Communication Apprehension in the Workplace: Focusing on Inclusion

Abstract

Communication apprehension can lead to professional challenges for individuals, teams, and organizations. This is the first study of communication apprehension that involved a randomized national survey of working adults in the United States and captured broad representation in terms of age, gender, race/ethnicity, managerial status, and other factors. The study showed that communication apprehension is common, including in group discussions, meetings, interpersonal situations, and public speaking. It is significantly more common among early-career professionals, women, introverted professionals, and professionals with anxiety. Interpersonal situations appear to be the situations in which contemporary professionals are most likely to experience high communication apprehension. This study suggests more attention is needed to address communication apprehension in interpersonal and group situations. It also frames communication apprehension as a matter of inclusion and team performance.

Keywords

communication apprehension inclusion introversion anxiety

Introduction

Communication apprehension, the “fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (McCroskey, 2015, p. 22), can lead to professional challenges for individuals, teams, and organizations. On an individual level, communication apprehension can lead to fewer professional opportunities and career choices (Besieux et al., 2021; Blume et al., 2013; Cavanagh et al., 2019; Gershman, 2019; Meyer-Griffith et al., 2009; Simons & Riley, 2014; Shapira, 2019). On a team level, when more team members speak up, teams perform better (Besieux et al., 2021). More broadly, organizations in which employees speak up perform better (Simpson et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2022). Communication apprehension is also a significant barrier to individuals of various personal and professional backgrounds and thus has implications for inclusion efforts (R.S. Bernstein et al., 2020).

Although communication apprehension has been studied extensively over the past four decades, no known national study has captured a broad representation of working adults. Marcel (2019) recently conducted the most exhaustive study of communication apprehension in terms of career span. Her study explored the communication apprehension of her institution’s alumni, allowing for analysis across age groups, levels of work experience, and experience in public speaking. This study builds on Marcel’s research by capturing a national sample and analyzing similarities and differences in communication apprehension based on gender, age, managerial status, race/ethnicity, personality, and mental health.

A study of communication apprehension with a national sample of working adults accomplishes several goals. First, it establishes the extent of communication apprehension among contemporary professionals in a variety of situations, including interpersonal interactions, group discussions, meetings, and public speaking situations. Second, it helps identify which personal and professional backgrounds are associated with higher communication apprehension. With inclusivity prioritized more so than ever, this research offers insights into creating a more inclusive workplace. These findings have important implications for communication instruction and training as well as business and professional preparedness. It contributes to this conversation by showing the critical need of addressing communication apprehension among early-career professionals and aligning with other recent research that suggests interpersonal communication requires more attention.

Study Background

Oral communication skills are typically considered essential to college and career success. In fact, oral communication generally rates as one of the top one, two, or three skills for business students, according to recruiters (Choudaha et al., 2021; Conrad & Newberry, 2012; Estrada-Worthington et al., 2017; Maes et al., 1997; Raymond et al., 1993; Ulinski & O’Callaghan, 2002). A significant barrier to developing oral communications skills is communication apprehension (Cavanagh et al., 2019; Croucher et al., 2019; Ruchala & Hill, 1994). Communication apprehension is defined as a “fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (McCroskey, 2001, p. 40). This section briefly outlines research about communication apprehension based on the pioneering work of McCroskey (1972, 1977, 1978, 1984, 2001, 2015; McCroskey et al., 1985; McCroskey et al., 1989; McCroskey & Richmond, 1982). It also addresses the nature of communication apprehension to various personal and professional backgrounds, including gender, age, race/ethnicity, introversion/extroversion, anxiety, and depression.

Communication Apprehension

Communication apprehension (CA) has been studied extensively over the past half century. McCroskey (1972, 1977, 1978, 1984) and his colleagues (McCroskey et al., 1985; McCroskey et al., 1989; McCroskey & Richmond, 1982) have pioneered work in this area. McCroskey and colleagues focused on four primary situations: public speaking, dyadic (interpersonal) interactions, group discussions, and meetings. People can be classified in terms of trait communication apprehension and state communication apprehension. High trait communication apprehension implies that a person has a generalized anxiety across many communication situations. High state communication apprehension implies that a person has anxiety that is triggered in certain situations, such as in work meetings.

Rubin et al. (2009) showed that high CA is correlated with lower communication competence, and low CA was correlated with higher communication competence. It follows communication apprehension is highly related to and often predictive of college and career success. For example, Ericson and Gardner (1992) showed that high-CA college students are much likelier to drop out of school. McCroskey et al. (1989) showed that high-CA college students were more likely to drop out and to have lower grade point averages. Dozens of studies further demonstrate a direct and negative correlation between CA and academic performance (Bourhis & Allen, 1992). Increasing oral communication self-efficacy objectively increases oral communication performance and academic performance (Cavanagh et al., 2019).

Overcoming communication apprehension is important for business students to secure employment. Most business students must excel at job interviews to get their desired roles. Ayres et al. (1998) showed that students high in CA think less about and plan less for job interviews. In job interviews, high-CA individuals tend to engage in communicative minimization (using fewer gestures and words). Increasingly, flexibility and adaptability are essential skills and traits sought after by employers. One recent study showed that students high in CA were less likely to take leadership roles, less likely to appreciate a multicultural world, and less adaptable in novel situations (Blume et al., 2010).

Apprehension in oral communication situations can be particularly problematic for those in business. Research of corporate recruiters over many decades has consistently shown that oral communication skills are generally ranked as the first or second most important skills for business students (Alsop, 2004; Estrada-Worthington et al., 2017). Some recruiters suggest oral communication skills are becoming even more prioritized in business. For example, in a recent survey of corporate recruiters, 61 percent of respondents said that strong communication skills would be more important in a post-Covid business environment (Choudaha et al., 2020). As a result, apprehension of oral communication situations can significantly limit professional opportunities for business students and early-career business professionals (Cavanagh et al., 2019).

Because most research about communication apprehension has been conducted among college-aged students, Marcel (2019) observed, “As business communication educators and scholars, we may be operating under assumptions based on what has been measured about people during an extremely narrow time frame—perhaps as little as 4 years, or about 5% of their lives.” As a result, Marcel (2019) conducted a large study (n=3,156) of alumni at a private, highly ranked northeastern university that specializes in business education and who graduated between 1976 and 2016. Just a small percentage of these participants showed high communication apprehension, ranging from 4 to 7 percent. She showed that work experience, supervisory experience, and frequency of presenting were associated with less communication apprehension. Marcel’s study took important steps to understand the influence of work experience, supervisory experience, and presentation frequency on communication apprehension. Still, no known national, randomized study of communication apprehension among working adults exists.

Inclusion and Communication Apprehension

Inclusion occurs when employees feel a sense of value and belonging. When employees do not feel like they belong, they are more likely to feel nervous or apprehensive about sharing their views (Clifton & Harter, 2019). R.S. Bernstein and colleagues (2020) suggest communication apprehension is one of the primary barriers to inclusion and ultimately equity. This section briefly describes the potential relationships between various elements of personal and professional backgrounds and communication apprehension.

Gender and communication apprehension

A variety of research suggests women have less confidence in communication situations at work. For example, women report less voice self-efficacy in work environments (Yan et al., 2022). Women tend to have less confidence than men and speak up less often. This is especially the case early in careers (Howell, 2021; Zenger & Folkman, 2019). Some research has specifically focused on communication apprehension and shown that women report higher communication apprehension than men (Boyer et al., 2017; Loureiro et al., 2020).

Age, experience, and managerial status and communication apprehension

Research has long shown that speaking up is more challenging for those with less power, especially in hierarchical situations. Early-career professionals are most likely to face the challenges of these power dynamics (Simpson et al., 2020). Those early in their career tend to have a hard time speaking up, especially in interpersonal, group, and meeting situations (Besieux et al., 2021; Burris & Sinha, 2022; Ravishankar, 2021). Marcel’s 2019 study showed higher age, more work experience, and years of management experience were all associated with lower communication apprehension.

Race/ethnicity and communication apprehension

In the past few years, more attention than ever has focused on building inclusivity for individuals of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Recent research suggests that individuals of some racial and ethnic backgrounds are more likely to feel less comfortable speaking up and even report higher communication apprehension. For example, Asian American employees are more likely to avoid conflict, especially in group settings (Addo-Yobo et al., 2019). While some research suggests Black employees feel less comfortable speaking up at work (Hancock et al., 2021), research about communication apprehension has shown that Black students reported lower communication apprehension than White and Asian students (LaRochelle & Karpinski, 2016). No known study has explored the relationships between race/ethnicity and communication apprehension in a sample involving a broad range of professionals.

Introversion and communication apprehension

One of the most studied aspects of personality in the workplace involves extroversion versus introversion (Grant, 2013). Introversion is typically associated with hesitation or fear to speak up and often leads to self-censorship (Grant, 2013; Ravishankar, 2021; Ruchala & Hill, 1994). Most people are familiar with the terms extrovert and introvert, yet most people fall somewhere in between as ambiverts (E. Bernstein, 2015). No known study has explored the relationship between introversion levels and communication apprehension among working adults.

Depression, anxiety, and communication apprehension

The pandemic has accentuated the importance of mental wellness in the workplace. Some researchers suggest that the percentage of adults who exhibit signs of depression and anxiety has grown significantly since the onset of the pandemic. For example, the average percentage of adults who reported anxiety disorder and/or depressive disorder rose from 11.0% between January and June 2019 to 41.1% in January 2021 (Panchal et al., 2021). Depression and anxiety have been even more prominent among members of Gen Z (Coe et al., 2022; Newson, 2021). Many studies show that depression and anxiety lead to negative affect, lower task productivity, and higher absenteeism (Ivandic et al., 2017; Plaisier et al., 2010, 2012; Shockley et al., 2012). While no known study has directly focused on the link between depression and/or anxiety and communication apprehension, some studies suggest those with depression or anxiety exhibit more hesitance in social interactions at work (Bertilsson et al., 2013).

Methods

To explore communication apprehension among working adults, the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension-24 (PRCA-24) assessment was used. The PRCA-24 survey is widely demonstrated as valid and reliable across many populations and across many decades (Croucher et al., 2019; McCroskey et al., 1985; Murphy & Weber, 2019). The PRCA-24 is composed of items to assess communication apprehension in four communication situations: group discussions, meetings, interpersonal interactions, and presentations and public speeches. It combines scores for these items for a total measure of communication apprehension. All items can be seen in Table 2 in the Findings section. The reliability in this study for each of these PRCA-24 subscales (i.e., situations) was very good with the following Cronbach’s alpha: groups, .87; meetings, .89; interpersonal, .83; and presentations, .89.

PRCA scores are calculated in the following ways: Group discussions: 18 – (scores for items 2, 4, and 6) + (scores for items 1, 3, and 5); Meetings: 18 – (scores for items 8, 9, and 12) + (scores for items 7, 10, and 11); Interpersonal: 18 – (scores for items 14, 16, and 17) + (scores for items 13, 15, and 18); Presentations: 18 – (scores for items 19, 21, and 23) + (scores for items 20, 22, and 24). The PRCA-24 total score for communication apprehension is a sum of the four subscale scores. It ranges from 24 to 120. Scores between 83 and 120 are considered high communication apprehension. For each subscale and the overall instrument, benchmarks are established to identify low, moderate, and high communication apprehension. Group discussion benchmarks are the following: under 11, low; 11 to 20, moderate; 20 and above, high. Meetings benchmarks are the following: under 13, low; 13 to 20, moderate; 20 and above, high. Interpersonal conversations benchmarks are the following: under 11, low; 11 to 20, moderate; 20 and above, high. Presentations benchmarks are the following: under 11, low; 11 to 18, moderate; 18 and above, high. Overall communication apprehension benchmarks: under 51, low; 51 to 80, moderate; 80 and above, high. Each of the apprehension benchmarks is based on being more than a standard deviation from the mean. So, in national samples, roughly 16 percent of people are considered low in CA, 68 percent are considered moderate in CA, and 16 percent are considered high in CA (McCroskey, 2015).

The survey also contained self-report items for mental wellness (i.e., anxiety, depression), introversion levels (i.e., introverted, ambiverted, extroverted), frequency of various types of communication, managerial status, and race/ethnicity. Appendix 1 contains each of these survey items. While Marcel’s (2019) study made an important contribution by including frequency of communication, it only included frequency of presenting. This study explored frequency of communication in each of the PRCA-24 contexts: group discussions, meetings, interpersonal interactions, and presentations and public speaking. The race/ethnicity items were the same ones used on the U.S. 2020 census.

The survey was conducted via an online survey panel (SurveyMonkey Audience) in January 2022. This panel draws and balances from over 10 million Americans to achieve representative and random samples based on target parameters. We identified full-time working individuals who were 18 years or older as the target parameters. Altogether, 793 working adults participated in the survey. Of these participants, 666 participants completed the entire survey. Table 1 presents the personal and professional background of these participants and illustrates the diversity of the sample in terms of gender, age, race/ethnicity, and other factors.

Table 1.

Personal and Professional Backgrounds of Survey Participants.

	n	%		n	%
Gender			Household Income
Female	356	53.5	$0-$9,999	29	4.4
Male	310	46.5	$10,000-$24,999	60	9.0
			$25,000-$49,999	138	20.7
Age			$50,000-$74,999	132	19.8
18-29	145	21.8	$75,000-$99,999	100	15
30-44	206	30.9	$100,000-$124,999	67	10.1
45-60	200	30.0	$125,000-$149,999	23	3.5
> 60	115	17.3	$150,000-$174,999	18	2.7
			$175,000-$199,999	8	1.2
Race/ethnicity			$200,000+	29	4.4
Asian or Pacific Islander	61	9.2	Prefer not to answer	62	9.3
Black or African American	42	6.3	Employment status
Hispanic or Latino	66	9.9	Full-time	483	72.5
Native American/Alaskan Native	4	0.6	Part-time	183	27.5
White/Caucasian	434	65.2	Managerial status
Multiracial or biracial	21	3.2	Nonmanagerial	337	50.6
Not listed here	9	1.4	Supervisor or manager	175	26.3
Prefer not to say	29	4.4	Midlevel manager	87	13.1
			Executive	67	10.1
Region			Mental health
Midwest	147	22.1	Anxiety	285	42.8
Northeast	144	21.6	Depression	192	28.8
South	222	33.3	Introversion/extroversion
West	144	21.6	Introverted	208	31.2
No response	9	1.4	Ambiverted	335	50.3
			Extroverted	123	18.5
Total	666	100.0	Total	666	100.0

Findings

Overall, this sample of working adults is closely aligned with previous research among American adults. As shown in Table 2, the average PRCA-24 score for this national sample was 65.4 (SD = 18.4). This tracks closely with the original work about communication apprehension. In McCroskey’s (2015) work with over 43,000 individuals, the mean score for the PRCA-24 was 65.6 (SD = 15.3). Table 2 displays the item-by-item mean scores, standard deviations, and percentage of participants who agreed with each statement. It also displays means, standard deviations, and the percentage of participants who were considered high in communication apprehension for each of the subscales. Roughly 23 percent of participants were considered high in communication apprehension in group discussions; 24 percent in meetings; 36 percent in interpersonal conversations; 18 percent in presentations and public speaking; and 21 percent in overall communication apprehension.

Table 2.

PRCA-24 Item-by-Item Results.

Item	M	SD	% Agree^a	% High CA
Group discussion items
I dislike participating in group discussions.	2.75	1.14	26.4
Generally, I am comfortable while participating in group discussions.^b	2.41	1.01	16.5
I am tense and nervous while participating in group discussions.	2.72	1.17	29.1
I like to get involved in group discussions.^b	2.70	1.06	22.4
Engaging in a group discussion with new people makes me tense and nervous.	2.97	1.18	37.4
I am calm and relaxed while participating in group discussions.^b	2.62	1.02	19.5
Group score	16.17	0.86		22.8
Meetings items
Generally, I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting.	2.69	1.14	28.7
Usually, I am comfortable when I have to participate in a meeting.^b	2.50	1.04	19.2
I am very calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express an opinion at a meeting.^b	2.69	1.06	23.9
I am afraid to express myself at meetings.	2.67	1.14	26.4
Communicating at meetings usually makes me uncomfortable.	2.70	1.11	27.5
I am very relaxed when answering questions at a meeting.^b	2.66	1.05	22.5
Meetings score	15.91	0.88
Interpersonal items				23.9
While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very nervous.	2.60	1.06	22.8
I have no fear of speaking up in conversations.^b	2.60	1.09	23.3
Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in conversations.	2.45	1.03	17.0
Ordinarily I am very calm and relaxed in conversations.^b	2.42	0.94	13.4
While conversing with a new acquaintance, I feel very relaxed.^b	2.67	0.98	21.0
I’m afraid to speak up in conversations.	2.48	1.06	18.0
Interpersonal score	15.21	0.80		35.6
Presentations items
I have no fear of giving a presentation or speech.^b	3.21	1.28	45.2
Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a presentation or speech.	3.20	1.16	46.2
I feel relaxed while giving a presentation or speech. ^b	3.18	1.18	42.8
My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a presentation or speech.	2.88	1.14	31.8
I face the prospect of giving a presentation or speech with confidence.^b	2.80	1.08	25.5
While giving a presentation or speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really know.	2.80	1.20	31.5
Presentations score	18.07	0.94		17.9
PRCA-24 Score	65.36	18.42		21.2

Note. N = 666.

% Agree refers to the percentage of participants who selected “agree” or “strongly agree” on the survey. To some extent, this indicates the percentage of participants who reported apprehension for the item.

Reverse-coded item.

To explore the degree to which various aspects of personal and professional background influence communication apprehension, five regression analyses were conducted. The dependent variables for the regressions were each of the PRCA-24 subscales (group discussions, meetings, interpersonal conversations, presentations, and public speaking) and overall communication apprehension (see Table 3). Higher levels of management responsibility and higher age were associated with lower overall communication apprehension and lower communication apprehension for all four communication situations. Introversion and anxiety were each associated with higher overall communication apprehension and higher communication apprehension for all four communication situations. Women reported higher communication apprehension in meetings, presentations, and overall communication apprehension. Asian Americans reported higher overall communication apprehension and higher communication apprehension for all four communication situations. Those who identified as Hispanics reported higher communication apprehension in group discussions and meetings.

Table 3.

Regressions on PRCA-24 Subscales and Total Communication Apprehension.

	Model 1:Groups		Model 2:Meetings		Model 3:Interpersonal		Model 4:Presentations		Model 5:Overall
	β	p	β	p	β	p	β	p	β	p
Management status	–.54	<.001**	–.65	<.001**	–.58	<.001**	–.85	<.001**	–2.28	<.001**
Work status (FT)	–.15	.71	–.34	.41	.14	.71	–.37	.37	–1.42	.27
Gender (women)	.59	.10	1.20	<.001**	.29	.37	1.04	.01**	3.21	<.01**
Income	.02	.74	.08	.22	.04	.51	.04	.54	.22	.29
Age	–.66	<.001**	–.57	<.001**	–.63	<.001**	–.56	<.001**	–2.48	<.001**
Introversion	–1.87	<.001**	–1.83	<.001**	–1.81	<.001**	–1.48	<.001**	–6.65	<.001**
Mental health
Anxiety	1.61	<.001**	1.93	<.001**	1.55	<.001**	3.15	<.001**	8.12	<.001**
Depression	.26	.53	.32	.45	.11	.78	.22	.62	.76	.58
Race/ethnicity
Asian	1.47	.02*	2.11	<.001**	1.57	.01**	1.82	.01**	6.46	<.01**
Black	–.71	.33	.30	.68	–.71	.29	.44	.58	–.74	.75
Hispanic	1.22	.05*	1.25	.04*	.71	.21	.69	.28	3.74	.06
Other	.18	.76	.63	.30	.60	.28	.91	.15	1.90	.33
Frequency	–1.04	<.001**	–1.06	<.001**	–1.06	<.001**	–1.33	<.001**	–7.41	<.001**

Note. Model 1 R² = .28**; Model 2 R² = .31**; Model 3 R² = .30**; Model 4 R² = .37**; Model 5 R² = .41**.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Implications for Business Communication Curricula and Future Research

Overall, this study showed that many working adults in the United States experience high communication apprehension in a variety of situations. It is particularly pronounced among early-career (i.e., 18-29 years old) professionals. Higher communication apprehension occurs among people of various personal and professional backgrounds (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, mental health) that are important considerations for inclusion efforts. These results have wide-ranging implications for business communication curricula and future research. Based on the results of this study, we recommend business communication researchers and instructors should focus on the following: interpersonal communication apprehension, inclusion and team-level communication apprehension, management skills to address communication apprehension, and interventions to address communication apprehension.

Interpersonal Communication Apprehension

Communication apprehension teaching and research should focus much more on interpersonal communication apprehension. One of the key contributions of this study is it shows the extent of communication apprehension among early-career professionals in terms of interpersonal conversations. As depicted in Figure 1, over half (55 percent) of early-career professionals scored high in interpersonal communication apprehension. Some research suggests Gen Z individuals are more likely to experience communication apprehension in interpersonal situations because of heavy use of mobile phones (Allred & Atkin, 2020). Regardless of the causes of higher apprehension in interpersonal communication, the need to address interpersonal communication is crucial since employers value interpersonal communication skills more than other communications skills (such as presentations) (Choudaha et al., 2021; Coffelt et al., 2022). Although interpersonal communication skills are more essential to professional success for early-career professionals, most business communication curricula appear to prioritize presentations and public speaking over interpersonal communication skills (Coffelt et al., 2022; Kleckner & Butz, 2022; Moshiri & Cardon, 2020).

Figure 1.

Communication apprehension among early-career professionals.

Communication Apprehension and Noninclusion

Business communication instructors and researchers should recognize that addressing communication apprehension is a matter of inclusion. Most research has traditionally framed communication apprehension as an issue for individuals. Now, research frames addressing communication apprehension as a matter of inclusion and of concern to teams and organizations. For example, R.S. Bernstein et al. (2020) state, “communication apprehension, stereotyping, and stigmatizing will predominate by default if not countered by other forces, thereby hampering diversity and inclusion efforts” (p. 397). This study showed that individuals of various personal and professional backgrounds are more likely to experience higher communication apprehension, and the context often matters. For example, women experience much more communication apprehension in meetings (see Figure 2). The gap in communication apprehension between women and men persists for early-career (18-29 years old) and midcareer (30-44 years old) stages before tapering off thereafter.

Figure 2.

High communication apprehension in meetings by age group and gender.

Roughly 62 percent of early-career participants with anxiety in this study experience high communication apprehension in interpersonal communication (see Figure 3). Over half (54%) of midcareer participants experienced high communication apprehension in interpersonal communication. The gap was significant for these stages of their careers, and then tapers a bit in late careers.

Figure 3.

High communication apprehension in interpersonal interaction by presence of anxiety.

Appendix 2 contains a variety of information about how individuals with various backgrounds experience communication apprehension. A review of this information reveals the many ways in which professionals of various backgrounds differentially experience communication apprehension. An inclusivity mindset focuses on helping all individuals in a team or group overcome communication apprehension and feel more comfortable communicating in a variety of situations.

Management Skills to Address Communication Apprehension

Teaching and training should address how to overcome communication apprehension at team and organizational levels. Communication apprehension often results in silence. Team members do not share their thoughts and perspectives. Employees fail to provide needed input for the organization. Viewing communication apprehension as a collective issue, rather than solely an individual challenge, broadens the role of communication apprehension in business communication curricula.

Bernstein et al. (2020) recently developed a Theory of Generative Interactions to build inclusion and counter exclusionary dynamics among employees. They specifically address communication apprehension as one of the primary exclusionary dynamics. They suggest leaders and managers should be responsible for organizational practices that lead to more interaction opportunities for all employees and interpersonal comfort and self-efficacy. These practices include stating organizational commitment to helping employees overcome apprehension and providing an inclusive environment, ensuring diverse employees collaborate over extended periods of time, and ensuring members of various groups have equal opportunities to contribute to organizational successes.

Business communication instructors can teach a variety of strategies to help others feel lower communication apprehension. Strategies to help others speak up include holding more one-to-one meeting and asking for feedback (Detert & Burris, 2016), priming the pump in meetings by openly acknowledging the weaknesses in one’s own ideas (Grenny, 2014), breaking meetings into smaller groups (Ferrazzi, 2012), and rewarding contrarian thinkers (O’Toole & Bennis, 2009).

Interventions to Address Communication Apprehension

Communication apprehension teaching and research requires more attention to the effectiveness of various interventions. Addressing communication apprehension requires strategic and intentional approaches, yet research about interventions to overcome communication apprehension are relatively rare (Fan & Lin, 2017). Stanga and Ladd (1990) identified three general approaches to reducing communication apprehension: systematic desensitization, cognitive restructuring, and assertiveness training.

Systematic desensitization involves relaxation exercises, awareness of anxiety-inducing stimuli, and connecting these relaxation exercises to these anxiety-inducing stimuli (Stanga & Ladd, 1990). A common relaxation exercise involves pausing and breathing before and after important communication situations (Shapira, 2019). Over the past decade, power posing has garnered a lot of attention (Cuddy et al., 2018; Cuddy et al., 2018) with one of the most popular Ted Talks ever with over 64 million views as of May 2022 (Cuddy, 2012). Yet, this approach has attracted some critique (Simmons & Simonsohn, 2017). Later research has focused on the value of not contracting, rather than the controversial power posing, reinforcing the core role of posture (Elkjær et al., 2020).

Cognitive restructuring involves adopting more positive self-image by overcoming negative self-statements. By identifying negative self-statements, people can develop coping mechanisms (Stanga & Ladd, 1990). People can reduce communication apprehension by self-talk about one’s ideas and how to frame them (Ravishankar, 2021). For example, a person could recast one’s thought from “My idea may be incomplete” to “It could be the source of someone else’s breakthrough” (Besieux et al., 2021; Detert & Edmondson, 2011). Framing often involves considering what one’s unique strengths are and what they uniquely bring to the table (Howell, 2021).

Assertiveness training involves recognizing one has the right to express one’s views and should take accountability for one’s own thoughts, one’s own emotions, and should develop the skills to articulate one’s views (Stanga & Ladd, 1990). Ruchala and Hill (1994) suggest assertiveness training is the most efficient approach to reducing communication apprehension. They found that by incorporating four sessions of assertiveness training into a communication course, students reduced communication apprehension much more than in courses without the assertiveness training. Similarly, Fan and Lin (2017) showed that the case method helps students overcome communication apprehension by developing comfort in discussing the pros and cons of various interpretations and positions. This allows people to learn how to disagree in a productive manner (Besieux et al., 2021). Assertiveness training was studied extensively in the 1970s and 1980s but became far less prominent thereafter. It is particularly effective for people of certain backgrounds. For example, it is quite effective for people with social anxiety (Speed et al., 2017). Yet, assertiveness training needs to be aligned with the life experiences and attitudes of various people. For example, Pfafman and McEwan (2014) found that assertiveness training for women was sometimes counterproductive unless they can do it on their own terms: asserting themselves in ways that are both strategic and polite.

These categories of interventions are not exhaustive. Many experts suggest the act of preparing compelling content and ideas reduces communication apprehension. The content-development approach often focuses on a careful review of how your ideas benefit others (Ravishankar, 2021; Shapira, 2019), especially key decisionmakers (Burris & Sinha, 2022). It may involve perspective-taking, which is the “the ability to mentalize or infer the mental states of others as well as one’s own mental states” (Simpson et al., 2020, p. 73). This positions professionals to more confidently align content with the needs of others. Some research shows that promotive voice (emphasizing how to improve a challenge and achieve goals) is more effective than prohibitive voice (emphasizing what could go wrong and how to stop it) (Burris & Sinha, 2022). Other experts suggest taking control of challenging situations by choosing the right environment and effective timing (Burris & Sinha, 2022). Also, rehearsing your ideas and deliberate practicing can lead to less apprehension (Besieux et al., 2021; Howell, 2021).

While research about these various interventions is relatively scant, several studies have revealed interventions help some people more than others and that personalized approaches to interventions may be most appropriate. Based on recent surveys of business communication instructors, we assume that most courses adopt a primarily skills-based approach to communication (Moshiri & Cardon, 2019). Fordham and Gabbin (1996) found that communication courses that focus on skills only lead to lower communication apprehension among students with low or moderate communication apprehension. However, among students with high communication apprehension, a skills-only approach to communication courses does not lead to lower communication apprehension. Recognizing that approaches to reducing communication apprehension may vary by individual, Dwyer (1998) experimented with allowing students to choose from various strategies to reduce communication apprehension. When students were able to choose strategies, they reduced communication apprehension more so than when instructors encouraged all students to adopt the same strategies.

In our own work over the past two decades, one approach we have adopted is a framework involving awareness, motivation, and action, largely built on the work of Prochaska and colleagues (Prochaska, 1994; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Prochaska et al., 1988). After taking the PRCA-24, students identify the areas in which they are most apprehensive to build their personal awareness. Then, they identify the benefits of anxiety reduction to their own learning and professional goals, which provides a strong individual motivation for change. Next, they develop strategies to address their communication apprehension, to place themselves in personally challenging situations and experiment with various strategies to reduce communication apprehension. We have increasingly done this exercise in teams with the goal of increasing team performance and a sense of inclusion. Through this approach, we have observed significant reduction of communication apprehension among our students, particularly those who enter the courses with high levels of communication apprehension.

For future work about interventions, we encourage researchers and instructors to consider the following points (based on findings of this study as well as past literature): (1) Since most prior work about interventions has focused on “stage fright” (i.e., overcoming communication apprehension in public speaking situations) (Davis et al., 2019; Dwyer, 1998; Marcel, 2019), much more work needs to be documented and analyzed in the contexts of interpersonal, group, and meetings situations. (2) Since individuals with various personal and professional backgrounds (e.g., early-career professionals, women, Asian and Hispanic Americans, people with anxiety, introverts) experience higher communication apprehension, research about which interventions work best for those of different backgrounds will have benefits for individuals and create more inclusive work environments. (3) Since most prior work has focused on course-level changes, documenting and researching the impact of interventions over longer periods of time and longitudinal studies are needed.

Conclusion

Communication apprehension can lead to professional challenges for individuals, teams, and organizations. This study showed that communication apprehension is common, including in group discussions, meetings, interpersonal situations, and presentations and public speaking. It is significantly more common among early-career professionals, women, introverts, and professionals with anxiety. Interpersonal situations appear to be the situations in which contemporary professionals are most likely to experience high communication apprehension. This is a crucial discovery that is likely impacting career success and team effectiveness for many professionals. This study suggests more attention is needed to address communication apprehension in interpersonal and group situations. It also frames communication apprehension as a matter of inclusion and team performance. A necessary step for building inclusion is enhancing the comfort level with communication interactions experienced by each of the individuals on a team. Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that business communication researchers and instructors focus on the following: interpersonal communication apprehension, inclusion and team-level communication apprehension, management skills to address communication apprehension, and interventions to address disproportionately high interpersonal communication apprehension levels in early-career professionals.

Footnotes

Appendix 1: Survey Items

PRCA-24 Items (Likert scale: strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5)

Appendix 2: Breakdown of Communication Apprehension by Personal and Professional Backgrounds

	n	Groups		Meetings		Interpersonal		Presentations		PRCA-24
	n	M (SD)	% High	M (SD)	% High	M (SD)	% High	M (SD)	% High	M (SD)	% High
Gender
Men	310	15.62 (5.03)	18.4	14.91 (5.00)	16.1	14.91 (4.83)	34.2	16.87 (5.26)	10.3	62.32 (18)	15.5
Women	356	16.64 (5.22)	26.7	16.78 (5.37)	30.6	15.47 (4.74)	36.8	19.11 (5.77)	24.4	68 (18.40)	26.1
Age
18-29	145	18.01 (4.73)	31.7	18.01 (4.68)	33.1	17.29 (4.34)	54.5	19.89 (4.95)	24.8	73.19 (16.07)	31.7
30-44	206	16.76 (4.87)	25.2	16.3 (5.16)	25.2	15.68 (4.61)	40.3	18.6 (5.37)	18.9	67.34 (17.42)	24.8
45-60	200	15.28 (5.14)	22.8	15.05 (5.18)	20.0	14.2 (4.71)	20.0	17.82 (5.64)	19.5	62.35 (18.04)	14.5
>60	115	14.34 (5.31)	12.2	14.06 (5.46)	13.0	13.5 (4.71)	20.0	15.26 (5.9)	8.7	57.16 (19.23)	13.0
Employment status
Full-time	483	16.04 (5.23)	21.9	15.73 (5.33)	23.0	14.99 (4.72)	34.0	17.93 (5.78)	18.0	64.69 (18.61)	19.9
Part-time	183	16.5 (4.94)	25.1	16.39 (5.12)	26.2	15.8 (4.93)	39.9	18.43 (5.26)	17.5	67.13 (17.84)	24.6
Managerial status
Nonmanagerial	337	17.17 (5.18)	30.9	17.17 (5.17)	32.6	16.11 (4.69)	42.7	19.6 (5.39)	26.4	70.04 (17.72)	29.4
Supervisor or manager	175	15.62 (5.00)	19.4	14.9 (5.21)	15.4	14.76 (4.68)	32.0	17.19 (5.38)	12.0	62.47 (18.00)	16.0
Midlevel manager	87	14.72 (4.32)	4.6	15.02 (4.62)	4.6	14.48 (4.27)	24.1	17.03 (4.65)	6.9	61.26 (15.50)	6.9
Executive	67	14.43 (5.38)	22.8	13.36 (5.23)	14.9	12.82 (5.14)	14.9	14.01 (6.05)	14.9	54.63 (19.50)	11.9
Mental illness
No anxiety	381	14.95 (4.90)	15.0	14.51 (5.04)	14.2	14.04 (4.54)	25.2	16.08 (5.25)	7.9	59.58 (17.27)	11.0
Anxiety	285	17.8 (5.04)	33.3	17.79 (5.02)	36.8	16.77 (4.67)	49.5	20.72 (5.03)	31.2	73.08 (17.06)	34.7
No depression	474	15.64 (4.96)	18.8	15.37 (5.16)	20.3	14.73 (4.63)	31.0	17.36 (5.42)	12.9	63.1 (17.69)	16.9
Depression	192	17.47 (5.39)	32.8	17.25 (5.36)	32.8	16.4 (4.96)	46.9	19.81 (5.82)	30.2	70.93 (19.03)	31.8
Race/ethnicity
Asian	61	18.46 (5.17)	32.8	18.39 (5.41)	41.0	17.36 (4.84)	49.2	20.23 (4.77)	23.0	74.44 (17.73)	34.4
Black	42	15.19 (3.77)	4.8	15.31 (4.33)	14.3	14.74 (3.98)	31.0	16.95 (4.20)	2.4	62.19 (14.59)	2.4
Hispanic	66	17.30 (5.69)	28.8	16.86 (5.48)	28.8	16.21 (5.08)	43.9	18.55 (4.93)	16.7	68.92 (18.95)	24.2
White	434	15.74 (5.16)	22.1	15.40 (5.29)	21.7	14.73 (4.76)	31.8	17.69 (5.91)	18.7	63.56 (18.60)	20.7
Other	63	16.38 (4.66)	23.8	16.41 (4.79)	23.8	15.73 (4.52)	42.9	18.83 (5.64)	19.0	67.35 (16.55)	20.6
Total	666	16.17 (5.15)	22.8	15.91 (5.28)	23.9	15.21 (4.79)	35.6	18.07 (5.64)	17.9	65.36 (18.42)	21.2

Note. The race/ethnicity questions asked participants to select one of the following (based on the following U.S. Census categories): Asian or Pacific Islander; Black or African American; Hispanic or Latino; Native American/Alaskan Native; White/Caucasian; Multiracial or Biracial; Not listed here; Prefer not to say. In the table and elsewhere in the article, Asian refers to the Asian or Pacific Islander category, Black refers to the Black or African American category, Hispanic refers to the Hispanic or Latino category, and White refers to the White/Caucasian category. The Other item in the table combines those who selected one of the following items for the race/ethnicity question: Native American/Alaskan Native; Multiracial or Biracial; Not listed here; Prefer not to say.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Peter Cardon

Author Biographies

Peter Cardon is a professor of business communication at the University of Southern California. He researches team communication, cross-cultural communication, and technology-mediated communication. He can be reached at marshall@usc.edu.

Ephraim Okoro is an associate professor of business communication/marketing at Howard University School of Business. His research focuses on leadership communication, cross-cultural communication, and marketing communication. He can be reached at eaokoro@howard.edu.

Raigan Priest is a recent University of Southern California masters of business graduate and is currently applying for PhD programs. She studies team communication, gender differences and group norms. She can be reached at raigan.priest.2022@marshall.usc.edu.

Greg Patton is a professor of business communication at the University of Southern California. He is an expert in developing communication, interpersonal and leadership effectiveness in organizational leaders. He can be reached at gpatton@marshall.usc.edu.

References

Addo-Yobo

C. N.

Blazevski

Chau

Hyman

Lin

Reid

(2019). 2019 Asian corporate survey: Executive summary. Asia Society/Global Talent Initiatives.

Allred

R. J.

Atkin

(2020). Cell phone addiction, anxiety, and willingness to communication in face-to-face encounters. Communication Reports, 33(3), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2020.1780456

Alsop

(2004, September 22). How to get hired. The Wall Street Journal, R4. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109577501492723498

Ayres

Keereetaweep

Chen

P.-E.

Edwards

P. A.

(1998). Communication apprehension and employment interviews. Communication Education, 47(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529809379106

Bernstein

(2015). Not an introvert, not an extrovert? You may be an ambivert. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/not-an-introvert-not-an-extrovert-you-may-be-an-ambivert-1438013534

Bernstein

R. S.

Bulger

Salipante

Weisinger

J. Y.

(2020). From diversity to inclusion to equity: A theory of generative interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 395-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04180-1

Bertilsson

Petersson

E.-L.

Ostlund

Waern

Hensing

(2013). Capacity to work while depressed and anxious—A phenomenological study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(2), 1705-1711. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.751135

Besieux

Edmondson

A. C.

de Vries

(2021, June 11). How to overcome your fear of speaking up in meetings. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/06/how-to-overcome-your-fear-of-speaking-up-in-meetings

Blume

B. D.

Baldwin

T. T.

Ryan

K. C.

(2013). Communication apprehension: A barrier to students’ leadership, adaptability, and multicultural appreciation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0127

10.

Blume

B. D.

Dreher

G. F.

Baldwin

T. T.

(2010). Examining the effects of communication apprehension within assessment centres. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 663-671. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X463652

11.

Bourhis

Allen

(1992). Meta-analysis of the relationship between communication apprehension and cognitive performance. Communication Education, 41(1), 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529209378871

12.

Boyer

Carden

Johnson

Boyd

(2017). Establishing an interview anxiety baseline: Assessing applicants’ readiness. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 365-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490616686567

13.

Burris

Sinha

(2022, January 25). Don’t let “being new” stop you from speaking up. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/01/dont-let-being-new-stop-you-from-speaking-up

14.

Cavanagh

T. M.

Leeds

Peters

J. M.

(2019). Increasing oral communication self-efficacy improves oral communication and general academic performance. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 440-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490619853242

15.

Choudaha

Caruthers

Williams

(2021). Demand of graduate management talent: 2021 hiring projections and salary trends. Graduate Management Admission Council.

16.

Choudaha

Daniel

Bastani

Caruthers

Williams

(2020, September 21). The impact of COVID-19 on the hiring of business school graduates: Corporate recruiters survey 2020. Graduate Management Admission Council.

17.

Clifton

Harter

(2019). It’s the manager. Gallup Press.

18.

Coe

Cordina

Enomoto

Jacobson

Mei

Seshan

(2022, January 14). Addressing the unprecedented behavioral-health challenges facing Generation Z. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/addressing-the-unprecedented-behavioral-health-challenges-facing-generation-z

19.

Coffelt

Cosgrove

Vance

(2022). Measuring business and professional communication skills. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 85(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906221082235

20.

Conrad

Newberry

(2012). Identification and instruction of important business communication skills for graduate business education. Journal of Education for Business, 87(2), 112-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.576280

21.

Croucher

S. M.

Kelly

Rahmani

Jackson

Galy-Badenas

Lando

Chibita

Nyiranasbimana

Turdubaeva

Eskicorapci

Condon

S. M.

Stanalieva

Orunbekov

(2019). A multi-national validity analysis of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24). Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(3), 193-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1602783

22.

Cuddy

(2012, June). Your body language may shape who you are. Ted. https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_may_shape_who_you_are

23.

Cuddy

A. J.

Schultz

S. J.

Fosse

N. E.

(2018). P-curving a more comprehensive body of research on postural feedback reveals clear evidential value for power-posing effects: Reply to Simmons and Simonsohn (2017). Psychological Science, 29(4), 656-666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617746749

24.

Cuddy

A. J.

Wilmuth

C. A.

Yap

A. J.

Carney

D. R.

(2018). Preparatory power posing affects nonverbal presence and job interview performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(5), 560-560. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038543

25.

Davis

Linvill

D. L.

Hodges

L. F.

(2019). Virtual reality versus face-to-face practice: A study into situational apprehension and performance. Communication Education, 69(1), 70-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2019.1684535

26.

Detert

J. R.

Burris

(2016, January-February). Can you employees really speak freely? Harvard Business Review, 94(1), 80-87.

27.

Detert

J. R.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461-488. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61967925

28.

Dwyer

(1998). Communication apprehension and learning style preference: Correlations and implications for teaching. Communication Education, 47(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529809379118

29.

Elkjær

Mikklesen

M. B.

Michalak

Mennin

D. S.

O’Toole

(2020). Expansive and contractive postures and movement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of motor displays on affective and behavioral responses. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 276-304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620919358

30.

Ericson

P. M.

Gardner

J. W.

(1992). Two longitudinal studies of communication apprehension and its effects on college students’ success. Communication Quarterly, 40(2), 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369828

31.

Estrada-Worthington

Schoenfeld

Bastani

Bruggeman

Williams

Hazenbush

(2017). Corporate recruiters survey report 2017. Graduate Management Admission Council.

32.

Fan

K.-T.

Lin

F.-C.

(2017). A new accounting teaching method to overcome communication apprehension: An experimental study. Integrative and Business Economics, 6(1), 313-331.

33.

Ferrazzi

(2012, January-February). Candor, criticism, teamwork. Harvard Business Review, 90(1-2), 40.

34.

Fordham

D. R.

Gabbin

A. L.

(1996). Skills versus apprehension: Empirical evidence on oral communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 59(3), 88-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/108056999605900314

35.

Gershman

(2019, September 17). To overcome your fear of public speaking, stop thinking about yourself. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/09/to-overcome-your-fear-of-public-speaking-stop-thinking-about-yourself

36.

Grant

A. M.

(2013). Rethinking the extraverted sales ideal: The ambivert advantage. Psychological Science, 24(6), 1024-1030. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612463706

37.

Grenny

(2014, July 8). 4 ways leaders can create a candid culture. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/07/4-ways-leaders-can-create-a-candid-culture

38.

Hancock

Williams

Manyika

Yee

Wong

(2021, February 21). Race in the workplace: The Black experience in the US private sector. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/race-in-the-workplace-the-black-experience-in-the-us-private-sector

39.

Howell

(2021, August 9). How to build confidence at work. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/08/how-to-build-confidence-at-work

40.

Ivandic

Kamenov

Rojas

Cerón

Nowak

Sbariego

(2017). Determinants of work performance in workers with depression and anxiety: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(5), 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050466

41.

Kleckner

M. J.

Butz

(2022). Developing entry-level communication skills: A comparison of student and employer perceptions. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 85(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906221078300

42.

LaRochelle

J. M.

Karpinski

A. C.

(2016). Racial differences in communication apprehension and interprofessional socialization in fourth-year doctor of pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(1), article 8. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8018

43.

Loureiro

Silva

(2020). Differences of gender in oral and written communication apprehension of university students. Education Sciences, 10(12), article 379. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10120379

44.

Maes

J. D.

Weldy

T. G.

Icenogle

M. L.

(1997). A managerial perspective: Oral communication competency is most important for business students in the workplace. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 67-80.

45.

Marcel

(2019). Communication apprehension across the career span. International Journal of Business Communication, 59(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419856803

46.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1972). The implementation of a large scale program of systematic desensitization for communication apprehension. Communication Education, 21(4), 255-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634527209377961

47.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1977). Classroom consequences of communication apprehension. Communication Education, 26(1), 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634527709378196

48.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension. Communication Monographs, 45(3), 192-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757809375965

49.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1984). Oral communication apprehension: A reconceptualization. Annals of the International Communication Association, 6(1), 136-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1982.11678497

50.

McCroskey

J. C.

(2001). An introduction to rhetorical communication. Allyn & Bacon.

51.

McCroskey

J. C.

(2015). An introduction to rhetorical communication: A Western rhetorical perspective (9th ed.). Routledge.

52.

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(3), 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378509369595

53.

McCroskey

J. C.

Booth-Butterfield

Payne

S. K.

(1989). The impact of communication apprehension on college student retention and success. Communication Quarterly, 37(2), 100-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378909385531

54.

McCroskey

J. C.

Richmond

V. P.

(1982). The quiet ones: Communication apprehension and shyness (2nd ed.). Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

55.

Meyer-Griffith

Reardon

R. C.

Hartley

S. L.

(2009). An examination of the relationship between career thoughts and communication apprehension. The Career Development Quarterly, 58(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2009.tb00054.x

56.

Moshiri

Cardon

P. W.

(2020). An updated and expanded nationwide study of business communication courses. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 469-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490620934043

57.

Murphy

Weber

(2019). Confirmation of the ability of the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension-24 (PRCA-24) to predict behavioral indicators of social interaction. Communication Research Reports, 36(5), 393-403, https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2019.1683527

58.

Newson

(2021, April 21). Is Gen Z in Crisis? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/measuremental/202104/is-gen-z-in-crisis

59.

O’Toole

Bennis

(2009). A culture of candor. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 54-61.

60.

Panchal

Kamal

Cox

Garfield

(2021, February 10). The implications of COVID-19 for mental health and substance use. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/the-implications-of-covid-19-for-mental-health-and-substance-use/

61.

Pfafman

T. M.

McEwan

(2014). Polite women at work: Negotiating professional identity through strategic assertiveness. Women’s Studies in Communication, 37(2), 202-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2014.911231

62.

Plaisier

Beekman

A. T. F.

de Graaf

van Dyck

Penninx

B. W. J. H

. (2010). Work functioning in persons with depressive and anxiety disorders: The role of specific psychopathological characteristics. Journal of Affective Disorders, 125, 198-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.01.072

63.

Plaisier

de Graaf

de Bruijn

Smit

van Dyck

Beekman

Penninx

(2012). Depressive and anxiety disorders on-the-job: The importance of job characteristics for good work functioning in persons with depressive and anxiety disorders. Psychiatry Research, 200, 382-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2012.07.016

64.

Prochaska

J. O.

(1994). Changing for good: The revolutionary program that explains the six stages of change and teaches you how to free yourself from bad habits. William Morrow & Co.

65.

Prochaska

J. O.

DiClemente

C. C.

(1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390-395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390

66.

Prochaska

J. O.

Velicer

W. F.

DiClemente

C. C.

Fava

(1988). Measuring processes of change: Applications to the cessation of smoking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(4), 520-528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.4.520

67.

Ravishankar

R. A.

(2021, September 29). Speaking up in meetings: Our favorite reads. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/09/speaking-up-in-meetings-our-favorite-reads

68.

Raymond

M. A.

McNabb

D. E.

Matthaei

(1993). Preparing graduates for the workforce: The role of business education. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), 202-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1993.10117613

69.

Rubin

R. B.

Rubin

A. M.

Jordan

F. F.

(2009). Effects of instruction on communication apprehension and communication competence. Communication Education, 46(2), 104-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529709379080

70.

Ruchala

L. V.

Hill

J. W.

(1994). Reducing accounting students’ oral communication apprehension: Empirical evidence. Journal of Accounting Education, 12(4), 283-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0748-5751(94)90023-X

71.

Shapira

(2019, April 2). How to speak up in a meeting, and when to hold back. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/04/how-to-speak-up-in-a-meeting-and-when-to-hold-back

72.

Shockley

K. M.

Ispas

Rossi

M. E.

Levine

E. W.

(2012). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between state affect, discrete emotions, and job performance. Human Performance, 25(5), 377-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2012.721832

73.

Simmons

J. P.

Simonsohn

(2017). Power posing: P-curving the evidence. Psychological Science, 28(5), 687-693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616658563

74.

Simons

K. A.

Riley

T. J.

(2014). Communication apprehension in accounting majors: Synthesis of relevant studies, intervention techniques, and directions for future research. Advances in Accounting Education: Teaching and Curriculum Innovations (Advances in Accounting Education, 15, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1085-462220140000015001

75.

Simpson

Smith

Rock

(2020, Spring). The science of speaking up. Rotman Management Magazine, 71-75.

76.

Speed

B. C.

Goldstein

B. L.

Goldfried

M. R.

(2017). Assertiveness training: A forgotten evidence-based treatment. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 25(1), e12216. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12216

77.

Stanga

K. G.

Ladd

R. T.

(1990). Oral communication apprehension in beginning accounting majors: An exploratory study. Issues in Accounting Education, 5, 180-194.

78.

Ulinski

O’Callaghan

(2002). A comparison of MBA students’ and employers’ perceptions of the value of oral communication skills for employment. Journal of Education for Business, 77(4), 193-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599070

79.

Yan

T. T.

Tangirala

Vadera

A. K.

Ekkirala

(2022). How employees learn to speak up from their leaders: Gender congruity effects in the development of voice self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(4), 650-667. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000892

80.

Zenger

Folkman

(2019, June 15). Research: Women score higher than men in most leadership skills. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-women-score-higher-than-men-in-most-leadership-skills