COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION,SOCIAL PREFERENCE, AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

IN A COLLEGEENVIRONMENT

JAMES C. McCROSKEYand MICHAELE. SHEAHAN

An investigation of high and low communication apprehensives in a college environ-ment indicated that high communication apprehensives interact less with peer stran-gers, are less likely to accept a blind date, have fewer dates, are more likely to engage inexclusive dating, have close relationships with fewer facuIty, are less satisfied with auniversity's advising system, and are less satisfied with the college environment. Theseresults are examined within the context of the Berger-Calabrese developmental theoryof interpersonal communication and an extension of that theory is tentatively ad-vanced.

In recent years a substantial number ofstudies have been reported that have investi-gated the relationships among communica-tion apprehension, communication behavior,and interpersonal perceptions.! While manyof these studies have involved college stu-dents, most have tested hypotheses concern-ing communication apprehension in general,and the use of college students as researchsubjects was merely incidental to the purposeof the research. Very few of the previousstudies have focused on the impact of com-munication apprehension on the lives ofyoung people in the college environment.

The major exceptions to the above patternhave been studies which focused on the rela-tionship between communication apprehen-sion and academic achievement.2 These

James C. McCroskey is a Professor and Chairman of theDepartment of Speech Communication at West VirginiaUniversity. Michael E. Sheahan is a Ph.D. candidate inthe Department of Communication at Purdue University.

IFor a summary of this research, see TamesC. McCros-key, "Oral Communication Apprehension," HumanCommunication Research, 4(1977). 78-96.

2See. for example, Michael D. Scott, Michael P. Yates.and Lawrence R. Wheeless, "An Exploratory Investiga-tion of the Effects of Communication Apprehension inAlternative Systems of Instruction," paper presented atthe annual convention of the International Communica-tion Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1975; Tames C.McCroskey and Janis F. Andersen, "The RelationshipBetween Communication Apprehension and AcademicAchievement Among College Students," Human Com-munication Research, 3(1976), 73-81; and Michael D.Scott and Lawrence R. Wheeless. "The Relationship ofThree Types of Communication Apprehension to Class-room Achievement." Southern Speech CommunicationJournal. 42 (1977), 246-255.

studies provide considerable support for thenotion that high communication apprehen-sives achieve significantly less than lowcommunication apprehensives in most in-structional environments. Thus, it has beenfairly well established that communicationapprehension is negatively related to successin one of the two major dimensions of collegelife. the academic dimension. The current re-search was directed toward the other majordimension of college life, the social dimen-sion.

Rationale and Hypotheses

Communication apprehension has beenshown to be associated with a variety of socialwithdrawal behaviors. For example, highcommunication apprehensives, as comparedwith lows, have been found to talk less, tochoose more remote housing and seating, andto find other people less attractive. J Within

the college environment, particularly largercolleges and universities, students have con-siderable freedom to control the amount ofinteraction they have with their peers andfaculty. On the basis of the previous research,therefore, we would expect that high com-munication apprehensives, as compared tolows, would develop fewer relationshipswith either peers or faculty in the collegeenvironment.

3For a summary of some of this research and severaltheoretical propositions drawn from it. see Tames C.McCroskey, "The Effects of Communication Apprehen-sion on Nonverbal Behavior." Communication Quarter-ly, 24(Winter. 1976), pp. 39-44.

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY, Vol. 26, No.2. SPRING 1978 41

It is important to note at this point thatresearch has not demonstrated that highcommunication apprehensives, as comparedwith lows. have a lower need or desire forclose relationships with other people. Rather,the research suggests that their communica-tion apprehension is a barrier to engaging inthe communication necessarv to form suchrelationships. The rationale for the presentresearch, therefore. was as follows:(1) High and low communication apprehen-

sives do not differ in their need or desirefor social relationships with others in theCollege environment:

(2) High communication apprehensives arelimited by their communication ap-prehension from engaging in sufficientcommunication necessary to establishmany social relationships in the collegeenvironment;

(3) As a consequence. high communicationapprehensives, as compared to lows, es-tablish fewer social relationships; and

(4) High communication apprehensives areless satisfied with their college environ-ment than are low communication ap-prehensives.

On the basis of the above rationale eighthypotheses were generated for testing in thisstudy. We will consider each of these in turn.

(1) High and low communication ap-prehensives do not differ in the number ofdates they would like to have during a given14 day period. Unlike the remaining hypoth-eses, this hypothesis was framed in null form.Since no previous research has indicated dif-ferences attributable to communication ap-prehension in the need or desire for socialrelationships, we had no reason to expect adifference here. It was considered importantto test this hypothesis, however, becauseshould communication apprehension andamount of dates desired prove to be related,this would challenge the first point in ourrationale and be very important in interpret-ing the results related to later hypotheses.

(2)High communication apprehensives, ascompared to lows, are less likely to engage ininteraction with peer strangers within the col-lege environment. The first step in establish-ing a social relationship is getting ac-quainted. At the University where this studywas conducted students ride back and forthbetween two campuses on a university bussystem. This provides daily opportunities toencounter peer strangers. This hypothesis

42

posited that the high communication ap-prehensives would be less likely to interactwith these individuals than the low com-munication apprehensives would be.

(3)High communication apprehensives, ascompared to lows, are less likely to accept ablind date. An alternative to engaging incommunication with a peer stranger and de-veloping a .social relationship which couldsubsequently lead to a dating relationshipwould be accepting a blind date arranged bysomeone else. We believe, however, that forthe high communication apprehensives thiswould provide a very threatening communi-cation experience and would be avoided.

(4)High communication apprehensives, ascompared to lows, will report having fewerdates for a given 14 day period. Thishypothesis follows from the two previoushypotheses. If high communication ap-prehensives form fewer social relationshipsand/or are less willing to accept blind dates,they are likely to have fewer dates.

(5)High communication apprehensives, ascompared to lows, are more likely to date oneperson to the exclusion of others. Thishypothesis is based on the assumed equalityof need for social relationships of high andlow communication apprehensives and thereduced dating opportunities of high com-munication apprehensives hypothesizedabove. If high communication apprehensivesneed or desire close soCial relationships butare prevented from "playing the field" bytheir apprehension, it follows that they willattempt to satisfy their need by holding on towhatever relationship they can establish.

(6)High communication apprehensives, ascompared to lows, established fewer close re-lationships with faculty members. Thishypothesis is based on the previous researchindicating that high communication ap-prehensives engage in social withdrawal.This pattern should be clearly evident in thesuperior-subordinate nature of typicalfaculty-student relationships.

(7)High communication apprehensives, ascompared to lows, have less positive at-titudes toward a faculty-student advisingsystem. At the university where this studywas conducted, students are required to con-sult with a faculty advisor for each semester'sregistration. The advisor must approve thestudent's schedule before he or she is permit-ted to enroll. Because of the superior-subordinate nature of the interaction pro-

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

duced by this system. it was believed thatsuch interaction would be very threatening tohigh communication apprehensives andwould result in negative attitudes toward thesystem.

(8)High communication apprehensives. ascompared to lows, have less positive at-titudes toward the college environment. Thishypothesis is based on the assumption thatall. or at least some, of the previous hypoth-eses are correct. If such is the case this wouldindicate less success on the social dimensionof college life for high communication ap-prehensives and presumably would lead toless satisfaction with the college environ-ment as a whole.

Method

This study involved 71 students. 34 lowap-prehensives and 37 high apprehensives. en-rolled in a basic communication course atWest Virginia University. Nearly all of thesubjects lived on campus or in private apart-ments in the community. The class rank of thesubjects was approximately 34% freshmen.49% sophomores, 11% juniors, and 6%seniors. There were approximately the samenumber of males and females among the highand low apprehension groups. Participationin the study was voluntary.

The subjects were selected from a group of275 students who completed an initialscreening. Students who were married (N =36) were excluded from the data analyses.The initial screening involved administra-tion of the Personal Report of CommunicationApprehension (PRCA) College Form.4 Stu-dents who scored beyond one standard devia-tion above the mean for the sample were clas-sified as high communication apprehensives,those who scored beyond one standard devia-tion below the mean were classified as lowcommunication apprehensives. The split-half reliability estimate for the PRCA was .93,which is comparable to previous estimates ofreliability for this instrument.

Four weeks after the initial screening thesubjects completed a questionnaire designedto elicit data relevant to the hypotheses of thestudy. A total of 25 questions appeared on theinstrument. Eight of these were relevant to

4James C. NIcCroskev, "Measures of Communication-Bound Anxiety," Spe~ch Monographs, 37(1970). 269-277.

SPRING 1978

the study; the remainder provided a cover forthe purpose of the study. Four of the relevantitems requested an open-end numerical re-sponse, one required a dichotomous choice,and three provided a nine-step response op-tion bound by bipolar adjectives. The itemsemployed, in the order of our hypothesesnoted above, are reported in Figure 1.

The data' generated from item 5 were sub-jected to chi square analysis. The data fromthe remaining items were submitted to asingle classification (high versus low com-munication apprehension groups) mul-tivariate analysis of variance. Since theMANOVA produced a significant result, theindividual hypotheses were tested by meansof t-tests between the high and low com-munication apprehension groups for the datarelated to that hypothesis. The .05 alpha levelwas set for significance of all tests.

Because the first hypothesis was tested innull form and not rejected, a power analysisfor that test was conducted to determine thelikelihood that the result was an artifact ofType II error.S

Results

The results of the multi-variate analysis andthe t-tests are reported in Table 1. As indi-cated in that table the MANOVA analysisyielded a significant effect (Pillai's Trace, F =2.50, P < .05). The communication apprehen-sion independent variable accounted for 23percent of the variance on the canonical vari-able generated by the analysis. All of thet-tests, with the exception of that performedon the data concerning number of dateswanted. produced significant results. In eachcase the observed difference between highand low communication apprehensives wasin the hypothesized direction.

The chi square analysis ofthe data concern-ing exclusive/steady dating produced a sig-nificant result (Chi square = 5.97). Whileonly nine of the 34 low apprehensives re-ported that they dated one person to the exc-lusion of others, 20 of the 37 high apprehen-sives reported that they did so. In percentageterms, 26 percent of low apprehensives and54 percent of the high apprehensives re-ported exclusive/steady dating behavior.

The power analysis of the test of the first

5Jacob Cohen. Statistical Power Analysis for the Be-havioral Sciences. (New York: Academic Press. 1969).

43

Figure 1Questionnaire Items Administered

1. How many dates would you like to have in the next 14 days? -2. In the past week. how many times have you spoken to a person you did not know while on or wai ting for a

campus bus?3. How likely would you be to accept a blind date?

Very Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Likely4. How many dates have you had in the last 14 days? .

5. Do you date one person regularly to the exclusion of others?.Yes- No-

6. How many faculty members do you know well enough that you would be willing to engage in a socialconversation with them?

7. How satisfied are you with the advisor system here at ?Very Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Satisfied

8. How pleased are you with your overall experiences here at -Very Displeased 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Pleased

?

Table 1Results of the Multivariate

and t-test Analyses

Apprehension Level MeansHigh Low

Apprehension ApprehensionDependentVariable

Canonical VariableDates WantedPersons on BusAccept Blind DateDates HadFaculty KnownSatisfaction/AdvisorSatisfaction/College

.415.22.13.62.42.04.76.2

*p < .05. directional test.

hypothesis indicated a power of .21 for a verysmall effect size (d = .2), .67 for a moderateeffect size (d = .5), and .95 for a large effectsize (d = .8). This analysis suggests that whilewe cannot discount the possibility of the exis-tence of a weak relationship between com-munication apprehension and desirednumber of dates, we can be reasonably confi-dent that no moderate relationship exists, andalmost certain that there is no strong relation-ship between these variables.

In a supplementary analysis, Crowne-Marlowe social desirability scores, whichwere available from all subjects as a result ofan unrelated study, were correlated with eachof the variables in this study.6 Significant cor-relations were observed between social de-sirability and the PRCA scores (r = -.26) andthe number of dates desired (r = .26). No othercorrelations were significant. Consequently.

6Douglas P. Crowne and David Marlowe. The Ap-proval Motive (New York: Wiley. 1964).

44

Correlation withCanonicalVariable

.545.96.34.64.23.95.77.2

.16

.42

.39

.43

.44

.39

.49

.691.84*1.69*1.89*1.93*1.72*2.14*

the data on dates desired were submitted to aone-way analysis of covariance, levels ofcommunication apprehension being the in-dependent variable and Crowne-Marlowescores being the covariate. The results werevirtually identical to the t-test previously re-ported. No significant effect for communica-tion apprehension was observed (F = 0.56, t= .75). The means adjusted for social desira-bility were virtually the same as the unad-justed means (High = 5.2, Low = 5.8). Thus,social desirability was discounted as a factorinfluencing the results of this study.

Discussion

The results of this study provided support forall of our theoretical hypotheses. High com-munication apprehensives. as compared tolows, were found to interact less with peerstrangers, to be less likely to accept a blinddate. to have fewer dates. to be more likely toengage in exclusive dating. to have close rei a-

COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY

tionships with fewer faculty, to be less satis-fied with the university's advising system,and to be less satisfied with the college envi-ronment. Although, as was posited in ourrationale, high and low communication ap-prehensives were not found to differ in theirneed or desire for close relationships, highcommunication apprehensives were found toengage in withdrawal from communicationwith others, have fewer dates than others, andto have less positive attitudes toward theircollege environment. . .

We believe it is useful to consider theseresults within the framework of the develop-mental theory of interpersonal communica-tion advanced by Berger and Calabrese. Acentral axiom of that theory states:

Given the high level of uncertainty present at theonset of the entry phase (ofthe acquaintance process),as the amount of verbal communication betweenstrangers increases, the level of uncertainty for eachinteract ant in the relationship will decrease. As un-certainty is further reduced. the amount of verbalcommunicationwill increase.7This axiom stresses the importance of

communication among strangers for thebuilding of an initial relationship. In the ab-sence of communication, as is typically thecase with high communication apprehen-sives, uncertainty is maintained at a highlevel. With uncertainty at a high level there isno opportunity for the development of a closeor intimate relationship. Thus, as Berger andCalabrese note, "amount of communicationand liking are positively related."8

Thus, for the high communication ap-prehensive in the college environment, theinability to interact initially with strangers,either peers or faculty, results in the mainte-nance of high levels of uncertainty on the partof both the communication-apprehensive in-dividual and others in the communicationapprehensive's environment. The presence ofthis uncertainty militates against both com-munication between the people and the de-velopment of close or intimate relationships.

In the present study the high communica-tion apprehensives were observed to interactless with strangers and to have fewer dates.Both results would be predicted by theBerger-Calabrese theory. In addition, the

7Charles R. Berger and Richard J. Calabrese, "SomeExplorations in Initial Interaction and Beyond: Toward aDevelopmental Theory of Interpersonal Communica-tion." Human Communication Research, 1(1975), 101-102.

8Berger and Calabrese, 108.

SPRING 1978

theory tentatively may be extended fromthese results. Consider the following proposi-tion:

Given people with equal needs or desires for the es-tablishment of close or intimate relationships, thosewho establish the fewest such relationships willstrive harder to retain those which they do establish.

The results of the present study indicate thathigh communication apprehensives estab-lish fewer relationships, but that they aremore likely to restrict their dating to a singleindividual.

While the present data are far from suffi-cient to provide empirical proof of thistheoretical extension, they are supportive ofit. Future research should examine otherhypotheses that may be deduced from thisproposition, such as:(1) High communication apprehensives are

less likely to seek a divorce than are lowcommunication apprehensives.

(2) High communication apprehensives areless likely to voluntarily leave a job wherethey have a close relationship with a peeror superior than are low communicationapprehensives. .

(3) High communication apprehensives areless likely to move from their home envi-ronment (home town, neighborhood)than are low communication apprehen-sives.

(4) High communication apprhensives aremore likely to attend college in theirhome town than are low communicationapprehensives.

(5) High communication apprehensives willsuffer from greater psychological stressas a result of the destruction of a closerelationship than will low communica-tion apprehensives.

(6) High communication apprehensivesmarry at an earlier age than low com-munication apprehensives.

Should such hypotheses ultimately receiveconfirmation, our tentative theoretical exten-sion would have a much stronger empiricalbase. At present, we must conclude that highcommunication apprehensives in the collegeenvironment differ substantially from lowcommunication apprehensives in terms oftheir social preferences, their social be-haviors, and their satisfaction with their col-lege environment. Whether the behavioralpattern evidenced in this study is symptoma-tic of a life-long pattern or unique to the col-lege atmosphere must be determined throughfuture research.

45