Audience-Perceived Anxiety Patterns of

Public Speakers
Finn, Amber N; Sawyer, Chris R; Behnke, Ralph R
5,834 words
1 October 2003
Communication Quarterly
470
Volume 51; Issue 4; ISSN: 01463373
English
Copyright (c) 2003 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights
reserved.
Gray's neurological theory of anxiety (1982, 1990; Gray & McNaughton, 2000) predicts
that state anxiety will decrease with continuous exposure to a fear arousing stimulus.
Previous studies of psychological and physiological state anxiety patterns during public
speaking have reported a pattern of progressively decreasing anxiety levels consistent
with this phenomenon, known as habituation. In the current report, the extent to which
the state anxiety behaviors of speakers conform to the habituation pattern is examined. In
the first of two studies, 30 novice speakers presented informative speeches to audiences
of 18 to 20 fellow students. These speeches were videotaped and replayed in their entirety
for observers (N=30) who rated the severity of each performer's speech anxiety
behaviors. In the second study, each videotaped presentation was divided into one-minute
segments and presented in random order to a new set of observers (N=25).
Procedures in the second study were designed to control for rater expectations that state
anxiety would decline over time. Overall, behavioral measures of public speaking state
anxiety displayed a continually declining pattern associated with habituation.
KEY CONCEPTS state anxiety, pattern analysis, public speaking, habituation.
For decades, researchers from such diverse fields as education, sociology, psychology,
and communication have tried to understand the nature of public speaking anxiety.
Despite the sheer quantity of this research, little is known about anxiety in the global
sense. It is generally presumed, however, that by integrating multiple domains (i.e.,
psychological, physiological, and behavioral) scholars will eventually develop more
powerful explanations of state anxiety than could be produced by any single domain
alone (Behnke and Beatty, 1981b).
Behavioral anxiety has been studied far less than physiological and psychological
anxiety, although it has been established as a valid and reliable measure of speaker
anxiety (Mulac & Sherman, 1974; Trussel, 1978). Mulac and Sherman (1975b) define
behavioral speech anxiety as "the degree of assumed speaker anxiety perceived by
observers on the basis of manifest speaker behavior" (p. 276). According to this view,

state anxiety is often reflected in speaker behaviors that audience members observe.
Beyond the actual words used in a presentation, audiences receive information from and
make judgments about two types of nonverbal behavior. Both paralanguage (i.e., volume,
pitch, rate, pauses, vocal variety, etc.) and physical actions (i.e., eye contact, gestures,
body movement, etc.) influence audience members perceptions of the speaker, including
how anxious the speaker is believed to be (Mulac & Sherman, 1974).
Recent advances in speech anxiety research have led to the discovery of key moments
during public speaking that define the state anxiety experience (Behnke & Sawyer, 1998;
Behnke, Sawyer, & King; 1987; Behnke, Sawyer, & King; 1994; Martini, Behnke, &
King; 1992). Psychological and physiological speech anxiety are highest during the
minute prior to confrontation with an audience and during the first minute of speaking,
respectively (Behnke & Sawyer, 2001; Freeman, Sawyer, & Behnke, 1997; Sawyer &
Behnke, 1999). However, in both cases, state anxiety declines progressively with each
minute of continuous exposure to audiences following its peak. Behavioral anxiety
patterns, the third sub-component, have not been investigated under the same
circumstances. If narrow-band behavioral anxiety measures render a similar pattern, a
clearer understanding of the global nature of anxiety can be achieved, enriching the
prospects of both pedagogical and therapeutic intervention and treatment. The purpose of
the present study is to investigate patterns of state anxiety behaviors during public
speaking.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
Gray's Comparator and State Anxiety Patterns
According to Gray (1982; 1990; Gray & McNaughton, 2000), a neural circuit called the
comparator mediates anxiety responses by assessing the moment-by-moment level of
threat in social encounters. As part of its duties, the comparator examines current
circumstances for differences between actual stimuli and those expected from previous
experiences. Once a mismatch is detected, the comparator engages one of two separate
sub-systems, the behavioral approach system (BAS) that manages responses to nonthreatening stimuli or the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) that governs reactions to
threatening stimuli. The comparator's choice is largely a function of anticipated
reinforcement conditions present in the current situation. That is, while the BAS impels
the organism to actively pursue positive reinforcement, the BIS impedes on-going
behaviors and triggers the psychological and physiological reactions known as anxiety.
Both the BIS and BAS contribute to the survivability of organisms and stem from the
need to adapt effectively to changing circumstances (Gray, 1971, 1972, 1982, 1990; Gray
& McNaughton, 2000). Consequently, the comparator will switch control between the
BAS and BIS as suggested by its assessment of the current situation. For example, BIS
control continues only so long as the potential for negative reinforcement remains high.
BIS control is weakened, however, if punishment is delayed or if the on-going conditions
are less noxious than expected. Once stimulus conditions are perceived as less
threatening than expected, the comparator switches control over to the BAS. Decreases in

anxiety over time reflect the process of habituation, or the waning of state anxiety
responses when a stimulus is repeatedly or continuously presented (Watts, 1979, p. 627).
Previous speech anxiety studies indicate that the BIS dominates early public speaking
reactions while the BAS takes charge later in the presentation (Behnke & Sawyer, 2001;
Freeman, Sawyer, & Behnke, 1997; Sawyer & Behnke, 1999). When an individual is
exposed to the threat of public speaking, the comparator activates the BIS, and the
individual experiences increased anxiety with suppressed or inhibited speaking behaviors.
During the course of the speech, the level of perceived threat decreases and the individual
begins to experience less anxiety (Behnke & Sawyer, 2001; Freeman, Sawyer, & Behnke,
1997; Sawyer & Behnke, 1999). Thus, habituation occurs when speakers are continually
exposed to public speaking situations, allowing them to become more comfortable while
performing before audiences.
Behavioral Manifestations of Speaker State Anxiety.
Several communication scholars have identified observable behaviors of anxious
speakers consistent with Gray's (1982; 1990; Gray & McNaughton, 2000) neurological
theory of state anxiety. For instance, anxious speakers are believed to maintain less eye
contact with listeners (Clevenger, 1959; Clevenger & King, 1961), fidget more
(Clevenger, 1959; Clevenger & King, 1961), nod less (Ayres, 1989; Burgoon & Koper,
1984); have more verbal repetitions (Jordan & Powers, 1978); and tremble (Behnke,
Beatty & Kitchens, 1978). Anxious speakers are also believed to exhibit more
disfluencies and speech errors (Lerea, 1956), show less facial pleasantness (Burgoon &
Koper, 1984); speak faster in front of a class than when alone (Paivio, 1965); and are
more rigid (Mulac & Sherman, 1974) than nonanxious speakers. Highly anxious
individuals also engage in more face covering, body blocking, postural tension, rigidity,
and stiffness, and they are less expressive, immediate, and involved while giving
speeches (Burgoon, Pfau, Birk, & Manusov, 1987).
Mulac and Sherman (1974) reported four independent factors of speech anxiety
behaviors: rigidity, inhibition, disfluency, and agitation. Rigidity includes tension of
facial muscles; motionlessness, lack of gestures; and tense arms and hands. Inhibition
includes deadpan facial expressions and a soft voice. Disfluency contains hunting for
words, speech blocks; nonfluencies, stammers, halting, and vocalized pauses. Finally,
agitation includes lack of eye contact, fidgeting, and swaying, pacing, and feet shuffling.
Freeman, Sawyer, and Behnke (1997) contend that anxious speakers exhibit both rigid
and inhibited behaviors while speaking in front of an audience as a result of activated
BIS, which inhibits motor activity. Their findings indicate that audience members
perceive rigid and inhibited manifested behaviors as cues of anxiety. Although this study
linked Gray's neurological theory, specifically BIS activation, with behavioral
manifestations of anxiety, the authors did not examine audience perceptions of speakers'
behavioral changes over time, nor did they use Mulac and Sherman's (1974) disfluency
and agitation factors of the BASA.
State Anxiety Pattern Analysis

Extensive research has been carried out on the morphology of state anxiety during public
speaking (Beatty & Behnke, 1991; Behnke & Carlile, 1971; Behnke, Carlile, & Lamb,
1974; Behnke & Sawyer, 1999, 2000, 2001; Sawyer & Behnke, 1999). Behnke and
Sawyer (1998) point out the importance of using narrowband state measures of anxiety
for improving measurement accuracy and for pattern analysis. For example, instead of
asking speakers to report their state anxiety for the entire speech they are asked to
estimate state anxiety for several milestones or key moments before, during, and after
speaking. Narrowband measures are often used to trace state anxiety over the four
traditional phases of public speaking: anticipation (before the speech), confrontation
(when the speech begins), adaptation (at the end of the speech), and release (when the
speech is over).
Generally, the patterns of narrowband physiological and psychological responses are not
synchronized. The highest level of psychological state anxiety occurs during the
anticipation stage, before the speech begins, and then declines for the remainder of the
speech (Behnke & Beatty, 1981a; Behnke & Sawyer, 1998, 1999, 2000; Sawyer &
Behnke, 1999). Conversely, physiological measures of state anxiety, while elevated one
minute before an individual speaks, reach their peak during the first minute of the
presentation, and then decline throughout the duration of the speech (Behnke & Carlile,
1971; Behnke, Carlile, & Lamb, 1974). Although the peak moment for state anxiety
varies depending on the domain being measured, pattern similarities exist for
psychological and physiological anxiety. Specifically, habituation processes commence
shortly after each pattern type reaches its zenith. Thus, both patterns reveal that the longer
the speaker is exposed to the threat, the less anxiety is experienced.
Although both physiological and psychological anxiety patterns of public speakers have
been well established (Beatty & Behnke, 1991; Behnke & Carlile, 1971; Behnke, Carlile,
& Lamb, 1974; Behnke & Sawyer, 1999, 2000; Sawyer & Behnke, 1999), no attempt has
been made to investigate the shape of behavioral speech state anxiety patterns. Given that
audience-perceived anxiety is conceptually different from both the physiological and
psychological experience of anxiety (Allen, 1989; Clevenger, 1959; McCroskey, 1997),
examining the pattern of speaker anxiety behaviors, as seen by the audience, will enable
scholars to advance a more sophisticated understanding of anxiety patterns in the global
sense.
HYPOTHESES
As a result of the preceding discussion the following hypotheses are advanced:
H1: The general overall manifest behavioral pattern of anxiety for public speakers, as
perceived by the audience, will be a pattern of habituation.
H2: The behavioral pattern of manifest inhibition of public speakers, as perceived by the
audience, will be a pattern of habituation.

H3: The behavioral pattern of manifest disfluency of public speakers, as perceived by the
audience, will be a pattern of nabituation.
H4: The behavioral pattern of manifest agitation of public speakers, as perceived by the
audience, will be a pattern of habituation.
H5: The behavioral pattern of manifest rigidity of public speakers, as perceived by the
audience, will be a pattern of habituation.
STUDY ONE
Participants
The first group of participants (speakers) consisted of 30 undergraduate students (13
males, 17 females) enrolled in a college-level basic speech communication course.
Previous studies involving behavioral measures of speaker state anxiety use
approximately this number of speakers (Foley, 1997; Lewin, McNeil, & Lipson, 1996;
Toyokawa, 1992). Ages ranged from 18 to 23 years with a mean age of 19.2 years.
The second group of participants (observers) were 39 (17 males, 22 females) students
between 18 and 25 (M = 19.74) years of age who were enrolled in a college-level basic
speech communication course. The observers were informed that they would be helping
with research pertaining to public speaking effectiveness, and they were trained to
measure behaviors using the BASA scale. Participation was voluntary and extra credit
was awarded. All students completed informed consent forms.
Procedure
Each speaker presented a five-minute informative speech in a standard college classroom
setting to an audience of 20 to 25 fellow classmates, and a course instructor. Each speech
was videotaped for later analysis. Speeches were performed for credit in the class and
were graded. The day of presentation and speaking order were randomly selected.
Over the course of 6 weeks, the observers watched videotapes of these speeches and rated
the severity of anxiety behaviors for each speaker. Each tape was stopped at one-minute
intervals so that rating teams could record their observations for that minute. Five
speeches were rated per class meeting. Peer-ratings of speaker behaviors were a routine
class activity in the course and participants were so informed.
Instrumentation
Behavioral anxiety was operationalized using Mulac and Sherman's (1974) Behavioral
Assessment of Speech Anxiety (BASA) instrument. Mulac and Sherman (1974) have
shown high reliability for the BASA for weighted total scores (.95), and each of the four
factors: rigidity (.86), inhibition (.94), disfluency (.96), and agitation (.96). The BASA
has also been subjected to validity testing (Mulac & Sherman, 1975a; Mulac & Wiemann,

1984) and has demonstrated high content, criteria-related, and construct validity (Mulac
& Wiemann, 1997).
Four one-minute segments of the pre-recorded speeches were shown to the audience, who
rated the severity of the behaviors for each speaker for each of the four periods. Using
Mulac and Sherman's (1974) rating method, the following instructions were given:
Following is a list of ways in which speech anxiety may be behaviorally manifested
during a public speaking performance. Each behavioral manifestation may occur in
varying degrees of severity, which may be quantified according to the following rating
scale:
For each behavioral manifestation of speech anxiety that occurs during a given time
period, mark your rating (from 1 to 9) to indicate how severe it was. Be sure to provide
an "overall anxiety estimate" for each time period in addition to rating specific
manifestations.
Ratings of each speaker's behaviors were summed across the four 1-minute time periods
and then multiplied by the respective line weights and summed to provide a total BASA
score. Behavioral assessments of public speaking state anxiety were 40.1 (16.4), 35.3
(15.0), 31.3 (12.9), and 19.6 (14.2), for minutes one through four, respectively.
Results
Means and standard deviations for each BASA factor for each minute of speaking are
displayed in Table 1. Inter-rater reliability was computed using Ebel's (1951) ANOVA
method for intraclass correlations. Accordingly, inter- rater reliability for rating teams one
through six was .93, .85, .84, .91, .83, and .86, respectively. TABLE 1 Means and
Standard Deviations for BASA Items Over Time: Total, Rigidity, Inhibition, Disfluency,
And Agitation in Study One.
A repeated-measures analysis of variance computed on total BASA scores shows an
overall decelerating monotonic ordering (i.e., each subsequent point was lower than its
preceding one) of the BASA for the four time periods (F(3,87) = 41.69, p<.05, [eta]^sup
2^=.19). Fisher's PLSD tests detected significant differences between means for time^sub
1^ vs. time^sub 3^, and time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 4^.
A repeated measures analysis of variance was implemented and shows a monotonic
decelerating pattern across the four time periods for rigidity (F(3,87) = 46.76, p<.05,
[eta]^sup 2^=.15); disfluency (F(3,87) = 18.90, p<.05, [eta]^sup 2^=.17); and agitation
(F(3,84) = 39.58, p<.05, [eta]^sup 2^=.22). Fisher's PLSD tests revealed significant
differences for rigidity between means for time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 3^; for disfluency
between and time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 4^ and time^sub 2^ vs. time^sub 4^; and for
agitation between time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 3,^ time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 4,^ and
time^sub 2^ vs. time^sub 4^.

However, a repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a quadratic V-shaped pattern

for inhibition in the ordering of the means (F(3,87) = 22.02, p<.05, [eta]^sup 2^=.15).
Fisher's PLSD tests detected significant differences between means for time^sub 3^ vs.
time^sub 4^.
Discussion of Study One
In Study One, behavioral anxiety was measured using four independent factors: rigidity,
inhibition, disfluency, and agitation. Although rigidity, disfluency, and agitation all
followed the expected decelerating pattern, supporting hypotheses three, four, and five,
inhibition deviated somewhat. This factor yielded a V-shaped pattern, with anxiety
decreasing through the first three minutes and then accelerating the fourth minute, where
it actually reached its peak.
Although the exact cause of this difference for inhibition is unclear, the expectations of
audiences might play a role. Inhibition includes a deadpan facial expression and a soft
voice. Audience members might expect more enthusiasm and emphasis during the
conclusion, which would explain why they sensed more inhibited anxiety behaviors
during the last minute of the presentation. If this is born out, coders might pay more
attention to behavioral manifestations of inhibition during the conclusion than they did
during the middle of the presentation.
Audience members viewed videotapes of each speaker's presentation from start to finish,
stopping only to record their observations for each minute. Although this procedure
closely simulates how audiences normally experience speeches, it did not control for
audience expectations of how anxious speakers would be at each stage of the
presentation. Consequently, the overall decreasing function of audience-perceived
speaker state anxiety could reflect a shared schema of how state anxiety declines over
time. A second study, envisioned to counteract this potential weakness, was carried out
and is described below.
STUDY TWO
Participants
Participants in this study were 25 (10 male, 15 female) undergraduate students between
the ages of 18 and 25 years of age who were enrolled in a required college-level basic
speech communication course. All participants were volunteers for a study in oral
communication effectiveness and received credit toward a research requirement in the
course.
Procedures
Each study participant was assigned to one of five rating teams comprised of five raters
each. Videotaped speeches used in Study One were divided into one-minute segments.
Stratified random selection procedures, controlling for speaker and speech segment, were

used to construct new stimulus tapes for Study Two. Each rating team evaluated 24 oneminute speech segments.
Instruments
As in Study One, behavioral anxiety was operationalized using Mulac and Sherman's
(1974) Behavioral Assessment of Speech Anxiety (BASA). For each one-minute prerecorded speech segment rating teams assessed the severity of the anxiety related
behaviors for each speaker. In this study, the same rating instructions and scoring
methods were used as in Study One. Behavioral assessments of public speaking state
anxiety were 46.30 (17.88), 37.46 (15.36), 33.35 (12.84), and 22.53 (10.76), for minutes
one through four, respectively.
Results
Means and standard deviations of each BASA factor for each minute of speaking are
displayed in Table 2. Inter-rater reliability was computed using Ebel's (1951) ANOVA
method for intraclass correlations. Accordingly, inter-rater reliability for rating teams one
through five was .88, .86, .77, .76, and .82, respectively. TABLE 2 Means and Standard
Deviations for BASA Items Overtime: Total, Rigidity, Inhibition, Disfluency, and
Agitation in Study Two.
A repeated-measures analysis of variance computed on total BASA scores shows a
progressively decreasing ordering over the four time periods (F(3,87) = 75.51, p<.05,
[eta]^sup 2^=.27). Fisher's PLSD tests detected significant differences between means for
time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 3^, time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 4,^ time^sub 2^ vs. time^sub 4,^
and, time^sub 3^ vs. time^sub 4^.
A repeated measures analysis of variance was implemented and shows a monotonic
decreasing pattern across the four time periods for rigidity (F(3,87) = 25.82, p<.05,
[eta]^sup 2^=.11); disfluency (F(3,87) = 41.83, p<.05, [eta]^sup 2^=.22); agitation
(F(3,87) = 52.40, p<.05, [eta]^sup 2^=.29); and inhibition (F(3,87) = 55.66, p<.05,
[eta]^sup 2^=.18). Fisher's PLSD tests revealed significant differences for rigidity
between means for time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 4,^ time^sub 2^ vs. time^sub 4,^ and
time^sub 3^ vs. time^sub 4^; for disfluency between means for time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub
2,^ time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 3,^ time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 4,^ time^sub 2^ vs. time^sub
4^ and time^sub 3^ vs. time^sub 4^; for agitation between means time^sub 1^ vs.
time^sub 3,^ time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 4,^ time^sub 2^ vs. time^sub 4,^ and time^sub 3^
vs. time^sub 4^; and for inhibition between means for time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 2,^
time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 3,^ time^sub 1^ vs. time^sub 4,^ time^sub 2^ vs. time^sub 4,^
and time^sub 3^ vs. time^sub 4.^
Discussion of Study Two
Overall, the findings of Study Two confirm those of Study One. For all four dimensions
of anxiety behavior, rigidity, disfluency, inhibition, and agitation, the highest level of

state anxiety was in minute one. Moreover, the means for minutes two, three, and four are
progressively less. Likewise, the same holds for the BASA total scores in Study Two. The
resultant patterns across all four minutes and for each BASA sub scale were consistent
with habituation processes.
The v-shaped pattern for inhibition reported in Study One was not detected. Apparently,
the effect of audience expectations on the rating task was eliminated by the procedures
used in Study Two. Irrespective, the prediction that habituation processes would influence
speaker behavior was supported in both studies no matter how anxiety behavior was
operationalized.
CONCLUSIONS
Over forty years ago, Clevenger (1959) highlighted the distinctions between the
behavioral, physiological, and psychological domains of anxiety, suggesting that future
research should strive to discover and understand the relationships among the three.
According to Clevenger (1984, p. 225), "In some sense, each does 'measure' what we
mean by the term 'anxiety,' and they must be interrelated by some dynamic." The results
reveal that a synthesis can be drawn by looking at the process of habituation embedded in
Gray's (1982, 1990; Gray & McNaughton, 2000) neurological theory of anxiety.
According to Gray's theory, habituation results from speakers becoming gradually more
comfortable during speaking situations. The longer the speaker is exposed to the
stimulus, the less threatening the situation becomes. Once the threat subsides, the BAS
system is engaged and state anxiety diminishes resulting in an increase in motor activity
(Gray, 1982, 1990). In both studies, an overall decelerating pattern exists for the manifest
behavioral anxiety of public speakers consistent with the process of habituation as
described in Gray's (1982, 1990; Gray & McNaughton, 2000) neurological theory of
anxiety. State anxiety behaviors are most pronounced during the beginning of the speech
and decline over the course of the presentation, a finding anticipated from previous
anxiety pattern studies (Behnke & Sawyer, 2001; Freeman, Sawyer, & Behnke, 1997;
Sawyer & Behnke, 1999). Given that the three response patterns follow a similar pattern
of habituation, Gray's theory allows each anxiety domain to be placed in a meaningful
context with the others.
Important theoretical implications can be drawn from these results. The findings of this
study support Gray's neurological theory, particularly the BIS, increasing both the
heuristic and predictive power of that explanation of speech anxiety. Furthermore, the
study provides additional empirical evidence that the domains are not isolated from one
another but they are measuring related phenomena that comprise public speaking anxiety.
Although it is still necessary to define anxiety with respect to a particular domain, the
results yield important implications for understanding global anxiety.
Future researchers should consider examining the three domains concomitantly using
narrow-band measures so that individual anxiety response patterns can be established and
then compared. Also, other anxious behaviors, such as trembling (Behnke, Beatty &

Kitchens, 1978) and self-touch (Ekman & Friesen, 1972) should be examined using
narrowly focused audience-perceived measures of anxiety to compare and contrast their
patterns of habituation.
The results of this study further suggest pedagogical implications for teachers of public
speaking courses. The idea is reinforced that audience members do notice behavioral
manifestations of the BIS (specifically, inhibition, rigidity, disfluency, and agitation).
Speakers exhibiting such behaviors are perceived as anxious and less credible
(McCroskey & Richmond, 1976), and less competent (McCroskey, 1976). Consequently,
instructors should make students aware that inhibited, rigid, disfluent, and agitated
behaviors affect how audience members perceive them. Students should be given several
opportunities to practice appropriate speaking behaviors in front of an audience so that
they can get accustomed to using them. In addition, instructors should make students
aware that there is a tendency for speakers to restrict behaviors at the beginning of the
presentation and advise them to make a greater effort to incorporate appropriate
behaviors at the beginning of a presentation. Educating students about these effective
public speaking behaviors could, in turn, decrease the amount of psychological anxiety
experienced during the speech. The less threatening a speaker perceives the situation
(psychologically), the less restricted behaviors become, thereby positively enhancing
audience evaluations of the speaker.
In addition, practicing speech skills in a classroom decreases the amount of anxiety
experienced by a speaker (Ford & Wolvin, 1993; Menzel & Carrell, 1994; Rubin, Rubin,
& Jordan, 1997). Previous studies have reported that exposure to an audience contributes
to habituation (Menzel & Carrell, 1994; Rubin, Rubin, & Jordan, 1997). Likewise,
Sawyer and Behnke (2002) found that practicing public speaking skills in the basic
speech class was synonymous with stimulus exposure because such in vivo practice
allows speakers to habituate in preparation for future presentations. Because anxiety
reduction therapies generally affect each of the three anxiety domains differentially and
the most effective treatment strategies combine two or more techniques (Allen, Hunter, &
Donohue, 1989; Hopf & Ayres, 1992), teachers should integrate skills training/exposure
therapy with traditional cognitive-behavioral anxiety reduction methods.
REFERENCES
Allen, M. (1989). A comparison of self-report, observer, and physiological assessments of
public speaking anxiety reduction techniques using meta-analysis. Communication
Studies, 40, 127-139.
Allen, M., Hunter, J. E., & Donohue, W. A. (1989). Meta-analysis of self-report data on
the effectiveness of public speaking anxiety treatment techniques. Communication
Education, 38, 54-76.
Ayres, J. (1989). The impact of communication apprehension and interaction structure on
initial interactions. Communication Monographs, 56, 75-87.

Beatty, M. J., & Behnke, R. R. (1991). Effects of public speaking trait anxiety and
intensity of speaking on heart rate during performance. Human Communication
Research, 18, 147-176.
Behnke, R. R., & Beatty, M. J. (1981a). A comparison of anticipatory and performance
anxiety in public speaking. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 1, 3-6.
Behnke, R. R., & Beatty, M. J. (1981b). A cognitive-physiological model of speech
anxiety. Communication Monographs, 48, 158-163.
Behnke, R. R., Beatty, M. J., & Kitchens, J. T. (1978). Cognitively-experienced speech
anxiety as a predictor of trembling. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 42, 270275.
Behnke, R. R., & Carlile, L. W. (1971). Heart rate as an index of speech anxiety. Speech
Monographs, 38, 65-69.
Behnke, R. R., Carlile, L. W., & Lamb, D. (1974). A psychophysiological study of state
and trait anxiety in public speaking. Central States Speech Journal, 25, 249-253.
Behnke, R. R., & Sawyer, C. R. (1998). Conceptualizing speech as a dynamic trait.
Southern Communication Journal, 63, 160-168.
Behnke, R. R., & Sawyer, C. R. (1999). Milestones of anticipatory public speaking
anxiety. Communication Education, 49, 187-195.
Behnke, R. R., & Sawyer, C. R. (2000). Anticipatory anxiety patterns for male and
female public speakers. Communication Education, 49, 187-195.
Behnke, R. R., & Sawyer, C. R. (2001). Patterns of psychological state anxiety in public
speaking as a function of anxiety sensitivity. Communication Quarterly, 49, 84-94.
Behnke, R. R., Sawyer, C. R., & King, P. E. (1987). The communication of public
speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 36, 138-141.
Behnke, R. R., Sawyer, C. R., & King, P. E. (1994). Contagion theory and the
communication of public speaking state anxiety. Communication Education, 43(3), 246251.
Burgoon, J. K., & Koper, R. L. (1984). Nonverbal and relational communication
associated with reticence. Human Communication Research, 10, 601-626.
Burgoon, J. K., Pfau, M., Birk, T., & Manusov, V. (1987). Nonverbal communication
performance and perceptions associated with reticence: Replication and classroom
implications. Communication Education, 36, 119-130.

Clevenger, T. (1959). A synthesis of experimental research in stage fright. Quarterly

Journal of Speech, 45, 134-145.
Clevenger, T. (1984). An analysis of research on the social anxieties. In J. A. Daly & J. C.
McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication
apprehension (pp. 219-236). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Clevenger, T. & King, T. R. (1961). A factor analysis of the visible symptoms of stage
fright. Speech Monographs, 28, 245-247.
Ebel, R. L. (1951). Estimation of the reliability of ratings. Psychometrika, 16, 407-424.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1972). Hand Movements. Journal of Communication, 22,
353-374.
Foley, T. (1997). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing treatment of
communication anxiety: A closer look. Doctoral dissertation. Kalamazoo, MI: Western
Michigan University.
Ford, W. S. Z., & Wolvin, A. D. (1993). The differential impact of a basic communication
course on perceived communication competencies in class, work, and social contexts.
Communication Education, 42, 215-223.
Freeman, T., Sawyer, C. R., & Behnke, R. R. (1997). Behavioral inhibition and the
attribution of public speaking state anxiety. Communication Education, 46, 175-187.
Gray, J. A. (1971). The psychology of fear and stress. (1st ed.). London: Weidenfels &
Nicolson.
Gray, J. A. (1972). The psychophysiological nature of introversion-extraversion: A
modification of Eysenck's theory. In V. D. Nebylitsyn & J. A. Gray (Eds.), Biological
bases of individual behavior (pp. 182-205). New York: Academic Press.
Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the
septo-hippocampal system. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and
Emotion, 4, 269-288.
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into
the functions of the septo-hippocampal system (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Hopf, T., & Ayres, J. (1992). Coping with public speaking anxiety: An examination of
various combinations of systematic desensitization, skills training, and visualization.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 183-198.

Jordan, W. J. & Powers, W. G. (1978). Verbal behavior as a function of apprehension and

social contact. Human Communication Research, 4, 294-300.
Lerea, L. (1956). A preliminary study of the verbal behavior of stage fright. Speech
Monographs, 23, 220-233.
Lewin, M. R., McNeil, D. R., Lipson, J. M. (1996). Enduring without avoiding: Pauses
and verbal dysfluencies in public speaking fear. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 18, 387-402.
Martini, M., Behnke, R. R., & King, P. E. (1992). The communication of public speaking
anxiety: Perceptions of Asian and American speakers. Communication Quarterly, 40,
279-288.
McCroskey, J. C. (1976). The effects of communication apprehension on nonverbal
behavior. Communication Quarterly, 24, 39-44.
McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Self-report measurement. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J.
Ayres, T. Hopf, D. M. Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and
communication apprehension (pp. 191-216). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1976). The effects of communication apprehension
on the perception of peers. Western Speech Journal, 40, 14-21.
Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1994). The relationship between preparation and
performance in public speaking. Communication Education, 43, 17-26.
Mulac, A., & Sherman, A. R. (1974). Behavioral assessment of speech anxiety. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 60, 134-143.
Mulac, A., & Sherman, A. R. (1975a). Relationships among four parameters of speaker
evaluation: Speech skill, source credibility, subjective speech anxiety, and behavioral
speech anxiety. Speech Monographs, 42, 302-310.
Mulac, A., & Sherman, A. R. (1975b). Conceptual foundations of the Behavioral
Assessment of Speech Anxiety. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 39, 176-180.
Mulac, A., & Wiemann, J. M. (1984). Observer-perceived communicator anxiety. In J. A.
Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and
communication apprehension (pp. 107-121). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mulac, A., & Wiemann, J. M. (1997). Behavioral assessment. In J. A. Daly, J. C.
McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, D. M. Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness,
reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 231-256). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Piavio, A. (1965). Personality and audience influence. In Progress in experimental

personality research. (Ed.), B. Maher, New York: Academic Press.
Rubin, R. B., Rubin, A. M., & Jordan, F. F. (1997). Effects of instruction on
communication apprehension and communication competence. Communication
Education, 46, 104-114.
Sawyer, C. R., & Behnke, R. R. (1990). The role of self-monitoring processes in the
communication of public speaking anxiety. Communication Reports, 3, 70-74.
Sawyer, C. R., & Behnke, R. R. (1999). State anxiety patterns for public speaking and the
behavioral inhibition system. Communication Reports, 12, 33-41.
Sawyer, C. R., and Behnke, R. R. (2002). Reduction in Public Speaking State Anxiety
During Performance as a Function of Sensitization Processes. Communication Quarterly,
50, 110-121.
Toyokawa, T. (1992). The effects of self-instruction in the reduction of speech anxiety.
Japanese Journal of Behavior Therapy, 18, 11-21.
Trussel, R. P. (1978). Use of graduated behavior rehearsal, feedback, and systematic
desensitization for speech anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 14-20.
Watts, F. N. (1979). Habituation model of systematic desensitization. Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 627-637.
Gray's neurological theory of anxiety (1982, 1990; Gray & McNaughton, 2000) predicts
that state anxiety will decrease with continuous exposure to a fear arousing stimulus.
Previous studies of psychological and physiological state anxiety patterns during public
speaking have reported a pattern of progressively decreasing anxiety levels consistent
with this phenomenon, known as habituation. In the current report, the extent to which
the state anxiety behaviors of speakers conform to the habituation pattern is examined. In
the first of two studies, 30 novice speakers presented informative speeches to audiences
of 18 to 20 fellow students. These speeches were videotaped and replayed in their entirety
for observers (N=30) who rated the severity of each performer's speech anxiety
behaviors. In the second study, each videotaped presentation was divided into one-minute
segments and presented in random order to a new set of observers (N=25). Procedures in
the second study were designed to control for rater expectations that state anxiety would
decline over time. Overall, behavioral measures of public speaking state anxiety
displayed a continually declining pattern associated with habituation. [PUBLICATION
ABSTRACT]KEY CONCEPTS state anxiety, pattern analysis, public speaking,
habituation.
Copyright Eastern Communication Association Fall 2003 | Amber N. Finn (MS, Texas
Christian University, 2002) is adjunct instructor of speech at Navarro College, Corsicana,
Texas. Chris R. Sawyer (Ph.D., University of North Texas, 1992) is Associate Professor

and Ralph R. Behnke (Ph.D., University of Kansas, 1966) is Professor in the Department
of Communication Studies at Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas 76129.
Document PCMQ000020040108dza100003
More Like This