Personality and Individual Differences 75 (2015) 125–129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid

The relationship of self-talk frequency to communication apprehensionand public speaking anxiety

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.0230191-8869/� 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

⇑ Corresponding author at: P.O. Box X034, MTSU, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA.Tel.: +1 615 898 2317.

E-mail address: Tom.Brinthaupt@mtsu.edu (T.M. Brinthaupt).

Xiaowei Shi, Thomas M. Brinthaupt ⇑, Margaret McCreeMiddle Tennessee State University, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 12 August 2014Received in revised form 3 November 2014Accepted 9 November 2014

Keywords:Self-talkPublic speaking anxietyCommunication apprehensionThought contentCognitive appraisal

a b s t r a c t

This research examines how self-talk is related to the nature and prevalence of communication appre-hension and public speaking anxiety. In Study 1, we examined the relationship between general commu-nication apprehension (CA) and the frequency and nature of general self-talk. Results showed that higherCA scores were associated with more frequent self-critical self-talk than lower CA scores. In Study 2, weexamined how self-talk pertaining to the preparation for an upcoming speech related to public speakinganxiety. Results showed that self-critical and social-assessing self-talk were positively related to people’sanxiety scores, whereas self-reinforcing self-talk was negatively associated with their anxiety. Implica-tions of these results for the management of public speaking anxiety are discussed.

� 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Feeling anxious about speaking in public is a common experi-ence for many individuals. Stein, Walker, and Forde (1996) foundthat as many as one-third of a large community sample reportedexcessive public speaking anxiety. The prevalence of communica-tion apprehension (CA) is also similar across a wide variety of cul-tures (e.g., Hassall, Joyce, Ottewill, Arquero, & Donoso, 2000). WhileCA refers to an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated witheither real or anticipated communication (McCroskey, 1977), pub-lic speaking anxiety (PSA) is a specific subtype of CA. Bodie (2010)defined PSA as ‘‘a situation specific social anxiety that arises fromthe real or anticipated enactment of an oral presentation’’ (p. 72).Compared to low PSA individuals, researchers find that high PSApeople are more likely to demonstrate maladaptive behaviors, suchas shaking knees, quivering voice, and being at a loss for wordsduring public presentations (Beatty, 1988) and to have erroneousor exaggerated cognitions (e.g., ‘‘I’ll appear incompetent’’) inresponse to an expected or actual presentation (Daly, McCroskey,Ayres, Hopf, & Ayres, 1997).

A major emphasis of prior research has been directed to theimportant relationship between people’s cognitive resources andCA/PSA. For example, researchers have investigated how speakers’PSA experiences during the speech preparation and delivery stagesare related to positive and negative thought content (e.g., Edwards,

Rapee, & Franklin, 2003) as well as task-related, self-confidence,and audience response cognitions (e.g., Cho, Smits, & Telch, 2004;Daly, Vangelisti, & Weber, 1995). Past research suggests that exces-sive anxiety negatively affects people’s normal ability to managetheir experiences through cognitive processing. As Bishop (2007)explained, threat-related cognitions can overwhelm a person’s abil-ity to process experiences in non-threatening ways. For example,Cho et al. (2004) found that fear of an audience’s negative evalua-tions and predictions of poor performance are the two underlyingcognitive factors that give rise to communication anxiety. In thecurrent research, we propose that there are other research ques-tions related to the cognitive aspects of PSA that deserve attention.

Instead of studying people’s general thought content, we pro-pose to focus on theoretically distinct self-talk dimensions toexamine how multiple (potentially conflicting) cognitive apprais-als are related to people’s CA and PSA levels. By examining individ-ual differences in people’s self-talk, the present studies seek toclarify whether and how certain types of self-talk are related tothe experience and management of CA and PSA.

In a set of two studies, we examine people’s general and situa-tion specific self-talk patterns in relation to CA and PSA. As no priorresearch has explicitly examined the full range of self-talk typolo-gies in relation to CA, we first examine the association betweenpeople’s general self-talk patterns and their overall CA levels inStudy 1. Next, in Study 2, we examine how context-specific self-talk relates to people’s PSA as they prepare for delivering a speech.Finally, we discuss the major implications of the findings fromthese two studies for public speaking anxiety and its management.

126 X. Shi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 75 (2015) 125–129

1.1. The nature and functions of self-talk

Self-talk is defined as a silent or vocalized dialog with one’s ownself (Vocate, 1994). By addressing oneself as a communicativeobject, self-talk plays a critical role in the self-regulation process,including functions such as monitoring and controlling behavior(Carver & Scheier, 1998; Mischel, Cantor, & Feldman, 1996),enhancing intentional focus (Hatzigeorgiadis, 2006), and increas-ing confidence (Theodorakis, Hatzigeorgiadis, & Chroni, 2008).Researchers have long recognized that self-talk functions as a plat-form for observing, monitoring, and directing one’s own behavior(Winsler, Fernyhough, & Montero, 2009).

Indeed, Brinthaupt, Hein, and Kramer (2009) noted that self-talkis related to people’s behavioral regulation in multiple ways. Forexample, Reichl, Schneider, and Spinath (2013) found that loneli-ness was positively correlated with self-talk frequency. Chen,Rapee, and Abbott (2013) reported that individuals with social anx-iety show higher levels of rumination and negative self-evaluationsfollowing social interactions than do those with low anxiety. Alter-natively, higher rather than lower levels of mental simulations, suchas imagining what could go wrong or focusing on concrete actionsor steps to take, are associated with more adaptive planning, taskpreparation, and performance (e.g., Spencer & Norem, 1996;Watkins & Baracaia, 2002).

Based on a series of six studies, Brinthaupt et al. (2009) identi-fied four main functions of self-talk in adults, measured by the Self-Talk Scale (STS). First, people talk to themselves when they feel dis-couraged about something they have said or done. This function islabeled self-criticism. Second, people may talk to themselves whenthey feel proud when something good has happened to them. Thistype of self-talk is labeled self-reinforcement. Third, people talk tothemselves when they need to figure out what they should do orsay (self-management). Fourth, people use self-talk when theyexamine how other people respond to things they have said orwant to replay something they have said to another person(social-assessment).

2. Study 1: self-talk and communication apprehension

Communication apprehension (CA) is defined as ‘‘an individual’slevel of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipatedcommunication with another person or persons’’ (McCroskey,1977, p. 78). This broad conceptualization of anxiety includes avariety of social settings and activities, including interpersonalinteractions, meetings, small group activities, and public speaking.Research shows that CA is positively associated with general anxi-ety and external locus of control and negatively associated withself-esteem, emotional maturity, self-control, and need for achieve-ment (McCroskey & Beatty, 1984).

Although no prior research has explicitly examined how differ-ent types of self-talk are related to communication apprehension,researchers have documented that highly anxious individuals tendto focus on their weaknesses and deficiencies (e.g., Clark & Beck,2010). Certain types of self-talk should reflect less success at man-aging one’s emotional experiences. For example, Cho et al. (2004)and Ayres (1992) found that self-critical self-talk tends to be posi-tively related to anxiety about speaking. If this is the case, thenself-critical self-talk should be positively related to CA (Hypothesis1).

In addition, high CA individuals have a more difficult time thanlow CA people when it comes to managing and controlling thenegative aspects of their communication apprehension (e.g.,McCroskey & Beatty, 1984). If this is the case, the frequency ofself-reinforcing self-talk should be negatively associated withCA scores, assuming that anxiety-provoking experiences will

overshadow the occurrence of more positive events that wouldbe associated with self-reinforcement (Hypothesis 2).

Regarding the role of self-managing self-talk, Clark and Beck’s(2010) anxiety management model suggests that this type ofself-talk involves problem-solving thinking which can help toreduce anxiety. People who engage in more frequent self-manag-ing self-talk in their daily lives would be expected to experienceless apprehension across communication contexts (Hypothesis 3).

Because communication typically involves social interactionsand feedback, those with high CA should be more attentive tothe social implications of their communication activities (e.g.,Edwards et al., 2003; Stein et al., 1996) than those with low CA.Therefore, thinking about future interactions, as well as the ten-dency to replay previous social interactions, should be positivelyassociated with CA scores (Hypothesis 4).

2.1. Method

2.1.1. ParticipantsParticipants were 209 undergraduate students (120 women, 89

men) from a large southeastern U.S. public university, who wereenrolled in a lower-division, public speaking course. The courseis required for all university students as part of the generation edu-cation credits. Participants’ mean age was 20.10 years (SD = 3.46;range: 18–44). With respect to ethnicity, 62% were Caucasian,27% African-American, 4% Hispanic, and 3% Asian, with 4% indicat-ing ‘‘other.’’ Students received extra credit points for theirparticipation.

2.1.2. ProcedureThe investigators received their institution’s IRB approval prior

to data collection. The data collection was conducted at the begin-ning of the semester, when students were about to give their firstspeech. A few days after a speech topic was assigned, nine classeswere randomly selected out of a total of 94 sections. All of the con-tacted instructors agreed to let their students complete the surveyon a voluntary basis. The instructors received a survey packet andlet their students complete the survey at a convenient time duringtheir next class period. Prior to starting the survey, participantswere reminded of the voluntary and anonymous nature of theirparticipation. Instructors indicated that students had the optionfor a different activity for the same extra credit if they chose; how-ever, all students present in the classes during the day of testingcompleted the survey. Next, participants completed the self-talkand communication apprehension measures. The order of thesetwo measures was randomized across participants. Following thetwo measures, participants indicated their sex, age, and race/eth-nicity on a brief demographic questionnaire.

2.1.3. Measures2.1.3.1. Self-Talk Scale (STS). Brinthaupt et al.’s (2009) STS was usedto assess how frequently people talk to themselves across four dis-tinct dimensions: (1) self-criticism (e.g., ‘‘something bad has hap-pened to me’’), (2) self-reinforcement (e.g., ‘‘I’m proud ofsomething I’ve done’’), (3) self-management (e.g., ‘‘I need to figureout what I should do or say’’), and (4) social-assessment (e.g., ‘‘I tryto anticipate what someone will say and how I’ll respond to himor her’’). The STS consists of 16 items (4 items per dimension) ratedon a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = very often). Each STS item beginswith the statement ‘‘I talk to myself when. . .’’ Higher scores indicatemore frequent self-talk. Subscale scores can range from 4 to 20, withtotal STS scores ranging from 16 to 80. Brinthaupt et al. (2009) pro-vide evidence for the reliability and validity of the STS. In the cur-rent sample, internal consistency values were acceptable for theSTS overall and subscale scores, ranging between .78 and .92.

X. Shi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 75 (2015) 125–129 127

2.1.3.2. Communication apprehension (CA). We measured communi-cation apprehension with the Personal Report of CommunicationApprehension (PRCA-24; McCroskey, Beatty, Kearney, & Plax,1985). The 24-item scale measures CA in four contexts: publicspeaking (e.g., ‘‘My thoughts become confused and jumbled whileI am giving a speech’’), meeting (e.g., ‘‘Usually I am calm andrelaxed while participating in meetings’’), group (e.g., ‘‘Generally,I am comfortable while participating in group discussions’’), andinterpersonal (e.g., ‘‘I have no fear of speaking up in conversations’’).Responses are made using a 5-point Likert rating scale (1 = stronglyagree, 5 = strongly disagree), with possible scores ranging from 24 to120. McCroskey et al. provide evidence of the psychometric prop-erties of this measure. In the current sample, Cronbach’s alphas forthe total and subscale scores were acceptable, ranging between .86and .94. The total PRCA score was used as an index of CA.

2.2. Results and discussion

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to pre-dict CA scores (see Table 1). As some demographic variables havebeen shown to be related to CA (e.g., Behnke & Sawyer, 2000), par-ticipants’ age and sex (0 = female, 1 = male) were entered at stepone as control variables. The four types of self-talk were enteredat step two. Regression analysis showed that participants’ ageand sex did not exert a significant impact on the variations in CAscores.

At the second step, results revealed that self-critical self-talkwas a significant predictor for overall CA levels, b = .19, p = .02.As predicted in Hypothesis 1, self-critical self-talk was positivelyrelated to CA scores. However, the other hypotheses did not receivesupport. Taken together, the four types of self-talk accounted for6.0% of the variance observed in people’s CA levels,F(6,202) = 1.98, p = .07. We also examined the relationshipbetween overall STS and CA scores. There was a significant positivecorrelation between these scores, r(207) = .19, p = .01.

Consistent with prior research (Cho et al., 2004), regressionanalysis revealed that, in terms of the unique contribution of eachself-talk type, self-critical self-talk was found to be the strongestpredictor of people’s CA levels. This result suggests that self-criticalself-talk is most strongly related to feeling apprehensive aboutcommunication situations. However, both measures used in thisstudy are general assessments of CA and self-talk that cross manysituations. Such measures, however, did not allow an examinationof the relationship of people’s context-specific self-talk to theirexperiences of anxiety. For example, when people prepare for anupcoming speech, they may talk to themselves specifically aboutwhat to do and what they feel about giving the speech. The nature

Table 1Regression analysis of self-talk frequency and CA.

Communication apprehension b

Step 1Age �.05Sex �.10R2 .01F 1.38

Step 2Self-criticism .19*

Self-reinforcement .02Self-management .01Social assessment �.004DR2 .05F 1.98

Note: N = 209.* p < .05.

and frequency of self-talk in such a situation might conform moreclosely to our original expectations. Thus, the focus of Study 2 wasto examine the relationship between people’s task-specific self-talk and their PSA as they prepared for delivering a public speech.

3. Study 2: context-specific self-talk and public speaking anxiety(PSA)

Bodie (2010) suggested that researchers should better use onlythe PSA subscale of the PRCA if their research is concerned withthe cognitive trait of PSA. By consulting the existing measuresof public-speaking self-statements, such as the Self-Statementsduring Public Speaking Scale (Hofmann & DiBartolo, 2000) andthe Social Interaction Self-Statement Scale (Glass, Merluzzi,Biever, & Larsen, 1982), we refined the Self-Talk Scale so that itexplicitly focused on one’s recent preparation for a forthcomingspeech. Sample items of this revised version are described inSection 3.1.

To examine people’s overall self-talk patterns to PSA, we testedfour hypotheses that paralleled Study 1. First, we expected thatself-critical self-talk frequency would be positively related to levelsof PSA, based on the idea that concerns about one’s preparation foran upcoming speech would increase the anxiety one experienceswith respect to that speech (Hypothesis 1). Second, self-reinforcingself-talk was expected to be negatively related to PSA scores, sinceproviding oneself with positive instructions or motivation regard-ing one’s upcoming speech should temper the experience of anxi-ety about it (Hypothesis 2). Third, we expected that self-managingself-talk frequency would also be negatively related to PSA scores,because engaging in this kind of self-talk should be associated withthe management and reduction of anxiety. Finally, we predictedthat social-assessing self-talk would be positively related to PSA,assuming that concern about how other people react to thingsone says is part of the nature of anxiety about public speaking(Hypothesis 4).

3.1. Method

3.1.1. ParticipantsParticipants were 198 undergraduate students from the same

university, who enrolled in a basic public speaking course (101women, 97 men, Mage = 19.99, SDage = 5.50; age range: 17–28, 65%Caucasian, 21% African American, 5% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 6%other). None of them had participated in Study 1.

3.1.2. Procedure and materialsThe data collection was conducted after students had prepared

and presented two prior speeches. As giving one’s first speech ortwo is combined with unfamiliarity, novelty, and anxiety, weexpected that all students would report high levels of anxiety. Bythe third speech, the novelty and unfamiliarity should have wornoff, but not necessarily the anxiety. For this reason, PSA data werecollected around the time of the third speech.

The assignment was to deliver either a persuasive or a com-memorative speech. We contacted the instructors from eight sec-tions of the public speaking course. All instructors agreed to lettheir students participate in the survey on a voluntary basis. Priorto starting the survey, participants were reminded of the voluntaryand anonymous nature of their participation. Next, participantscompleted the revised self-talk and PSA measures. The order ofthese two measures was randomized across participants. Follow-ing the two measures, participants provided demographic informa-tion. Once again, the researchers obtained IRB approval prior toconducting the study.

Table 2Regression analysis of self-talk frequency and PSA.

Public speaking anxiety b

Step 1Age .05Sex �.27**

R2 .07F 7.67**

Step 2Self-criticism .15*

Self-reinforcement �.28***

Self-management �.02Social-assessment .31***

DR2 .20F 11.71***

Note: N = 198.* p < .05.

** p < .01.*** p < .001.

128 X. Shi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 75 (2015) 125–129

3.1.2.1. Self-Talk-Scale revised. The revised instructions for the STSdescribe the measure as assessing students’ self-talk during thepast few days as they were preparing for their upcoming speech.In this new version of the STS, we made minor wording changesto reflect that the subject of one’s self-talk is on preparation fordelivering a speech. For example, instead of referring to general sit-uations, such as talking to oneself when ‘‘I’m really upset withmyself’’ or ‘‘something good has happened to me,’’ we used a morespecific framing statement, such as ‘‘I’m really upset with my prep-aration for this speech’’ (self-critical) and ‘‘I feel good about prepar-ing for this speech’’ (self-reinforcing).

To determine the degree of model fit, a Confirmatory FactorAnalysis was carried out. As coefficients below .60 suggest a rela-tively poor association between the measurement items and theirrespective latent construct, in order to use only the most reliablemeasurement for each type of self-talk construct, items with aregression coefficient lower than .60 were eliminated from thePSA STS model. The revised STS model (available from the authors)contained a total of 13 items, including three items on self-criticalself-talk, four items on self-reinforcing self-talk, three items onself-managing self-talk, and three items on social-assessing self-talk. Total and subscale scores reflected the sum of all items or eachsubscale’s items respectively. Alpha reliability for the total scorewas .84 and the reliability values for the subscales were acceptable,ranging between .69 and .77. The revised STS model showed agoodness of fit, x2 (N = 198, df = 59) = 47.83, p = .13. Baseline com-parison fit indices all passed conventional levels (CFI = .983,IFI = .984, TLI = .975). The RMSEA index was .036 (range: .000–.065). As such, the revised context-specific self-talk measure wasretained for the subsequent analyses.

3.1.2.2. Public-speaking anxiety. We measured PSA using the public-speaking subscale from McCroskey’s (1986) PRCA-24 measure. Thissubscale is comprised of six items (e.g., ‘‘My thoughts become con-fused and jumbled while I’m giving a speech’’). Subscale possiblescores ranged from 6 to 30. We used the total score as an indexof PSA. With the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha was .83 forthe PSA subscale.

3.2. Results and discussion

As in Study 1, we conducted a hierarchical multiple regressionanalysis of self-talk on PSA, including age and gender (0 = female,1 = male) as control variables (see Table 2). This analysis showedthat participants’ sex had a significant impact on the variationsin PSA scores. Compared to male students, female participantsreported higher levels of PSA. This result was consistent with thefindings reported by Behnke and Sawyer (2000).

Taken together, the four types of self-talk accounted for 20% ofthe variance observed in people’s PSA scores, F(6,191) = 10.21,p < .000. Regression results showed that, consistent with Study 1,self-critical (b = .15, p = .02) self-talk significantly and positivelycontributed to predicting PSA. In addition, increases in social-assessing self-talk were associated with higher PSA levels, b = .31,p < .001, and self-reinforcing self-talk (b = �.28, p < .001) wasfound to be significantly and negatively associated with PSA. Theseresults supported Hypothesis 1, 2, and 4, but did not supportHypothesis 3.

The results of Study 2 indicate that individuals who reportedmore frequently criticizing themselves with respect to preparingfor an upcoming speech and talking to themselves about how otherpeople might react to that speech also reported higher levels ofanxiety about public speaking. On the other hand, being moreencouraging and supportive in their preparatory speech-relatedself-talk was associated with lower levels of PSA. In other words,

the self-regulatory cognitions of highly anxious individuals mightreflect, magnify, or have both effects on their PSA.

4. General discussion

The purpose of the present research was to clarify whether andhow people’s self-talk patterns relate to their PSA levels. Resultsfrom both Studies 1 and 2 indicated that self-talk frequency is sig-nificantly related to communication apprehension and publicspeaking anxiety. In both studies, more apprehensive or anxiousindividuals reported more frequent self-critical and social-assess-ing self-talk than those who are less anxious. The results are con-sistent with Shahar et al. (2012), who noted that self-criticism isa trans-diagnostic process associated with depression, social anxi-ety, self-injury, and a variety of other maladaptive behaviors.

Consistent with prior literature, our findings provided addi-tional evidence that there is a positive association between nega-tive thinking (e.g., self-critical self-talk) and PSA (Edward et al.,2003). According to the Clark and Beck (2010) conceptual model,levels of anxiety are expected to be higher when people’s apprais-als of their coping mechanisms are lower. This appraisal pattern isreflected by the Study 2 results of higher levels of self-critical andlower levels of self-reinforcing self-talk among high PSA individu-als. Similarly, people’s assessments of situational cues, in this case,a forthcoming speech to be delivered to their class and their class’spotential reactions to that speech, were found to be positivelyrelated to people’s anxiety levels.

Although we expected that self-managing self-talk would benegatively related to PSA in Study 2, there was no relationshipbetween these two variables. It appears that the degree that onestrategically and systematically prepares for a speech is unrelatedto the amount of anxiety experienced by that person. This is a sen-sible finding if we consider that the management of one’s speechpreparation is independent of one’s own reactions or the antici-pated reactions of others to that preparation.

4.1. Limitations and implications for future research

Although the results demonstrated significant associationsbetween different dimensions of self-talk and people’s CA andPSA, such associations do not provide insights on possible causalrelationships. To address this limitation, future longitudinal stud-ies are required. For example, future studies could gather data ofself-talk patterns and PSA in both the preparatory and post-deliv-ery stages of giving a speech. It is also possible that previousspeech performances in the class could differentially affect the

X. Shi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 75 (2015) 125–129 129

PSA/self-talk relationship. For example, if students’ previousspeeches have been poor, they might show a stronger relationshipbetween their PSA and self-talk frequency with respect to theforthcoming speech, compared to those whose previous speecheshave been successful.

Future studies could test the association between self-talk pat-terns, PSA, and people’s actual speech performances, possiblyinvolving more control variables, such as preparation effort andspeech experience (novice or seasoned speakers). Research suchas this would permit more specific recommendations for CA orPSA reduction interventions and ways to best teach public speaking.

The results from both studies support previous findings thatthose with high levels of PSA show a greater focus and attentionon the self, compared to those with low PSA levels (Daly,Vangelisti, & Lawrence, 1989). Increases in self-focused attentionappear to be positively correlated with increases in self-talk fre-quency (Morin & Everett, 1990). Future research could experimen-tally manipulate people’s objective self-focus and examine theeffects on specific kinds of self-talk.

To further understand the relationship between self-talk fre-quency and PSA management, it would be interesting to examineself-talk patterns after the delivery of a speech. According toClark and Beck’s (2010) model, how people appraise their copingskills is importantly influenced by their perceptions and attribu-tions of their performance and experiences. These appraisals arelikely to affect subsequent self-talk when new anxiety-provokingsocial interactions present themselves. Indeed, the self-talk pat-terns that people bring to a public-speaking context are likely tobe strongly dictated by their past experiences in similar contexts.

4.2. Practical implications

Apart from its theoretical contribution, this research also haspractical implications. Our results might be used to design newintervention strategies, such as training speakers to diagnose,monitor, and regulate their own self-talk in order to manage anx-iety and enhance speech performance. From an instructionalstandpoint, our results suggest that self-talk analysis can be a use-ful tool to help students in public speaking courses to regulate theiranxious emotions. As we know that high PSA individuals engage inhigher levels of self-critical and social-assessing self-talk than lowPSA individuals, instructors can intervene in the early phases of thespeech preparation process by helping these students to attend to,recognize, and adjust the frequency and nature of their self-talk.

In conclusion, we have shown that the nature and frequency ofself-talk is related to individuals’ overall communication appre-hension as well as their public-speaking anxiety. A large numberof interesting research questions can be addressed by emphasizingthe role of self-talk in these domains. Efforts to help people to man-age and alleviate their CA and PSA should take into account theirhabitual and situational self-talk.

References

Ayres, J. (1992). An examination of the impact of anticipated communication andcommunication apprehension on negative thinking, task relevant thinking, andrecall. Communication Research Report, 2, 3–11.

Beatty, M. J. (1988). Situational and predispositional correlates of public speakinganxiety. Communication Education, 37, 28–39.

Behnke, R., & Sawyer, C. (2000). Anticipatory anxiety patterns for male and femalepublic speakers. Communication Education, 49(2), 187–195.

Bishop, S. J. (2007). Neurocognitive mechanisms of anxiety: An integrative account.Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 307–316.

Bodie, G. D. (2010). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts:Defining, explaining, and treating public speaking anxiety. CommunicationEducation, 59(1), 70–105.

Brinthaupt, T. M., Hein, M. B., & Kramer, T. E. (2009). The Self-Talk Scale:Development, factor analysis, and validation. Journal of Personality Assessment,91, 82–92.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Chen, J., Rapee, R. M., & Abbott, M. J. (2013). Mediators of the relationship betweensocial anxiety and post-event rumination. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 27, 1–8.

Cho, Y., Smits, J. A. J., & Telch, M. J. (2004). The Speech Anxiety Thoughts Inventory:Scale development and preliminary psychometric data. Behavior Research andTherapy, 42, 13–25.

Clark, D. A., & Beck, A. T. (2010). Cognitive therapy of anxiety disorders: Science andpractice. The Guilford Press.

Daly, J. A., McCroskey, J. C., Ayres, J., Hopf, T., & Ayres, D. M. (1997). Avoidingcommunication: Shyness, reticence, & communication apprehension (2nd ed.).Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L., & Lawrence, S. G. (1989). Self-focused attention andpublic speaking anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(8), 903–913.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(89)90025-1.

Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L., & Weber, D. J. (1995). Speech anxiety affects how peopleprepare speeches: A protocol analysis of the preparation processes of speakers.Communication Monographs, 62, 383–397.

Edwards, S. L., Rapee, R. M., & Franklin, J. (2003). Postevent rumination and recallbias for a social performance event in high and low socially anxious individuals.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 603–617.

Glass, C. R., Merluzzi, T., Biever, J. L., & Larsen, K. (1982). Cognitive assessment ofsocial anxiety: Development and validation of a self-statement questionnaire.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 37–55.

Hassall, T., Joyce, J., Ottewill, R., Arquero, J., & Donoso, J. (2000). Communicationapprehension in UK and Spanish business and accounting students.

Hatzigeorgiadis, A. (2006). Instructional and motivational self-talk: An investigationon perceived self-talk functions. Special Issue: Self-Talk in Sport Psychology, 3,164–175.

Hofmann, S. G., & DiBartolo, P. M. (2000). An instrument to assess self-statementsduring public speaking: Scale development and preliminary psychometricproperties. Behavior Therapy, 31, 499–515.

McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recenttheory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96.

McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J. (1984). Communication apprehension andcommunication state anxiety experiences: A research note. CommunicationMonographs, 51, 79–84.

McCroskey, J. C., Beatty, M. J., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1985). The content validity ofthe PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension acrosscommunication contexts. Communication Quarterly, 33, 165–173.

Mischel, W., Cantor, N., & Feldman, S. (1996). Principles of self-regulation: Thenature of willpower and self-control. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.),Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 329–360). New York: TheGuilford Press.

Morin, A., & Everett, J. (1990). Inner speech as a mediator of self-awareness, self-consciousness, and self-knowledge: An hypothesis. New Ideas in Psychology,8(3), 337–356.

Reichl, C., Schneider, J. F., & Spinath, F. M. (2013). Relation of self-talk frequency toloneliness, need to belong, and health in German adults. Personality andIndividual Differences, 54, 241–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.003.

Shahar, B., Carlin, E. R., Engle, D. E., Hegde, J., Szepsenwol, O., & Arkowitz, H. (2012).A pilot investigation of emotion-focused two-chair dialogue intervention forself-criticism. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 6, 496–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.762.

Spencer, S. M., & Norem, J. K. (1996). Reflection and distraction: Defensivepessimism, strategic optimism, and performance. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 22, 354–365.

Stein, M. B., Walker, J. R., & Forde, D. R. (1996). Public-speaking fears in acommunity sample: Prevalence, impact on functioning, and diagnosticclassification. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 169–174.

Theodorakis, Y., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Chroni, S. (2008). Self-Talk: It works, buthow? Development and preliminary validation of the functions of self-talkquestionnaire. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12,10–30.

Vocate, D. R. (1994). Self-talk and inner speech: Understanding the uniquely humanaspects of intrapersonal communication. In D. R. Vocate (Ed.), Intrapersonalcommunication: Different voices, different minds (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Watkins, E., & Baracaia, S. (2002). Rumination and social problem-solving indepression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 1179–1189.

Winsler, A., Fernyhough, C., & Montero, I. (Eds.). (2009). Private speech, executivefunctioning, and the development of verbal self-regulation. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.