The Relationship Between Communication Apprehension and Learning Preferences in an Organizational Setting

Abstract

This study extends previous research by examining the relationship between communication apprehension (CA) and learning preferences in an organizational setting. Findings suggest a correlation between employees' high CA and a preference for the reflective observation learning mode as well as the diverging and assimilating learning styles. Conversely, results revealed a correlation between employees' low CA and a preference for the concrete experience and active experimentation learning modes as well as the accommodating learning style. The author discusses the theoretical and practical significance of these results as well as proposes future research directions.

Ambiguity Tolerance and Perceptual Learning Styles of Chinese EFL Learners

“…self-ratings and learners' academic achievements (Matthews, 1996). Russ (2012) proves the correlation between communication apprehension and learning style preferences.…”

Ambiguity tolerance in organizations: definitional clarification and perspectives on future research

“…Currently, studies appear in such specific and diverse areas as consumer perceptions ( Hazen et al, 2012 ), nursing leadership (reviewed by Brady Germain and Cummings, 2010 ), medical education ( Luther and Crandall, 2011 ), professional decision making (discussed in Appelt et al, 2011 ), business communication ( Russ, 2012 ) adolescent safety ( Tymula et al, 2012 ), and several other areas where differential reactions to the perception of stimulus information may influence interpretation and behavioral choice. In addition, promising research is being conducted at the neurological level where the links between brain physiology, function, and the perception of ambiguous stimuli are becoming increasingly clear (e.g., Schick et al, 2013 ).…”

From Every Direction–-How Personality Traits and Dimensions of Project Managers Can Conceptually Affect Project Success

“…McCroskey (1977) captured two aspects of the CA construct, which he called “Traitlike CA” and “Context CA.” Based on McCroskey's work, Russ (2012) noted “Traitlike CA is an individual's fear or anxiety about human communication …” as well as, “Context CA can be measured across four theoretically unique states … group discussions, interpersonal conversations, formal meetings and presentations” (p. 314). Traitlike CA is a personality type factor, whereas context CA provides a more detailed, granular analysis in which discomfort across different environments or situations is measured.…”

“…Additionally, the anxiety levels are not necessarily uniform when considering low or high apprehension levels. “It is also possible for someone to be extremely uncomfortable communicating in one context (e.g., public speaking) but feel completely at ease in another (e.g., interpersonal conversations)” (Russ, 2012, p. 314). Therefore, it is possible for individuals to have high or low levels of apprehension in the four environments in which project managers may often find themselves: formal meetings, presentations, interpersonal conversations, and group discussions.…”

“…McCroskey (1977) defines communication apprehension (CA) as “an individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (p. 78). Employees exhibiting forms of CA have been linked to preferences in organizational learning (Russ, 2012); a participant's skill (or lack thereof) in oral communication (Blume, Dreher, & Baldwin, 2010); and being perceived as less informative, less effective, less productive, and likely to underachieve (Bartoo & Sias, 2004; Harville, 1992; Richmond & Roach, 1992; Thomas, Tymon, & Thomas, 1994). Other studies suggest that employees exhibiting certain elements of CA may be disadvantaged professionally, receive fewer offers of employment, earn less salary, maintain lower‐ranked positions, and avoid certain communication channels such as face‐to‐face or group meetings (Ayers, Keereetaweep, Chen, & Edwards, 1998; Reinsch & Lewis, 1984; Richmond, McCroskey, & Davis, 1982; Winiecki & Ayres, 1999).…”