Enduring Without Avoiding: Pauses and Verbal Dysfluencies ...people.uncw.edu/hakanr/documents/dysfluencyinpublicspeakingfear.pdf · Enduring Without Avoiding: Pauses and Verbal Dysfluencies

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, I,'ol. 18, No. 4, 1996

Enduring Without Avoiding: Pauses and Verbal Dysfluencies in Public Speaking Fear

Michael R. Lewin, 1,2 Daniel W. McNeil, 1,3 and Jonathan M. Lipson 1,4

Direct measures of overt behavior have been underutilized in speech and other social fear, anxiety, and phobia research. This study demonstrates the usefulness o f such variables in the evaluation of public speaking fear. A molecular behavioral assessment methodology was used to examine pauses and verbal dysfluencies of individuals with circumscribed speech fear (n = 8) or general social anxiety (n = 8), as well as nonanxious control participants (n = 16), during an impromptu speech behavior test. Speech fear and generally social anxious individuals paused more often and for a longer duration than the nonanxious group. Results also indicated greater increases in state anxiety during the speech in the circumscribed speech fear sample, relative to the generalized social anxiety and control groups. Taken together with other research, these ftndings provide evidence that circumscribed speech fear is a meaningful subtype and can be independent of generalized social anxiety. The utility o f measuring pausing and verbal dysfluencies in the behavioral assessment o f speech fear and other social anxiety and phobia is discussed.

KEY WORDS: public speaking; fear; anxiety; behavioral assessment.

INTRODUCTION

From a three-system perspective, verbal report, physiological respon- sivity, and overt behaviors should all be considered in assessing fear, anxi-

1Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. 2present address: Department of Psychology, California State University, San Bernardino, San Bernardino, California.

3To whom correspondence should be addr6ssed at his present address: 111 Oglebay, P.O. Box 6040, Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6040.

4present address: Michigan State University, Family Practice Residency Program, Genesys Medical Center, Flint, Michigan.

387

0882-2689/96/1200-0387509.50/0 © 1996 Plenum Publishing Corporation

388 Lewin, McNeil, and Lipson

ety, and phobia, without precedence to any one dimension (Lang, 1993). Observation of overt behavior is ideally utilized in assessment. Given practical constraints, however, verbal reports about behavior in different contexts are more commonly considered. Moreover, verbal reports of private affective and cognitive states are typically used to evaluate degree of distress. While verbal report is an extremely important data source, it is pru- dent not to rely on it exclusively, using multidimensional strategies instead (Eifert & Wilson, 1991).

When overt behavior is directly evaluated, avoidance is most often measured. There are overt behaviors other than avoidance that figure im- portantly in fear and anxiety, including immobility, aggressive defense, and submission (Marks, 1987). Additional forms of withdrawal (Marks, 1987), such as escape, should be considered along with avoidance. In the social fear, anxiety, and phobia literature, as in other related areas, such variables have been neglected (Lewin & McNeil, 1996; McNeil, Ries, & Turk, 1995).

Specifically with regard to this issue, there are methods that can help operationalize anxiety and fear that is present in distressing social situations that do not provoke avoidance. This study emphasizes the importance of direct observation of specific overt behaviors and provides a demonstration of its utility in understanding social fear, anxiety, and phobia.

Individuals who are greatly distressed in social situations may manifest either fear or anxiety, or both, and may evidence response levels of these states that meet criteria for phobia. Research suggests that fear and anxiety are different responses (e.g., McNeil, Vrana, Melamed, Cuthbert, & Lang, 1993). Fear is considered a discrete reaction that physiologically or other- wise mobilizes one for action to respond to a specific distressing situation; anxiety is regarded as a more amorphous state, characterized primarily by worry and apprehension, with diffuse, changeable cues. In this paper, significant distress isolated to speech situations is regarded as fear, while generalized social discomfort is referred to as anxiety.

Donohue, Van Hasselt, and Hersen's (1994) review describes the use of role-playing in the assessment of social phobia. They noted that a number of verbal and nonverbal variables have been evaluated as possible com- ponents of interpersonal effectiveness. Similarly, Glass and Arnkoff (1989) reported that the behavioral response channel has frequently been assessed via rating skill in contemporary studies of social anxiety and phobia (e.g., Beidel, Turner, & Dancu, 1985; Heimberg, Hope, Dodge, & Becket, 1990). Much less often, behavioral avoidance and escape have been allowed during behavior tests and measured (Lewin & McNeil, 1996). Given that many social situations require verbal commtinication, it seems reasonable that assessments of social behavior in anxious individuals include measures that directly examine verbal behavior. Pauses and dysfluencies are verbal be-

Pauses in Public Speaking Fear 389

haviors that have gamered little attention in the social anxiety and phobia literature but may be useful in operationalizing endurance of a social situation with intense anxiety.

In examining social behaviors in fear, anxiety, and phobia, various levels of measurement (i.e., molar, intermediate, and molecular) have been employed (Becker & Heimberg, 1988; Curran, 1979). In molar approaches, social behaviors have been assessed using global ratings [e.g., "overall social skills" (Herbert, Hope, & Bellack, 1992)] and/or raters' perceptions [e.g., "maximal anxiety" (Heimberg et al., 1990)]. Intermediate levels of measurement have included both molar and molecular variables (Glass & Arnk- off, 1989), such as Monti and co-workers' (1984) "midi-level" social behaviors (e.g., rate and pressure of speech as one category).

Molecular assessment strategies have also been employed, focusing on measurement of highly specific behaviors. Turner, Beidel, and Townsley (1992), for example, evaluated number of verbal initiations, facial gaze, and voice tone, along with the molar variable of social skill. Several other older studies have demonstrated a meaningful relationship between anxiety-provoking social situations and a departure of speech from its usual level of coherence, utilizing a microanalysis of verbal output (Dibner, 1956; Kasl & Mahl, 1965; Krause & Pilisuk, 1961; Mahl, 1956). Specifically, these studies have attempted to delineate reliable categories of pauses and dysfluencies (e.g., stutters, repetitions, silences) in speech. Interestingly, some work has made a distinction between "silent pauses" and "filled pauses," the latter of which are the same as dysfluencies (Rochester, 1973). Mahl's (1956) speech disturbance ratio (Nietzel, Bernstein, & Russell, 1988) has been used most widely. Mahl's measure has often been calculated by di- viding the number of speech disruptions (e.g., repetitions, corrections) by the aggregate number of word productions. Additionally, a measure of time spent in silence has been utilized as an index of anxiety. These measures have been shown to have good interrater and test-retest reliabilities (Kasl & Mahl, 1965; Mahl, 1956, 1987).

Borkovec, Fleischmann, and Caputo (1973) reported a positive relationship between anxiety related to a social interaction task and speech disturbances. Additionally, Geer (1966) utilized verbal dysfiuencies and verbal quantity as dependent variables in a study analyzing effects of arousal on performance and behavior in low and high speech anxious subjects. Speech disruptions, periods of silence, and a slower rate of speech were more prevalent in high-speech anxiety subjects than in their low-anxiety counterparts. Rapee and Lim (1992) found that individuals with social phobia had poorer performance ratirigs on a speech, with both intermediate and molar variables, compared to a nonclinical control group. Use of speech disruption categories and resultant speech disturbance indices


proved useful in a study (Mailer & Reiss, 1987) that assessed differences in verbal responses to anxiety-relevant and anxiety-irrelevant questions. More pausing during a speech has been found in generalized social phobia relative to nongeneralized social phobia and control groups (Hofmann, Gerlach, Wender, & Roth, in press). Speech dysfluencies have been a recent interest in terms of their relationship to the number of word options and usage across academic disciplines (Schachter, Christenfeld, Ravina, & Bilous, 1991; Schachter, Rauscher, Christenfeld, & Crone, 1994).

The present study incorporated the most useful and consistent verbal dysfluency categories from the available literature in the assessment of verbal behavior of speech fear, general social anxiety, and low-fear/anxiety individuals in public speaking situations. This investigation was designed to delineate further the relationships between pauses and specific types of speech disruption and the presence of public speaking fear. It was also intended to demonstrate the utility of direct overt measures of speech dysfluencies and pauses in the behavioral assessment of socially anxious individuals. Since recent research has focused on subtypes of social anxiety and phobia (e.g., Boone et al., 1996; Heimberg et al., 1990; Heimberg, Holt, Schneier, Spitzer, & Liebowitz, 1993; Hofmann & Roth, 1996; Widiger, 1992), and has demonstrated that there are individuals who experience social anxiety across a variety of social situations and those who experience circumscribed fear in specific social situations (e.g., public speaking), both circumscribed speech fear and generalized social anxiety subjects were included. It was predicted that the number of verbal dysfluencies, as well as the number and length of periods of silence, while delivering a speech would be greater in fearful/anxious subjects relative to control subjects. Dif- ferences between the two fearful/anxious groups were anticipated as well.

METHOD

Participants

There were three groups for which participants were selected. The circumscribed speech fear group consisted of eight individuals (four females) with high public speaking anxiety and low general social anxiety. The generalized social anxiety group was comprised of eight persons (five males) with high anxiety during both public speaking and general social situations. The control group consisted of 16 individuals (9 males) low in both public speaking and general social anxieties. Participants were introductory psychology students selected based on serf-report of speech and general social anxiety as measured by a public speaking anxiety questionnaire (Personal


Report of Confidence as a Speaker; PRCS; Paul, 1966) and a general social anxiety inventory (Social Avoidance and Distress Scale; SAD; Watson & Friend, 1969). Individuals scoring in the top 25% of their same-gender dis- tribution in terms of public speaking fear or general social anxiety were considered highly fearful/anxious. Low-fear/anxiety subjects were selected equally across the bottom 50% of these same distributions. The cutoff scores for the PRCS, which has a range of 0-30, were as follows: males-- high fear, > 21, and low fear, < 15; females--high fear, > 23, and low fear, < 16. Cutoff scores for the SAD scale, which has a range of 0-28, were as follows: males--high anxiety, > 16, and low anxiety, < 8; females--high anxiety, _> 13, and low anxiety, < 6.

Participants were from a larger sample of 112 undergraduates who participated in one of two previous studies of social anxiety (Lewin, Jackson, & McNeil, 1988; Lewin & McNeil, 1996). In order to include an adequate number of participants, but to have an ample amount of public speaking data from each of those individuals from which to sample, a minimum speaking time criterion was set for inclusion. A criterion of 55 of 120 possible sec spent in a public speaking task balanced these two requirements. It should be noted that 2 of 16 control subjects escaped from the task (i.e., spoke for less than 120 sec), versus 6 of 8 circumscribed speech anxiety and 1 of 8 generalized social anxiety subjects. Public speaking is fear-provoking for most people, regardless of whether it creates problems in a person's life (Pollard & Henderson, 1988). Some escape behavior, even in lower-fear (i.e., control) participants, is therefore expected.

Procedure

A Behavioral Assessment Test strategy (BAT; see McGlynn, 1988) was used to evaluate fear about public speaking. The state form of the State- Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) was first administered. Then after audiotaped instructions, subjects were given 5 min alone to prepare a speech on a topic of their own choosing. Speeches were delivered using a microphone, to an audience of three trained undergraduate assistants, two of whom were the opposite sex of the participant. Instructions were for participants to speak for a "short while," until cued to stop (at the end of 2 min), but to terminate the task if/when they felt uncomfortable. These instructions were utilized to create lower demand (Miller & Bernstein, 1972), allowing for avoidance/escape behavior. After the speech, the STAI-State was again administered, with instructions to de- scribe feelings while speaking.


Audiotaped Verbal Data

Speeches were audiotaped to provide a data source for analyzing dysfluencies and pauses. Each audiotape was then transcribed and coded for various speech quantity, dysfluency, and pause variables. Table I lists and briefly describes each of them. Krause and Pilisuk's (1961) adaptation of

Table I. Speech Dysfluency and Pause Categories

Pause

Pause--length

Correction

Distortion

Fragment

Repetition

Nonverbal intrusion

Procrastination

Qualifying phrase

Aggregate speech dysfluency ratio

Non-Ah speech dysfluency ratio

Pause variables

Number of silent segments both within and between sentences. Only pauses of 2 sec or longer were counted.

Amount of time spent in a pause; only pauses of at least 2 see were timed.

Verbal errors

Number of corrections of a word, thought, or fact. This category includes any communication which alters previous verbalizations to a different form (e.g., "First we went to d i n n e r . . . First we talked.").

Number of mispronunciations, "tongue slips," neologisms, spooner- isms (e.g., "scutterbotch" versus "butterscotch")

Number of semantically incomplete words or sentences; that is, the meaning intended is not conveyed (e.g., "In school, one m u s t . . . I never liked school.")

Number of responses that involve the perseveration of either parts of words, words, or sentences (e.g., stuttering)

Delaying verbalizations

Number of nonverbal utterances which interrupt intelligible speech. This category includes laughing, coughing, heavy breathing, mumbles, "voice catches" (e.g., clicking), lip smacking, sniffs, and sighs.

Number of phrases, words, or nonword verbalizations that delay the onset of further speech. Procrastinations are words or utterances that the speaker uses to delay speaking, presumably while thinking about what he/she might say next (e.g., "ah," "and," "hmm," "like," "uh," "um," "well," "you know").

Number of phrases that serve to comment on an individual's own performance in speaking. Such phrases do not serve to continue with the speech's theme (e.g., "I'm not a good speaker," "What am I saying?").

Summary variables

Sum of the number of procrastinations, repetitions, distortions, corrections, fragments, nonverbal intrusions, and qualifying phrases divided by the number of words spoken or time spent in the speech

Sum of the number of repetitions, distortions, corrections, and fragments (Mahl, 1987)

Note. These categories were derived primarily from Krause and Pilisuk's (1961) adaptation of Mahl's (1956) work, as well as from Dibner (1956).


Mahl's (1956) and Dibner's (1956) measures of speech disruption are the basis for these categories. An additional category, qualifying phrases, was adapted from Weintraub and Plaut (1985). The nine individual variables and two summary variables are categorized into four thematic groupings: (a) pause variables, (b) verbal errors in speaking, (c) delaying verbalizations, and (d) summary variables. There were two raters (MRL and JML) who independently transcribed and coded the audiotapes, making a frequency count for each pause and dysfluency category. Pearson product- moment correlations indicated that reliability between the two independent ratings, based on 16 (one-half) of the subjects, ranged from .90 to .99 for the nine nonsummary variables, with an average of .96 (all p's < .0001). Any disagreements about the transcripts or categories were subsequently discussed and resolved by the two raters.

RESULTS

Data Analysis Strategy

In order to assess expected group differences in verbal report of general social anxiety (SAD) and speech fear (PRCS), based on selection strategies, as well as in speech time, number of words spoken, and state anxiety during the speech BAT analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted, with follow-up Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) tests at the .05 level as appropriate. Verbal dysfluency and pause variables were categorized into the four thematic families detailed previously, and then subjected to multi- variate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs). A significant MANCOVA was followed by analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) and, as appropriate, then with Tukey's HSD tests at the .05 level. For MANCOVAs and ANCOVAs, the covariate was amount of time spent in the speech BAT

Integrity of Groups

Consistent with prior research (Boone, McNeil, & Lewin, 1994) which has demonstrated the utility of the SAD and PRCS scale subject selection methodology, sampling procedures were successful and resulted in distinct groups [SAD, F(2,29) = 120.49, p < .0001; PRCS, F(2,29) = 161.91, p < .0001]. Questionnaire scores are in Table II. Generalized social anxiety subjects scored higher on the SAD scale than the other two groups; the control group had lower PRCS scores than the generalized social anxiety and circumscribed speech fear participants.


Table II. Mean Scores (and Standard Deviations) Across Groups

Group

Generalized Circumscribed Variable social anxiety speech fear Control

Selection instruments

SAD 22.3 4.5 4.5 (3.7) (2.1) (2.6)

PRCS 26.9 25_5 7.2 (1.7) (2.0) (3.7)

State Anxiety (STAI-State) in the Speech Behavioral Assessment Test

Baseline 47.0 36.5 33.9 (5.3) (6.8) (7.8)

Speech 61.0 59.6 44.1 (10.6) (10.8) (15.2)

Pause variables

Number of pauses 2.8 3.0 0.7 (2.2) (3.2) (1.3)

Length of pauses (sec) 8.1 9.8 1.6 (7.5) (14.6) (3.2)

Verbal errors

Corrections 3.4 2.6 2.4 (2.0) (1.8) (2.2)

Distortions 4.8 3.6 2.1 (3.3) (3.6) (2.3)

Fragments 3.0 3.0 3.0 (2.3) (2.1) (2.4)

Repetitions 4.1 2.0 7.1 (1.6) (1.3) (7.5)

Delaying verbalizations

Nonverbal intrusions 13.3 21.4 15.3 (7.6) (9.5) (7.5)

Procrastinations 16.2 20.6 14.2 (9.5) (8.4) (8.7)

Qualifying phrases 0.8 1.1 0.4 (0.9) (1.1) (0.7)

Summary variables

Aggregate speech 45.6 54.4 44.5 dysfluency ratio (14.4) (16.3) (22.3)

Non-Ah speech 15.3 11.2 14.6 dysfluency ratio (5.6) (6.4) (9.5)

Note. SAD, Social Avoidance and Distress scale; PRCS, Personal Report of Con- fidence as a Speaker scale; STAI-State, State form of the State-Trait Anxiety In- ventory. Higher scores indicate report of greater anxiety for all scales. The verbal dysfluency and pause figures are standardized to present values that would be expected in a 2-rain speech behavior test in which the participant did not escape.


Escape Behavior

Although subjects were included only if they met a minimum criterion for time spent in the speech task (55 of 120 sec), groups still differed significantly in speech performance time [F(2,29) = 5.43, p < .01]. Circum- scribed speech fear subjects spent less time in the speech BAT (M = 93.3 sec, SD = 27.7) than either the generalized social anxiety (M = 115.5, SD = 7.9) or the control subjects (M = 115.5 sec, SD = 11.9). Relatedly, circumscribed speech fear participants spoke significantly [F(2,29) = 7.58, p < .01] fewer words (M = 219.0, SD = 66.7) than control (M = 332.9, SD --- 66.9) subjects. On this measure, the generalized social anxiety subjects (M = 294.3, SD = 69.9) did not differ from the other two groups. The latter variable, however, was influenced by the amount of time spent in the speech task, as well as by the number of verbal dysfluencies and pauses. As dysfluencies and pauses increased, there was less time available for words to be spoken. Consequently, only the amount of time spent in the speech task was used as a covariate.

Reported State Anxiety in the Speech BAT

The speech task was anxiety-provoking to all subjects, but especially to the circumscribed speech fear individuals. A Group x Trials ANOVA indicated a significant interaction for the STAI-State [F(2,29) = 3.82, p < .05]. Follow-up tests revealed that during baseline, only the generalized social anxiety and control individuals differed. In reports about the speech, however, both the circumscribed speech fear and the generalized social anxiety groups differed from the control group; the two fearful/anxious groups did not differ from one another. For all groups, there was a significant increase in state anxiety from baseline to the speech. A supple- mentary ANOVA and follow-up tests on STAI-State difference scores revealed that the circumscribed speech fear individuals increased in state anxiety more than the other two groups [F(2,29) = 3.82, p < .05]. Table II presents these data.

Verbal Dysfluency and Pause Differences Among Groups

Table II lists values for each of the variables in terms of pausing and number of dysfluencies that would be expected in a 2-min speech behavior test in which an individual did not escape. The pause grouping was the only one that revealed differences among groups [Wilks' )~(4,54) = 2.97, p < .05]. Subsequent ANCOVAs indicated differences for number of


pauses [F(2,28) = 6.54, p < .01] and length of pauses [F(2,28) = 5.63, p < .01]. Follow-up tests revealed that the circumscribed speech fear and generalized social anxiety groups had more pauses than the control group; the former two groups did not differ. Least-squares means (LSM) were 3.7 for the circumscribed group, 2.3 for the generalized group, and 0.4 for the control subjects. Moreover, pause length was greatest in the circumscribed group (LSM = 12.6 sec) and least in the control group (LSM = 0.4 sec), with the generalized social anxiety group in between (LSM = 6.7 sec). Fol- low-up tests indicated differences only between the circumscribed and the control groups.

In an effort to provide post hoc information about directions for future research, an exploratory statistical approach was taken, testing each of the verbal dysfluencies that were included in family groupings that were non- significant using MANCOVA. Each variable was tested separately with AN- COVA. Only the ANCOVAs for distortions [F(2,28) = 1.07, p < .10] and repetitions [F(2,28) = 2.60, p < .10] approached standard levels of significance. Inspection of means in Table II suggests that distortions may be a useful variable, in that the speech fear and social anxiety groups may have more than the control group. Means across groups for repetitions, however, are curious, in terms of the high frequency for the control group. Reviewing individual data revealed that the mean for the control group was skewed by three participants, who had 16, 19, and 24 repetitions in their speeches, respectively. These numbers are twice as high as those for any other participant across groups. These three persons may have had problems with stuttering, which is included in the repetitions variable.

Relationships Between Pauses and Verbal Dysfluencies with Reported Anxiety

An exploratory statistical approach was again taken by conducting a series of Pearson product-moment correlations on the total sample to elu- cidate relationships between pauses and dysfluencies (including summary variables) with verbal report measures of speech fear and social anxiety, including both trait measures (i.e., PRCS and SAD scales) and state measures (i.e., STAI-State before and after the speech BA'I~ as well as the difference score between the two administrations). The only significant correlations were between the PRCS and number of pauses (r = .45, p < .05) and length of pauses (r = .42, p < .05).


DISCUSSION

This study examined the utility of measuring pauses and verbal dysfluencies in the behavioral assessment of samples of circumscribed speech fearful, general socially anxious, and nonanxious individuals. Results indicate that certain categories may be more useful than others in examining verbal behavior in persons with high speech fear and/or social anxiety. Spe- cificaUy, the hypothesis that speech anxious individuals would exhibit more pauses and verbal dysfluencies than their nonanxious counterparts was par- tially supported in that anxious orators demonstrated both a greater number of pauses and longer hesitations in speech. Moreover, the anxious speakers produced less verbal output, in relation to both amount of time spoken and number of words. It may be that the pauses are a form of escape behavior, in that by pausing more frequently and longer, individuals may be withdrawing from public speaking. This speculation is particularly noteworthy, given the importance of escape behavior in speech fear and social anxiety (Lewin & McNeil, 1996). The current findings emphasize the importance of directly assessing overt behaviors in addition to avoidance in social fear, anxiety, and phobia research. This study demonstrates the utility of such measures in a sample of nonavoidant individuals.

The differences in pausing while speaking raise a question of just what is happening when the orator is not speaking. It may be that the person is engaging in negative self-talk or is searching for the next thing to say. Pausing, as already noted, may be a form of escape, but perhaps some form of cognitive disruption is involved. It is interesting to note that pausing can be perceived in terms of degree of social appropriateness or inappro- priateness. Use of pauses is taught as a skill in speech communication (Gre- gory, 1990), although it must be employed according to norms (e.g., to indicate emphasis) to be effective.

The basic lack of correspondence between questionnaire measures of speech fear and social anxiety and independent ratings of verbal dysfluencies is fairly consistent with past research that assessed correspondence among all systems of anxiety measurement (cf. Rachman & Hodgson, 1974). It is interesting, however, that the PRCS is the only measure that correlated significantly with any dysfluency category, which may be testi- mony to its utility in assessing speech anxiety (cf. Boone, McNeil, & Lewin, 1994). This finding is particularly noteworthy because the PRCS measures speech anxiety in a trait, dispositional fashion. Other research has found the PRCS to be related to final grades in a college speech course (Turk, Mandeville, McNeil, Ries, & McCliargue, 1996). Although the PRCS is useful, other (Richmond & McCroskey, 1992) and more contemporary (Hof-


mann & DiBartolo, 1996) public speaking fear instruments are also available. The fact that measures of state anxiety immediately before and during the speech task did not correlate with dysfluencies or pauses highlights the difficulties in assuming a relationship between skill and verbal reports of anxiety.

The relationship between anxiety and social skills is complex. Curran (1979), as well as Hersen and Bellack (1977), identified anxiety as one of several possible etiological factors in social skills deficits. There are at least four possible relationships: (a) social skills deficits predate and are a causative factor in social anxiety, (b) social anxieties predate and are a causative factor in social skills deficit, (c) social skills deficits and social anxieties co-occur basically at the same time, and (d) social anxieties and social skills deficits are unrelated.

The theoretical relationship between social skins and social anxiety may perhaps best be thought of in terms of two intersecting continua. One continuum is social skills, with superb social skills and grossly inade- quate/negative social skills on the opposite ends. The other continuum would be social anxiety, ranging from high anxiety (e.g., phobia), on one pole, to little or no anxiety on the other. The resulting quadrants would then capture clinical observations: (a) there are individuals who have high anxiety and poor social skills, (b) there are persons who have high anxiety but demonstrate excellent social skills, (c) there are people who have low anxiety and have excellent skills, and (d) there are individuals who have very poor skills but are not anxious (or perhaps are not aware of their skills deficits).

It is noteworthy that aggregate speech dysfluence ratios did not differentiate the groups; past (Mahl, 1956, 1987), but not recent (Hofrnann et al., in press), research has shown these variables to be useful. Moreover, only a few of the categories of dysfluencies suggested differences among groups. Although the initial sample from which this study's data were drawn exceeded 100 subjects, a greater sample size may have yielded significant differences among a few categories (i.e., distortions). It seems likely that the lack of results with the aggregate ratios is due to no differences in measures such as word fragments, nonverbal intrusions, procrastinations, and corrections, which are utilized in these ratios. Certain categories, and therefore particular aggregate variables, may demonstrate differences due to a particular sample or methodology. For example, with diagnosed social phobia patients, longer speeches, different environmental contexts, or vary- ing task demand characteristics (e.g., with higher motivation to remain in the task despite anxiety), additional or other verbal dysfluency categories may have emerged to differentiate anxious orators. It is also possible that certain dysfluencies (e.g., distortions) are more common with severe anxi-


ety, while others (e.g., fragments) are as frequent in "typical" levels of anxiety. Particular categories (e.g., repetitions) may be strongly influenced by factors in addition to anxiety and fear. It may be that some types of pausing are more related to anxiety or fear, while certain verbal dysfluencies are more associated with skillfulness. Future research might examine this pos- sibility in light of the relationships between anxiety and skill discussed here. Other variables such as rate of speech might also be assessed (Geer, 1966; Murray, 1971).

Differences between the circumscribed speech fear and the generalized social anxiety groups are interesting in light of current conceptualizations of subtypes of social anxiety and phobia (e.g., Heimberg et al., 1993). Cir- cumscribed speech fear individuals spent less time speaking and had greater increases in state anxiety during the speech BAT. For pause and verbal dysfluency variables, small sample sizes for the circumscribed and generalized groups may have prevented identification of differences between them. In particular, means for some of the delaying verbalizations suggest possible differences, in the direction of greater problems for circumscribed speech fear individuals. In general, these results provide further support for circumscribed speech fear as a meaningful subtype.

Donohue et al. (1994) and McNeil et al. (1995) have called for the use of standardized assessment devices in studies of social phobia. Present results suggest that pause data may prove valuable in developing more specific behavioral criteria for social speaking phobia, as a supplement to other behavioral, psychophysiological, and self-report measures. In addition to ratings of specific motoric behaviors (e.g., eye contact) and social skill, pausing and verbal dysfluencies appear to have potential for use in assessment of social speaking phobia when avoidance is not present. Unfortu- nately, verbal dysfluency and pause measurement at present is rather labor intensive and is not practical in most clinical settings. With further research, however, and technological innovations (e.g., computer processing of hu- man speech with machine-generated transcripts), this method can be more easily employed.

Finally, these data demonstrate the utility of directly assessing overt behaviors, in addition to avoidance. When highly fearful or anxious individuals endure a distressing situation without avoiding, covert behaviors (e.g., physiology, cognitions) are not the only behaviors that may be important and measurable. More subtle overt behaviors may be manifested as well. In the behavioral assessment fear, anxiety, and phobia literature, the development of new assessmerit methodologies, in addition to the con- struction and psychometric testing of verbal report scales, continues to be an important need.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preparation of this article was supported in part by three Oklahoma State University Arts & Sciences Dean's Incentive Grants and an award from the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technol- ogy (OCAST HRO-023) to Daniel W. McNeil, as well as by funding to Michael R. Lewin from Patricia Roberts Harris Fellowships (G00854007-- G00874007) and a National Institute of Mental Health training grant (MH 18589-03).

Various data related to this study were presented at the meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Boston, MA, No- vember 1987, and the meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Associa- tion, Tulsa, OK, April 1988.

The efforts of Genee D. Jackson in collecting some of the data for this study are sincerely appreciated. Gratitude is expressed to Robert S. Schlottmann, who provided helpful statistical consultation. Many graduate and undergraduate students participated as clinical research assistants in the Oklahoma State University Anxiety & Psychophysiology Research Laboratory during this study. While they are too numerous to mention in- dividually, their contributions are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Beeker, R. E., & Heimberg, R. G. (1988). Assessment of social skills. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Behavioral assessment: A practical handbook, 3rd ed. (pp. 365-395). New York: Pergamon.

Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Dancu, C. V. (1985). Physiological, cognitive and behavioral aspects of social anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23, 109-117.

Boone, M. L., McNeil, D. W., & Lewin, M. 1L (1994). Identifying subtypes of social anxiety with verbal report instruments. Unpublished manuscript.

Boone, M. L., McNeil, D. W., Masia, C. L., Turk, C. L., Carter, L. E., Ries, B. J., & Lewin, M. R. (1996). Multimodal comparisons of social phobia subtypes and avoidant personality disorder, manuscript submitted for publication.

Borkovec, T. D., Fleishmann, D. J., & Caputo, J. A. (1973). The measurement of anxiety in an analogue social situation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 157-161.

Curran, J. P. (1979). Pandora's box reopened? The assessment of social skills. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 1, 55-71.

Dibner, A. S. (1956). Cue-counting: A measure of anxiety in interviews. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20, 475-478.

Donohue, B. C., Van Hasselt, V. B., & Hersen, M. (1994). Behavioral assessment and treatment of social phobia: An evaluative review. Behavior Modification, 18, 262-288.

Eifert, G. H., & Wilson, P. H. (1991). The triple response approach to assessment: A conceptual and methodological reappraisal. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29, 283-292.

Geer, J. H. (1966). Effects of fear arousal upon task performance and verbal behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 119-123.

Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1989). Behavioral assessment of social anxiety and social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 75-90.


Gregory, H. (1990). Public speaking for college and career, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Heimberg, R. G., Hope, D. A., Dodge, C. S., & Becker, R. E. (1990). DSM-III-R subtypes

of social phobia: Comparison of generalized social phobics and public speaking phobics. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 178, 172-179.

Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Schneier, F. R., Spitzer, R. L., & Liebowitz, M. R. (1993). The issues of subtypes in the diagnosis of social phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 7, 249-269.

Herbert, J. D., Hope, D. A., & Bellack, A. S. (1992). Validity of the distinction between generalized social phobia and avoidance personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 332-339.

Hersen, M., & Bellack, A. S. (1977). Assessment of social skills. In A. R. Ciminero, K. S. Calhoun, & H. E. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of behavioral assessment (pp. 509-554). New York: Wiley.

Hofmann, S. G., & Roth, W. T. (1996). Issues related to social anxiety among controls in social phobia research. Behavior Therapy, 27, 79-91.

Hofmann, S. G., & DiBartolo, P. M. (1996). A brief questionnaire to measure fearful thoughts related to public speaking: The Public Speaking Artery scale, manuscript in preparation.

Hofmann, S. G., Gerlach, A., Wender, A., & Roth, W. T. (in press). Speech disturbances and gaze behavior during public speaking in subtypes of social phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders.

Kasl, S. V., & Mahl, G. F. (1965). The relationship of disturbances and hesitations in spontaneous speech to anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 425-433.

Krause, M. S., & Pilisuk, M. (1961). Anxiety in verbal behavior: A validation study. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 414-419.

Lang, P. J. (1993). The three-system approach to emotion. In N. Birbaumer & A. Ohman (Eds.), The structure of emotion: Psychophysiologica~ cognitive and clinical aspects (pp. 18-30). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Lewin, M. R., & McNeil, D. W. (1996). Avoidance, escape, and subtypes of social an:dety, Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lewin, M. R., Jackson, G. D., & McNeil, D. W. (1988). The nature of self-statements in social anxiety. Poster presented at the meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Tulsa, OK, Apr.

Mahl, G. F. (1956). Disturbances and silences in the patient's speech in psychotherapy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 53, 1-15.

Mahl, G. F. (1987). Everyday disturbances of speech. In R. L. Russell (Ed.), Language in psychotherapy: Strategies of discovery (pp. 213-269). New York: Plenum.

Mailer, R. G., & Reiss, S. (1987). A behavioral validation of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 1, 265-272.

Marks, I. M. (1987). Fears, phobias, and rituals: Panic, anxiety, and their disorders. New York: Oxford.

McGlynn, F. D. (1988). Behavioral Avoidance Test. In M. Hersen & A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Dictionary of behavioral assessment techniques (pp. 59-60). New York: Pergamon.

McNeil, D. W., Vrana, S. R., Melamed, B. G., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1993). Emotional imagery in simple and social phobia: Fear vs. anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 212-225.

McNeil, D. W., Ries, B. J., & Turk, C. L. (1995). Behavioral assessment: Self-report, physiology, and overt behavior. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Socialphobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 202-231). New York: Guilford.

Miller, B. V., & Bernstein, D. A. (1972). Instructional demand in a behavioral avoidance test for claustrophobic fears. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 80, 206-210.

Monti, P. M., Boice, R., Fingeret, A. L., Z~ick, W. R., Kolko, D., Munroe, S., & Grunberger, A. (1984). Midi-level measurement of social anxiety in psychiatric and non-psychiatric samples. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 22, 651-660.

Murray, D. C. (1971). Talk, silence, and anxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 244-260.


Nietzel, M. T., Bernstein, D. A., & Russell, R. L. (1988). Assessment of anxiety and fear. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Behavioral assessment: A practical handbook, 3rd ed. (pp. 280-312). New York: Pergamon.

Paul, G. L. (1966). Insight vs. desensitization in psychotherapy: An experiment in .anxiety reduction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Pollard, C. A., & Henderson, J. G. (1988). Four types of social phobia in a community sample. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 176, 440-445.

Rachman, S., & Hodgson, R. J. (1974). Synchrony and desynehrony in fear and avoidance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 12, 311-318.

Rapee, R. M., & Lim, L. (1992). Discrepancy between self- and observer ratings of performance in social phobics. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 728-731.

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Communication: Apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness, 3rd ed. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Rochester, S. R. (1973). The significance of pauses in spontaneous speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 51-81.

Schachter, S., Christenfeld, N., Ravina, B., & Bilous, F. (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 362-367.

Schachter, S., Rauscher, F., Christerffeld, N., & Crone, IC T. (1994). The vocabularies of academia. Psychological Science, 5, 37-41.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the State- Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Turk, C. L., Mandeville, M. Y., McNeil, D. W., Ries, B. J., & McChargue, D. E. (1996). Predictive ability of the Specific Speech Stimuli Stroop test in a naturalistic sample, manuscript in preparation.

Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., & Townsley, R. M. (1992). Social phobia: A comparison of specific and generalized subtypes and avoidant personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 326-331.

Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457.

Weintraub, W., & Plant, S. M. (1985). Qualifying phrases as a measure of spontaneity in speech. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 173, 694-697.

Widiger, T. A. (1992). Generalized social phobia versus avoidance personality disorder: A commentary on three studies. Journal of Abnorrnal Psychology, 101, 340-343.

Documents

Enduring Without Avoiding: Pauses and Verbal Dysfluencies ...people.uncw.edu/hakanr/documents/dysfluencyinpublicspeakingfear.pdf · Enduring Without Avoiding: Pauses and Verbal Dysfluencies