00/

ON COMMUNICATION COMPETENCEAND COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION:A RESPONSETO PAGE James C. McCroskey

Page's attempt to reconcile the work inthe areas of reticence and communica-

tion apprehension has a noble goal. Itis one that Phillips and I have attemptedin our personal interactions for the lastdecade. What makes this a difficult task

is that the published works usually areat least two years behind the evolutionof our thinking. If Page is to be criticizedat all, it would be because he tends to

assume that Phillips's thinking of a de-cade ago represents Phillips's thinkingof today. It doesn't. On the other hand,my thinking concerning communicationapprehension has changed comparativelylittle.

To begin, the constructs of communi-cation apprehension and shyness orreticence are not isomorphic. My origi-nal definition of communication appre-hension, "a broadly based anxietyrelated to oral communication,"1 hasbeen modified only slightly to read "anindividual's level of fear or anxiety asso-ciated with either real or anticipated(oral) communication with another per-son or persons."2 The leading writer onshyness, Phillip Zimbardo, fails to pro-vide a specific definition of that con-struct.3 However, Girodo .in his recent

book on shyness suggests that it is a

composite of three elements: (1) un-developed social skills, (2) social anxiety,and (3) mental bias (low social self-esteem).4 Clearly, shyness is the broaderconstruct. In the early days of his work,Phillips's definition of reticence and hisapproach to the problem was very closeto that of communication apprehension.In fact, my communication apprehen-sion construct grew directly fromPhillips's work.5 More recently, however,the reticence construct has become al-

most interchangeable with shyness. Insum, shyness or reticence is the genus,communication apprehension is one ofits specie.

The above distinctions have not onlybeen made definitionally, they have alsobeen established empirically. The PRCAhas been found to correlate with the

early measure of reticence (beyond .80)employed by Phillips's associates. Morerecently, in unpublished research, myassociates and I have obtained correla-

tions only in the neighborhood of .50between the PRCA and measures of

both shyness and social anxiety.6 Thusthe difference in the constructs is not

4 Michael Girodo, Shy? (New York: PocketBooks, 1978).

5 McCroskey, "Measures," p. 2. Although I. . was never a formal student of Phillips, I was

James C. McCroskey IS Prof~sso~ and Chalr- completing my doctorate at Penn State whenperson of Speech CommunIcation at West Phillips joined the faculty there. We officed nextVirginia University. to each other and spent many hours in intel-

1James C. McCroskey, "Measures of Com- lectual combat over the nature of reticence andmunication-Bound Anxiety", SPeech Mono- his early approaches to the treatlnent ofgraphs, 37 (Nov. 1970), 270. . reticents.

2 James C. McCroskey, "Oral Communication 6 A portion of the research is reported byApprehension: A Summary of Recent Theory James C. McCroskey et al., "Teacher Communi-and Research", Human Communication Re- cation Orientations and the Development ofsearch, 4 (Fall 1977), 78. Communication Orientations among Elementary

3 Phillip G. Zimbardo, Shyness: What It Is School Children: A Modeling Explanation,"and What To Do About It (Reading, Mass.: Paper presented at the ICA convention,.-\ddison-Wesley Pub!. Co., 1977). Philadelphia, 1979.

COl\nIUNICATION EDUCATION, Volume 29, May 1980

1l0-COM:VIU~ICA nON EDUCA TlON

7 See, for example, Judith A. Wells andWilliam B. Lashbrook, "A Study of the Effectsof Systematic Desensitization of the communica-tive Anxiety of Individuals in small Groups,"Paper presented at the SCA convention, NewOrleans. 1970; and Frederic D. Glogower, "AComponent Analysis of Cognitive Restructuringas Applied to the Reduction of CommunicationApprehension," Diss. (psychology) West VirginiaUniv. 1977.

training." The implication is that the

person's behavior is dysfunctional be-cause the person lacks communicationskills; thus, if the person is taught thenecessary skills,' behavior will becomefunctional. It should be noted that thisschool does not argue that skills trainingwill overcome apprehension, although Ican certainly envision circumstanceswhere it would. However, it is possibleunder this approach to have a person,who is both skill deficient and apprehen-sive, develop the necessary skills but notchange behaviorally because of con-tinued apprehension.

Let me share an analogy that I haveused to illustrate the advantages anddisadvantages of both approaches. Con-sider a basketball player who can makeninety percent of practice free throwsbut who chokes in a game and onlymakes fifty percent. The communication

apprehension school would treat theapprehension and probably produce amuch higher game percentage. Theskills trainers would have the person

practice shooting free throws, but prob-ably would have no impact on theplayer's game performance. But take an-other basketball player. This one sh()ots

fifty percent in practice and fifty' percentin the game. The communication appre-hension school simply would do nothingfor this player; if they provided treat-ment, it would have no effect. The skillstrainers would teach this player how toshoot free throws better and would 'be

very likely to produce a player with ahigher game percentage. Different prob~lems require different solutions.

Well, then, who is right? Noone or

everyone. Take your choice. Both ap-

proaches can help people with specificproblems. Neither approach can helppeople with other problems. In our forth-coming book. Richmond and I haveattempted to iS9late the elements that

simply semantic, it is a difference thatreally makes a difference.

If the base constructs are different, as

they are, it is only reasonable that theproblems identified would be differentand the proposed solutions would bedifferent. As Page notes (correctly),the communication apprehension school

suggests the problem is apprehensionabout communication and the solutionis a program to reduce that ap-

prehension, primarily systematic de-sensitization. While communication

apprehension is viewed primarily as acognitive experience and the treatmentis designed to alter the cognitions, theimplication is that some behavioralchange could be anticipated. Suchchange has been demonstrated in theresearch.7 Note particularly that noclaims are made that systematic desen-sitization (or other method) will alterthe behavior of people whose problem isnot apprehension, or of people who areboth apprehensive and have other prob-lems (such as inadequate skills). At bestthe latter would continue to have

problems, but they may not be quite as'apprehensive after treatment!

Both the shyness school and Phillipsand his.associates envision a much larger

problem. They see the problem to bepeople who are not effective com-municators. The problem (actually, the

problems) then, is communication com-petence. The solution is a rigidly specificbehavior therapy program designed forthe individual student, known to the

Phillips group as "rhetoritherapy" andin the psychological literature as "skills

A RESPONSE TO PAGE-Ill

8 James C. McCroskey and Virginia P.Richmond, The Quite Ones: Shyness and Com-munication Apprehension (Dubuque. Iowa:Gorsuch Scarisbrick publ., 1980).

work of the other. The epistomological

approaches are different. The base con-ceptUalizations of the problem aredifferent. The proposed solutions aredifferent. Because one is not like theother does not make one right and theother wrong. Phillips has told me helikes to think of himself as a tinker. Ilike to think of myself as a scientist. Ifwe look to our kin in the so-called hardsciences, we will find that no significantadvances in the human condition havecome without the combined contribu-tions of both types of people. Only thenaive or the epistomologically ethnocen-tric would presume things would beotherwise in our corner of academe.

Page has neither of these characteristiCS.His essay should be read with that inmind.

lead a person to be noncommunicative.8We identify five types of low ver-balizers: (1) the skill deficient, (2)the social introvert, (3) the sociallyalien ted, (4) the ethnically/culturallydivergent, and (5) the communicationapprehensive. Skills training, or rhe-tori therapy, should be beneficial forcategories 1 and 4. Systematic desen-sitization should be helpful for cate-

gories 4 4nd 5. But what do we do aboutcategories 2 and 3? Neither approachholds much promise for help.

In closing, I want to stress one very

important point: The Phillips approachand the McCroskey approach are notantagonistic. Each has profited from the

=

The fountain of content must spring up in the mind; and

they who have so little knowledge of human nature as to

seek happiness by changing anything but their own dis-

positions will waste their lives 1Ilfruitless efforts, and multi-

ply the griefs which they purpose to remove.- Johns.Jn.

~