RECEIVER APPREHENSION AND COLLEGE STUDENTS :

AN EXAMINATION OF REMEDIATION VIA

INTERACTIVE SKILLS TRAINING

by

A. KATHLEEN WILCOX

November 2002
Lewis-Clark State College
500 8^th Avenue
Lewiston, Idaho

RECEIVER APPREHENSION AND COLLEGE STUDENTS:

AN EXAMINATION OF REMEDIATION VIA

INTERACTIVE SKILLS TRAINING

Abstract

by A. Kathleen Wilcox, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Communication
Lewis-Clark State College

Receiver apprehension (RA) negatively impacts the educational process for apprehensive students in numerous ways, including reducing listening comprehension, message retention, and lowering test scores. It has also been shown that apprehension increases for motivated students who expect to be evaluated on their efficiency of message processing. Examinations of the cognitive and behavioral components of RA and the negative outcomes of RA have suggested that providing apprehensive students with skills training might be beneficial. This research provides significant support for the use of an interactive skills-based technique to reduce receiver apprehension by providing listening and note taking skills training through the use of interactive video instruction.

Problem

In 1975, Wheeless differentiated receiver apprehension (RA) from its parent construct of communication apprehension (CA), defined by McCroskey (1970) as "a broadly based anxiety related to oral communication" (p. 269). Wheeless reasoned that an individual’s communicative roles of source or receiver function independently in fear arousing contexts, and he termed receiver apprehension as "the fear of misinterpreting, inadequately processing and/or not being able to adjust psychologically to messages sent by others" (Wheeless, 1975, p. 263). In other words, while communication apprehension (CA) relates to self-evaluative social approval based on the sending of messages, RA is associated with self-evaluation concerns based on the receiving of messages. Since Wheeless’ initial conceptualization, scholars have determined that RA is related to listening effectiveness (Paschall, 1984; Beatty, 1985; Roberts, 1986), willingness to listen (Vinson & Roberts, 1990), information processing (Beatty, 1981; Bocchino, 1984), education level (McDowell & McDowell, 1978; Preiss, Wheeless, & Allen, 1990); and cognitive complexity (Beatty & Payne, 1981).

Wheeless, Preiss, and Gayle (1997) have further restricted the notion of receiver apprehension as information reception apprehension noting that, while some RA may be linked to an irrational primary anxiety, most receiver apprehension is related to a "secondary anxiety tied to…informational receptivity…grounded in cognitive processing deficiencies" (p. 166). In other words, there is a threshold where anxiety may occur as a receiver attempts to process, interpret, and adjust to information.

Students have an obvious need to manage information via cognitive, affective, and behavioral operations of processing, interpreting, and adjusting. Receiver apprehension has been examined by scholars in educational settings, and the combined findings clearly point to negative academic consequences for students with receiver apprehension. These include lower grade point averages for highly apprehensive students (Wheeless & Scott, 1976), negative correlations between GPA and class standing and scores on RA measures (Preiss & Kuper, 1988), diminished reading, writing, and verbal abilities (Preiss, Kerssen, & Kuper, 1989), poor test and writing performance (Scott & Wheeless, 1977), decreased recall of messages (Daniels & Whitman, 1979; Roberts, 1986), and more frequent commission of errors in stressful circumstances (Bock & Bock, 1984). Preiss et al. (1989) found that high RA was associated with low scores on tests predicting academic success.

Ayres, Wilcox, and Ayres (1995) explored the notions of motivation and social evaluation relative to RA. Ayres and his colleagues asserted that receivers would be less likely to experience apprehension when they were not motivated to process information or did not expect to be evaluated on the adequacy of processing. They found that high processing demand, combined with high motivation to perform and the prospect of evaluation were predictive of high RA. The negative repercussions for students with high RA are clear and point to a need for interventions to lower RA, improve academic performance, and, hopefully, students’ enjoyment of learning experiences.

Purpose

To date, interventions for RA have been limited to proposed "treatments" such as relaxation training (Wolvin & Coakley, 1985). Being relaxed is probably of value, though no research has been conducted to validate this suggestion, and such an approach is most likely oversimplified for highly apprehensive students who must adapt to messages of varying complexity and evaluation. It is also difficult to formulate and test interventions for modifying the information processing operations of individuals in various types of situations with varying cognitive styles and needs. However, the combined the findings of Preiss and Remland (1990) and Ayres, et al., (1995) relative to pedagogical skills deficits and motivation suggest that an intervention for RA is needed. Remediation that increases a motivated student’s abilities to cope with complex messages should concurrently decrease the amount of apprehension experienced, particularly when the prospect of evaluation is present.

This research sought to determine if RA can be reduced by providing highly apprehensive students with skills training in listening and note taking. There is a vast body of literature, including college texts, that outlines the importance to students of developing good listening skills (Anderson, Eisenberg, Holland, Wiener, & Rivera-Kron, 1983; Ayres, 1996; Ayres & Miller, 1994; Brownell, 1986; Coakley & Wolvin, 1991; Floyd, 1985; Morley, 1977; Sieber, O’Neil, & Tobias, 1977; Terris, 1976; Watson & Barker, 1990; Wood, 1996). There are also study guides for students that emphasize the importance of listening skills and note taking techniques for educational success (e.g., Sotiriou, 1989). Several publications offer brief instruction methods for note taking (Ayres, 1996; Ayres & Miller, 1994; Brownell, 1986; Nichols & Stevens, 1957), but no research, to date, has effectively targeted development of these skills to apprehensive listeners. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if training students to enhance their listening and note taking skills training will reduce these students’ receiver apprehension.

The "cognitive processing deficiencies" referred to by Wheeless, Preiss, and Gayle (1997) involve the notion that RA relates to the inability to assimilate information, to use judgment categories, or rules for making decisions. Beatty and Payne (1981) defined these abilities as "cognitive complexity" and subsequent research has been directed at identifying portions or stages of information processing where apprehension has disrupted the process (Preiss, 1987; 1989). Wheeless, et al. (1997) suggest that individuals with high RA may have primary irrational fears or anxiety, and RA is an affective response when deficient cognitive processing abilities inhibit the achievement of goals or the performance of behaviors required by a given environment.

Although there has been a great deal of discussion about the negative repercussions of RA and how it is generated, these notions offer little assistance for those interested in remediation. Examination of the effects of RA suggests, however, that remediation in the form of skills development training may be beneficial. Preiss and Kerssen (1990) have ascertained a cognitive and affective process that results in the negative outcomes associated with RA: drive motivation, cognitive interference, and skills deficit. Preiss and Remland (1990) identified learning deficits related to inefficient study skills, unorganized study habits, poor note-taking, reading, writing, and test-taking skills.

Studies by McDowell and McDowell (1978) and McDowell, McDowell, Pullan, and Linbergs (1981) found that RA was higher for high school students than college students, and higher still for junior high students. Preiss, Wheeless, and Allen (1990) also found a negative relationship between education level and RA. Proposed explanations for these effects have been that (a) education may improve the processes necessary to reduce RA, or (b) highly apprehensive students may leave the educational system earlier than low-apprehensive receivers (Preiss, et. al, 1990). Both explanations are likely to be salient, but the probability of the second explanation points to the need for remediation before students drop out of the educational system.

This research will generate useful information concerning the temporal relationship of receiver apprehension affect and cognitive performance. Its primary importance, however, derives from its potential for identification of an efficacious strategy for productive pedagogic intervention for apprehensive students.

Receiver Apprehension

An important, though unstated, feature of most of the early research of communication anxiety was its emphasis on the role of the message "sender," or source of information, conceptualized by Shannon & Weaver in their nascent model of information theory (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). Wheeless, however, viewed apprehension of receivers as a unique disruptive factor in communication interactions, less frequent among college student research participants than source-based CA, but subversive to effective communication (Wheeless,1975). Katie Paschall (1984) differentiated the apprehension experienced by 167 students at the University of Florida as sources of information from that experienced as receivers of information.

At about the same time, McCroskey’s 1984 re-definition of the construct of CA allowed for this more complex approach and fostered research on the correlates and consequences of apprehension of receivers in communicative encounters (see Wheeless, et al., 1997). Wheeless and Scott identified a cognitive pattern of highly apprehensive receivers indicating low confidence in their own ability to process information (Wheeless & Scott, 1976), and most subsequent research has associated RA with information processing (Preiss et al., 1990; Preiss & Wheeless, 1989b; Preiss et al., 1990), and/or listening effectiveness (Beatty, 1985; Beatty et al., 1980; Preiss & Wheeless, 1989a; Preiss et al., 1990; Roberts, 1986).

The "cognitive pattern" of low confidence in information processing ability of apprehensive receivers identified by Wheeless & Scott (1976) has been explained by Wheeless and his colleagues (1997) as occurring due to (a) primary, or state anxiety which results from fear that arises in particular information-processing situations, such as reading or listening, or (b) a generalized trait-like, or secondary response associated with receiving new information. Various research supports the notions of trait RA (Beatty, Behnke, & Henderson, 1980; Preiss, 1989; Preiss & Gayle, 1991; Scott & Wheeless, 1977; Wheeless, 1975) and situational or state RA (Ayres et al., 1995; Beatty, 1985; Schumacher & Wheeless, 1996; Wheeless & Williamson, 1992; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001). This differentiation of RA as either an on-going trait or a situational state parallels Spielberger’s (1966) and Buss and Plomin’s (1975) differentiation of communication apprehension. However, as McCroskey (1984) pointed out in regard to CA, it may be more advantageous to view RA as existing on a continuum from a generalized trait condition to a transitory, situational state.

It is interesting to note that some research has found that moderate levels of RA might facilitate listening and learning, whereas high RA has negative consequences. Roberts (1985), for example, found RA and listening ability to have a curvilinear relationship, rather than a linear one, though Fitch-Hauser, Barker, and Hughes (1990) found the relationship to be a linear one.

Preiss, Wheeless, and Allen (1990) summarized RA research findings in a meta-analysis and specified five categories of possible outcomes for RA, regardless of its nature as either a trait or state condition: "(a) listening effectiveness, (b) processing anxiety, (c) information processing effectiveness, (d) information processing complexity, and (e) education level" ( p. 160). Inspection of the research used for this delineation suggests, however, that information processing effectiveness and lower education level might more usefully be regarded as negative outcomes of listening effectiveness. For example, unevaluated information (Beatty, 1981), increased commission of errors (Bock & Bock, 1984), diminished classroom performance (Preiss, Kerssen, & Kuper, 1989; Preiss & Wheeless, 1989b; Scott & Wheeless, 1977), and leaving the educational system may result from poor listening effectiveness for highly apprehensive students. Whatever the classification, these outcomes - combined with the findings of Preiss and Remland (1990) and Ayres et al. (1995) relative to pedagogical skills deficits, motivation, and evaluation - indicate the need for an intervention to decrease high apprehension of motivated students who are faced with the need to successfully process complex messages. The linear relationship of RA and listening argued by Fitch-Hauser, Barker, and Hughes (1990) also appears to be applicable to receiver apprehension and learning.

Listening and Learning

"I don’t know how I could have done so poorly on that exam. I went to every class and did all the reading." Psychologist James Kalat poses that this problem commonly claimed by students stems from their not having initially learned material well (Kalat, 1990). At first glance, this explanation seems simplistic, but a likely component may be the omission of having listened carefully and effectively to what was heard in class. Education has historically been devoted to improving students’ reading skills in order to improve performance, but listening has been given short shrift, possibly due to the assumption that listening automatically follows hearing. Studies of listening retention and accuracy have shown, however, that this assumption is as mistaken as believing that material read or seen once will be understood and remembered. In fact, researchers have discovered that most visual material is forgotten within the first twenty-four hours after one exposure, and within one month of reading a chapter of text, only about 30% of information is retained (Long, 1993; Weiten, 1989). The retention of aural material is even worse. Unfortunately, studies have shown that most listeners retain only twenty-five percent of what is heard. In other words, seventy-five per cent of aural information received is lost to listeners with presumably normal hearing function (Wolvin & Coakley, 1982). A long-term negative effect of this pattern for students is posed by Wolvin and Coakley (1982), who are of the opinion that educators often confuse listening inefficiency with intellectual deficiency.

Listening is often thought of as being synonymous with hearing, which is the physiological process of receiving aural stimuli, but this is only the first step in listening, which also involves attending to and assigning meaning to stimuli (Wolvin & Coakley, 1979). For students, these abilities must be continuously developed. As early as 1928, Rankin found that college students spend over 50% of their time listening, compared to only 14% writing, 16% speaking, and 17% reading, and these results have been replicated by more recent studies (Rankin, 1928; Wolvin & Coakley, 1985). Working adults have been found to spend about 45% of their communicating time in listening, compared to 9% in writing, 16% in reading, and 30% in talking (Nichols & Stevens, 1957; Rankin, 1939). Wolvin and Coakley (1979) found that grade school teachers devoted less than 10% of the instructional day to directed listening training and Kellogg (1966) was astounded to find that no elementary teachers could actually name a specific skill of listening. Terry Newton (1990) poses that training time decreases from 10% as students progress through their educational careers, even though most classroom material continues to be delivered through oral lecture. Coakley and Wolvin (1991) state that, "Listening is the most frequently-used communication form at all levels of education and the most central to the student’s learning success" (p. 164). In a 1984 National Education Association pamphlet for teachers, S.E. Taylor estimates that high school and college students spend 90% of class time listening to lectures and discussions (Taylor, 1984).

Wolvin and Coakley (1982) delineated five types of listening functions, several of which are common for students: (a) communication within interpersonal relationships, (b) appreciative, such as is used when listening to music or poetry, (c) discriminative, which is the ability to differentiate sounds, such as different voices, or rock music from blues, (d) comprehensive, which requires assigning and retaining meaning, and (e) critical listening, which involves selection and attention to, and evaluation of sounds. Comprehensive listening is the most critical for successful classroom learning, and it requires memory development, concentration, and vocabulary development. All five functions require attention, concentration, and "commitment to listening and responsibility for the communication transaction" (p. 319).

As Coakley and Wolvin (1991), Nichols and Stevens (1957) and Newton (1990) have pointed out, responsibility for successful communication lies with listeners as much as with sources, even though listening is often though of as a passive activity. Further, the causes proposed for chronically poor listening are numerous: poor early role models such as parents and teachers (Wolvin & Coakley, 1982); bad listening habits, such as judging the delivery rather than message content, allowing distraction, avoiding difficult material (Floyd, 1985), rejecting novelty (Nichols & Stevens, 1957); and the inability or unwillingness to analyze meaning or relevance of messages (Lundsteen, 1979; Sotiriou, 1989).

Shannon and Weaver’s (1949) early linear model of communication perceived of the receiver, or listener, as essentially a passive vessel waiting to receive a message sent from the source via some channel, and noise is any force that interferes with effective transmission of the message to the receiver. Expanding this early unsophisticated model, communication is now viewed as being transactional, with messages being sent and received continuously and simultaneously by participants in interactions, in contexts, and noise can be simultaneously external, psychological, and/or physical (Adler & Towne, 1990; Ayres & Miller, 1994; Littlejohn, 1996; Pearson, 1983.) In other words, while a speaker is sending a message, s/he may also be receiving messages from the intended source, such as facial expressions, gestures, etc., and the attitudes, moods, knowledge, and even hunger of the participants might effect the communication outcome as much as auditory noise. Communication apprehension and receiver apprehension are types of psychological noise that can hinder effective communication transactions.

Skills Training

Psychology has long assumed a great deal of organization in how learners cognitively process information (Bandura, 1997; Greenwald, 1981; Piaget, 1966; Tolman, 1959;), though there is little agreement on how this process operates for individuals. However, various educational studies indicate that greater learning results when students exercise some degree of control over learning methods or materials (Bloom, 1954, 1963; Luther, (1997). A.G. Greenwald (1981) states, "Material that is actively generated by the learner is more easily recalled than is material passively received" (p. 223), and Sieber, O’Neil, and Tobias (1977) found that students’ perception of control resulted in better retention of material, test scores, and lessened state anxiety. College study guides for North American students typically account for this phenomenon by instructing students to take an active role in their educations and to develop their listening skills (Terris, 1976; Floyd, 1985). Only a few could be found that give specific or detailed instruction on developing listening and note taking skills (Jewler, Gardner, & McCarthy, 1993; Sotiriou, 1989;1993), and none address the possibility that combining development of these skills might alleviate anxiety. The predominance of skills training for college students appears to be given in campus learning centers, which reach students only through their voluntary participation--an unlikely choice for anxious students and for students who may not recognize their bad listening and learning habits. In fact, Carrell and Willmington (1996) found no relationship between students’ self-evaluation as listeners and their abilities to perform as listeners, with students rating their competence more highly for both listening and speaking than did trained raters.

Nichols’ and Stevens’ (1957) seminal work on listening included descriptions of six poor listening habits that they observed among students at the University of Minnesota: (a) faking attention, (b) listening for facts rather than ideas, (c) avoiding difficult material, (d) rationalizing not listening by deciding the topic is "boring," (e) becoming distracted by delivery, and (f) "yielding to distractions" (p. 111). They suggest that recognizing the practice of these habits and using efficient note taking can improve listening comprehension and retention, and they describe the "precis" and "fact-principle" methods of taking notes (pp. 117-125). Precis writing involves writing a summary of main ideas during the speaker’s pauses or transitions, and fact-principle note taking requires the listener to use a two-column method of writing facts heard in the left column and the governing ideas or principles on the right. Wolvin and Coakley (1982) reiterated these strategies and described listening for main ideas and outlining as added means of effective note taking.

Skills training has been used with some effectiveness in alleviating the anxieties associated with various communication activities and constructs, including dating, reticence, shyness, social anxiety, and public speaking (Kelly, 1997). Kelly posits that, to be most effective, skills training should teach "...processes, rather than component behaviors" (p. 356), which is possible, at least in part, by instructing students in both listening and note taking skills.

Interactive instruction is showing promising results in a variety of contexts. For example, Kevin Harrigan (1995) reported that students appreciate receiving lecture material via computerized compact disc, which allows the student to control the speed of the audio material presented and to move freely between the visual materials. Having the opportunity to review and practice the skills being taught should provide a simple means of reinforcement of the concepts, and allow students to select the method of note taking they like most. This may be analogous to Dwyer’s (2000) notion of teaching students to self-manage communication apprehension by self-selection treatments that they deem most effective for their personal needs.

HypothesIs

H: Students who receive interactive listening and note taking skills training will report lower RA than students in a control or a placebo condition.

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Design

This research employed a pre-test/post-test control group design using the Revised Receiver Apprehension measure (RRAT) devised by Wheeless and Scott (1976). The conditions were: (a) no treatment (control condition), (b) a videotaped college recruiting presentation (placebo condition), and (c) listening and note taking skills delivered via videotape with inserted opportunities for practicing the methods taught (experimental condition). The post-test was a second administration of the RRAT. The population of interest is college students, while the sample was comprised of students in a general education course at a small western college.

Participants

The sample in this study was comprised of 73 students enrolled in an introductory psychology course. Since the course is a general education curriculum offering, this sample was representative of the general student population of the school, with a relatively even number of males and females between the ages of 18-50. The participants were asked only to circle the weekday and time of their section and to give the last four digits of their Social Security numbers for accurate correlation of the pre- and post-test scores.

Participation was encouraged and by awarding extra credit to participants in their psychology course, however mortality resulted in a final sample size of 54 participants for whom pre- and post-test scores were correlated.

Variables

The single independent variable in this study was the treatment condition that had three levels: the control condition, placebo condition, and the experimental skills training condition. These conditions will be subsequently described in detail.

The post-treatment RRAT scores was the dependent variable in this research. This measure is described in an ensuing section.

No skills training or video presentation will be given in this condition.

Approximately one week after completing the first questionnaires, students in this condition will watch a video used to recruit students to the college.

The experimental intervention was also administered one week after administration of the pre-test RRAT. The intervention was an interactive video titled "Eight Easy Steps to Better Listening," produced by the researcher and introduced to the experimental class section using a prepared script. The steps outlined on the video include:

(1) Pre-listening preparation (Ayres & Miller, 1994)

(2) Three methods of note taking including outlining, the précis method (Nichols, 1957), and mapping (Wolvin & Coakley, 1985; Jewler, et al., 1993).

(3) Physical attention

(4) Empathy with the speaker (Ayres & Miller, 1994)

(5) Listening for themes (Goldhaber, 1986)

(6) Resisting pre-judgments

(7) Asking questions

(8) Post-listening exercises of note summarizing and filing (Ayres & Miller, 1994).

These steps comprise a reasonably thorough approach to note taking and listening, as such skills have been presented in related educational materials (Barker, 1971; Newton, 1990).

The verbal descriptions given by the actors on the film are given added emphasis by the accompaniment of graphics listing the key words of each step. A succinct review of the steps follows detailed descriptions of each.

Procedures

Data was collected by permission of the college’s Institutional Research Review Board and the course instructor. The instructor was told only that the questionnaire was part of a research project on the effectiveness of video instruction. After completion of the post-test RRAT, the researchers initialed a research participation form presented by each participant. The Revised Receiver Apprehension measure (RRAT) was administered by trained research confederates in each class. One week following administration of the pre-test, the placebo group watched a videotaped college recruiting presentation, while the experimental group received the interactive videotaped presentation and practice on listening skills and note taking techniques. Following each discussion of a note taking technique on the video, the researcher re-wound the video and asked the participants to practice the technique as it was repeated. Participants were told before viewing the video that their notes were for their benefit only and would not be collected. The control group received no treatment. After one more week, each group again completed the RRAT questionnaire.

Data was gathered by the primary researcher and two trained research confederates in order to maintain internal consistency for this research. The researchers used scripts during all phases of this study in order to maintain consistency across conditions. Participants were asked to identify themselves by the last four digits of their Social Security numbers in order to correlate pre-test and post-test scores and to protect their anonymity. Following the administration of the final instrument, the students were de-briefed as to the nature of the study and given contact information for the researcher in order to learn the findings of the study. They were also told to inform the instructor if they did not wish to grant the researcher access to their scores. None did so. When all forms were gathered, the data for the participants was entered onto computerized data sheets by research assistants.

Measures

The Revised (16-item) Receiver Apprehension Test of Wheeless and Scott (1976) was used to measure trait RA. A brief introduction to the questionnaire begins, "The following statements apply to how various people feel about receiving communication. Indicate if these statements apply to how you feel...," and standard directions for a five-step, Likert-type response format (strongly agree to strongly disagree). In previous research, reliability of this instrument has demonstrated reliability from .82-.92 (Wilcox, 1998; Ayres, et al., 1995; Beatty, Behnke, & Henderson, 1980; Priess, 1989; Scott & Wheeless, 1977). The items of the instrument have been used as correlation markers in construction of other instruments and have demonstrated strong construct validity (Schumacher & Wheeless, 1996; Wheeless, et al., 1997). (Reliability of the instrument in this research is being assessed as of this writing.)

Analysis

The research employed a pretest-post-test control group design. The independent variable was the 3-level treatment condition (control, placebo, or experimental) to which the participants’ classes were randomly assigned. The dependent variable was the post-test trait RA score, and the pre-test scores served as the covariates in the analysis. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired sample t-tests to test the hypothesis and determine whether significant differences existed between the means of the control, placebo, and experimental groups, with an alpha of .05 or beyond established for all comparisons.

Results

ANOVA comparing the pre-test RRAT scores of the three groups showed no significant difference between the means (F(2,54) = 32.42, p=.741) of the post-test scores (F(2,54) = 115.37, p=.028). Paired samples t-tests of the pre- and post-test means of each group did reveal a significant difference only in the pre- and post-test means of the experimental group (pre-test, M=58.21, sd=11.03); post-test, (M=59.42, sd=10.28), t =-2.204, df=18, d=-1.21, p<.05).

Pre-Test and Post-Test Means, Standard Deviations, and Mean Differences

Control Group Placebo Group Experimental Group

Pre-test 56.08 9.61 55.63 10.78 58.21 11.03

(Note: Instrument reverse loads. Lower numbers indicate higher receiver apprehension.

[ * ] denotes significant difference at p < .05 level.)

Discussion

The study was designed to determine if listening and note taking skills training would reduce receiver apprehension. The data showed that receiver apprehension was significantly reduced for the students in the experimental group who received the interactive skills training, but was, in fact slightly increased for students in the placebo group, and was almost completely unchanged for students in the control group. These results are promising, however, guarded optimism is warranted. There are some promising implications of these findings, but there were also limitations of this study.

With a small sample size of 54 and even smaller group sizes for comparison (control, N=24, placebo, N=11, experimental, N=19), the the findings are limited and should be considered tentative; further examination is necessary utilizing a larger sample. While this is a common limitation of research, it is an especially notable one in this study, since only a total of 11 participants were ranked as having high receiver apprehension (One or more standard deviations above the mean on the pre-test). A considerably larger sample is needed to more closely examine the effectiveness of the intervention for these students, for whom RA is problematic.  The non-significant results of previous research which examined the effectiveness of videotaped skills training in reducing RA point to the salience of interactivity of the intervention in this research. This is an exciting notion and should be developed in a variety of ways. Using Dwyer’s notion of a Multidimensional Model for treating high trait communication anxiety (CA) (2000), it may be useful to examine the "firing order" of receiver apprehension. In other words, by helping students with high RA to identify their own cognitive, affective and behavioral reactions, it might be possible to develop and target interventions more strategically.  Further research could also operationalize interactivity differently to examine this notion more closely. For example, listening and note taking skills training could be combined with an apprehension therapy, such as relaxation training or cognitive restructuring, and offered via computer disc. This would allow students to review the material as needed and to select the strategies they deem most valuable. Perhaps, students identified as having high RA could even use such a training disc to understand the process (firing order) of their apprehension and then select an appropriate remediation.

While receiver apprehension appears to inhibit learning for college students, the work of McDowell and McDowell (1978) and McDowell, McDowell, Pullan, and Linbergs (1981) which showed that RA is higher for younger students, points to a need for intervention at lower grade levels. Taken together with the studies of Wolvin and Coakley (1979), Kellogg (1966), and Newton (1990) regarding the lack of listening skills training at the elementary school level, there is a clear need to address and remediate RA of younger students. Interactive videotaped intervention is a relatively simple and consistent intervention to modify for students at various maturity levels, and it’s adaptations should be explored.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, R. B., & Towne, N. (1990). Looking out / Looking in (6th ed.). Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Amsel, A. (1989). Behaviorism, neobehaviorism, and cognitivism in learning theory: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Anderson, J. R., Eisenberg, N., Holland, J., Wiener, H. S., & Rivera-Kron, C. (1983). Integrated skills reinforcement. New York: Longman, Inc.

Andrews, J. (1973). A choice of worlds. New York: Harper & Row.

Atkinson, J. W. (1960.) Personality dynamics. In P. R. Farnsworth & Q. McNemar (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, vol. II. (pp. 255-290). Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.

Ayres, J. (1996). Successful speaking: The basics of public speaking. Ruston, WA: Communication Ventures.

Ayres, J., Hopf, T., & Ayres, D. M. (1997). Visualization and performance visualization: Applications, evidence, and speculation. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D.

M. Ayres (Eds.). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed.) (pp. 401-422). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Ayres, J., & Miller, J. (1994). Effective public speaking (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark Publishers.

Ayres, J., Wilcox, A. K., & Ayres, D. M. (1995). Receiver apprehension: An explanatory model and accompanying research. Communication Education, 44, 223-235.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Barker, L. (1971). Listening behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bartlett, J. (1955). Familiar quotations: A collection of passages, phrases and proverbs traced to their sources in ancient and modern literature (rev. ed.). Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Baumgartner, M. P.. (1994). A better place to live: Reshaping the American suburb.

Contemporary Sociology, 25, 222-224.

Baumgartner, M. P. (1984). Social control in suburbia. in D. Black (Ed.), Toward a General Theory of Social Control, Vol. 2: Selected Problems. Orlando: Academic Press.

Beatty, M. J. (1981). Receiver apprehension as a function of cognitive backlog. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 277-281.

Beatty, M. J. (1985). The effects of anticipating listening (state) anxiety on the stability of receiver apprehension scores. Central States Speech Journal, 36, 72-76.

Beatty, M. J. (1988). Situational and predispositional correlates of public speaking anxiety.

Communication Education, 37, 28-39.

Beatty, M. J., Behnke, R. R., & Henderson, L. S. (1980). An empirical validation of the receiver apprehension test as a measure of trait listening anxiety. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 132-136.

Beatty, M. J., & Payne, S. K. (1981). Receiver apprehension and cognitive complexity. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 363-369.

Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (1990). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press.

Bloom, B. S. (1954). The thought processes of students in discussion. In S. French (Ed.) (pp. 23-46). Accent on teaching. New York: Harper.

Bloom, B. S. (1963). Testing cognitive ability and achievement. In N.L. Gage (Ed.) (pp. 379-397).

Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Bocchino, I. L. (1984). An exploratory study of the relationship between listening comprehension, cognitive complexity, receiver apprehension, and mood state. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2692-A.

Bock, D. G., & Bock, H. B. (1984). The effects of positional stress and receiver apprehension on leniency errors in speech evaluation: A test of the rating error paradigm. Communication Education, 33, 337-341.

Brownell, J. (1986). Building active listening skills. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Buss, A. H. & Plomin, R. (1975). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carrell, L. J., and Willmington, S. C. (1996). A comparison of self-report and performance data in assessing speaking and listening competence. Communication Reports, 9, 185-191.

Chesebro, J.L, and McCroskey, J.C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 1, 59-68.

Clevenger, T., Jr. (1959). A synthesis of experimental research in stage fright. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 45, 134-145.

Coakley, C., & Wolvin, A. (1991). Listening in the educational environment. In D. Borisoff and M. Purdy (Eds.), Listening in Everyday Life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

Cook, R., & Cook, S. (Producers & Directors). (1993). Great speeches, Vol. 9 [Videotape]. (Available from The Educational Video Group, 291 Southwind Way, Greenwood, IN 46144).

Cook, R., & Cook, S. (Producers & Directors). (1987). Great speeches, Vol. 2 [Videotape].

(Available from The Educational Video Group, 291 Southwind Way, Greenwood, IN 46144).

Cronin, M.W., Grice, G. L., & Olsen, R. K., Jr. (1994). The effects of interactive video instruction in coping with speech fright. Communication Education, 43, 42-53.

Daly, J. A., and Buss, A. H. (1984). The transitory causes of audience anxiety. In J. Daly, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.) (pp. 67-80). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Daly, J. A., Caughlin, J. P., & Stafford, L. (1997). Correlates and consequences of social-communicative anxiety. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.).

Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension. (2nd ed.) (pp. 21-71). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Daly, J. A., McCroskey, J. C., Ayres, J., Hopf, T., & Ayres, D. M. (1997). Avoiding communication:  Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed.).  Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Daniels, T. D., & Whitman, R. R. (1979). The effects of message structure, required recall structure, and receiver apprehension upon recall of message information. Green Bay, WI: University of Wisconsin. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED178 979).

Dressel, P. L., & Mayhew, L. B. (1954). General education: Exploration in evaluation.

Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Dwyer, K. K. (2000). The Multidimensional Model: Teaching students to self-manage high communication apprehension by self-selecting treatments.  Communication Education, 49, 1, 72-81.

Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Stuart Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fitch-Hauser, M., Barker, D. A., Hughes, A. (1990). Receiver apprehension and listening comprehension: A linear or curvilinear relationship? The Southern Communication Journal, 56, 62-71.

Floyd, J. J. (1985). Listening: A practical approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Freud, A. (1946). The ego and mechanisms of defense. New York: International Universities.

Friedrich, G., Goss, B., Cunconan, T., & Lane, D. (1997). Systematic desensitization. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed.) (pp. 305-329). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Goldhaber, G. (1986). Organizational communication. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown and Company Publishers.

Greenwald, A. G. (1981). Self and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.) (pp. 201-236). The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.

Harrigan, K. (1995). The SPECIAL system: Self-paced education with compressed interactive audio learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27, 3, 361-368 Hart, E. A., Leary, M. R., & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). The measurement of social physique anxiety.

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 94-104.

Hergenhahn, B. R., & Olson, M. H. (1993). An introduction to theories of learning (4th Ed.).  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Henderson, D., and Gillespie, R. D. (1962). A test-book of psychiatry for students and practicioners (9th ed). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Hollin, C. R., & Trower, P. (1988). Development and applications of social skills training: A review and critique. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 22, pp. 166-214). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jewler, A. J., Gardner, J. N., & McCarthy, M. J. (Eds.). (1993). Your college experience: Strategies for success. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kalat, J. W. (1990). Introduction to psychology, (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kellogg, R. E. (1966). A study of the effect of a first grade listening instructional program upon achievement in listening and reading. San Diego, CA: USOE Cooperative Research Project.  (Dept. of Education, San Diego County, Project No. 6-8468.)

Kelly, L. (1997). Skills training as a treatment for communication problems. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.) Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed.) (pp. 331-365). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Khan, S. B., & Weiss, J. (1973). The teaching of affective responses. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.) The second handbook of research on teaching, (pp. 759-804). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Layman, T. et al. (Eds.). (1980). The volume library. Nashville, TN: Southwestern Co.

Leary, M.R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 65-75.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1993). Social anxiety. New York: The Guilford Press.

Littlejohn, S. W. (1996). Theories of human communication (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Long, K. F. (1993). Listening and learning in the classroom. In A. J. Jewler, J. N. Gardner, & M. J. McCarthy (Eds.). Your college experience: Strategies for success. The freshman year experience series. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Lundsteen, S. W. (1979). Listening: Its impact at all levels on reading and the other language arts.

Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, Stock No. 29498).

Luther, M.G. (1997). Dynamic assessment for instruction: From theory to application. Toronto, ON, Canada: Captus Press, Inc.

Lynd, R. S., & Lynd, H. M. (1937). Middletown in transition. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., Inc.

May, R. (1950). The meaning of anxiety. New York: The Ronald Press Company.

McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 13-38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269-277.

McDowell, E. E., & McDowell, C. E. (1978). An investigation of source and receiver apprehension at the junior high, senior high and college levels. Central States Speech Journal, 29, 11-19.

McDowell, E. E., McDowell, C. E., Pullan, G., & Linbergs, K. (1981). An investigation of source and receiver apprehension between the United States and Australian students at the high school and college levels. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication

Association, Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 206-033)

Morley, J. (1977). Improving aural comprehension. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Nader, L., and Todd, H. F., Jr. (Eds.). (1978). The disputing process: Law in ten societies. New York: Columbia University Press.

Newton, T. (1990). Improving students’ listening skills; Idea Paper No. 23. Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development, Austin, TX: St. Edward’s University.

Nichols, R. G., & Stevens, L. A. (1957). Are you listening? New York: McGraw Hill.

O’Hair, D. (1986). Patient preferences for physician persuasion strategies. Theoretical Medicine, 7, 147-164.

Orlick, T. D., & Botterill, C. (1975). Every kid can win. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Paschall, K. A. (1984). The effect of receiver apprehension and source apprehension on listening comprehension.  (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida).  Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1917A.

Pearson, J. (1983). Interpersonal communication. Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman.

Piaget, J. (1966). Psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.

Porter, D. T. (1974). A multivariate analysis of the effects of communication apprehension upon language behavior. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.

Preiss, R. W. (1987). Cognitive consequences of receiver apprehension: Evidence of reasoning about communication and self-persuasion. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Salt Lake City, UT.

Preiss, R. W. (1989). The nature and correlates of receiver apprehension. Paperpresented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.

Preiss, R. W., & Gayle, B. M. (1991). Path analyses of models for receiverapprehension: State, trait, and information processing. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.

Preiss, R. R., & Kerssen, J. D. (1990). Receiver apprehension and educational skills: Five tests of the limited cognitive capacity hypothesis. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Sacramento, CA.

Preiss, R. W., Kerssen, J. D., & Kuper, G. (1989). The educational implications of receiver apprehension: Tests of verbal skills and a typology of educational out- comes. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Spokane, WA.

Preiss, R. W., & Kuper, G. (1988). The educational testing correlates of receiver apprehension.

Paper presented at the meeting of the Northwest Communication Association, Coeur d’Alene, ID.

Preiss, R. W., & Wheeless, L. R. (1989a). Affective responses in listening: A meta-analysis of receiver apprehension outcomes. Journal of the International Listening Association, 1, 72-102.

Preiss, R. W., & Wheeless, L. R. (1989b). The educational performance and testing outcomes of receiver apprehension. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Communication Association, San Francisco.

Preiss, R. W., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (1990). Potential cognitive processes and consequences of receiver apprehension: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 155-172.

Rankin, P. T. (1928). The importance of listening ability. English Journal, 17, 623-630.

Rankin, P. T. (1939). Listening ability. Proceedings of the Ohio State Educational Conference, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 172-183.

Richmond, V. P. (1978). The relationship between trait and state communication apprehension and interpersonal perceptions during acquaintance stages. Human Communication Research, 4, 338-349.

Roberts, C. V. (1986). A validation of the Watson-Barker Listening Test. Communication Research Reports, 3, 115-119.

Scanlan, T. K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1986). Social psychological aspects of competition for male youth sport participants: IV. Predictors of enjoyment. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 25-35.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiey and self-presentation: A conceptual model.

Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669.

Schumacher, B. K., & Wheeless, L. R. (1996). Relationship of uncertainty and state-receiver apprehension. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association, San Diego, CA.

Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1977). The relationship of three types of communication apprehension to classroom achievement. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 42, 246-255.

Seta, C. E., Seta, J. J., Donaldson, S., & Wang, M. A. (1988). The effects of evaluation on organizational processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 604-609.

Shannon, C., and Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Sieber, J. E., O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Tobias, S. (1977). Anxiety, learning, and instruction. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1990). Sport performance anxiety. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 417-454). New York: Plenum Press.

Sotiriou, P. E. (1989). Integrating college study skills. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.

Sotiriou, P. E. (1993). Integrating college study skills: Reasoning in reading. (3rd ed.).  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Spence, K. W. (1956). Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp. 3-20). New York: Academic Press.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Stern, G. G. (1963). Measuring non-cognitive variables in research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 398-447). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Taylor, S. E. (1984). What research says to the teacher: Listening. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.

Terris, W. F. (1976). Effective listening. San Jose, CA: The Lansford Publishing Company.

Tolman, E. C. (1959). Principles of purposive behavior. In S. Koch (Ed.). Psychology: A study of a science. (Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vinson, L. R., & Roberts, C. V. (1990, November). A refinement of the willingness to listen scale.  Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Wadleigh, P. M. (1997). Contextualizing communication avoidance research. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding Communication: Shyness, reticence, and apprehension (2nd ed.) (pp. 3-20). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Watson, K. W., & Barker, L. L. (1990). Interpersonal and relational communication. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick, Publishers.

Weiten, W. (1989). Psychology: Themes and variations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Wheeless, L. R. (1975). An investigation of receiver apprehension and social context dimensions of communication apprehension. The Speech Teacher, 24, 261-268.

Wheeless, L. R., Preiss, R. W., & Gayle, B. M. (1997). Receiver apprehension, informational receptivity, and cognitive processing. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding Communication: Shyness, reticence, and apprehension (2nd ed.) (pp. 151-187). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Wheeless, L. R., & Scott, M. D. (1976). The nature, measurement, and potential effects of receiver apprehension. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Portland, OR.

Wheeless, L. R. & Williamson, A. M. (1992). State-communication apprehension and uncertainty in continuing initial interactions. Southern Communication Journal, 57, 249-259.

Wilcox, A. K. (1997). Cognitive components of communication apprehension: What are they thinking? In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding Communication: Shyness, reticence, andapprehension (2nd ed.) (pp. 367-377). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Wilcox, A. K., (1998). Receiver apprehension and skills training: A videotape intervention model.  (Doctoral Dissertation, Washington State University).

Wilder, D. A., & Shapiro, P. (1989). Effects of anxiety on impression formation in a group context:  An anxiety-assimilation hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 481-499.

Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1979). Listening Instruction. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association. (ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.  Stock No. 29463).

Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1982). Listening. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers.

Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1985). Listening. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers.

Wood, J. T. (1996). Everyday encounters: An Introduction to Interpersonal Communication.  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.