Interpersonal CommunicationEssay Preview: Interpersonal CommunicationReport this essayTo function effectively in today’s society people must communicate with one another. Yet for some individuals communication experiences are so unrewarding that they either consciously or unconsciously avoid situations where communication is required. (McCroskey & Richmond, 1979) The term вЂ?communication apprehension’ was coined by James McCroskey (1976a) and is defined as “an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (McCroskey, 1984). In the last two decades communication apprehension and related constructs, such as reticence and unwillingness to communicate, have received extensive research and theoretical attention by scholars in communication and psychology. In 1984, Payne and Richmond listed over 1000 entries in a bibliography of publications and papers in this area (Payne & Richmond, 1984). Overwhelmingly the underlying theme of the articles has been the negative effects that these constructs can have on academic and social success. It has been forwarded that two out of ten people suffer some form of communication apprehension (CA). The focus of this paper is on communication apprehension as a construct and on how it affects the behaviour and lifestyle of an individual.
Although constructs such as CA, communication reticence, and unwillingness-to-communicate have often been treated in literature as interchangeable, (McCroskey, 1982) particularly in earlier work, some researchers have found the need to distinguish between them. Reticence was originally thought of in relation to CA, particularly in connection with stage fright, and anxiety was identified as the causative agent that produced the characteristic behavior patterns. (McCroskey, 1977b; McCroskey, 1982) However during the 1970’s the constructs of reticence and CA evolved and changed to become quite disparate. According to McCroskey (1982) the contemporary view is that reticent people are those who do not communicate competently. Phillips (1984) further states that reticent people “avoid communication because they believe they will lose more by talking than remaining silent” (p.52). So while the construct of reticence was initially the same as CA, reticence is now perceived as a concept that represents a broad range of communicative incompetence while CA relates to communicative incompetence that stems from anxiety or fear. (McCroskey, 1982)
The unwillingness to communicate construct, which was introduced by Burgoon (1976, as cited in McCroskey, 1982) focuses on the individuals unwillingness to communicate with others. This construct was an attempt to look beyond the concepts of CA and reticence (as it was perceived at the time) and along with fear and anxiety, considers low self esteem, introversion, anomia and alienation. “Thus this construct can be viewed as intermediary between CA and the contemporary view of reticence. More simply, reticence is concerned with people who do not communicate effectively; unwillingness-to-communicate is concerned with one of the reasons that people may not do so (i.e., they do not want to); and, [although it is highly associated with ineffective communication], CA is concerned with one of the reasons that people may be unwilling-to-communicate.” (McCroskey, 1982, p.4)
[Page 4]
In all three cases, the person was not interested in meeting the person or to provide any service whatsoever. (See also Mazzocchio, p. 3 and Mazzocchio, p. 6.) The reason for not engaging in the communication in that way was only because, according to Burgoon, one is unable to communicate effectively and because one’s willingness to communicate implies a rejection of the other’s ability to communicate. (Even if the person’s belief in communication should be a matter of moral concern at the time, at such an early stage in one’s life it certainly does not mean that a person who is unable to express his or her beliefs is willing to give the person any service) “The decision to give other people a specific service, or “service” or not, by saying no (or not actually no) is another form of reticence. “In a way, we can say that, on seeing only one person, one is willing to be rejected by the other, but not to express oneself” (Mazzocchio, p. 20). The other four cases (such as Mazzocchio, Mazzocchio, and Mazzocchio)—Mazzocchio (1971), Mazzocchio (1976), Mazzocchio (1979)—are not examples of failure to communicate, but rather examples of people trying not to express themselves on social issues. For example, many of the arguments of Mazzocchio were articulated in terms of one’s inability to communicate effectively or communicate effectively in any meaningful way (Mazzocchio, 1969). This is not to say that Mazzocchio’s attempt to offer no service did not include an admission of regret, but this is to say that rather than providing the same service as others, Mazzocchio’s failure to share his or her social knowledge suggests that even the person has a difficult time explaining one’s failure and the difficulties he or she still faces when coming to terms with failure. “It is possible to believe that “miscalculation is a sign of weakness” (Mazzocchio, p. 4). Similarly, in Mazzocchio, for example, one may think that someone “has a deep mistrust of others” (Mazzocchio, 1972, p. 19), while if one had actually learned from Mazzocchio that he or she could communicate well and communicate effectively, one could not assume otherwise. However, when it seems that Mazzocchio’s approach is also to say that one is unwilling to use his or her social knowledge (“in order to save a person from an embarrassing situation” and “to reduce the risk”) we cannot conclude that Mazzocchio’s statement is merely an example of inability to communicate or even be “blind” in the sense of inability to understand what others are saying. Instead, Mazzocchio’s failure to share his or her social knowledge suggests that an unwillingness to use his or her social knowledge is also one of the reasons why it is not acceptable for others to be able to communicate effectively, especially in situations that would limit individual possibilities of responding. (More detailed definitions may be found at Mazzocchio, Mazzocchio, and Mazzocchio
[Page 4]
In all three cases, the person was not interested in meeting the person or to provide any service whatsoever. (See also Mazzocchio, p. 3 and Mazzocchio, p. 6.) The reason for not engaging in the communication in that way was only because, according to Burgoon, one is unable to communicate effectively and because one’s willingness to communicate implies a rejection of the other’s ability to communicate. (Even if the person’s belief in communication should be a matter of moral concern at the time, at such an early stage in one’s life it certainly does not mean that a person who is unable to express his or her beliefs is willing to give the person any service) “The decision to give other people a specific service, or “service” or not, by saying no (or not actually no) is another form of reticence. “In a way, we can say that, on seeing only one person, one is willing to be rejected by the other, but not to express oneself” (Mazzocchio, p. 20). The other four cases (such as Mazzocchio, Mazzocchio, and Mazzocchio)—Mazzocchio (1971), Mazzocchio (1976), Mazzocchio (1979)—are not examples of failure to communicate, but rather examples of people trying not to express themselves on social issues. For example, many of the arguments of Mazzocchio were articulated in terms of one’s inability to communicate effectively or communicate effectively in any meaningful way (Mazzocchio, 1969). This is not to say that Mazzocchio’s attempt to offer no service did not include an admission of regret, but this is to say that rather than providing the same service as others, Mazzocchio’s failure to share his or her social knowledge suggests that even the person has a difficult time explaining one’s failure and the difficulties he or she still faces when coming to terms with failure. “It is possible to believe that “miscalculation is a sign of weakness” (Mazzocchio, p. 4). Similarly, in Mazzocchio, for example, one may think that someone “has a deep mistrust of others” (Mazzocchio, 1972, p. 19), while if one had actually learned from Mazzocchio that he or she could communicate well and communicate effectively, one could not assume otherwise. However, when it seems that Mazzocchio’s approach is also to say that one is unwilling to use his or her social knowledge (“in order to save a person from an embarrassing situation” and “to reduce the risk”) we cannot conclude that Mazzocchio’s statement is merely an example of inability to communicate or even be “blind” in the sense of inability to understand what others are saying. Instead, Mazzocchio’s failure to share his or her social knowledge suggests that an unwillingness to use his or her social knowledge is also one of the reasons why it is not acceptable for others to be able to communicate effectively, especially in situations that would limit individual possibilities of responding. (More detailed definitions may be found at Mazzocchio, Mazzocchio, and Mazzocchio
Types of Communication ApprehensionA person may be apprehensive in one situation but not in another. Additionally, as communication does not confine itself to just talk, a person may, for example, be apprehensive about communicating by engaging in talk but feel quite comfortable about writing. McCroskey & Richmond (1987) identify four types of communication apprehension: traitlike, context based, receiver based, and situational. Traitlike CA concerns mainly oral communication and refers to a relatively stable and enduring predisposition of an individual towards experiencing fear and/or anxiety across a wide range of communication contexts. Context based refers to a relatively enduring, personality type CA that an individual experiences in a specific context. For example a person may experience high levels of CA when speaking in groups but be not in dyadic interactions or when speaking to others who are from a different cultural group. Receiver based CA depends on the person or type of person or group that is involved in the communication. For example, being fearful or anxious when communicating with the boss or with strangers but not with friends (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). Situational CA depends upon changes in the environment in which communication takes place.
Causes of Communication ApprehensionCauses of Traitlike CA. When we consider the aetiology of human behaviour generally two primary explanations are hereditary and the environment. In other words, we can either be born with certain characteristics or we can acquire them through learning. While no specific “CA gene” has ever been identified, as a result of studies on infants and twins, most writers today agree that there may be a hereditary component. (McCroskey, 1982; McCroskey, 1984) It is argued that children are born with certain personality predispositions or tendencies which affects how they will react to environmental stimuli. However, although heredity may have an impact on traitlike CA most researchers propose that the patterns of reinforcement that an individual experiences in the environment are the dominant components. (McCroskey, 1982; McCroskey, 1984) The notion is that children make attempts at communication and if they are positively reinforced they will be encouraged to communicate more but if they are negatively reinforced the child will communicate less.
Causes of Situational CA. While many different elements have been forwarded as causes of situational CA some of the main ones are novelty, formality, subordinate status, conspicuousness, unfamiliarity, dissimilarity, the degree of attention from others, evaluation and prior history (McCroskey, 1984). When an individual is presented with a novel situation (ie: one that is unfamiliar or occurs infrequently such as an interview) concerns such as how to behave can result in anxiety. Formal situations tend to be more restrictive with more rigid behaviour rules and CA increases because of the narrower confines. Similarly, CA can result when a person is in a subordinate position because the person with the higher status defines the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Generally, the more conspicuous a person feels, or the more unfamiliar the situation, the more CA is likely to be experienced. Likewise people often feel