Psycho-Cardiac Distress Symptoms of Dyadic Communication Apprehension & The Role of Self-Esteem

Abstract

This study examined the extent to which dyadic communication apprehension (CA) manifested in heart-rate (HR) and heart-rate variability (HRV) during dyadic interaction and explored the inhibiting role of self-esteem for dyadic-communication distress through two explanatory frameworks: A moderation and an indirect effect. Participants completed self-report measures for dyadic CA and self-esteem. Their cardiac activity was then monitored during noncommunicative and impromptu dyadic communication periods. During interaction, higher dyadic CA manifested strongly in higher HR and lower HRV independently of their mutual influence, suggesting dyadic CA induces psycho-cardiac distress via sympathetic and parasympathetic influences. Regarding self-esteem, there was tentative evidence of a moderating effect for the impact of dyadic CA on HR, but not on HRV. Tests of indirect effects showed significant evidence of its inhibitory influence on both distress symptoms via dyadic CA. Findings are interpreted in the context of arousal and emotion regulation when navigating one-on-one conversations.

Keywords

dyadic communication apprehension heart-rate variability arousal emotion regulation self-esteem

Although communicative interaction is a primary feature of social life, individuals may still be prone to experience distress when navigating diverse communicative tasks, from demanding ones such as public speaking in front of peers, to more casual ones such as one-on-one conversations with new acquaintances. This phenomenon has been termed communication apprehension (CA). As a communicator trait, CA refers to a personality-type disposition comprising irrationally anxious and socially avoidant psychological foundations that, when having to communicate, give rise to enhanced distress reactions relative to the intensity of the interactive encounter (McCroskey, 1984). CA is a substantial contributing factor for a wide range of impairments and health risks, including (but not limited to) attenuated social drive and competence (e.g., Donovan & MacIntyre, 2004), maladaptive socio-occupational behaviors and attitudes (e.g., Martin & Myers, 2006), and as delineated below, distressing psycho-cardiac symptoms when navigating one-on-one interactions with new people.

Psycho-Cardiac Distress Symptoms

This study’s central aim was to examine individuals’ context-specific trait CA for dyadic communication (dyadic CA; McCroskey, 1984) and its connection with two psycho-cardiac distress symptoms: Heart-rate (HR) and heart-rate variability (HRV). HR refers to the average number of heart beats per minute (bpm) across a given timeframe and is used to index autonomic activity, with higher HR reflecting greater sympathetic dominance (Kim et al., 2018; Murison, 2016; Tarvainen et al., 2014). HR increases are characteristic of arousal states that support stress responses (Appelhans & Luecken, 2006). When dealing with personally meaningful threats, HR increases are largely guided by the amygdala, a limbic detector of threat, uncertainty, novelty, and an orchestrator of emotional arousal (Appelhans & Luecken, 2006; Murison, 2016). Amygdala-mediated sympathoexcitation spurs HR acceleration to increase metabolic resources in the brain and muscles, for instance, hence supporting increased awareness and attentional focus as well as defense and mobilization potential (Murison, 2016). An elevated HR is thus part of an often-adaptive priming mechanism (i.e., arousal) for engaging (e.g., fight) or avoiding (e.g., flight) personally meaningful threats. Still, when arousal becomes chronic, generalized out of context, manifested excessively frequent or intensely, or coupled with maladaptive psychological factors (e.g., CA), it can become psychologically distressing, detrimental for adaptive functioning, and insidious for the quality of health (Murison, 2016; Thayer et al., 2012). Based on the above discussion and paralleling previous CA research (Beatty & Behnke, 1991; MacIntyre et al., 2010), this study used HR as a proxy of arousal.

HRV refers to the rhythmic variations between heart beats and reflects neural regulation of autonomic activity for adaptive responding to environmental and psychological stressors (Castaldo et al., 2015; McCraty & Shaffer, 2015). According to the neurovisceral integration model (Thayer & Lane, 2000; 2009), vagally mediated HRV (i.e., influenced by the myelinated vagus nerve) reflects the degree to which the central-autonomic-network (CAN) can integrate hierarchically to regulate cardiac changes involved in emotional arousal. More specifically, vagally mediated HRV reflects the degree of inhibitory control of amygdala responses by the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), a center for higher-level, contextual processing of emotional and cognitive reactions (Thayer & Lane, 2000, 2009; Thayer et al., 2012). In this light, the model has suggested that emotion regulation involves the functional coactivation of the mPFC and amygdala, wherein the mPFC is able to be recruited to guide vagal influences and inhibit amygdala impulses (Thayer et al., 2012). Emotion regulation is thus posited to be supported neurologically by the mPFC and physiologically by vagal tone. In line with this model, robust evidence has shown a potent link between HRV and mPFC-amygdala coactivation (Sakaki et al., 2016; Thayer et al., 2012; Wei et al., 2018). Complementarily, greater experiential difficulties to regulate emotions is strongly predictive of lower HRV (Williams et al., 2015). Thus, this study used HRV as a proxy of emotional stability (high HRV) and emotion dysregulation (low HRV).

CA and Arousal

The communibiological framework of CA (Beatty et al., 1998), a neuropsychological lens for this trait’s nature and symptoms, has proposed that CA is based on a neurotically introverted temperamental profile that predisposes individuals to anxiety-like distress when interacting. According to this account, individual differences in the distress characterizing CA are attributed to activation-threshold differences from the behavioral inhibition system (BIS), a neural network that responds to novelty, differentiates threat, and prompts defense reactions (Beatty et al., 1998). CA is thus posited to largely reflect individuals’ degree of BIS sensitivity to communication, with greater BIS sensitivity (i.e., a lower activation-threshold) enabling less salient interactive demands to prompt acuter distress reactions. The functional model of the BIS has identified the amygdala as a key mediating constituent of arousal symptoms resulting from BIS activation (Gray & McNaughton, 2000), paralleling the above discussion on the neural substrates of psycho-cardiac arousal and regulation, and suggesting that CA-induced distress may comprise arousal symptoms. Adopting the BIS model to explain aspects of CA distress, the communibiological lens has posited that communication-elicited BIS activation will prompt amygdala-driven arousal symptoms, such as cardiac acceleration (Beatty et al., 1998). Thus, the communibiological account has provided a predictive framework for a positive relation between CA and a physiological symptom of arousal, HR.

Hypothesis 1: Higher dyadic CA will strongly predict higher HR during interaction.

CA and Emotion Regulation

The polyvagal theory (Porges, 2003, 2007) has described an evolutionary framework for the development of individuals’ social engagement system (SES), a neurophysiological network that supports regulated states for more complex interactions with the environment than reflexive defensive-mechanisms (e.g., fight-or-flight response) may warrant. However, perceived safety is crucial for this system to become active. When conditions are construed as safe, the SES inhibits limbic defense structures (e.g., amygdala) and enables regulation of sympathetic influences on the heart via the myelinated vagus nerve (Porges, 2007). When conditions are construed as threatening, however, the SES inhibits vagal influences to facilitate threat-reactions guided by limbic structures and supported by cardiac stimulation. Paralleling the neurovisceral integration model (Thayer & Lane, 2000, 2009), polyvagal theory has also emphasized the link between vagal tone, reflected in HRV, and regulation of emotional states to inform social behavior (Porges, 2003, 2007). Mapping potential CA effects within this framework, the neurotically introverted temperamental profile of CA (Beatty et al., 1998) and the distorted intra-and-interpersonal appraisals that this profile supports when navigating communication—such as enhanced focus on self-defeating thoughts and negative bias for social stimuli (Beatty & Gonzalez, 2020)—could thus help shape construals of threat from these contexts, thus leading to SES inhibition, vagal withdrawal, and ultimately, emotion dysregulation.

Corroborating this rationale, electroencephalography-based research has implicated CA to emotion regulation deficiencies due to its strong link with impaired functioning in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC; Beatty & Gonzalez, 2020), a subdivision of the mPFC that supports crystallized discerning of internal and external states for behavioral control (Amodio & Frith 2006; Murison, 2016). In line with this role, the CA-related impairments in ACC functioning have been identified as an underlying factor for the previously discussed distorted intra-and-interpersonal appraisals in social contexts (Beatty & Gonzalez, 2020), Notably, the ACC also plays a key role as a connective circuit in mPFC-amygdala integration for emotion regulation (Stevens et al., 2011), with the neurovisceral integration model also suggesting a dysfunctional ACC may interfere with mPFC-amygdala integration and thus contribute to vagal dysfunction (Thayer & Lane, 2009). All in all, the above premises linking CA to impaired neurophysiological substrates of emotion regulation provided a predictive framework for a negative relation between CA and an autonomic support system of emotion regulation, vagal tone.

Hypothesis 2: Higher dyadic CA will strongly predict lower HRV during interaction.

Dyadic Communication

According to the communibiological paradigm of CA (Beatty et al., 1998), those with high CA are more prone to anxiety-like symptoms when communicating because their low-threshold (hypersensitive) BIS is more easily triggered than the high-threshold (hyposensitive) BIS of those with low CA. However, activation-threshold differences underlying BIS responding are likely to result in evident physiological differences within low-intensity rather than high-intensity communication contexts. This is because, in high-intensity contexts, the BIS of those with low and high CA are both likely to respond to the salient environmental demands, thus resulting in similar distress reactions. However, in low-intensity contexts, the high-threshold BIS of those with low CA is not likely to respond to the softer environmental demands, while the low-threshold BIS of those with high CA still is likely to respond, thus inducing differential distress reactions (Beatty & Pascual-Ferrá, 2015). In support of these premises, research has found that highly and slightly apprehensive individuals exhibit significant arousal differences (indexed by HR) when interacting in a low-intensity public speaking context (giving a structured speech with no academic costs to a non-peer, non-evaluative person), but not when interacting in a high-intensity public speaking context (giving a structured speech with academic costs to evaluative peers and professors; Beatty & Behnke, 1991).

The above premises have suggested that the manifestation of individuals’ CA on physiological symptoms of distress is likely to be detectable within contexts that are not salient sources of distress themselves. Thus, this notion supplemented this study’s emphasis on testing relations between CA and physiological distress symptoms during dyadic communication. Experientially, Campero-Oliart et al. (2020) found that dyadic communication is significantly less distress-inducing than meetings and public speaking. Physiologically, Porhölä et al. (1993) also found that dyadic communication induces significantly less arousal (indexed by HR) than small-group and public-speaking communication. Beatty and Behnke (1991) further showed that the low-intensity public-speaking context induced significantly lower experiential (self-report) and physiological (HR) distress reactions than the high-intensity public-speaking context across all participants. Together, these findings have substantiated the low distress-salience that dyadic communication has relative to other contexts, making it a suitable interaction context to test predictions about the effect of CA on physiological distress based on a communibiological lens.

The above discussion has contextualized this study’s rationale for assessing the potency of CA-derived physiological manifestations of distress in dyadic interactions. This line of study constitutes a crucial avenue in advancing our still imperfect understanding about the expressions of social traits across contexts and levels of analysis (Beatty & Gonzalez, 2020). This might also be highly relevant for CA, as its context-specific forms have been argued to underlie different types of distress features across contexts of communication (McCroskey, 1984).

The Role of Self-Esteem

The degree of regard we hold for ourselves can play a critical role in our social behavior and emotion (Sampthirao, 2016). Thus, this study’s exploratory layer was examining the inhibiting role of global (or trait) self-esteem, understood as one’s general and relatively stable evaluation of their value (Brown & Marshall, 2006; Leary & Baumeister, 2000), for dyadic-communication distress. Empirical evidence has characterized high self-esteem as an indicative element of socially oriented qualities (such as low CA; Beatty et al., 1998; Daly & Stafford, 1984; Campero-Oliart et al., 2020; McCroskey et al., 1977; Rashidi et al., 2011), as well as an inhibitor of psychological distress (e.g., anxiety, worry) and its physiological expressions (e.g., autonomic and neuroendocrine dysregulation; Ford & Collins, 2010; Greenberg et al., 1992; Rector & Roger, 1997), making it a relevant factor to consider as a role-player in dyadic-communication distress. For this layer of study, two previously tested inhibitory frameworks were considered potential processes through which self-esteem could reduce dyadic-communication distress. One inhibitory framework was a moderation process wherein self-esteem could buffer the impact quality of dyadic CA on interaction-distress responses. High self-esteem has been shown to support intrapersonal coping for threat-based affect (Cast & Burke, 2002), growth mindsets when confronting personal adversity (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998), and more positive appraisals toward novel social spaces (Dandeneau & Baldwin, 2004; Ford & Collins, 2010). Thus, high self-esteem could arm individuals with psychological resources to buffer their distress reactivity to interaction due to their CA. High self-esteem has also been shown to moderate the effect of daily mental stress on physical decline (DeLongis et al., 1988), further substantiating the potential for self-esteem to act as a context modifier for the effect of psychological distress on physiological outcomes.

Exploratory prediction 1: Dyadic CA and self-esteem will interact significantly, such that the effect of dyadic CA on dyadic-communication distress (i.e., higher HR, lower HRV) will only be potent among those with low self-esteem, but not among those with high self-esteem.

An alternative inhibitory framework was an indirect-effect process wherein self-esteem could reduce dyadic-communication distress via dyadic CA inhibition. High self-esteem has shown to be strongly related to low CA across generational, cultural, and apprehension cohorts (Campero-Oliart et al., 2020, McCroskey et al., 1977; Rashidi et al., 2011). As to the nature of this relationship, the communibiological lens (Beatty et al., 1998), as well as other accounts (McCroskey, 1980; Rashidi et al., 2011; Sampthirao, 2016), have alluded to self-esteem deficits as a factor of the neurotic dimension of CA—the temperamental underpinning for CA-induced distress reactions in interaction contexts (Beatty et al., 1998). This implication is consistent with evidence suggesting that (global) self-esteem and neuroticism may share genetic components (Neiss et al., 2002). Thus, self-esteem deficits might constitute part of the neurotic dimension underlying CA and its distress reactions, thereby implicating higher self-esteem as part of an emotionally stable (i.e., weakly neurotic) dimension underlying inhibited CA expressions.

In parallel, respective theories related to self-esteem have hinged on the schematic view that higher self-esteem supports more positive appraisals about one’s social adaptability, connectedness, and security, thus helping inhibit interpersonal deficits rooted in social anxiety and detachment, such as CA (Beatty et al., 1998): The vulnerability model of low self-esteem (Zeigler-Hill, 2011), for instance, has posited that high self-esteem helps diminish socially impairing qualities as it supports more adaptive and resourceful interpersonal approaches. Sociometer theory (Leary & Baumeister, 2000) has posited that higher self-esteem supports stronger feelings of social connectivity and appreciation, helping reduce interpersonal forms of anxiety. Terror-management theory (Greenberg et al., 1992) has broadly posited that higher self-esteem serves as a foundation of psychological security that minimizes vulnerability anxiety in a sociocultural world. Moreover, the positive impact of high self-esteem on socially distressing factors can contribute to physiological-distress inhibition. For instance, high self-esteem has shown to attenuate self-blame (Ford & Collins, 2010), perceived stress (Rector & Roger, 1997), and detachment feelings (Stinson et al., 2008), contributing to weaker neuroendocrine stress reactions, lower arousal during public speaking, and fewer health problems, respectively. Together, these premises advocated for a framework wherein high self-esteem could reduce dyadic-communication distress via dyadic CA inhibition.

Exploratory prediction 2: Higher self-esteem will predict lower dyadic CA, which in turn will predict lower dyadic-communication distress (i.e., lower HR, higher HRV). Jointly, the indirect effect of self-esteem on dyadic-communication distress via dyadic CA will be significant.

Overall, the above evidence warranted exploring the inhibiting role of self-esteem for dyadic-communication distress through two frameworks: A moderation, wherein self-esteem could buffer the effect of dyadic CA on dyadic-communication distress. And an indirect-effect, wherein self-esteem could affect dyadic CA, thus affecting the extent of dyadic-communication distress. To the author’s best knowledge, a comprehensive examination of the role of self-esteem in communication-related distress that considers its connection with a context-relevant trait (CA) in conjunction with its inhibitory function for physiological distress has not been conducted yet.

Method

Participants

This study’s final sample comprised 71 participants (33 males and 38 females; M_age = 19.83, SD = 1.797, age range: 18–28).¹ This sample size was above target sample sizes properly powered to detect medium effect sizes in HRV studies (Quintana, 2017). Participants were recruited from introductory psychology courses and the general college population from a small Mid-Atlantic U.S university, with a roughly 76% European-American student body.² In this study’s sample, European–Americans also comprised the majority ethnoracial group (n = 48), followed by Hispanics (n = 12), African-Americans (n = 10), and a non-specified ethnoracial group (n = 1). Participants needed to be at least 18 years of age, have normal (or corrected) vision and hearing, have no history of psychiatric and cardiovascular conditions, not been taking medication with cardiac side effects, and refrain from caffeine 24 hours before the study.

Materials

Dyadic CA

Participants completed the dyadic CA subscale from the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24; McCroskey et al., 1985), a six-item Likert-type scale that assesses trait CA specific to dyadic communication. This subscale derives from a widely used measure of trait and context-specific trait CA that has shown to possess suitable internal consistency (α’s ranging from .93 to .95 for all items; McCroskey et al., 1985) and temporal stability (test–retest reliability coefficients greater than .80 over 4 years; Rubin et al., 1990). The dyadic CA subscale includes statements such as, “I have no fear of speaking up in conversations” and “While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very nervous,” to which individuals record the extent to which every statement applies to their feelings towards dyadic oral communication (1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly Disagree). This subscale correlates with other forms of context-specific trait CA (e.g., r = .64 for group CA) as well as with assertiveness (r = −.70; McCroskey et al., 1985). The internal consistency of this subscale in this study was adequate (α = .856).

Self-esteem

Participants completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1979), a 10-item Likert-type scale that measures global self-esteem. This measure includes statements such as, “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “At times I think I am no good at all,” to which individuals record the number that best represents their opinion towards every item-statement (1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = Strongly Disagree). The internal consistency of the RSES has an adequate record (α’s ranging from .88 to .91; Donnellan et al., 2015) and was suitable in this study, too (α = .866). This measure has also shown to be temporally stable (e.g., test–retest reliability coefficients of .77 over 2 years; Donnellan et al., 2015) and correlates with self-liking (r = .90), self-competence (r = .71), and situational self-esteem (r = .71; Zeigler-Hill, 2010). The person-mean imputation technique was employed to compute the RSES score of one participant who responded to all but one item in this measure. This technique was suitable given the unidimensional design of the measure, the number of available items to compute a mean for the missing response (nine items), and the negligible percentage (0.14%) of overall missing data for this measure (Siddiqui, 2015).

Demographic information

Participants were asked to complete demographic information regarding their age, ethnoracial background, and biological sex.

Procedure

Before conducting the study, institutional review board approval was obtained. The entirety of the study was performed in person in a psychology laboratory. Participants were tested individually. Participants first provided informed consent and then completed self-report measures privately in a laboratory computer. Once completed with the self-report measures, participants were taken to a room with standard classroom lighting and temperature, where they sat in a comfortable armchair for cardiac monitoring. After ECG leads were placed, participants were instructed to rest their arms on the armchair’s sides with their wrists up and maintain corporal stationarity throughout the cardiac monitoring process. Participants then underwent a 5-minute solitary period for their noncommunicative cardiac activity to be recorded.

The noncommunicative period was then followed by the dyadic communication period. Participants were first engaged with a short introduction contextualizing the general parameters and intended casual conveyance of the interaction. Then, participants were prompted for interaction by being invited to discuss diverse topics about themselves, to which positively loaded short-feedback responses were volleyed back according to the nature of their answers (see the Supplemental Appendix for verbatim).³ At the end of the interaction, cardiac monitoring stopped, ECG leads were removed, and debriefing followed. Participants’ respiration was spontaneous throughout. This is recommended for HRV monitoring as controlled respiration may help remove changes related to neural regulation of heartbeats, thus withdrawing vital information about psychophysiological processes of interest (see Laborde et al., 2017).

Physiological Processing and Analyses

Electrocardiogram (ECG) data were continuously recorded (500 samples/sec) with LabScribe (version 3.0, iWorx System Inc., Dover, NH, USA) during noncommunicative and communication periods. R-R interval recordings were extracted from the ECG data for analyses with Kubios (version 3.3.1, 2019, Biosignal Analysis And Medical Imaging Group, University of Kuopio, Finland, MATLAB). The second-to-fourth-minute solitary period was sampled to analyze noncommunicative cardiac indices and the initial two-minute communication period to analyze communication indices. A validated Kubios filter was used to adjust artifactual beats. Differences in adjusted error % (<10% for samples analyzed) across noncommunicative (M = 1.078, SD = 2.085) and communication samples (M = 2.233, SD = 2.896) were also controlled for statistically when assessing cardiac indices from each period. Mean HR and the root mean square of successive R–R interval differences (RMSSD; measured in milliseconds) were computed. This study used RMSSD to index HRV. See the Supplemental Appendix for full description of recording materials, data processing, and analyses, and HR and HRV properties.

Results

Plan for Statistical Analyses

Control variables

In addition to the period-congruent adjusted error % associated with cardiac indices under assessment, age, biological sex (Females = 0, Males = 1), and ethnoracial group (European-American = 0, Minority = 1), and were entered as control variable in all analyses to partial out their effects on cardiac activity (Kim et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2015), dyadic CA (Donovan & MacIntyre, 2004), and self-esteem (Sinclair et al., 2010). Because sample sizes for African-Americans, Hispanics, and the non-specified ethnoracial group were too small when treated separately, they were recoded as “Minority” to maximize power–a practice consistent with prior HRV research (Williams et al., 2015). Given that HR may increase due to sympathetic input or parasympathetic withdrawal (Appelhans & Luecken, 2006), the period-congruent HRV index was entered as a predictor when assessing mean HR from noncommunicative and communication periods as a criterion variable. This was to partial out effects of parasympathetic activity (vagal tone) and ascertain that HR results reflected the extent of psycho-cardiac arousal driven by sympathetic activation. HRV can also be impacted by HR due to the cycle length dependence trend (see McCraty, & Shaffer, 2015). Thus, the period-congruent mean HR was entered as a predictor when assessing HRV from noncommunicative and communication periods as a criterion variable (to partial out effects from HR changes).

Preliminary analyses

An extreme outlier for noncommunicative HRV was excluded from analyses. Normality of all focal variables was later corroborated. Bivariate correlations were conducted to assess intercorrelations among focal variables without covariate control (see Table 1). Possible ceiling effects on HR increases due to interaction were also examined, with results showing no evidence of ceiling effects on HR increases in this study. Hierarchical regressions for noncommunicative mean HR (see Table 2) and HRV (see Table 3) were also conducted to explore possible transsituational result patterns. See the Supplemental Appendix for full description of preliminary analyses and results.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlational Effect Sizes (r) Among Focal Variables.

Variables	M	SD	Range	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.
Dyadic CA	15.535	4.741	6–30	–.504***	.139	.204⁺	–.222⁺	–.296*
Self-Esteem	21.518	4.904	8–30		–.097	–.148	.157	.091
Noncommunicative Mean HR	78.778	12.875	52.622–113.56			.862***	–.665***	–.488***
Communication Mean HR	87.909	14.704	62.85–130.14				–.589***	–.357**
Noncommunicative HRV ^a	44.384	21.693	8.367–112.900					.535***
Communication HRV	49.115	22.849	7.282–106.37

Note. HRV index = Root mean square of successive R–R interval differences.

Extreme outlier removed (N = 70).

p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Results for Mean HR During Noncommunicative and Communication Periods.

	Noncommunicative Mean HR ^a					Communication Mean HR
Predictor Variable	B	SE	β	r_partial		B	SE	β	r_partial
Block 1	ΔR² = .558***					ΔR² = .792***
Period-Congruent Adjusted Error %	1.58**	0.548	.258	.342		0.923*	0.381	.182	292
Biological Sex	−5.357*	2.165	−.214	−.298		−3.60⁺	1.819	−.123	−.242
Age	−0.59	0.628	−.084	−.117		0.369	0.506	.045	.091
Ethnoracial Group	2.539	2.465	.094	.129		−1.866	1.891	−.06	−.127
Self-Esteem	−0.003	0.236	−.001	−.002		−0.014	0.191	−.005	−.009
Noncommunicative HRV ^a	−0.418***	0.056	−.720	−.684		–	–	–	–
Noncommunicative Mean HR	–	–	–	–		0.91***	0.087	.797	.798
Communication HRV	–	–	–	–		−0.22	0.055	−.034	−.049
Block 2	ΔR² = .002					ΔR² = .013*
Dyadic CA	0.128	0.273	.048	.059	b path	0.456*	0.227	.147	.247
Block 3	ΔR² = .026⁺					ΔR² = .009⁺
Dyadic CA x Self-Esteem	−0.083⁺	0.043	−.603	−.241		−0.059⁺	0.035	−.362	−.210
Overall Model	R² = .585***					R² = .813***
Self-Esteem at Block 2	0.063	0.276	.024	.029	c’ path	0.217	0.219	.073	.125

Note. B = Unstandardized regression coefficient. SE = Standard error of B. β = Standardized regression coefficient. r_partial = Partial correlation coefficient (correlational effect size after controlling for all other model variables on the predictor and criterion variable). ΔR² = Change in proportion of variance explained (R²). Significance level associated with B also apply to β and r_partial coefficients. b path = Direct effect of dyadic CA. c’ path = Direct effect of self-esteem (See Figure 1). HRV index = Root mean square of successive R–R interval differences.

Extreme outlier removed (N = 70).

p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Summary of hierarchical regression results for HRV during noncommunicative and communication periods.

	Noncommunicative HRV ^a					Communication HRV ^a
Predictor Variable	B	SE	β	r_partial		B	SE	β	r_partial
Block 1	ΔR² = .602***					ΔR² = .628***
Period-Congruent Adjusted Error %	3.456***	0.849	.327	.456		4.497***	0.623	.577	.676
Biological Sex	−2.707	3.697	−.063	−.092		1.704	3.789	.039	.057
Age	0.529	1.034	.044	0.64		−0.733	1.018	−.059	−.091
Ethnoracial Group	10.278**	3.858	.222	.318		−5.303	3.994	−.112	−.166
Self-Esteem	0.200	0.385	.045	.065		0.119	0.386	.026	.039
Noncommunicative Mean HR	−1.120***	0.151	−.649	−.684		–	–	–	–
Noncommunicative HRV ^a	–	–	–	–		0.503***	0.103	.492	.529
Communication Mean HR	–	–	–	–		−0.268⁺	0.159	−.178	−.21
Block 2	ΔR² = .002					ΔR² = .03*
Dyadic CA	−0.267	0.446	−.059	−.076	b path	−1.024*	0.439	−.22	−.286
Block 3	ΔR² < .001					ΔR² = .004
Dyadic CA × Self-Esteem	−0.012	0.074	−.05	−.021		0.061	0.072	.252	.109
Overall Model	R² = .604***					R² = .663***
Self-Esteem at Block 2	0.061	0.451	.014	.017	c’ path	−0.414	0.437	−.092	−.121

Note. B = Unstandardized regression coefficient. SE = Standard error of B. β = Standardized regression coefficient. r_partial = Partial correlation coefficient (correlational effect size after controlling for all other model variables on the predictor and criterion variable). ΔR² = Change in proportion of variance explained (R²). Significance level associated with a B also apply to their β and r_partial coefficients. b path = Direct effect of dyadic CA. c’ path = Direct effect of self-esteem (See Figure 1). HRV index = Root mean square of successive R–R interval differences.

Extreme outlier removed (N = 70).

p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Tests of main and moderation effects

Hierarchical regressions for communication mean HR and HRV were conducted while controlling for their noncommunicative values (to partial out pre-stimulus variability effects) and their respective control variables. In these models, communication mean HR and HRV were the criterion variable, self-esteem scores, covariates, and noncommunicative values were entered in block 1, dyadic CA scores were entered in block 2 (test of main effect), and the interaction term between dyadic CA and self-esteem was entered in block 3 (test of moderation effect). These models were this study’s focal tests for predictions regarding the effect of dyadic CA for communication mean HR and HRV and the exploratory assessment of the moderating role of self-esteem. Model 1 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) was used to perform simple slope analyses at mean and ±1 standard deviations of self-esteem for interactions with a p < .10. The results from block 2 of these models also denoted direct effects from self-esteem (c’ paths) and dyadic CA (b paths) comprising this study’s focal tests of indirect effects from self-esteem on communication mean HR and HRV via dyadic CA.

Tests of indirect effects

The strength of indirect-effect paths from self-esteem on communication mean HR and HRV via dyadic CA were tested with model 4 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013). The effect of self-esteem on dyadic CA for both models (a path) was tested while controlling for sex, age, and ethnoracial group. Following contemporary methods of testing and estimating indirect effects (see Hayes, 2013), significance inferences were computed using 95 % percentile bootstrap confidence intervals (10,000 bootstrap samples), and an indirect effect was rendered statistically significant if its bootstrap confidence interval did not intersect with 0. All analyses were run on SPSS 26. Alpha levels were set to .05.

Tests of Main Effects (Hypothesis 1 & 2) and Moderation (Exploratory Prediction 1)

Communication arousal

Table 2 summarizes hierarchical regression results for mean HR during this period. The overall model explained a significant 81.3% of variance in mean HR during dyadic communication (78.6% adjusted), F(9, 61) = 29.490, p < .001. For the interactive period, higher dyadic CA emerged as a strong unique predictor of higher mean HR, (B = 0.456, 95 % CI [0.003, 0.91], p = .049, r_partial = .247; see panel B of Figure 1). The interaction between dyadic CA and self-esteem showed a statistical trend (p = .098), tentatively suggesting a diminishing effect of dyadic CA as self-esteem increased (B = −0.59, 95 % CI [−0.128, 0.011]). Simple slope analysis showed that the effect of dyadic CA was potent when self-esteem was low (−1 SD; B = 0.72, p = .011), weaker when it was average (B = 0.433, p = .058), and minor when it was high (+1 SD; B = 0.146, p = .616). The direct effect of self-esteem on communication mean HR was not significant (c’ path; B = 0.217, p = 325). Together, these findings illustrated the (initially suppressed) uniquely strong effect of dyadic CA on communication arousal, above and beyond physiological, demographical, and technical covariates. Still, tentative results also hinted at self-esteem having a modest moderating effect, such that effect of dyadic CA on arousal was somewhat stronger at lower-to-average self-esteem levels.

Figure 1.

(A) unique relation between self-esteem and dyadic CA (r_partial = -.52) after controlling for biological sex, age, and ethnoracial group. (B) unique relation between dyadic CA and communication mean HR (r_partial = .247) after controlling for biological sex, age, ethnoracial group, noncommunicative mean HR, communication HRV, adjusted error %, and self-esteem. (C) unique relation between dyadic CA and communication HRV (r_partial = -.286) after controlling for biological sex, age, ethnoracial group, noncommunicative HRV, communication mean HR, adjusted error %, and self-esteem. Variable scales in scatter plots A, B, and C are z – standardized. (D) Diagram illustrating significant indirect effect-paths from self-esteem on communication mean HR (ab = −.081) and HRV (ab = .12) via dyadic CA. Standardized regression coefficients (β) and path symbols are shown next to their linking paths. HRV Index = Root mean square of successive R–R interval differences. *p < .05, ***p < .001.

Communication emotion regulation

Table 3 summarizes hierarchical regression results for HRV during this period. The overall model explained a significant 66.3 % (61.2% adjusted) of variance in communication HRV, F(9, 60) = 13.097, p < .001. During this period, higher dyadic CA was a significant unique predictor of lower HRV (B = −1.024, 95 % CI [−1.902, −0.146], p = .023, r_partial = −.286; see panel C of Figure 1). There was no evidence of self-esteem moderating the effect of dyadic CA (B = 0.061, p = .401) or of it having a direct effect on communication HRV (c’ path; B = −0.414, p = .347). These results showed that irrespective of physiological, demographical, and technical covariates, higher dyadic CA manifested in higher communication-bound emotion dysregulation potently and consistently across self-esteem levels.

Tests of Indirect Effects (Exploratory Prediction 2)

Effect of self-esteem on dyadic CA

The model for dyadic CA explained a significant 31.7% (27.6% adjusted) of variance, F(4, 66) = 7.662, p < .001. Higher self-esteem potently predicted lower dyadic CA (a path; ΔR² = .248, B = −0.53, 95% CI [−0.746, −0.313], β = −.548, p < .001, r_partial = −.516; see panels A Figure 1)⁴, impartial of differences in ethnoracial group (B = −1.086, p = .311), sex (B = 1.901, p = .055), and age (B = −0.348, p = .22).

Indirect effect on communication arousal

Table 2 shows statistics for paths toward communication mean HR. Bootstrap CIs revealed that the effect-path wherein higher self-esteem lowers dyadic CA (a path: B = −0.53, p < .001, N = 71), resulting in lower communication mean HR (b path: B = 0.456, p = .049), was statistically significant (unstandardized indirect effect = −0.242, 95% CI [−0.603, −0.019], completely standardized indirect effect = −.081, 95% CI [−.194, −.007]).⁵Alternative effect-path possibilities (tested with control variables for communication mean HR entered in all path models for constancy in covariate-control across models) were nonsignificant (95% Bootstrap CIs for all alternative indirect effects intersected with 0). The indirect effect of self-esteem on communication mean HR via dyadic CA was still substantial (unstandardized indirect effect = −0.232, 95% CI [−0.560, −0.019]) after applying further covariate control to the effect of self-esteem on dyadic CA (B = −0.508, p < .001).

Indirect effect on communication emotion regulation

Table 3 shows statistics for paths toward communication HRV. Bootstrap CIs showed that the effect-path wherein higher self-esteem lessens dyadic CA (a path: B = −0.53, p < .001, N = 70), resulting in higher communication HRV (b path: B = −1.024, p = .023), was statistically significant (unstandardized indirect effect = .543, 95% CI [0.005, 1.208], completely standardized indirect effect = .12, 95% CI [.001, .259]).⁶Alternative effect-path combinations (tested with control variables for communication HRV entered in all path models for constancy in covariate-control across models) were nonsignificant (95% Bootstrap CIs for all indirect effects intersected with 0). The indirect effect of self-esteem on communication HRV via dyadic CA was still potent (unstandardized indirect effect = 0.533, 95% CI [0.005, 1.175]) after applying further covariate control on the effect of self-esteem on dyadic CA (B = −0.521, p < .001).

Overall, tests of indirect effects supported the strength of indirect inhibitory influences from higher self-esteem on interaction-bound arousal and emotion dysregulation via its potent inhibition of dyadic CA (see panel D of Figure 1).

Discussion

Psycho-Cardiac Distress Symptoms of Dyadic CA

This study’s central aim was to determine whether individuals’ dyadic CA manifested in their psycho-cardiac symptoms of arousal (HR) and emotion regulation (HRV) during dyadic communication. The results corroborated this study’s hypotheses, as higher dyadic CA was potently related to higher HR and lower HRV during dyadic interaction, above and beyond influences from important psychophysiological determinants such as biological sex, age, ethnoracial group, pre-stimulus cardiac activity, and self-esteem (plus error adjustments on cardiac indices). However, in the absence of communicative stimuli, the findings suggested that individuals’ dyadic CA was not a salient distress-inducing factor (see Tables 2 and 3), thus shedding light on the context specificity of its distressing weight. Further, dyadic CA manifested in higher interaction-bound HR independently of individual differences in HRV. These results suggested that the effect of dyadic CA on cardiac acceleration is substantially driven by sympathetic input, given that it is not merely dependent on vagal withdrawal. Simultaneously, dyadic CA manifested in lower interaction bound HRV regardless of individual differences in HR, suggesting that the effect of dyadic CA on vagal dysfunction is independent of acceleratory cardiac changes. All in all, this study revealed that dyadic CA induces psycho-cardiac distress via both autonomic branches, prompting cardiac acceleration through sympathetic input and cardiac dysregulation through vagal withdrawal. Thus, these findings suggested that dyadic CA is a potent predictor of arousal and emotion dysregulation symptoms.

This study’s findings also provided theoretical insight into plausible neural factors underlying CA distress reactions. For instance, the substantial degree of sympathetic input driving CA-related HR increases could indicate excess surges in amygdala activity (Murison, 2016), which would be consistent with communibiological premises linking CA-induced arousal symptoms to interaction-elicited amygdala hyperactivity as part of BIS activation (Beatty et al., 1998). In turn, CA-related vagal dysfunction (reflected in low HRV) could indicate poor mPFC-amygdala integration due to low functional coactivation (Sakaki et al., 2016), plausibly signaling impaired recruitment of the mPFC to guide emotion regulation (Thayer et al., 2012). Moreover, vagal dysfunction has also shown to be indicative of impairments in mPFC-amygdala pathways, which can also underlie poor integration (Wei et al., 2018). CA-related vagal dysfunction may thus also allude to poor mPFC-amygdala integration due to impaired connective circuits, such as the ACC. Given its connective role in mPFC-amygdala integration (Stevens et al., 2011), the discussed ACC impairments linked to CA (Beatty & Gonzalez, 2020) could thus contribute to a poor mPFC-amygdala integration that might underlie CA-related vagal dysfunction.

In the broader perspective, this study’s findings showing the potent link between dyadic CA and interaction bound HR and HRV, compared with previous findings showing the potent link between public speaking CA and speech bound perceived anxiety but not HR or HRV (MacIntyre et al., 2010), helps shed light on underlying differences in response-system coherence across context-specific forms of CA. Unique psychophysiological benchmarks associated with these different CA forms could thus support distinguishing types of distress reactions and experiences (as suggested by McCroskey, 1984). Overall, these results supported communibiological premises (Beatty et al., 1998) implicating CA to stronger arousal symptoms when interacting in low-intensity contexts, such as dyadic communication (Campero-Oliart et al., 2020). These findings also supported polyvagal premises underscoring the hindrance of socially distressing psychological factors, such as dyadic CA, for functional vagal tone in service of emotionally regulated social behavior (Porges, 2003, 2007).

The Role of Self-Esteem

The comprehensive result-pattern for plausible processes through which self-esteem could influence dyadic-communication distress advocated for the indirect effect of higher self-esteem via dyadic CA inhibition. These results were in line with the trait-level lens of (global) self-esteem as a determinative factor of the distress-inducing (i.e., neurotic) temperamental dimension of CA. These results were further consistent with the schematic view that having a globally stronger self-value can be conducive to the inhibition of socially neurotic orientations, as it facilitates positive affectivity relating to one’s interpersonal adaptability (Zeigler-Hill, 2010, 2011) and sense of connectedness (Leary & Baumeister, 2000), and lessens fear and anxiety rooted in feelings of social inadequacy and vulnerability (Greenberg et al., 1992). A resulting less anxious and reticent disposition for simple interaction, manifested in the form of low dyadic CA, will thus contribute to lower distress reactions in dyadic encounters.⁷

Statistically tentative evidence further hinted at the plausibility that self-esteem could moderate the effect of dyadic CA on communication arousal. Although inadequate power could explain the lack of substantive significance for this finding, Quintana (2017) showed that sample sizes above 60 have adequate power to detect medium effect sizes in HRV studies. Further, a sensitivity analysis also indicated the current sample was powered (.80) to detect up to medium to large effect sizes (ΔR² = .10, r = .317; Funder & Ozer, 2019) from a predictor in a model with nine. Another explanation for these statistically tentative findings could implicate measurement noise in the dyadic CA scale. Previous research has pointed to the non-congeneric and non-tau equivalent nature of its items (Levine & McCroskey, 1990; Pascual-Ferrá, 2013), which can translate to biased estimates of alpha reliability and attenuated effect sizes. It is possible then that an imperfect capturing of dyadic CA attenuated effect sizes for this construct in this study. This might have affected the magnitude of interaction between dyadic CA and self-esteem as well, which in turn might have contributed to statistically tentative significance estimates.

Alternatively, two primary dimensions of global self-esteem—self-competence (instrumental agency) and self-liking (socio-aesthetic value; Tafarodi & Milne, 2002)—could plausibly account for the inhibiting effect of self-esteem on dyadic CA and also its tentative moderating impact for the effect of dyadic CA on interaction arousal. Higher self-competence and self-liking, for instance, are both strong determinants of lower dyadic CA, but self-competence conveys a significantly stronger link than self-liking (Hopf & Colby, 1992). Thus, the overall inhibiting effect of self-esteem on dyadic CA could be driven by influences from both self-esteem dimensions, but with self-competence conveying a stronger inhibiting effect. In turn, it might be one’s sense of self-liking that mainly buffers the effect of dyadic CA on interaction arousal, particularly within an atmosphere conveying personal disclosure. In such contexts, those with strong self-liking adopt uniquely self-assuring approaches to preserve, and if possible, enhance their self-esteem (Zeigler-Hill, 2010). It is plausible, then, that those with stronger self-liking employed more reassuring intrapersonal strategies throughout the interactive experience (e.g., self-reinforcing self-talk), were less worried about objective negative evaluations from their self-disclosure given their high self-regard for their socio-aesthetics, and internalized positive feedback about their self-disclosure with less apprehension given that these might have been more congruent with their self-assessments (Bosson & Swann Jr, 1999; Zeigler-Hill, 2010). Conceivably, the interaction atmosphere and their adopted relational styles could have reconciled such that they established a low sense of threat for their self-esteem, thus inducing more positive and less anxiety-arousing appraisals about the valence of their experience.⁸ This however, does not account for self-esteem not moderating the effect of dyadic CA on HRV. Thus, perhaps this putative moderating dimension of self-esteem (i.e., self-liking) attenuates threat appraisals driving defense-mechanism reactions (i.e., arousal) but does not necessarily enhance self-regulation resources when emotionally troubled.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study undertook various research questions aiming to produce hypothesis-generating rather than definitive findings. The potent indirect effects from self-esteem on interaction-bound indices of arousal and emotion regulation via dyadic CA demonstrated the strength of these theoretically and empirically suggested linking mechanisms. Still, the non-experimental nature of these findings meant that inferences of causality should be done cautiously. The findings corroborated the robust probability of self-esteem affecting dyadic CA, thus affecting dyadic-interaction distress, but not the reciprocal alternative wherein dyadic-interaction distress affects dyadic CA, thus affecting self-esteem. However, such reciprocal process could plausibly emerge over time: Undergoing recurrently stressful dyadic interactions could feed into persons’ dyadic CA as these experiences may become internalized and projected onto future interactions, thus inciting more self-defeating and anxious appraisals toward dyadic interaction. In turn, a higher sense of dyadic CA could prompt more socially detached tendencies and uncertain assessments about one’s social status, connectivity, and adaptability, thus lowering one’s sense of self-esteem. Replications and longitudinal research will indeed be needed to explore currently suggestive sequential relations (as well as their alternative possibilities) more concretely and thus uncover the nature of these coupling processes, which may be bidirectional. Further, the earlier discussed implications of noise in the dyadic CA scale alluded to attenuated effect sizes related to dyadic CA in this study. Thus, exact and conceptual replication studies should be conducted to explore the replicability and comparability of this study’s findings, respectively.

This study’s sample’s unique qualities also prevented the results’ generalization to specific population segments, such as middle and older age cohorts. Generalizations to groups of specific socioeconomic, cultural, or occupational backgrounds were also difficult to make as this study did not assess these demographics. This study’s sample was relatively representative of both biological sexes but also still predominantly of European–American individuals. As such, this study’s findings can be more accurately widespread to a somewhat younger, largely European–American, and relatively sex-heterogeneous population. Further research will need to examine the effect of dyadic CA on communication distress and the indirect impact of self-esteem in more diverse samples. Based on this study’s interaction context, it was also unclear whether these results might generalize to contexts involving known others, mutually initiated topics (e.g., dating), or non-personal interaction (e.g., work-related), a limitation that bears fertile grounds for future CA research. Different ways of measuring HR have also rendered different strengths of correlations between CA forms and HR. As discussed by Beatty and Behnke (1991), studies that used raw HR scores (such as this study) have found stronger links with CA than those that have used HR transformations to assess changes from baseline to communication states (e.g., mean cyclic maxima, autonomic lability). Future research should thus consider different forms of HR measurement and computation when investigating the CA-HR link.

Moreover, this study did not screen for routine sleep, physical activity, or alcohol consumption. Each can impact cardiac activity (Laborde et al., 2017) and should be considered in future studies. Further, this study did not directly assess the role of situational types of CA or self-esteem for physiological outcomes. Future research should consider these and other potential modulators of situational distress (e.g., emotional intelligence, depression, noncommunication-related anxiety) to better contextualize unique social trait effects on physiological processes.

Implications

The present findings provide novel insight into the psycho-cardiac distress symptoms of dyadic CA when individuals interact with new people. The extent to which dyadic CA manifested in signs of arousal and emotional dysregulation suggests meaningful short-term and long-term repercussions (Funder & Ozer, 2019). When navigating newly established interactions, these experiences can be detrimental for individuals’ immediate interpersonal efforts (e.g., developing social relations, apt interview performance, establishing interpersonal rapport) as they obscure flexible social discernment, responsiveness, and engagement (Geisler et al., 2013; Porges, 2007; Quintana et al., 2012). In the long run, the repeated exposure to acute distress characterized by metabolic deployment and autonomic dysregulation, as reflected by higher HR and lower HRV, can also increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases, immunological impairments, inflammation, and overall mortality (McCraty & Shaffer, 2015; Reed & Raison, 2016; Thayer & Lane, 2009). Considering that dyadic interactions with strangers and newly met acquaintances are likely to be encountered in everyday life, these findings emphasize the insidious health risks that highly apprehensive persons may be vulnerable to due to the wear and tear that the observed symptoms may impose on their multifaceted wellbeing.

Moreover, the observed inhibiting role of self-esteem suggests that cultivating this aspect of one’s psyche should be considered a target area of nourishment when endeavoring to reduce CA and its physiological expressions. Along these lines, the mastering of specific skills for flexible self-regulation could target both CA inhibition and self-esteem nourishment, as it could aid towards a higher sense of coping potential when navigating interaction, reinforce one’s sense of instrumental self-value as a result of increased agency and adaptability, and also indirectly nourish one’s self-acceptance through an increased sense of self-competence (Tafarodi & Milne, 2002). While also espousing formal interventions such as HRV biofeedback (Moss, 2004) and personalized training programs (Dwyer, 2000), those with high CA could endeavor to develop their proficiencies in regulatory practices, such as meditation and diaphragmic breathing to induce self-soothing (Moss, 2004), as well as arousal-reappraisal to leverage the plausibly incessant arousing symptoms for better performance when interacting (Jamieson et al., 2013).

Conclusions

This study showed that individuals’ dyadic CA manifests potently in cardiac symptoms of arousal and emotion dysregulation while conversing in a dyadic context and that high self-esteem can indirectly attenuate these symptoms via its inhibition of dyadic CA. Future research should explore self-competence and self-liking as plausible dimensions of self-esteem underlying its tentatively evinced dual role as an inhibitor of dyadic CA and a moderator of its effect interaction-bound arousal. The overall findings (a) illustrate the different forms of psych-cardiac distress that our dyadic CA may induce during one-on-one interactions, and (b) underscore the relevance of our general self-esteem in fostering positive changes for our dyadic CA and the distressing physiological expressions that couple it when navigating interpersonal interactions.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-crx-10.1177_00936502221085904 – Supplemental material for Psycho-Cardiac Distress Symptoms of Dyadic Communication Apprehension & The Role of Self-Esteem

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-crx-10.1177_00936502221085904 for Psycho-Cardiac Distress Symptoms of Dyadic Communication Apprehension & The Role of Self-Esteem by Alejandro R. Campero-Oliart in Communication Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Sincere gratitude to Carmine Guynn for her help on pilot runs and spreading information for participant recruitment; to Dr. Larry Daily for supporting this project and his continuous guidance; to Dr. Noemi Enchautegui-de-Jesus for her insightful feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript; to Judith D’Angelo, Anthony Wenner, and Daniel Pedraza for their assistance. Se lo dedico a mi hermosa familia. Y mi papa Eduardo, que en paz descanse.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Alejandro R. Campero-Oliart

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biography

Originally from La Paz, Bolivia, Alejandro Campero-Oliart is a Social-Personality Psychology doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley. He earned his bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Shepherd University in West Virginia and master’s degree in Social-Personality Psychology from American University in Washington DC. His main research areas overarch a) trait, psychophysiology, and appraisal aspects of socially relevant stress and emotion, and b) interpersonal and health implications of dimensional forms of self-understanding, such as self-complexity and perceived intersectionality.

References

Amodio

D. M.

Frith

C. D.

(2006). Meeting of minds: The medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1884

Appelhans

B. M.

Luecken

L. J.

(2006). Heart rate variability as an index of regulated emotional responding. Review of General Psychology, 10, 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.10.3.229

Beatty

M. J.

Behnke

R. R.

(1991). Effects of public speaking trait anxiety and intensity of speaking task on heart rate during performance. Human Communication Research, 18, 147–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00542.x

Beatty

M. J.

Gonzalez

A. M.

(2020). Selected physiological dimensions of communication apprehension. In Aloia

Denes

Crowley

J. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of Physiology and Interpersonal Communication, (pp. 117–134). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beatty

M. J.

McCroskey

J. C.

Heisel

A. D.

(1998). Communication apprehension as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communication Monographs, 65, 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759809376448

Beatty

M. J.

Pascual-Ferrá

(2015). Communication apprehension. The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, 1, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic099

Bosson

J. K.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. (1999). Self-liking, self-competence, and the quest for self-verification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1230–1241. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167299258005

Brown

J. D.

Marshall

M. A.

(2006). The three faces of self-esteem. In Kernis

(Ed.), Self-esteem: Issues and answers (pp. 4–9). Psychology Press.

Campero-Oliart

Lovelace

Levitan

(2020). Contexts of communication apprehension and their relation to self-esteem. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 25, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN25.1.42

10.

Cast

A. D.

Burke

P. J.

(2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80, 1041–1068. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2002.0003

11.

Castaldo

Melillo

Bracale

Caserta

Triassi

Pecchia

(2015). Acute mental stress assessment via short term HRV analysis in healthy adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 18, 370–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2015.02.012

12.

Daly

J.A.

Stafford

(1984). Correlates and consequences of social-communicative anxiety. In Daly

McCroskey

(Eds.), Avoiding Communication (pp. 125–144). SAGE.

13.

Dandeneau

S. D.

Baldwin

M. W.

(2004). The inhibition of socially rejecting information among people with high versus low self-esteem: The role of attentional bias and the effects of bias reduction training. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 584–603. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.4.584.40306

14.

DeLongis

Folkman

Lazarus

R. S.

(1988). The impact of daily stress on health and mood: Psychological and social resources as mediators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 486–495. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.486

15.

Donnellan

M. B.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Robins

R. W.

(2015). Measures of self-esteem. In Boyle

G. J.

Saklofske

D. H.

Matthews

. (Eds.). Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 131–157). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-68427-6

16.

Donovan

L. A.

MacIntyre

P. D.

(2004). Age and sex differences in willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, and self-perceived competence. Communication Research Reports, 21, 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090409360006

17.

Dwyer

K. K.

(2000). The multidimensional model: Teaching students to self-manage high communication apprehension by self-selecting treatments. Communication Education, 49, 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520009379194

18.

Ford

M. B.

Collins

N. L.

(2010). Self-esteem moderates neuroendocrine and psychological responses to interpersonal rejection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017345

19.

Funder

D. C.

Ozer

D. J.

(2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2515245919847202

20.

Geisler

F. C.

Kubiak

Siewert

Weber

(2013). Cardiac vagal tone is associated with social engagement and self-regulation. Biological Psychology, 93, 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.02.013

21.

Gray

J. A.

McNaughton

(2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the function of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford University.

22.

Greenberg

Solomon

Pyszczynski

Rosenblatt

Burling

Lyon

Simon

Pinel

(1992). Why do people need self-esteem? Converging evidence that self-esteem serves an anxiety-buffering function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 913–922. https://doi/org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.913

23.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

24.

Hopf

Colby

(1992). The relationship between interpersonal communication apprehension and self-efficacy. Communication Research Reports, 9, 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099209359905

25.

Jamieson

J. P.

Mendes

W. B.

Nock

M. K.

(2013). Improving acute stress responses: The power of reappraisal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963721412461500

26.

Kim

H. G.

Cheon

E. J.

Bai

D. S.

Lee

Y. H.

Koo

B. H.

(2018). Stress and heart rate variability: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Psychiatry Investigation, 15, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2017.08.17

27.

Laborde

Mosley

Thayer

J. F.

(2017). Heart rate variability and cardiac vagal tone in psychophysiological research–recommendations for experiment planning, data analysis, and data reporting. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00213

28.

Leary

M. R.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80003-9

29.

Levine

T. R.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1990). Measuring trait communication apprehension: A test of rival measurement models of the PRCA-24. Communications Monographs, 57, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759009376185

30.

MacIntyre

V. A.

MacIntyre

P. D.

Carre

(2010). Heart rate variability as a predictor of public speaking anxiety. Communication Research Reports, 27, 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2010.496323

31.

Martin

M. M.

Myers

S. A.

(2006). Students’ communication traits and their out-of-class communication with their instructors. Communication Research Reports, 23, 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090600962599

32.

Martens

Greenberg

Allen

J. J.

Hayes

Schimel

Johns

(2010). Self-esteem and autonomic physiology: Self-esteem levels predict cardiac vagal tone. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.07.001

33.

Masten

A. S.

Coatsworth

J. D.

(1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.53.2.205

34.

McCraty

Shaffer

(2015). Heart rate variability: New perspectives on physiological mechanisms, assessment of self-regulatory capacity, and health risk. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, 4, 46–61. https://doi.org/10.7453/gahmj.2014.073

35.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1980). Quiet children in the classroom: On helping not hurting. Communication Education, 29, 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528009378419

36.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In Daly

John A.

McCroskey

James C.

(Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension, (pp. 13–38). SAGE.

37.

McCroskey

J. C.

Beatty

M. J.

Kearney

Plax

T. G.

(1985). The content validity of the PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension across communication contexts. Communication Quarterly, 33, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378509369595

38.

McCroskey

J. C.

Richmond

V. P.

Daly

J. A.

Falcione

R. L.

(1977). Studies of the relationship between communication apprehension and self-esteem. Human Communication Research, 3, 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00525.x

39.

Moss

(2004). Heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback. Psychophysiology Today: The Magazine for Mind-Body Medicine, 1, 4–11. http://www.bfe.org/articles/issue1_final.pdf.

40.

Murison

(2016). The neurobiology of stress. In Neuroscience of pain, stress, and emotion (pp. 29–49). Academic Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/B978-0-12-800538-5.00002-9

41.

Neiss

M. B.

Sedikides

Stevenson

(2002). Self-esteem: A behavioural genetic perspective. European Journal of Personality, 16, 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fper.456

42.

Pascual-Ferrá

(2013). Congenericity and the measurement of interpersonal communication constructs: A confirmatory factor analytic test of four measures [Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami]. https://scholarship.miami.edu/discovery/delivery/01UOML_INST:ResearchRepository/12355261480002976?l#13355499620002976

43.

Porges

S. W.

(2003). The Polyvagal Theory: Phylogenetic contributions to social behavior. Physiology & Behavior, 79, 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-9384(03)00156-2

44.

Porges

S. W.

(2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74, 116–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.06.009

45.

Porhölä

Isotalus

Ovaskainen

(1993). Communication-elicited arousal in public speaking, small group and dyadic contexts: Comparisons of change in heart rate. Communication Research Reports, 10, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099309359915

46.

Quintana

D. S.

(2017). Statistical considerations for reporting and planning heart rate variability case-control studies. Psychophysiology, 54, 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12798

47.

Quintana

D. S.

Guastella

A. J.

Outhred

Hickie

I. B.

Kemp

A. H.

(2012). Heart rate variability is associated with emotion recognition: Direct evidence for a relationship between the autonomic nervous system and social cognition. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86, 168–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.08.012

48.

Rashidi

Yamini

Shafiei

(2011). Oral communication apprehension and affective factors: Self-esteem and introversion/extroversion. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 7,147–174. https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_623.html

49.

Rector

N. A.

Roger

(1997). The stress buffering effects of self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 799–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00095-0

50.

Reed

R. G.

Raison

C. L.

(2016). Stress and the Immune System. In Esser

(Ed.), Environmental influences on the immune system. (pp. 97–126). Springer.

51.

Rosenberg

(1979). Conceiving the self. Basic Books.

52.

Rubin

R. B.

Graham

E. E.

Mignerey

J. T.

(1990). A longitudinal study of college students’ communication competence. Communication Education, 39, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378783

53.

Sakaki

Yoo

H. J.

Nga

Lee

T. H.

Thayer

J. F.

Mather

(2016). Heart rate variability is associated with amygdala functional connectivity with MPFC across younger and older adults. Neuroimage, 139, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.076

54.

Sampthirao

(2016). Self-concept and interpersonal communication. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.25215/0303.115

55.

Schubert

Lambertz

Nelesen

R. A.

Bardwell

Choi

J. B.

Dimsdale

J. E.

(2009). Effects of stress on heart rate complexity—A comparison between short-term and chronic stress. Biological Psychology, 80, 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.11.005

56.

Siddiqui

O. I.

(2015). Methods for computing missing item response in psychometric scale construction. American Journal of Biostatistics, 5, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3844/amjbsp.2015.1.6

57.

Sinclair

S. J.

Blais

M. A.

Gansler

D. A.

Sandberg

Bistis

LoCicero

(2010). Psychometric properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Overall and across demographic groups living within the United States. Evaluation & The Health Professions, 33, 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0163278709356187

58.

Stevens

F. L.

Hurley

R. A.

Taber

K. H.

(2011). Anterior cingulate cortex: unique role in cognition and emotion. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 23, 121–125. https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/jnp.23.2.jnp121

59.

Stinson

D. A.

Logel

Zanna

M. P.

Holmes

J. G.

Cameron

J. J.

Wood

J. V.

Spencer

S. J.

(2008). The cost of lower self-esteem: Testing a self-and social-bonds model of health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 412–428. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.412

60.

Tafarodi

R. W.

Milne

A. B.

(2002). Decomposing global self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 70, 443–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05017

61.

Tarvainen

M. P.

Niskanen

J. P.

Lipponen

J. A.

Ranta-Aho

P. O.

Karjalainen

P. A.

(2014). Kubios HRV–heart rate variability analysis software. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 113, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.07.024

62.

Thayer

J. F.

Lane

R. D.

(2000). A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61, 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(00)00338-4

63.

Thayer

J. F.

Lane

R. D.

(2009). Claude Bernard and the heart–brain connection: Further elaboration of a model of neurovisceral integration. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.004

64.

Thayer

J. F.

Åhs

Fredrikson

Sollers

J. J.

III Wager

T. D.

(2012). A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies: Implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 747–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.11.009

65.

Wei

Chen

G. R.

(2018). Structural covariance of the prefrontal-amygdala pathways associated with heart rate variability. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 2–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00002

66.

Williams

D. P.

Cash

Rankin

Bernardi

Koenig

Thayer

J. F.

(2015). Resting heart rate variability predicts self-reported difficulties in emotion regulation: A focus on different facets of emotion regulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00261

67.

Zeigler-Hill

(2010). The interpersonal nature of self-esteem: Do different measures of self-esteem possess similar interpersonal content? Journal of Research in Personality, 44,22–30. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.005

68.

Zeigler-Hill

(2011). The connections between self-esteem and psychopathology. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 41, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-010-9167-8

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB