire advancement than others, since they foresee
that such advancement would increase the communication requirements imposed on them (Scott, McCroskey, & Sheahan, 1978). Conversely,
Stark, Morley, and Shockley-Zalabak (1987) reported that low apprehensives deliberately sought out and occupied jobs with significant communication requirements.
During presentation episodes, high state CA has been shown to be
related to excessive attention to self, which results in poorer performances
in public speaking situations (Daly, Vangelisti, & Lawrence, 1989).
Speakers experiencing state CA, because they are more self-focused, miss
external cues, and thus lose some of the opportunities they may have to
adapt to audience reactions. The ability, in a public speaking situation,
to determine whether the speaker's point is being understood or whether
the audience is paying attention is critical. For these reasons, understanding and coping with CA is important to public speakers (Daly, Vangelisti, & Lawrence, 1989).
THE ROLE OF COGNITION
IN COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION
Earlier work in CA investigated conditions that might trigger high state
CAin various communication situations, but recent studies conclude that
situational variables are relatively unimportant predictors of state CA
(Ayres, 1990; Beatty, 1988; Beatty, Balfantz, & Kuwabara, 1989, Beatty
& Friedland, 1990; Buss 1980). Current research seeks to understand the
role of cognitions in determining levels of CA and communication behav-
Oral Briefing / Thomas, Tymon, Thomas
313
ior (Booth-Butterfield, 1990). This trend mirrors the growing emphasis
on cognition in the larger field of stress and anxiety (for example. Beck
& Emery, 1985; Dewe, 1992; EUis & Dryden, 1987; Lazarus & Folkman,
1984; Sarason, 1984). One major issue in the CA literature involves the
way in which biases in cognitive assessments affect CA and how this may
lead to dysfunctional communication patterns (Booth-Butterfield, 1990).
Cognitive models associated specifically with CA have been sparse,
and the few studies that examine the link between cognitions and oral
CA have been exploratorj^. These studies have found that high trait CA
individuals exhibited more negative thinking before a public speaking
situation and were more concerned with evaluation, performance, and
self-related issues than low apprehensives. Conversely, low apprehensives had more positive thoughts and were considerably more taskfocused (Ayers, 1988; Daly & Lawrence, 1985; Daly, Vangelisti, Neel, &
Cavanaugh, 1989). However, we found no work that has developed comprehensive models of cognitive patterns involved in oral CA and has tested
such models.
Cognitive models of oral CA could provide clearer guidance for cognitive-based interventions for high CA individuals. Several cognitive interventions for oral CA have been reported in the literature, employing
methods borrowed from various clinical schools of thought (Ayers, 1988;
Ayres & Hopf, 1992; Beck & Emery, 1985; Ellis, 1962; Meichenbaum,
Gilmore, & Fedoravicius, 1971). These interventions attempt a "cognitive restructuring" (Glass & Shea, 1986) of high trait CA inidividuaJs. Similar forms of intervention have proven successful in treating anjdety in
non-communications contexts (Beck, 1993; Ellis, 1977; Meichenbaum,
1977). However, without a clear model of the cognitions that stimulate
oral CA, change agents have had to spend time identifying cognitions that
increase CA for specific individuals—before they can modify those cognitions. In contrast, a tested cognitive model of CA might identify cognitive patterns that contribute to high trait CA in many individuals, and
thus guide more efficient interventions that directly tairget those patterns.
THs study attempts to contribute to the development of such a model
by testing the role in CA of four particular dimensions of cognitive
habits, or interpretive styles. These interpretive styles are discussed in
the following section.
INTERPRETIVE STYLES
Thomas and Ms colleagues have studied the relationship of interpretive
styles to stress within an interpretive model of task empowerment
(Thomas & lymon, in press; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Thomas and
his colleagues believe that stress and other affective states are based on
conclusions that people reach about themselves in relation to a task. These
conclusions are based only partly on objective facts. Tb derive conclusions
314
The Journal of Business Communication
.31:4 1994
from facts, people must also add elements of interpretation. Initially,
Thomas and Velthouse (1990), identified three interpretive processes: evaluation of the goodness or badness of outcomes, attribution of causes for
successes (good outcomes) or setbacks (bad outcomes), and envisioning
of possible future events. Interpretive styles are characteristic biases in
how people perform these processes. Different interpretive styles, then,
can lead people to different conclusions about a task, even when given
the same facts.
In a test of the theory, Thomas and lymon (in press) used factor analysis on data from managers to identify three distinct dimensions of interpretive style: deficiency focusing, skill recognition, and envisioning
success. Deficiency focusing is the tendency to focus upon what is wrong
when evaluating one's performance, on what can go wrong when envisioning the future, and on what is wrong with oneself when attributing
the causes of setbacks. Deficiency focusing was related to higher levels
of stress symptoms and lower job satisfaction.
SkiU recognition is the degree to which people attribute their successes
to their abilities, that is, see positive outcomes as evidence of skill. Skill
recognition was related to lower stress levels and higher feelings of competence.
Envisioning success is the tendency to have positive images about futxire
task outcomes, that is, to buHd mental images of succeeding. Envisioning success was related to lower stress levels and greater job satisfaction.
In other work, Thomas and lymon (1992) have added a fourth dimension of interpretive styles—necessitating—^based in part on Ellis' (1987)
notion of necessitous thinking. This tendency involves the process
through which people decide whether to pursue a given goal or perform
a possible action. Necessitating refers to the degree to which people think
in terms of what they "have to do" or "need to do" rather than what they
want or choose to do. Thomas and lymon believe necessitating contributes
to stress by adding to experienced task pressure.
Thomas and lymon have developed a self-report measure of the four
interpretive styles of deficiency focusing, skill recognition, envisioning
success, and necessitating. In a study of this instrument, using 142 parttime MBA students, Thomas and lymon (1994) provided additional
support for the factor structure and showed acceptable reliabilities for
the four scales. This study found that deficiency focusing, necessitating,
and low sMll recognition were related to higher stress symptoms.
According to Thomas and Tymon (1992), stress occurs when people conclude that events place excessive demands upon them. This general conclusion, in turn, depends upon more specific judgments of "one's abilities,
of how well one is actually performing, of what may go wrong, and how
necessary it is that one meet a demand" (Thomas & Tymon, 1992, p. 1).
The interpretive styles bias thinking to distort these judgments and to
315
Oral Briefing/ Thomas, "lymon, Thomas
exaggerate the individual's conclusion of the severity of the situation. We
propose that very similar judgments are involved in an individual's
apprehension with respect to the task of oral communication. Many itecas
in self-report measures of CA, in fact, tap these sorts of judgments. Examples are "I think I make a poor impression when I speak at a small group
meeting," and "I feel disappointed in myself after speaking in public"
(Booth-Butterfield & Gould, 1986).
More specifically, the four interpretive styles might be expected to contribute to CA as follows:
High deficiency focusing would contribute to negative cognitions
about what could go wrong in an upcoming presentation, about how much
is going wrong during a presentation, and, after the presentation, to an
exaggerated sense of one's shortcomings as a speaker.
Low sMli recognition would make individuals less likely to give themselves credit for successes during public speaking (for example, attributing favorable audience reaction to luck, helpfromothei"s, or kindness from
the audience), so that their self-confidence at public speaking would remain
low.
Low envisioning success would mean that individuals have fewer
thoughts about liow presentations could go well, thus leaving more
room for negative imagery.
High necessitating would add to the pressure experienced in public
speaking by placing inflexible demands on oneself (for example, that one
must perform well, get an A, or maintain eye contact at all times).
MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Figure 1 shows the model that forms the basis for this study. Variables
are shown in boxes. The solid arrows represent hypothesized relation-
Preparaiion
i
Interpretive
Styles
-;+
-->
T
Perforrtianie
i\
+
-" » Appreiiension
Success
--*
Figure 1. Relationships tested in this study.
State
Communitptron
'ipprehension
316
The Journal of Business Communication
31:4 1994
ships between variables. Dotted arrows represent additional relationships
that are tested in more exploratory fashion.
The primary focus of our study is on the relationship of interpretive
styles to trait CA. We propose that the interpretive styles will infiuence
the types of conclusions that one makes about oneself in relation to the
task of public speaking. Specifically, we hypothesize that:
Hi: Deficiency focusing and necessitating will be positively related
to trait CA.
H2: Envisioning success and skill recognition will be negatively
related to trait CA.
The secondary focus of this study is on the relationship of trait CA to
performance and state CA. An inverse relationship between trait CA and
performance has been documented elsewhere (Daly & Lawrence, 1985)
and trait CA has been shown to be positively related to state CA (BoothButterfield & Gould (1986).
H3: Trait CA will be inversely related to performance and positively
related to state CA.
In the model, trait CA functions as an intervening variable in the relationship between the interpretive styles and both performance and state
CA. Interpretive styles are viewed as general tendencies that affect an
individual's conclusions regarding a wide range of tasks. Trait CA isa measure of conclusions with respect to the specific task of public speaking,
and therefore is presumed to exert a more direct infiuence on performance
and state apprehension on this task than do the interpretive styles.
H4: Trait CA will act as an intervening variable between the interpretive styles and both performance and state CA.
Finally, we also chose to include preparation as a variable to explore
its relationship to both trait and state CA and to performance. Ayres and
Raftis (1992), citing Pelias' (1989) review of public speaking texts, noted
that almost all such texts suggest that preparation reduces oral CA. However, little evidence supports this common sense advice. In fact, Ayres
and Raftis (1992) found that allowing more preparation time had no effect
on the thoughts, behavior, or state CA of high trait CA individuals. Similarly, an earlier study by Thomas, Thomas, and Williams (1991) foiind
no effects of preparation time upon performance or state CA for an oral
briefing task. The dotted lines in Figure 1 represent three relationships
that would have to exist for apprehensives to be helped by preparation:
(a) high trait apprehensives would have to prepare more to compensate
for their anxiety; (b) greater preparation by the individual would reduce
state CA during the presentation; and (c) greater preparation would result
in higher performance. We explored these relationships using the following
research questions:
Ql: Is trait CA related to preparation?
Oral Briefing / Thomas, lymon, Thomas
317
Q2: Is preparation related to state CA during the presentation, or to
performance?
METHODS
The study was conducted with 93 experienced US. Naval Officers
enrolled infivesections of a managerial communication course in a graduate-level management education program. Three professors were
teaching different sections of the course at the time of this study. The mean
age of the officers was 32; managerial experience rangedfrom4 to 16 years.
Data for the study were coEected with a series of questionnaires administered to the officers. The assignment was a 4-to-6 minute informative
briefing. Participants in the study were assured anonymity to encourage
candid answers to the various questionnaires. We measuredfivevariables.
Trait Communication Apprehension
Trait CA was measured two weeks before the briefing, using Form Trait
of the Communication Anxiety Inventory (CAI). The CAI, developed by
Booth-Butterfield and Gould (1986), is composed of two separate inventories, Form Itait and Form State. Form Trait consists of 21 self-report
items yielding an overall score for trait CA and three context-specific CA
scores—dyadic, small group, and public speaking. Form Trait uses a fourpoint response format ranging from "almost always" to "almost never."
Thus, scores may range from 21 (low trait CA) to 84 (high trait CA); each
context score ranges from 7 to 28. Booth-Butterfield and Gould (1986)
report that Form Trait has been administered to several samples of high
school and university students over time (n = 754, Mage = 21.3) The mean
score was 46.9 with an overall internal consistency (Cronbach alpha)
of .90.
State Communication Apprehension
Booth-Butterfieid & Gould's (1986) 20-item Form State was administered immediately following students' oral briefings to assess their anxiety responses during their presentations. Form State uses a four-point
scale response format from "not at all" to "very much so." In a validation
study, Booth-Butterfieid and Gould (1986) administered Form State to
a sample of undergraduates (n ~ 163, Mage = 20.3). The miean score was
44.1, with an internal consistency of .91. The Booth-Butterfield and
Gould (1986) instruments have been successfiaUy employed in several studies (Ayres &Raftis, 1992; Ayres &Robideaux-Maxweli, 1989; Booth-Butterfieid & Booth-Butterfield, 1990) and have shown consistent reliabilitj^
Interpretive Styles
The interpretive styles or habits of deficiency focusing, necessitating,
envisioning success, and skUl recognition were measured two weeks before
318
The Journal of Business Communication
31:4 1994
the briefing, using questions developed by Thomas and Tymon. (A copy
of the questionnaire is available from the second author). Twenty-four
questions were answered on a seven-point Likert scale, with six questions per sfyle. Examples of items are: (a) "I tend to worry about whether
things will go wrong" (deficiency focusing); (b) "I often seem to create
demands and requirements for myself" (necessitating); (c) "I tend to picture myself achieving objectives" (envisioning success); and (d) "When
something I do is successful, I see it as evidence of my capabilities" (skill
recognition). In previous research (Thomas & lymon, 1994), internal consistencies for the four interpretive styles, using Cronbach's alpha, were
as follows: deficiency focusing, .87; envisioning success, .86; skill recognition, .82; and necessitating, .72.
Preparation
Two separate measures of preparation were obtained on the day of the
briefing by asking the student (a) how much time he or she spent out of
class preparing for the presentation (preparation time), and (b) how many
times the presentation was practiced out loud (practice).
Performance
On the day of the oral presentations, the three professors teaching the
managerial communication course were provided with an Oral Briefing
Evaluation sheet that consisted of two questions to be answered by the
professor for each student. One question dealt with content, the other
delivery. Afive-pointresponse format that corresponded to grades was
completed for each of the students who participated in this study. An overall measure of performance was constructed by averaging the responses
to the two questions. In rating the performance, the three professors were
blind to the students' responses on the previous questionnaires.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and reliabiEties for the measures
used in this study, as weU as the correlations between the measures. The
interpretive style, trait CA, and state CA measures had reliabilities of
.85 or greater, with the exception of the interpretive style measures for
skill recognition and necessitating. These were still within an acceptable
range (Nunnally, 1978) with reliabilities of .81 and .77, respectively.
As noted, the data were gathered from sections taught by three professors. Tb assess any possible biasing effect of the different professors,
a one-way analysis of variance (independent variable = professor) was
performed on each variable in the study. This analysis showed that professor effects were only significant at the .05 level with respect to one
variable, preparation time. As seen in Tkble 1, preparation time was not
significantly coirelated with any oliier variable. Further, preparation time
was found not to be a significant predictor of any variable when
multiple regression was used, controlling for the professor through the
Oral Briefing / Thomas, Tymon, Thomas
319
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations
Among Variables
No , of Items M
Variables
SD
1
86
2
3
4
1. Deficiency Focusing
6
3.67
1,27
2. Necessitating
6
4.89
0.93
3. Skill Recognition
6
5.45
0.82
-17
08
81
4. Envisioning Success
6
5.62
0,91
-m
20*
41**'• 91
5. Trait GA
21
2.08
0.38
36*** 10
6. State CA
20
2.01
043
29**
5
6
7
8
9
53*** 77
-29** -27**
21* -22* -20*
85
24*
85
7, Performance
2
3.46
0,77
-05
09
12
09
-25** -17
8. Practice
1
6.01
4.30
06
-05
08
-05
00
04 -01
9. Preparation Time
1
6.80
4.59
03
04
06
-10
07
02
-
09
17
-
Note-. Eeiiabilities, assessed with Cranbach's alpha, appear in the diagonal. Leading decimals were omitted
from correlation coefficients and reliability estimates. Sample size ranged from 81 to 93. CA = Communication apprehension. All tests were one tailed.
*io<,05, **p<.01. ***p<.001.
use of dummy variables. Thus, differences between professors were not
judged to be a significant influence on the results of this study, and this
variable was deleted from the analyses reported below.
Hypotheses 1 and 2
As shown in Table 1, three of the four interpretive style variables were
significantly correlated with trait CA. Deficiency focusing was positively
correlated with trait CA (r=.36,p < .001). Skill recognition aind envisioning
success were negatively correlated with trait CA (r = -.29, -.27; p < .01).
ib further test the relationship between the interpretive style variables and trait CA, multiple regression analysis was employed. The results
Table 2
Multiple Regression on Trait Communication Apprehension
with Interpretive Styles as Predictors
Independent Variables
Skill Recognition
Envisioning Success
Deficiency Focusing
Necessitating
If
Adjusted R^
F
Note. Sample she was 91.
*p<,05. **p<M. ***p<,001.
b
Beta
t
-.06
-.10
-,13
-.23
.10
.00
-.01
-1.24
-2.17*
2.92**
-,05
.23(20)
,20
6,55***
.34
320
The Journal of Business Communication
31:4 1994
of this analysis are shown in Table 2. l^cen together, the four interpretive style variables explained 23 percent of the variance in trait CA (R^
= .23,/) < .001). Of the four interpretive styles, only deficiency focusing
and envisioning success predicted trait (ZlA after partialing out intercorrelations among the interpretive styles. Thus, individuals who tend
to focus on deficiencies and not to envision success appear to experience greater trait CA. In sum. Hypotheses 1 and 2 each received partial
support.
Hypothesis 3
The correlation coefficient matrix in Ikble 1 shows that trait CA was
negatively correlated with performance (r = -.25,p< .01) and positively
correlated with state CA (r = .24, p < .05). Thus, hypothesis 3 was
supported.
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 4 states that trait CA acts as an intervening variable in
the relationship between interpretive styles and performance, as well as
between interpretive styles and state CA. Hierarchical regression was
employed to test this hypothesis. If the interpretive style variables infiuence performance and state CA only through their effects on trait CA,
as assumed in the model, then the interpretive style variables should not
explain additional variance in performance and state CA beyond that
explained by trait CA alone. On the other hand, if the interpretive style
variables explain sizeable additional variance in performance and state
CA, this would suggest that the interpretive style variables have a direct
relationship with these two variables.
Table 3 presents the results of the two hierarchical regression analyses using performance and state CA as dependent variables. In each of
these regressions, trait CA was entered in step one, and the interpretive
style variables were entered in step two. In step one, trait CA was a significant predictor of performance (consistent with the results regarding
Hypothesis 3). The addition of the interpretive style variables in step two
did not significantly increase the explained variance in performance
(Fchange = 0.57, p > .05). The same results occur when state CA is the
dependent variable. In step one, trait CA was a significant predictor of
state CA, The addition of the interpretive style variables in step two did
not significantly increase the amount of variance explained (Fchange =
1.80, p > .05). These results support Hypothesis 4.
Research Ouestions 1 and 2
As shown in Table 1, neither preparation time, in terms of the number of hours spent preparing for the presentation outside of class, nor
practice, in terms of the number of times spent practicing the presentation aloud, were significantly correlated with any of the other variables
321
Oral Briefing / Thomas, lymon, Thomas
B
§
o
mi
CO
§
1—<
•
is
go
I
3
O
322
The Journal of Business Communication
31:4 1994
in the study. Of particular interest here is the fact that trait CA did not
lead to more preparation (r = -.10) or practice (r = .00). Moreover, preparation time and practice did not reduce state CA (r = .02, .04). Nor did
preparation time and practice result in higher performance (r=.09, -.01).
Therefore, Questions 1 and 2 were answered negatively.
Interpretive
Styles
Deficiency
FDC using
Perfotnfiance
Trait
Communicaiion
Apprehension
State
Communiqation
Apprehension
Envisioning
Figure 2. Model suggested by this study.
INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
Figure 2 shows those portions of the model in Figure 1 that received
support in our study. Two interpretive sfyles—necessitating and skUl recognition—have been removed as infiuences on trait CA. Relationships involving preparation have also been deleted.
The primary focus of our study involved the possible impact of interpretive styles upon trait CA. An individual's characteristic (trait) level
of CA appears to be shaped significantly by two interpretive styles. It is
increased by greater deficiency focusing (the tendency to focus on what
is going wrong, can go wrong, or is wrong with oneself) and is decreased
by greater envisioning success (the tendency to build mental images of
succeeding).
Second, consistent with other studies, trait CA appears to be inversely
reiated to performance. High apprehensives tend to be evaluated less favorably when giving their oral briefings than their counterparts. High
apprehensives also tend to experience high situational (state) communication apprehension during the presentation.
Finally, preparation did not appear to be a successful coping device
for high apprehensives. High apprehensives did not report preparing more
or less. Additionally, reported preparation, either the amount of the time
spent preparing for the briefing or the number of the times the brief was
practiced before the actual presentation, did not appear to infiuence performance on the oral briefing. Likewise, neither preparation variable
appeared to reduce an individual's state CA during the presentation.
Oral Briefing / Thomas, lymon, Thomas
323
IMPLICATIONS
This study provides additional evidence for the influence of interpretive
styles as introduced in the recent literature on empowerment (Thomas
& Velthouse, 1990). As noted earlier, the interpretive styles are general
tendencies that influence interpretation o^ and reaction to, a broad i^nge
of tasks. Previous empirical research has focused on theii- relation to job
satisfaction and general stress symptoms (Thomas & lymon, in press).
This study shows that interpretive styles also predict traiit CA.
More specifically, trait CA was predicted by the two interpretive
styles of deficiency focusing and envisioning success. This finding suggests that CA can be understood, at least in part, as a variable that (EV)
increases directly with the tendency to think about oral communication
tasks in terms of what can go wrong, what is going wrong, and what is
wrong with oneself as a communicator, and (b) decreases with the tendency to think about how the oral communication can go well. These
thought patterns skew the content of individuals' thoughts about oral communication in such a way that they draw biased or exaggerated conclusions about the threat posed by the communications task.
Based on ourfindings,we recommend that follow-on research be conducted to identify the specific thoughts that most commonly embody deficiency focusing and env:isioning success in the task of oral communication.
In other words, what specific thoughts would one experience about an
oral briefing when one was deficiency focusing or enwsioning success?
Identifying these thoughts will allow the design of instruments to more
specifically identify the strength of these patterns in individual communicators and will also be useful for targeting cognitive interventions
to reduce CA.
Our results also point out the need to conduct further research about
the relationships between communication apprehension, preparation, and
performance. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) talk about preparation as a
coping mechanism for dealing with apprehension. However, our results
indicate that high apprehensives did not report preparing more than low
apprehensives, and that unaided preparation did not significantly
enhance performance or reduce state CA. Here, we must acknowledge
the limitations ofour measures of preparation. We made no effort to minimize recall errors, for example, by reqidring students to keep detailed
logs. Because of the importance of this issue, we recommend subsequent
research to replicate this part of our study using more objective measures
of preparatioa Nevertheless, ourfindings,added to those of .Ayers & Rafkis
(1992) serve to challenge conventional wisdom about the usefulness of
added preparation to mitigate the effects of high trait CA. We propose
that interpretive patterns be investigated as a fector in these results. For
example, the interpretive habits that contribute to trait CA are liiely to
produce stronger expectations of a performance gap on an upcoming pre-
324
The Journal of Business Communication
31:4 1994
sentation, but also to reduce the expectation that practice will help and
thus reduce high apprehensives' motivation to prepare more than others. Likewise the low confidence of apprehensives, who tend to focus on
deficiencies, is unlikely to be improved by practice as long as they continue to focus on what is going wrong during their practice sessions.
Finally, our results suggest the benefits of identifying individuals with
high deficiency focusing and low envisioning success and targeting them
for intervention. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) provide general guidance
for such interventions. They note that individuals are largely unaware
of the role of their interpretive styles in shaping their conclusions about
events, believing instead that they are responding to the objective events
themselves. This makes their interpretive styles relatively invisible to
them, so that they are not likely to alter interpretive styles even when
they lead to unfavorable results. Tb be able to change interpretive patterns, individuals have to first become aware of those patterns, so that
they can consciously monitor their ongoing interpretations, observe
their consequences, and practice alternative patterns.
NOTES
Gail Fann Thomas is an associate professor of managerial communication at the
Naval Postgraduate School. She was previously on the faculty of Arizona State University. Her research interests include communication apprehension, communication
issues related to organizational change, and diversity in the workplace. She has been
published in such joximals as the Journal of Technical and Business Communication
and Group and Organizational Studies. Her address is Department of Systems
Management, Naval Postgraduate School, 555 Dyer Road, Monterey, CA 93943;
Internet [email protected].
Walter G. TVmon, Jr., is an assistant professor of management in the College of
Commerce and Finance at Villanova University. He was previously on the faculty at
Rutgers University. His research interests include worker empowerment, stress
management, and the management of research and development. His work on these
topics have appeared in such publications as i:h& Academy of Management Review
and R&D Management. His address is Department of Management, College of Commerce and Finance, ViUanova University, Villanova, PA 19085.
Kenneth W. Thomas is Professor of Sjfstems Management at the Naval Bastgraduate
School. He has also been a faculty member at UCLA, Temple University, and the University of Pittsbiaigh. His research interests include worker empowerment, stress management, and the management of conflict. He has published scholarly articles on these
topics as well as some widely used training instruments. His address is Department
of Systems Man^ement, 555 Dyer Road, Monterey, CA 93943.
REFERENCES
Ajrres, J. (1988). Coping with speech anxiety: The power of positive thinking. Communication Edumtion, 37,289-296.
Ayres, J. (1990). Situational factors and audience anxiety. Communication Education,
39,283-291.
Ayres, J., & Hopf, T. (1992). Visualization: Reducing speech anxiety and enhancing performance. Communication Reports, 5,1-10.
Oral Briefing / Thomas, Tymon, Thomas
325
Ayres, J., & Raftis, S. M. (1992). The impact of evaluation and preparation time on high
public speaking anxious speakers' thoughts, behavior, and state-communication
apprehension. Southern Communication Journal, 57,323-327.
Ayres, 1, & Eobideaux-Maxwell, R. (1989). Communication apprehension and speech preparation time. Communication Research Reports, 6,90-9.3.
Beatty, M. J. (1988), Situational and predispositional correlates of public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 37, 28-39.
Beatty, M. J., Balfantz, G.L., & Kuwabara, A.Y (1989). Trait-like qualities of selected vaiiables assumed to be transient causes of performance state anxiety. Communication
Education, 38,277-289.
Beatty, M. J., & ftiedland, M. H. (1990). Public speaking anxiety as a function of selected
situational and predispositional variables. Communication Education, 39,142-147.
Beck, A. T. (1993). Cognitive therapy: Past, present, and future. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 61,194-198.
Beck, A. T., & Emery, G. (1985). Anxiety, disorders and phobias: A. cognitive perspective.
New York: Basic Books.
Booth-Butterfield, M. (Ed.). (1990). Communication, cognition, and anxiety [Special issue].
Joumal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5.
Booth-Butterfleld, S., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (1990). The mediating role of cognition in
the experience of state anxiety. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 35-48.
Booth-Butterfield, S., & Gould, M. (1986). The communication anxiety inventory: Validation of state and context communication apprehension. Communication Quarterly,
34,194-205.
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Daly, J. A. (1985). Writing apprehension. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer cant write (pp.
43-82). New York: Guilford Press.
Daly, J. A., & Lawrence, S. (1985). Self-focused cognitions and public speaking anxiety.
Paper pr^cnted at the meeting of the International Communication ^Association, Honolulu, HI.
J}i&y, J. A., & McCroskey, J. C. (1975). Occupational choice and desirability as a function
of communication apprehension. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 22, 309-313.
Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L., & Lawrence, S. G. (1980). Self-focused attention and public speaking anxiety. Personality and Individual Difference, 10, 903-913.
Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L., Neel, H. L , & Cavanaugh, P. D, (1989). Pre-performance concems associated with public speaking anxiety. Communication Quarterly, 37,39-53.
Dewe, P. (1992). The appraisal process: Exploring the role of meaning, importance, control and coping in work stress. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 5,95-109.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Stuart.
Ellis, A. (1977). Rational-emotive therapy: Research data that supports the clinical and
personality hypotheses of RET and other modes of cognitive-behavior therapy. Counselling Psychologist, 7, 2-42.
Ellis, A. (1987), A sadly neglected cognitive element in depr^sion. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 11,121-146,
EHis, A, & Dryden, W. (1987). Thepracticeofratioruil-emoUve therapy. New York: Springer.
Glass, C. R,, & Shea, C. A. (1986), Cognitive therapy for shyness and social anxiety. In
W. H, Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S, R, Briggs, (Eds.), Shyness (pp, 315-327), New York:
Plenum,
Lazarus, R. S,, & Foikman, S, (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer
Publishing Co.
Mayer, K, R, (1989). Well spoken: Oral communication skills for business.NswYork: Harcourt. Brace, Jovanovich,
McCroskey, J. C, (1970), Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269-277.
326
The Journal of Business Communication
.31:4 1994
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78-96.
McCioskey, J. C. (1981). Oral communication apprehension: Reconceptualization and
a new look at measurement. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central States
Speech Association, Chicago, IL.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly
& J. C. McCroskey (Eds.) Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 13-38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification: An integrative approach. New
York: Plenum.
Meichenbaum, D., Gilmore, J., & Fedoravicius, A. (1971). Group insight versus group
desensitization in treating speech anxiety. Jo urrml of Cons ultirvg and Clinical Psychology, 36,4104-4121.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Penley, L. E., Alexander, E. R., Jernigan, I. E., & Henwood, C. I. (1991). Commxinication abilities ofmanagers: 'The relationship to performance. Journal of Management,
17, 57-76.
Pitt, L. F, & Ramashshan, B. (1990). Apprehension about communication and salespersons'performance. Psj/c/ioto^aZifeporte, 67,1355-1362.
Reinsch, N. L., Jr., & Shelby, A. N. (1993). Communication skill needs ofMBA students.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Business Communication,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Reinsch, N. L., Jr., Steele, C. M., Lewis, P. V, Stano, M., & Beswick, R. W. (1990). Measuring telephone apprehension. Management Communication Quarterly, 4,198-221.
Sarason, I G . (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,1222-1225.
Scott, M. D., McQwakey, J. D.,& Sheahan, M. E.. (1978). Measuring communication apprehension. Journal of Communication, 28,104-111.
Smeltzer, L. R., & Waltman, J. L. (1984). Managerial communication: A strategic
approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Stark, P S., Morley, D. D., & Shockley-Zalabak, P (1987). Communication professionals: If they're not afraid why don't they talk? Communication Research Reports, 4,
11-16.
Thomas, G. F, Thomas, K. W., & Williams, T. N. (1991). Communication apprehension
and performance in oral briefings: Identifying dysfunctional thought patterns. In
S. J. Bruno (Ed.), Proceedings of the 56th annual convention of The Association for
Business Communication (-pp. 81-94). Houston, TX: University ofHouston-Clear Lake.
Thomas, K. W, & lymon, W. G., Jr. (1992). Stress resiliency profile. Tlixedo, NY: Xicom.
Thomas, K. W., & lymon, W. G., Jr. (1994). Interpretive styles that contribute to stress:
A development from empowerment research. Working paper. Naval Postgraduate
School, Department of Systems Management, Monterey, CA.
Thomas, K. W,, & Tymon, W. G., Jr. (in press). Does empoweiment always work:
Understanding the role of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation. Journal of Management Systems.
Thomas, K W, & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An "interpretive" model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15,
666-681.
First submission 5/5/94
Accepted by NLR 6/24/94
Final revision
7/13/94