HlA.M~"t(!c:J /VI h1 £1... I c.. /:"b It R ~ f>e I{v-c ~

\101.3 No. '3 Spring [977

STUDIES OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNICATIONAPPREHENSION AND SELF-ESTEEM

JAMES C. McCROSKEY

West Virginia University

VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND

West Virginia Northern College

JOHN A. DALY

Purdue University

RAYMOND L. FALClONE

University of Maryland

This paper reports research conducted as a part of a continuing program designed toprovide empirical delineation of the communication apprehension construct. Fivestudies are reported which indicate a substantial correlation (r = - .52to r = -.72)between oral communication apprehension and self-esteem. Results from two collegestudent samples (N = 192 and N = 272), two samples of elementary and secondary

. te~chers (N = 202. N = 384), and a sample of federal employees (N = 211) indicatehighly consistent relationships across age groups and occupational types.

An area of communication research which has

received increasing attention in recent years con-cerns people's motivations to communicate. Amajorconcern in this research has been communica-tionapprehension. The present study attempts tofurtherthe development of theory relating to com-municationapprehension by isolating one particularcorrelateof communication apprehension and ex-aminingthat relationship across a variety of subjectpopulations varying in age and occupation. Theparticularcorrelate with which this research is con-cernedis self-esteem.

THE NATURE OF SELF-ESTEEM

An individual's image of self has been examinedunder a wide variety of labels including self-concept, self-esteem, self-image, and self-evaluation (Wylie, 1961). It has been central totheoriesof personality (Mead, 1934; Lewin, 1936;Allport,1937;Murphy, 1947; Cattell, 1950; Secord&:Backman, 1965), therapy approaches in counsel-ingactivities (Freud, 1943; Horney, 1950; Rogers,195[;Sullivan, 1953; Maslow, 1954), and concep-tualizationsof interpersonal behavior (James 1890;Combs& Syngg, 1959; Goffman, [961; Bales,(970). The overwhelming conclusion from both

research and theory is that the perceptions one has ofself significantly affect attitudes, behaviors. evalua-tions, and cognitive processes.

Considerable research has been conducted to de-termine the various correlates of self-esteem.

Jourard (1971), for example, has suggested thatindividuals with high self-esteem will engage inhigher levels of self-discIosive behavior. Re[ated tothis is the rather consistent finding that low self-regard is associated with a variety of maladjustedand neurotic behaviors (Brownfain, 1952: Crandall& Bellugi, 1954;B[ock& Thomas, 1955, HiIIson&Worchel, 1957; Leary, 1957). These research re-sults led McCandless (1970) to conclude that the"literature is consensual that a good self-concept isrelated to other indices of social adjustment" (p.456). An individual's level of self-esteem has alsobeen related to persuasibility (Hovland & Janis,1959; Cooper & Jones, 1970; Helmreich, Aronson& LeFau, 1970; Deaux, 1972) and influence at-tempts (Thomas & Burdock, 1954; Cohen, 1956),as well as liking (Walster, 1965) and motjvation(Korman, 1970; Deci, 1975).

In classroom research the concept an individualhas of self has also played an important role. Self-esteem. operationalized in various ways with di-verse samples of subjects, has been consistently

.270 McCroske~', Daly, Richmond, and Faldone

linked to achievement (Brookover & Thomas.1964: Bledsoe. 1967: Dyson. 1967: Paschal. 1968:Caplin. 1969: Alberti, 1971; Bailey, 1971). Thisrelationship may start at a very early age(Hamachek. 1971) and extend through the schoolyears. into choice of occupations (Priess, 1968),and further into adulthood and old age (Brim. 1966:Back & Gergen. 1968). It has been related in theclassroom to role behavior in small groups(Crowell, Katcher & Miyamoto. 1955), evaluationof instruction in discussion courses (Ober & Jandt,1973), and classroom performance (Miyamoto,Crowell & Katcher, 1956).

The conclusion of research concerned with de-

velopment of self-esteem may be summarized sim-ply: individuals derive their feelings about self fromtheir interactions with others. Cooley (1902) label-led this initially the "looking glass self" and sub-sequent theorizing by sociologists such as Mead(1934) and psychologists like Festinger (1951) suP-.ports such an interpretation. Research has providedempirical evidence as well. Brookover and Gottlieb(1964) and Snyder (1965), as well as a host of others(Manis. 1955: Miyamoto & Dornbusch, 1956: Vid-eback, 1960: Mannheim, 1966: Doherty & Secord,1971). have clearly indicated that Cooley's earlyreasoning was essentially correct. We are whatothers make us be.

Individuals seek out those who confirm their

self-image. This is so even when that self-image isnot entirely positive. Consequently, the link be-tween self-esteem and actual behavior is not a weakone (Greenhaus & Badin, 1974). Backman andSecord (1962) found, for example, that sororitygirls interacted most frequently with those they per-ceived as confirming their self-concept. Similarly,and at first thought somewhat counter-intuitively,Deutsch and Solomon (1959) demonstrated thatpeople with low self-esteem view low evaluationsof themselves from others as more favOl:ablethanhigh evaluations. Indeed, the research evidence isstrong that individuals will modify their concep-tions of self over time so that they are congruentwith their perceptions of what others think of them(Kipnis, 1961).

COMMUNICA nON APPREHENSION ANDSELF-ESTEEM

Many of the descriptions of the individual Withlow self-esteem and the individual with high Com.munication apprehension appear similar. Indeed,the research in both areas emphasizes the possibilit~of such a relationship.

Previous research in communication apprehen.sion has clearly indicated its .pervasive nature insocial interaction. In any interpersonal encounterJbasic requirement is communication. To functioneffectively individuals must communicate with oneanother. Yet for some, communication experienceshave been unrewarding, indeed punishing, and asJconsequence these individuals avoid situationswhere communication might be required. One'slevel of communication apprehension has beenfound to predict a variety of important variables.such as occupational choice (Daly & McCroskey.1975),personnelselectiondecision(Daly& Leth.1976), seating choices and interaction behavior insmall groups (McCroskey & Lepard, 1975), avoi.dance of competitive situations (Giffin & Gilham.1971), as well as lowered trust in other's com.municative attempts (Low, 1950: Giffin & Heider.1967). It has been related to an individual's willing.ness to engage in self-disclosure (Hamilton. 19i2:McCroskey& Richmond,in press), feelingsof iso-lation and ineffectiveness in social activities (Loll& Sheets, 1951), and ability to discuss personalproblems (Heston & Andersen, 1972), especiallywith significant others such as parents (Phillips,1968). This last relationship has received furthersupport from Bing (1963), who found that highllverbal children had mothers who were more respon-sive and interested in their child's communicationthan were mothers with low-verbal children.

More recently, research has demonstrated(hatindividuals with characteristicscommon to highcommunication apprehension tend to be. rated !1~others as less positive than low apprehensives onanumber of evaluative dimensions (McCroske~,Daly, Richmond, & Cox, 1975; McCroskey E.:Richmond,I975b;Daly,McCroskey& Richmond.in press). This finding seems to extend all the \\'a~

APPREHENSION AND SELF-ESTEEM

aack to the elementary level where teachers~valuate students' academic potential differentlysimplyon the basisof communicationapprehension\ylcCro&key& Daly, (976). Perhaps as a reactionIlJthese negative evaluations, highly apprehensiveInJividualshave been noted to respond differently,JnJin negative directions, on a number of differentpersonality measures (Low & Sheets, 1951;\IcCroskey, Daly & Sorenson, 1976).

In describing the apprehensive individual, Phil-lips( (968) indicated that others see her or him as"tightlipped. .. uncommunicative... shy, diffi-dent. fearful, apprehensive and antisocial" (40).Lowand Sheets (1951) found that the individualwith high communication apprehension had agreatertendency to worry, be ineffective in socialinteraction, and be generally withdrawn fromlJthas. In early research into the construct, GiIken-son( (940) found that fearful speakers also tendedtowards lower self-evaluations.

The conclusion of both lines of research mergeintothe hypothesis that individuals with high com-municationapprehension will also have lower self-esteemthan others. Individuals with high apprehen-sion of communication tend to avoid situations

wherecommunication might be required and, as aconsequence, fail to receive the rewards normallyassociated with interaction. Similarly, when theyinteractwith others they engage in less sociallyacceptable behaviors and find themselves beingevaluated negatively by others. They find interac-tionspunishing. All of this should be reflected in thewayothers act towards the apprehensive and, sinceone's self-esteem is to a large extent a function ofheror his interaction with others, the apprehensiveindividual should clearly report a lowered self-Image.

We should stress that our hypothesized relation-ship between communication apprehension andself-esteemdoes not necessarily imply that one var-iableis the cause of the other. Rather, we view thesetwovariables as involved in a reciprocally causalrelationship.As one is raised or lowered by externalforces, an associated impact on the other shouldfollow.Whether low self-esteem or high communi-Cationapprehension occurs first in the development

271

of the individual is not, and probably cannot beknown. But as in the case of the chicken and theegg, we hypothesize that the presence of either willbe highly predictive of the other. While this hypoth-esis may seem to be clearly derivable from previousresearch, it has not been carefully tested across avariety of subject populations with multiple mea-sures of the variables involved. Such testing was thepurpose of this investigation.

METHOD

Subjects

To test our hypothesis, data were collected fromfive samples representing three diverse populations.The first two samples, drawn two years apart, werestudents enrolled in basic courses in interpersonalcommunication at an eastern university. The firstsample included 192Ss and the second included 272Ss. Data were also collected from two samples (N =202 and N = 384) of elementary and secondaryteachers who were predominantly female andranged in age from 22 to 64. The data from the tWosamples were collected one year apart. The finalsample was composed of 211 predominantly maleadults employed in a large federal research estab-lishment located in the metropolitan Washington,D. C. area. Ages of these Ss ranged from 25 to 60.

Measures

Communication apprehension among the Ss in allfive samples was measured by the Personal Reportof Communication Apprehension (PRCA), an in-strument which focuses on apprehension about oralcommunication (McCroskey, 1970). Previous re-ports of internal reliability of this instrument haveall exceeded .90 (cf., McCroskey, 1970). In thecurrent study estimated reliability ranged from. 92to .95 across the various samples. This instrumentwas chosen primarily because of its well-established predictive and construct validity as wellas its high reliability. For a complete discussion ofthe validity of this instrument, see McCroskey(1975).

272 McCroske)", Dal~', Richmond, and Falcione

To determine whether observed relationships be-tween communication apprehension and self-esteem could be generalized beyond the specificPRCA measure, two additional measures were em-ployed. The first was the Verbal Reticence Scaledeveloped by Lustig (1974). In previous researchthis instrument has been observed to have a substan-

tial correlation (.74. Lustig, 1974) with the PRCA.In the present investigation a correlation of .69 wasobserved. The association between the two instru-ments suggests their concurrent validity as mea-sures of oral communication apprehension. Thus,the Lustig scale was administered to the secondsample of college students. The estimated internalreliability of the instrument for this sample was. 95.

The other communication apprehension measureemployed was the Writing Apprehension Test(WAT. Daly & Miller. 1975a). The PRCA and theWAT have been found to be only moderately corre-lated (ranging from .30 to .40) in previous researchand are believed to measure relatively distinct formsof communication apprehension, the PRCA tappingoral communication apprehension and the WATindexing apprehension about written communica-tion (Daly & Miller, 1975b). the WAT was adminis-tered to both samples of teachers and the sample offederal employees. Estimated internal reliability ofthe WAT ranged from. 94 to .96 across the threesamples, and the observed correlations between thePRCA and the WAT ranged from .34 to .39. Sinceprevious research and theory have focused almostexclusively on oral communication apprehension, itwas recognized that obtained results from this mea-sure should be viewed from more of an exploratorythan a theory-testing perspective.

Two instruments were employed to measureself-esteem. The McCroskey-Richmond Self-Esteem Index (MRSEI) was administered to all fivesamples. This is a multidimensional measure ofself-esteem that has high internal reliability, satis-factory test-retest reliability, and strong I?videnceofboth predictive and concurrent validity (McCroskey& Richmond, 1975a). In the current series ofstudies the median estimates of internal reliabilityfor each of the five dimensions were as follows:Sociability, .86; Composure, .86; Competence,.84; Extroversion, .89; Character, .79.

In order to determine whether observed relation.ships between communication apprehension andself-esteem as measured by the MRSEI could begeneralized to other measures of self-esteem, thesecond sample of students and the second sampleofteachers were also asked to complete the BergerSelf-Acceptance Scale (Berger, 1952). This deci.sion was prompted by the extremely similar resuh,obtained from the analyses of the data of the firstthree samples analyzed (e.g., the correlations be.tween the PRCA and the competence dimensionofself-esteem were exactly the same in all threeanalyses). The Berger scale was chosen becauseofits previously established reliability and predictivevalidity as a unidimensional measure of self-esteem(Berger, 1952). In the current studies the estimatesof internal reliability of the scale were .89 for thestudent sample and. 91 for the teacher sample.

Data Analyses

Each instrument was examined by means of factoranalysis to determine the stability of previouslyreported factor structures. Since the obtained struc.tures were very similar to those reported in previousresearch, these data will not be reported in detailhere.

Data obtained from the five samples were sub.jected to correlational analyses. Simple correlation,were computed to test the association between thecommunication apprehension scores and the score~on the individualdimensionsof the MRSEIaswellas the Berger scale. In addition, multiple correIa.tions were computed between the five dimensionscores on the MRSEI and the communication ap'

prehension scores for each sample. The .05 alphalevel was set for significance of all tests.

RESULTS

The results of the data analyses involving thePRCA are summarized in Table 1. These resu([~clearly confirm our hypothesis that communicationapprehension and self-esteem are negatively reolated.The multiplecorrelationsfor all five sample~were significant, as were the simple correlations fOTall of the MRSEI dimensions except Character.

APPREHENSION AND SELF -ESTEEM 273

TABLE 1Correlations of Communication Apprehension (PRCA)

and Self-esteem

Self-EsteemMeasure

Students

Sample 1

~IRSEI Dimension

MRSEI ~lul tipleCorrelation -.59*

Berger Self-Acceptance Scale

*significant, p <.05

StudentsSample 2

Sample

TeachersSample 1

TeachersSample 2

FederalEmployees

Similarly, the correlations between the PRCA andBerger scale scores for both samples were signifi-cant.

The magnitude of the significant correlations is ofmoderate strength, the highest indicating just over50percent shared variance. This range is consistentwiththe theoretical relationship between communi-cation apprehension and self-esteem. Substantiallylowercorrelations would call into question the so-cialsignificance of the observed relationship; sub-stantiallyhigher correlations would suggest the var-iables were isomorphic, a relationship muchstronger than previous research and theory wouldexplain.

Table 2 reports the obtained correlations betweenthe self-esteem measures and the supplementarycommunication apprehension measures. The ob-tainedresults from the Lustig scale. as indicated inTable2, are very similar to those consistently ob-servedacross the five samples for the PRCA. Theseresults, therefore. suggest that the association be-tWeen self-esteem and oral communication ap-

prehension is not unique to the PRCA instrument.but rather can be generalized to communicationapprehension that is indexed by other measures thatfocus on oral communication.

The results based on the WAT, however, suggesta need to qualify our general hypothesis. The ob-served correlations between the WAT scores andself-esteem are substantially lower on the sociabil-ity, composure, and extroversion dimensions of theMRSEI, and the total score of the Berger scale, thanthose observed for the PRCA. Only the competenceand character correlations are similar for the WATand the PRCA.

DISCUSSION

The obtained results of these five studies show a

remarkably consistent relationship between oralcommunication apprehension and self-esteemacross five samples from three widely divergentsubject populations. The range of correlations withthe Berger scale is only - .52to - .57. Therangeof

Sociability -.24*

Composure -.36*

Competence -.35*

Extroversion -.51*

'Character -.06

-.24* -.29* -.18* -.23*

-.43* -.36* -.35* -.48*

-.32* -.35* -.34* -.35*

-.58* -.49* -.51* -.69*

-.07 -.07 -.02 -.13

-.63* -.54* -.58* -.72*

-.57* -.52*

274 McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, and Falcione

TABLE 2Correlations of Supplementary Apprehension

Measures with Self-esteem

Sample/Apprehension Measure

Self-Esteem

Measure

Students

Sample 2Lustig

*significant, p ~ .05

multiple-correlationswith the MRSEI, whilegreater, is only - .54 to -.72. The range on theindividual dimensions of the MRSEI is even small-er.

The consistency of these results suggests that thetheoretical relationship between oral communica-tion apprehension and self-esteem is not specific toanyone subject population, such as college stu-dents-the group with whom most previous workhas been done. Nor is the relationship specific toany single measure of self-esteem or oral communi-cation apprehension. Rather, the theoretical rela-tionship is clearly generalizable to adult popula-tions, at least those similar to the ones involved inthese studies, and across self-esteem and oral com-munication apprehension measures.

Clearly, lowered self-esteem is associated withhigh oral communication apprehension and must be

Teachers

Sample 1WAT

Teachers

Sample 2WAT

Federal

EmployeesWAT

-.27* -.31* -.40*

-.14*

considered in the delineation of the communication

apprehension construct. The results of our explor-atory work with writing apprehension, however.suggest a much less substantial relationship be-tween this form of communication apprehensionand self-esteem. It would appear from the resultsofthese studies, therefore, that a clear delineation ofthe communication apprehension construct musttake into account the various types of communica-tion apprehension and their differential degree ofassociation with self-esteem.

REFERENCES

ALBERTI, 1.M. Correlates of self perception in (h~school. Paper presented at the annual convention (11the Educational Research Association, New York.February, 197I.

mSEI Dimension

Sociabili ty -.33*

Composure -.31*

Competence -.27*

Extroversion -.65*

Character -.11

MRSEI tultipleCorrelation -.72*

Berger Self-

Acceptance Scale -.53*

-.13 -.09 -.13

-.06 -.14* -.12

-.24* -.27* -.30*

-.12 -.18* -.36*

-.03 -.06 -.13

APPREHENSION AND SELF-ESTEEM

ALLPORT, G. W. Personality: Apsychological interpre-tation. New York: Holt, 1937.

BACK, K.W., & GERGEN, K.J. The self through thelatter span of life. In C. Gordon and K.J. GergeniEds.), The selfin social imeraction. New York: JohnWiley, 1968.241-250.

BACKMAN, e.W., & SECORD. P.F. Liking, selectiv-ity, and misperception in congruent interpersonal rela-tions. Sociometry. 1962.25.321-335.

BAILEY. R.C. Self concept differences in low and highachieving students. Journal of Clinical Psychology.1971. 27. 188-191.

BALES, R.F. Personality and interpersonal behl/l'ior.New York: Holt, 1970.

BERGER. E.M. The relation between expressed accep-tance of self and expressed acceptance of' others.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952.~7. 778-782.

BING, E. The effects of child rearing practices on thedevelopment of differential cognitive abilities. ChildDevelopment, 1963. 34. 631-648.

BLEDSOE, J. Self concept of children and their intelli-gence. achievement, interests and anxiety. ChildhoodEducation, 1967,43,436-438.

BLOCK, J., & THOMAS, H. Is satisfaction with self ameasure of adjustment? Journal of Abnormal and So-cial Psychology, 1955,51,254-259.

BRevI.O. G. Socialization through the life cycle. In O.G.Brim and S. Wheeler (Eds.), Sociali::.ation afterchildhood: Two essays. New York: John Wiley, 1966,3-46.

BROOKOVER, W.B., & GOTIlEIB, D.A sociology ofeducation. New York: American Book Company,1964.

BROOKOVER, W.O., & THOMAS, S. Self concept ofability and school performance. Sociology of Educa-tion, 1964,37,271-279.

BROWNFAIN, J.J. Stability of the self concept as adimension of personality. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1952,67,597-606.

CAPLIN, M.D. The relationship between self conceptand academic achievement. Journal of ExperimentalEducation, 1969,37, 13-16.

CATIEll, R.B. Personality: A systematic theoreticalandfacroral study. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.

COHEN. A.R. Experimental effect of ego defense pre-ferences on interpersonal relations. Journal of Ab-normal and Social Psychology, 1956,52, 19-27.

COMBS. A.W., & SNYGG, D. Individual beha~'ior,

Rev. Ed. New York: Harper, 1959.

275

COOLEY, e.H. Human nature and the social order.New York: Scribners, 1902.

COOPER,l., & JONES. R.A. Self esteem and consis-tency as determinants of anticipatory attitude change.JOl/rnal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1970.14.321-320.

CRANDALL. V.J., & BELLUGI. U. Some relation-ships of interpersonal and intrapersonal conceptualiza-tions to personal-social adjustment. Journal of Per-sonality, 1954.23.224-252.

CROWELL. L.. KATCHER, A.. & MIYAMOTO. S.F.

Self concept of communication skill and performancein small group discussion. Speech Monographs. 1955.22. 20-27.

DALY, J.A.. & LETH, S. Communication apprehensionand the personnel selection process. Paper presentedat the annual convention of the International Com-

munication Association, Portland, April. 1976.DALY, J.A., & McCROSKEY, J.e. Occupational de-

sirability and choice as a function of communicationapprehension. JOl/rnal of COl/nseling Psychology.1975,22,309-313.

DALY. l.A., McCROSKEY, J.C.. & RICHylOND.V.P. The relationships between vocal activity andperceptions of communicators in small group interac-tion. Western Speech Communication, in press.

DALY, J.A., & MILLER, M.D. Apprehension of writ-ing as a predictor of message intensity. Journal ofPsychology. 1975,89. 175-177. (a)

DALY. J.A.. & MILLER. M.D. The development of ameasure of writing apprehension. Research in theTeaching of English, 1975,9,242-249. (b)

DEAUX, K. Anticipatory attitude change: A direct test ofthe self esteem hypothesis. JOl/rnal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology. 1972.8, 143-155.

DECr. E.L. llItrinsic mOti~'ation. New York: Plenum.1975.

DEUTSCH, M.. & SOLOMON, L. Reactions to evalua-tions by others as int1uenced by self evaulations.Sociometry, 1959,22.93-112.

DOHERTY, E.G., & SECORD, P.F. Change in roomcmate and interpersonal congruency. RepresentativeResearch in Social Psychology, 1971, 2, 70-75.

DYSON, E.A. A study of ability grouping and the selfconcept. Journal of Educational Research, 1967. 60,403-405.

FESTINGER, L. A theory of social comparison pro-cesses. Human Relations. 1954.7, 117-140.

FREUD, S. A general introduction to psychoanalysis.Garden City, N. Y.: Garden City Publishing, 1943.

276 McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, and Falcione

GIFFIN. K.. & GILHAM. S.M. Relationship betweenspeech anxiety and motivation. Speech Monograph.f.1971. 38.70-73.

GIFFIN. K.. & HEIDER. M. The relationship betweenspeech anxiety and the suppression of communicationin childhood. Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement,1967. pt. 2.

GILKENSON. H. Social fears as reported by students incollege speech classes. Speech Monographs, 1942.9.141-160.

GOFFMAN. E. Encoullter: Two studies in the sociologyof il/teraction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1961.

GREENHAUS. J.H.. & BADIN. T.J. Self esteem, per-formance and satisfaction: Some tests of a theory.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 722-726.

HAMACHEK. D.E. Encoullters with the self. New York:Holt. 1971.

HAMILTON. P.R. The effects of risk proneness on smallgroup interaction. communication apprehension andself disclosure. Unpublished masters thesis. IllinoisState University, 1972;

HELMREICH. R.. ARONSON. E.. &LEFAU.J. To erris humanizing-sometimes: Effects of self esteem.competence and a pratfall on interpersonal attraction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970.16. 259-264.

HESTON. J.K.. & ANDERSEN, P. Anomie-alienationand restrained communication among high school stu-dents. Paper presented at the annual convention of theWestern Speech Communication Association, Hon-olulu. November. 1972.

HILLSON. J.S.. & WORCHEL. P. Self concept anddefensive behavior in the maladjusted. Journal ofConsulting Psychology, 1957, 2 I. 83-88.

HORNEY. K. Neurosis and human growth. New York:Morton. 1950. .

HOVLAND. e.!.. & JANIS. I.L. Personality and per-suasibility. New Haven: Yale Press. 1959.

JAMES, W. Principles ofpsYc/lOlogy. New York: Holt,1890.

KIPNIS, D.M. Changes in self concept in relation toperceptions of others. Journal of Personality, 1961.29. 449-465.

KORMAN, A.K. Toward a hypothesis of work behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology. 1970. 54, 31-41.

LEARy, T ./merpersonal diagnosis of personaliry. NewYork: Ronald. 1957.

LEWIN. K. Principles of topological psychology. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1936.

LOW. G.M. The relationship of psychometric factors tostage fright. Unpublished masters thesis. Universityof Utah. 1950.

LOW. G.M.. & SHEETS. B. V. The relation Ofpsychometric factors to stage fright. Speech MOllo.graphs, 1951. 18. 266-271.

LUSTIG,M.W. Verbal reticence: A reconceptualizationand preliminary scale development. Paper presentedat the annual convention of the Speech Communica.tion Association. Chicago. December 1974.

MANIS. M.M. Social interaction and the self concept.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1955.5 I. 362-370.

MANNHEIM. B.F. Reference groups, membershipgroups and the self image. Sociometry, 1966. 29.265-279.

MASLOW, A.H. Motil'ation and personality. NewYork: Harper, 1954.

McCANDLESS. B. Adolescems: Behm'ior and del'e!-opmenr. New York: Holt, 1970.

McCROSKEY,J.e. Measures of communication-boundanxiety. Speech Monographs, 1970, 37. 269-277.

McCROSKEY. J.e. Validity of the PRCA as an indexoforal communication apprehension. Paper presentedatthe annual convention of the Speech CommunicationAssociation. Houston. December, 1975.

McCROSKEY, J.C.. & DALY. J.A. Teachers' expecta.tions of the communication apprehensive child inelementary school. Human Communication Re-search. 1976.3.67-72.

McCROSKEY, J.e.. DALY, J.A.. RICHMOND. V.P..& COX. B.G. The effects of communication ap-prehension on interpersonal attraction. Human Com-munication Research. 1975.2.51-66.

McCROSKEY. J.e.. DALY. J.A.. & SORENSEN. G.

Personality correlates of communication apprehen.sion. HUlllan COlllmunication Research. 1976. 2.376-380.

McCROSKEY, J.e.. & LEPARD. T. Nonverbal corre.

lates of communication apprehension. Paper pre.sented at the annual com'ention of the Eastern Com-munication Association. New York. 1975.

McCROSKEY, J.C.. & RICHMO!'-:D, V.P. Self.credibility as an index of self-esteem. Paper presentedat the annual convention of the Speech Communica.tion Association. Houston, December 1975. (a)

McCROSKEY. J.e.. & RICHMOND. V.P. The effect'

of communication apprehension on-the perception ofpeers. Paper presented at the annual convention of theWestern Speech Communication Association. Seal-tie, November, 1975. (b)

McCROSKEY, J.C.. & RICHMOND, V.P. Communi.cation apprehension as a predictor of self-disclosure.Communication Quarter!.,'. in press.

APPREHENSION AND SELF-ESTEEM

~IEAD. G.H. .Willd. self alld society. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press. 1934.

:vIIYAMOTO. S.F.. & DORNBUSCH. S.M. A test ofthe interactionist hypothesis of self conception. Amer-ican Journal of.Suciology. 1956. 6!. 399-403.

:vIURPHY.G. Persollality: A biosodal approach to ori-gillsami struclllres. :-.fewYork: Harper & Row, 1947.

OBER. N.. & JANDT, F.E. Students' self concepts andevaluation of discussion instruction. Speech Teacher,1973.22.64-66.

PASCHAL. B.T. The role of self concept in achieve-ment. Jou/'llal of Negru EduCl/tioll. 1968. 37. 392-396.

PHILLIPS. G.(-.,[,Reticence: Pathology of the normalspeaker. Speech ,Hollographs, 1968,35,39-49.

PREISS. J.J. Self and role in medical education. In C.Gordon and K.J. Gergen (Eds.), The self in socialimeracrioll. New York: John Wiley, 1968,207-218.

ROGERS. C.R. Cliellf celllered therapy: Its currellfpract(ce. implicatiolls alld theory. Boston:Houghron':'vliftlin. !951.

277

SECORD, P.F., & BACKMAN, C.W. Interpersonal ap-proach to personality. In B.H. Maher (Ed.),Progressin experimenral personality research, Vol. 2. NewYork: Academic Press, 1965.91-126.

SULLIV AN, H.S. The interpersonal theory of

psychiarry. New York: Norton, 1953.

SNYDER, E.E. Self concept theory: An approach tounderstanding the behavior of disadvantaged pupils.The Clearing House, 1965. (December), 242-246.

THOMAS. R., & BURDICK. R. Self esteem and inter-

personal influence. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 1954,51, 419-429.

VIDEBACK. R. Self conception and the reaction ofothers. Sociometry, 1960,23,351-359.

WALSTER, E. The effects of self esteem on romanticliking. Jour/Illl of Experimenral Social Psychology.1966,3, 73-79.

WYLIE, R.C. The s'elf concept. Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press, 1961.

GOSSIP, REPUTATION, AND KNOWLEDGEIN ZlNACANTANJohnBeardHavilandIn this sophisticated anthropological study, Haviland evolves a theory in which the abilitytogossip is a general manifestation of cultural competence, transcribing and analyzjng seg-ments of Mexican Indian conversation. 264 pages lllus. Cloth $20.00

MEHINAKUThe Drama of Daily Life in a Brazilian Indian Village

Thomas Gregor

Gregor views the daily life of the Mehinaku in adramaturgical framework. .. It is one of the most

important analytic works to emerge from theanthropological profession in many a year."

-Robert F. Murphy, Columbia UniversityIllus. Cloth $24.00 June

The University of Chicago Press Chicago 60637