IDENTIFYING COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION LEVELS IN
UPPER-LEVEL INFORMATION SYSTEMS MAJORS: A PILOT STUDY
Dacia Charlesworth, Robert Morris University, charlesworth@rmu.edu
ABSTRACT
Given the importance of communication skills in the classroom and workplace, it is surprising
that no extant research focuses explicitly on information systems majors and their levels of
communication apprehension (CA). This paper examines the level of CA among upper level
information systems(IS) majors. Participants (n=51) enrolled in a capstone course completed
the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) measure. Participants’ PRCA
scores were then compared to the national norms. Surprisingly, no statistically significant
differences were observed between the scores of the IS majors and the national norms.
Keywords: Communication, Upper-division students,
INTRODUCTION
Faculty and employers have long acknowledged the importance of communication skills in the
college curriculum and workplace. Moreover, an individual’s level of success in the college
classroom and workplace is greatly influenced by one’s ability to communicate. While
employers consistently acknowledge the importance of all types of communication skills (e.g.,
writing and listening), they point to oral communication and presentation skills as the most
important indicators for career success (7, 38). Research demonstrates that although students
themselves recognize the importance of being able to communicate well (21) and believe that
communication skills should be integrated into the curriculum to a greater extent (22), students
report that they have an aversion to communicating orally, particularly before a group of
strangers (31). Unfortunately for students who dislike communicating orally, Burk (12) and
McDaniel and White (30) found that oral communication, while being a students’ greatest
weakness, is the most important communication skill to possess.
Most students experience some sort of communication apprehension (CA) when having to speak
to a large group, in meetings, or in dyads. For some, CA is manageable; however, it severely
limits others’ performance in numerous ways. CA has the ability to negatively affect student
performance within the classroom (8, 11, 17, 27, 29, 33, 37), may ultimately affect the ways in
which individuals conduct themselves during job interviews (6, 5, 14), and subsequently will
affect job performance (1, 4, 7, 15, 16, 34). Given the impact CA can have on student success—
in the college classroom and beyond—it is vital to determine students’ levels of CA so that we
can assist them in improving their communication skills as students and future employees.
As a construct, CA has been heavily studied in the field of communication studies and has
proven to greatly influence one’s ability to interact with others in public, small group, and
interpersonal contexts. In the field of information systems, however, the CA levels of
information systems majors have yet to be explored in isolation. The two studies that have been
conducted on CA and information systems majors focuses on computer anxiety (37) and on-line
learning environments (36). That is, research has not yet been published that compares and
1
contrasts information systems majors’ level of CA to national norms. Additionally, research on
CA and information systems majors has yielded results from participants in introductory courses
only. Due to the importance and impact of CA on an individual’s career, this study seeks to
determine the levels of CA in upper level students.
The purpose of this study, then, is to determine the degree to which upper level information
systems majors experience CA. As this study is the first of its kind, the primary objectives of
this project are to determine the levels of CA in senior-level students and then compare those
levels to the national norms of CA. Ascertaining this information will allow faculty to know the
degree to which information systems majors experience CA, how the CA levels of information
systems majors compare to national norms as well as indicate the extent to which faculty should
incorporate oral communication projects into their curricula to better assist students in becoming
more competent communicators.
This paper is organized as follows. First, the theoretical overview of CA and hypothesis for this
study is presented. Next, the methodology of the current study and the results of the findings are
discussed. Finally, the paper concludes by discussing the significance of this research and offer
directions for future research.
THEORETICAL OVERVIEW
CA as a Construct
The study of an individual’s fear of interacting with others has been referred to and researched
using such terminology as social fear (19), reticence (33), communication apprehension (27),
unwillingness to communicate (10), audience anxiety (24), stage fright (2), and social anxiety
(32). For the purposes of this study, McCroskey’s definition of CA will be used because of its
inclusiveness: “an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated
communication with another person or persons” (27, p. 78).
CA is usually thought of as either a trait-like behavior or a state-like behavior. Trait CA is
“characterized by fear or anxiety in all types of oral interaction, from talking to any individual
person to talking to others in a small group to talking to a large number of people” (25, p. 281).
State CA, then, is described as “a normal anxiety response that most people experience when
confronted with oral communication in some sort of public setting” (25, p. 281). It must also be
noted that CA is usually measured on a continuum (low to high) and often changes for each
person based on individual situations (e.g., a student may experience high levels of CA when
speaking to someone one-on-one; however, that same student may experience low levels of CA
when interacting in a small group). Thus, a person with trait-like CA would always experience a
high level of apprehension—no matter what the oral communication context—whereas a person
with state-like CA would have CA levels that most likely fluctuate depending on the setting.
McCroskey also identifies three common effects of high CA: communication avoidance,
communication withdrawal, and communication disruption (27). Communication avoidance
occurs when one chooses to not speak with others. Communication withdrawal occurs when one
talks less than others. Communication disruption occurs when one disrupts her or his speaking
2
patterns through vocalized pauses (e.g., “ums” or “you knows”). To indicate the severity of the
effects of CA, McCroskey (27) offers three general tenets that underlie CA research: 1) People
who experience high levels of CA will avoid and/or withdraw from oral interaction with others;
2) As a result of that avoidance/withdrawal, they will be seen in a poor light by themselves and
others; and 3) This poor image results in economic, political, and academic consequences (p. 82).
McCroskey’s tenets have been strongly supported by research on CA; that is, as noted above, if
employees cannot communicate effectively, then they will not advance in their careers.
Focusing on McCroskey’s tenets, researchers have investigated the link between source
credibility and the impact of CA. Cole and McCroskey (13) found that supervisors with high
levels of perceived CA were viewed as having less source credibility, overall affect, and
likeability. Researchers also determined that students with high levels of CA tend to speak less
frequently and for shorter durations than do their less apprehensive peers (23, 25, 26, 28). Not
surprisingly, individuals who experience high levels of CA were found to offer more negative
and fewer positive self-statements (20, 29) and, when they did communicate, were less
comprehensible (11, 17). Thus, research on CA supports McCroskey’s claims that individuals
with high levels of CA stand to suffer economic, political, and academic consequences.
Scope of CA Research
Obviously, most of the research relating to CA has been conducted within the field of
communication studies; however, other disciplines have begun focusing on the importance of
identifying student levels of CA. Although CA is just beginning to be studied in other
disciplines, the few studies that have been conducted suggest the importance of reducing
students’ CA levels. In the field of accounting, researchers have conducted programmatic
assessment to determine if graduating students’ levels of CA are lowered (3) and have
determined the levels of CA for upper level accounting students (9).
In the area of information systems, Vician and Brown (36) examined the impact of CA in an online learning environment. They found that educators need to include various participation
opportunities for an on-line learning environment and that one’s level of CA can negatively
impact one’s learning experience. In another study, Vician and Davis (37) link communication
apprehension to computer anxiety to examine these factor’s impact in an introductory computing
course. They note that “developing an intervention that is sensitive to both computer anxiety and
communication apprehension may be the most appropriate approach . . . [and that] the results
suggest that including communication apprehension in investigations of learning in computingintensive environments is important” (p. 55).
While the two studies conducted in the field of information systems yield interesting results, both
projects used participants enrolled in introductory courses and may not have necessarily been
information systems majors. To better evaluate the levels of CA for information systems majors,
this study assesses the CA levels of students enrolled in a departmental capstone course, where at
least 80% of the students are seniors. By analyzing the CA levels of seniors, we will be better
able to assess their future performance in the workplace rather than using the results of students
enrolled in an introductory level course.
3
Statement of Hypothesis
There are no empirical studies explicitly examining the levels of CA in upper level information
systems majors. Drawing upon the discussion above, the hypothesis for this study is as follows:
H1 :
Upper level information systems majors will have an increased rate of overall
levels of CA compared to the CA levels of national norms.
H2 :
Upper level information systems majors will have an increased rate of CA levels
in the public speaking context compared to the levels of CA national norms of public
speaking CA levels of national norms.
METHODOLOGY
Participants, Course, and Procedures
Participants included 51 students enrolled at a small, private Mid-Atlantic university taking a
three-credit, upper level computing course offered by the Department of Computer and
Information Systems. Students received no credit for participating in the study; however, course
time was allocated so that students could complete the questionnaire. All participants had
previously completed a public speaking course.
The purpose of this upper level computing course is to provide the student with an integrated
theoretical and practical perspective of technology and information systems as process and
functional components of an organization. Emphasis is on the roles that people, information,
information systems, and technology play in organizational planning and management. Specific
topics include: types of information systems, using information systems for competitive
advantage, providing information to managers at all levels, interorganizational and international
information systems, information systems planning and development, identifying appropriate
information services and support roles, and organization of the information systems function.
The course emphasizes refining individual communication skills necessary to the field of
information systems. During the course, the student completes journal assignments and case
studies, practices team problem solving, participates in structured group discussions, conducts
research, writes reports, and delivers oral presentations. Students must have completed 96 hours
in order to enroll in the course.
Measure
The variable of interest for this study is the self-reported student level of CA. To determine the
participants’ levels of CA, the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) was
administered. The PRCA is a 24-item, Likert-type self-report instrument that has produced
reliable and valid multigenerational data (18). The PRCA assesses respondents’ feelings about
oral communication across a broad range of interactions: Public Speaking, Group, Meetings, and
Interpersonal (one-on-one). The reliability of this survey instrument exceeds 0.90, and provides
evidence of the predictive reliability.
4
After participants completed the questionnaire, their results were organized into five categories:
Overall level of CA, level of CA when speaking in Public, level of CA when speaking in
Meetings, level of CA when speaking in Groups, and level of CA when speaking Interpersonally.
RESULTS
The participants in this study were primarily seniors. Gender distribution was 73% male and
27% female. As stated above, all students had completed a general education public speaking
course. Participants’ responses to the PRCA were calculated to determine the levels of CA.
Those levels were then subjected to a comparison of national norms for the PRCA. Table 1
presents the descriptive statistics for this study. An overall score between 55 and 83 indicates
that some level of CA exists and a sub-group score at or above 18 indicates a level of CA as
well.
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics
Communication Context
Overall
Group
Meetings
Interpersonal
Public Speaking
Mean
73.16
17.10
17.88
11.06
18.14
SD
4.97
1.63
1.9
1.57
2.22
SE
0.67
0.23
0.27
0.22
0.31
The comparison between the PRCA scores for information systems majors and the national
norms are presented in Table 2. Table 2 shows that there is no statistically significant difference
between the information systems majors’ level of CA and the nationally normed levels of CA.
TABLE 2
Summary of PRCA student results between Information Systems majors and national norms
Overall
Group
Meetings
Interpersonal
Public Speaking
Information
Majors Mean
73.16
17.10
17.88
11.06
18.14
Systems
SD
4.97
1.63
1.9
1.57
2.22
National
Norm Mean
65.6
15.4
16.4
14.5
19.3
SD
15.3
4.8
4.8
4.2
5.1
DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that information systems majors experience a moderately high
level of CA overall as well as a moderate level of CA when speaking in groups. Surprisingly,
the information systems majors did not have statistically significant higher levels of CA when
compared to national norms. Thus, the hypothesis is rejected. It is interesting to note the low
levels of CA in the interpersonal context. Although the results are not statistically significant,
the mean of the information systems majors’ is much lower in the Interpersonal context. The
5
lower mean is an interesting finding given the stereotypical view of information systems majors
as those who wish to work alone and avoid contact with others.
Essentially, the data suggest that information systems majors do experience a moderate amount
of CA overall and that the communication context that produces the most anxiety is Public
Speaking, while the context that produces the least amount of anxiety is Interpersonal.
Implications for practice and future research are presented next.
CONCLUSION
The results of this study suggest three primary implications for the practice of teaching
information systems majors.
First, participants reported a moderately high level of
apprehension; thus, faculty need to continue integrating oral communication activities into their
classrooms so that students can become more comfortable when interacting in these contexts
and, ostensibly, lower their levels of CA and become more competent communicators. Second,
students’ scores in the interpersonal context indicated that students felt very comfortable
communicating interpersonally. Educators need to keep the students’ comfort level in this
context in mind when developing assignments. That is, faculty could develop multi-phase
assignments that begin with students interacting with only one other person and then
progressively interacting with a larger group. Using such a formula, students’ comfort levels
would presumably increase thereby decreasing CA levels. Finally, it is significant to note that
even though students had already completed a public speaking course, they still reported the
highest levels of CA in the context of Public Speaking. This finding reminds faculty that in
order to help reduce CA levels in an attempt to improve presentation skills, students need to have
the opportunity to develop and deliver presentations in all classes.
Three primary implications for future research arise from this study. First, this study should be
replicated using a larger sample size. Now that data exist that demonstrate information systems
majors do, in fact, experience moderately high levels of CA, more research needs to be
conducted to determine if other student responses remain as consistent as this sample. Second, it
would be interesting to assess the impact of the information systems major on student levels of
CA. Therefore, this study could be replicated evaluating the CA levels of first-year students and
graduating seniors. Finally, it would be interesting to couple CA levels with performance based
indicators (e.g., compare student-reported CA levels to an instructor’s grades on a specific
presentation) to determine the impact CA has on work completed by information systems majors.
As communication skills continue to impact one’s ability to advance in the workplace and
succeed in the classroom, it is vital to understand the ways in which we can assist our students in
becoming better communicators. Identifying and helping to reduce student CA levels is one way
to ensure that our students are, at the very least, more comfortable in communication situations.
The significance of this study is that it demonstrates information systems majors in this sample
do experience CA; however, future research is necessary to determine if these findings are true
with a larger sample.
REFERENCES
6
1. Addams, H. L. “Should the Big Eight Teach Communication Skills?” Management
Accounting, May, 1981, pp. 37-40.
2. Allen, M., and Bourhis, J. “The Relationship of Communication Apprehension to
Communication Behavior: A Meta-analysis,” Communication Quarterly, 1996, 44, pp.
214-226.
3. Aly, I., and Islam, M. “Factors Affecting Oral Communication Apprehension Among
Business Students: An Empirical Study,” Journal of American Academy of Business, 6,
2005, pp. 98-103.
4. Andrews, J. D., and Sigband, N. B. “How Effectively Does the ‘New’ Accountant
Communicate? Perceptions by Practitioners and Academics,” The Journal of Business
Communication, Spring, 1984, pp. 15-24.
5. Ayres, J., and Crosby, S. “Two Studies Concerning the Predictive Validity of the Personal
Report of Communication Apprehension in Employment Interviews,” Communication
Research Reports, 12, 1995, pp. 145-151.
6. Ayres, J., Hopf, T., and Will, A. “Are Reduction in CA an Experimental Artifact? A
Solomon Four-Group Answer,” Communication Quarterly, 48, 2000, pp. 19-26.
7. Aziz, K. “The Key to Perfect Presentations,” Industrial and Commercial Training, 30,
1998, pp. 214-217.
8. Beatty, M., Kruger, M. W., and Springhorn, R. G. “Toward the Development of Cognitively
Experienced Speech Anxiety,” Central States Speech Journal, 27, 1976, pp. 181-185.
9. Borzi, M. G., and Mills, T. H. “Communication Apprehension in Upper Level Accounting
Students: An Assessment of Skill Development,” Journal of Education for Business, 76,
2001, pp. 193-198.
10. Burgoon, J. “Unwillingness to Communicate Scale: Development and Validation,”
Communication Monographs, 43, 1976, pp. 60-69.
11. Burgoon, J., and Hale, J. “A Research Note of the Dimensions of Communication
Reticence,” Communication Quarterly, 31, 1983, pp. 238-248.
12. Burk, J. “Communication Apprehension Among Master’s of Business Administration
Students: Investigating a Gap in Communication Education,” Communication Education,
51, 2001, 51-58.
13. Cole, J., and McCroskey, J. C. “Temperament and Socio-communicative Orientation,”
Communication Research Reports, 17, 2000, pp. 105-114.
14. Daly, J. A., Richmond, V. P., and Leth, S. “Social Communicative Anxiety and the Personnel
Selection Process: Testing the Similarity Effect in Selection Decisions,” Human
Communication Research, 6, 1979, pp. 18-32.
15. Dirks, R., and Buzzard, J. “What CEOs Expect of Employees Hired for International Work,”
Business Education Forum, 51, 1997, pp. 3-7.
16. Estes, R. “The Profession’s Changing Horizons: A Survey of Practitioners on the Present and
Future Importance of Selected Knowledge and Skills,” The International Journal of
Accounting Education and Research, Spring, 1979, pp. 47-70.
17. Freimuth, V. S. “The Effects of Communication Apprehension on Communication
Effectiveness,” Human Communication Research, Spring, 1976, pp. 289-298.
18. Garrison, J., Seller, W., and Boohar, M. “The Effects of Talking Apprehension on Student
Academic Achievement.” In Ruben, B. (Ed.) Communication Yearbook I. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Books, 1977.
7
19. Gilkensen, H. “Social Fears as Reported by Students in College Speech Classes,” Speech
Monographs, 9, 1942, pp. 141-160.
20. Glass, C. R., Merluzzi, T. V., Biever, J. L., and Larson, K. H. “Cognitive Assessment of
Social Anxiety: Development and Validation of a Self-statement Questionnaire,” Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 6, 1982, pp. 35-55.
21. Hynes, G. E., and Bhatia, V. “Graduate Business Students’ Preferences for the Managerial
Communication Course Curriculum,” Business Communication Quarterly, 59, 1996, pp.
45-55.
22. James, M. L. “Are We Teaching What Employers Want?” Business Education Forum, 46,
1992, pp. 8-10.
23. Jordan, W. J., and Powers, W. G. “Verbal Behavior as a Function of Apprehension and
Social Context,” Human Communication Research, 4, 1978, pp. 294-300.
24. Leary, M. R. “The Conceptual Distinctions are Important: Another Look at Communication
Apprehension and Other Related Constructs,” Human Communication Research, 10, 1983,
pp. 65-75.
25. Lederman, L. C. “Suffering in Silence: The Effects of Fear of Talking on Small Group
Participation,” Group & Organizational Studies, 7, 1982, pp. 279-294.
26. Lustig, M. W. “Computer Analysis of Talk-Silence Patterns in Triads,” Communication
Quarterly, 28, 1980, pp. 3-12.
27. McCroskey, J. C. “Oral Communication Apprehension: A Summary of Recent Theory and
Research,” Human Communication Research, 4, 1977, pp. 78-96.
28. McCroskey, J. C. “The Communication Apprehension Perspective,” In Daly, J. A. and
McCroskey, J. C. (Eds.) Avoiding Communication: Shyness, Reticence, and
Communication Apprehension. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1984.
29. McCroskey, J. C., and Richmond, V. “Communication Apprehension as a Predictor of SelfDisclosure,” Communication Quarterly, 25, 1977, pp. 40-43.
30. McDaniel, S. W., and White, C. J. “The Quality of the Academic Preparation of
Undergraduate Marketing Majors: An Assessment by Company Recruiters,” Marketing
Educator Review, 3, 1993, pp. 9-16.
31. Merrier, P., and Dirks, R. “Students Attitudes Towards Written, Oral and E-mail
Communication,” Business Communication Quarterly, 60, 1997, pp. 89-99.
32. Patterson, M. L., and Ritts, V. “Social and Communicative Anxiety: A Review and MetaAnalysis.” Communication Yearbook, 20, 1996, pp. 263-303.
33. Phillips, G. M. “Reticence: Pathology of the Normal Speaker,” Speech Monographs, 35,
1968, pp. 39-49.
34. Rebele, J. E. “An Examination of Accounting Students’ Perceptions of Importance of
Communication Skills in Public Accounting,” Issues in Accounting Education, 1, 1985, pp.
41-50.
35. Sawyer, C. R., and Behnke, R. R. “Behavioral Inhibition and the Communication of Public
Speaking State Anxiety,” Western Journal of Communication, 66, 2002, pp. 412-423.
36. Vician, C., and Brown, S. A. “Re-engineering Participation Through On-line Learning
Environments: An Examination of Communication Apprehension, Choice, and
Performance,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42, 2001, pp. 26-36.
37. Vician, C., and Davis, L. R. “Investigating Computer Anxiety and Communication
Apprehension as Performance Antecedents in a Computing-intensive Learning
Environment,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43, 2002/2003, pp. 51-56.
8
38. Whetten, D. A., and Cameron, K. S. Developing Management Skills. New York: Harper
Collins, 1995.
9