Reliability and Valid~ty of I Willingness to Communicate Scale

1 /5(?IReliabilityandValid~ (\AITC) is concludedthatthescaleis ,reticence,communicationappre-hension,co mmunicationcompetence,shyness,verbalbeha vior,talkativeness, ( ,PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,1966)isprof essorandchairpersonoftheDepartmentofComm unicationStudiesatWestVirginiaUniversity ,Morgantown, ,speechanxiety,communicationapprehension ,shyness,reticence,unwillingnesstocommun icate,willingnesstocommunicate,talkative ness,verbalactivity,vocalactivity,anda , (stagefright,speechanxiety,communication apprehension).Anothercentersonactualtalk ingfrequency(verbalactivity,vocalactivit y,talkativeness).A thirdcentersonthepreferencetoapproachora voidcommunication(reticence,unwillingnes stocommunicate,willingnesstocommunicate) .Theconceptof"shyness"is fitswiththeapprehensiongroupwhentakenfro mtheperspectiveofBuss(1980 Lthetalking-frequencygroupwhentakenfromt heperspectiveofMcCroskeyandRichmond(1982 ),orbothgroupswhentakenfromtheperspectiv eofLeary(1983).))

2 Becauseofthesedifferencesinusage,useofth eterm"shyness" "communicationapprehension/' thePersonalReportofCommunicationApprehen sion(PRCA).Thereareseveralhighlyreliable versionsofthisinstrument( ,McCroskey,1970;PRCA-25,McCroskey,1978;P RCA-24,McCroskey,1982;PRCA-24B,McCroskey ,1986).Allhavea goodcaseforvalidity,buttheon"ewiththebes tcaseis thePRCA-24(seeparticularlyLevine& McCroskey,1990;McCroskey,Beatty,Kearney, &Plax,1985;andMcCroskey&Richmond,1982)., Withinthetalking-frequencygroupthereis nosingleconstructwhichis , , ,Winter1992, asa ,hasa fairlystrongindicationofvalidity, wasoriginallyreportedunderthename"Verbal ActivityScale"(VAS:McCroskey,1977).Later ,asthescalewasstudiedmoreintensively,it wasreferredtoasthe"ShynessScale"(55:McCr oskey,Andersen,Richmond,&Wheeless,1981;M cCroskey&Richmond,1982).Withintheapproac h-avoidancegroup,thereticenceconstructwa sthefirstadvanced(Phillips,1968).

3 TheBurgoon(1976)conceptualizationof"unwi llingnesstocommuni-cate,"however,wasa ,themeasuredevelopedfortheconstructturne douttohavetwodimensions,neitherofwhichwe reisomorphicwiththeconceptual-izationand oneofwhichclearlywasa ,named"willingnesstocommunicate"(McCrosk ey&Richmond,1985),isessentiallythesameas theearlier"unwillingness" ,themeasureforthenewerconceptualizationa ppearstobea " Willingness -To- Communicate " Scale (WTC:Mc Croskey&Richmond,1985;1987).Thepurposeof thepresentpaperis (seeFigure1)is a 20-item, ,ityieldsa totalscore,threesubscoresbasedontypesofr eceivers(strangers,acquaintances,friends ),andfoursubscoresbasedontypesofcommunic ationcontexts(public,meeting,group,dyad) .Thescalewasdesignedasa directmeasureoftherespondent' ,apprehension,alienation, generallyawareofher/ simpletofillout,suggestingthattheawarene ssassumptionis a ,withyoungerchildrenandwithpeoplewhosefi rstlanguagewasoneotherthanEnglish, , , ,ofcourse,is studyreportedbyChan(1988)thecorrelationo fthetotalWTCscorewitha scoreonaninstrumentshedevelopedtomeasure collegestudentrespondents'willingnesstoc ommunicateina (.)

4 80correctedforattenuation).Inastudyinvol vingcollegeprofessorsasReliabilityandVal idityoftheWillingnesstoCommunicateScalel iWillingnesstoCommunicateScale(WTCJDIREC TIONS:Belowaretwentysituationsinwhicha =never,100=always1.*Talkwitha *Talkwitha talktoa *Talkwitha salespersonina *Talkwitha *Talkwitha waiter/waitressina :'*Talkwitha talktoa *TaIkwitha *Talkwitha spouse(orgirl/boyfriend). talktoa groupofacquaintances.* , ,15,and19; ,11,and17; ,9,and12; ,14,and20; ,8,12,and17; ,11,15,and20; ,9,14,and19; ,addthesubscoresforstranger,acquaintance , (1990)observedsimilarlyhighassociationbe tweenthetotalWTCscoresandthescoresonanin strumentshedevelopedtomeasurewillingness tocommunicatewitha specialtypeofaudience,authorityfigures(d epartmentchairsandhigheruniversityadmini strators). ,wemightexpectmostpeoplewouldbemorewilli ngtocommunicatewithfriendsinadyadicconte xtthantocommunicatewithagroupofstrangers ina ,if themeasureis tobeanappropriatemeasureora generalwillingness-to-communicatepredisp osition,eventhoughthescoreonanyonesuchre ceiver/contextitemmightbeverydifferentfr omthescoreonanotheritem, ,nodefinitivenormsbasedona (Andersen,Lustig,&Andersen,1990).

5 Thedataobtainedfroma nationalstudyofcollegestudentsfromover50 schoolsofpharmacy(over10,000respondents) utilizingthePersonalReportofCommunicatio nApprehension(PRCA-24)yieldeda ,000 WVUstudentrespondents(McCroskey,Fayer,&R ichmond,1985).A NorthAmericansampleofover1,800chiropract icassistantsyieldeda meanonthesameinstrumentwhichwasevenclose rtotheWVUmean, (Allen,Richmond,& McCroskey,1984).Intheabsenceofcontraryin formation,therefore,it is ,thedataindicatethattherespondentsarelea stwillingtocommunicateina varietyofotherculturesaroundtheworldarei ncludedinTable2 ,it is veryimportanttorecognizethatwhateveris "normal"is ,StandardDeviations,andReliabilitiesforW TCS coresWTCS core,"' theWillingnesstoCommunicJteSCJ/e19 ReliabilityEstimatesAlthoughreliabilityo fa scaleis noguaranteeofvalidity,withoutit a \NTCscaleis functionofthesmallernumberofitems, , , ,thetest-retestreliabilityestimatecorrec tedforattenuationduetointernalunreliabil ityis.

6 ,it is presumedtomeasurea stabletraitofanindividual,sosuchstabilit yis appear,onitsface,tomeasuretheconstructwh ichit purportstomeasure?Theconstructrelatestoa person' directlyconfrontedwithanotherpersonattem ptingtoinitiatecommunication,sucha ,commoncourtesymightcauseevena ,ameasureofone' ,' self-reportscalealsois allowstherespondenttousea is used,forexample, ,it is ,theitemsontheinstrumentweredevelopedbyc rossingthreecommontypesofreceiverswithfo urcommoncommunicationcontextstoyield12it emsbelievedtorepresenta "eye-balling"suchastheabovecannotdetermi nethedimensionalityofaninstrument,it ,eventhoughaperson'sresponsestodifferent itemsmightvarysubstantially,it dimensionsappearedasa functionofreceivertypeorotcontexttype,fo rexample,themeasurementofa largeroverallsystemwouldcomeintoquestion , (McCroskey& Baer,1985)

7 A "measurehadtheirhighestloadingsonthefirs tunrotatedfactor,indicatingtheywereallhi ghlyassociatedwitha , ,thepreliminaryexaminationsoftheWTCindic ateditsunderlyingassumptions' isentirelypossiblefora scaletomeasuresomethingverywellbutthat"s omething"maynotrepresenttheconstructwhic hit ,establishingconstructvalidityofa scaleis (McCroskey&Richmond,1985;1987) ,theconstructisthatofanorientationtoward communicationwhichwehavereferredtoprevio uslyasa , ,moderatecorrelations( )couldbeexpectedbetweentheseconstructsan dtheWTCscalebutveryhighcorrelations( ) (McCroskey,1977;alsoknownastheShynessSca le,McCroskey&Richmond,1982)astheself-rep ortoftalkingfrequencyandthePersonalRepor tofCommunicationApprehension(PRCA-24:McC roskey,1982)asthemeasureofapprehensionab outcommunication,therelationshipsbetween theWTCandthemeasuresoftheseconstructswer eexamined(McCroskey&Baer,1985).

8 50(McCroskey&McCroskey,1986a).Theseresul tsprovidestrongsupportfortheconstructval idityoftheWTCT hewritingsofBurgoon(1976),Phillips(1984) ,andMcCroskeyandRichmond(1987)pointtoa varietyofvariableswhicharebelievedtobeca usallyrelatedtoanindividual' ,ReliabilityandValidityor"theWillingness toCommunicateScale21anomie,alienation,in troversion, (McCroskey&McCroskey,1986a,1986b)observe dmodestbutstatisticallysignificantcorrel ationsbetweenWTCscoresandself-esteem(.22 ),anomie( ),alienation( ),andintroversion( )butamuchmoresubstantialcorrelationwiths elf-perceivedcommunicationcompetence(.59 ). ,relatingtocompetence,isconsistentwithth everystrongpositiontakenbyPhillipsregard ingthecentralroleofone'scommunicationcom petenceindeterminingher/histendencytoapp roachoravoidcommunication(inhisterms,tob ereticentornot).Otherresearchin othercultures(McCroskey& Richmond,1990) ' , 'vVTCandself-perceivedcompetenceinJ'vlic ronesiawasextremelyhigh(.)

9 80). functionofthefactthatthestudentswhocompl et"dtheinstrumentinthatstudywerefromawid evarietyofislandsandconsequentlyhada ,therefore,hastobeina , , ,thetripartiteconceptualdistinctionbetwe enapprehension, Willingness , , !typeofvalidity,predictivevalidity, certainlyis ,forif theyuniversallywerenotit isimportant,however, , ,overa substantialnumberofpeople,oroverasubstan tialnumberofbehaviors,it isreasonabletoexpecta (Chan&McCroskey,1987)studentsinthreecoll egeclasses(oneeachinphilosophy,mathemati cs,andgeography) 'vVTCas"high"or"low" washypothesizedthatmorestudents22 McCroskeywhowereinthe"high"categorywould participateinclassroominteractionthanwou ldthoseclassifiedas"low"andthatmoretotal participationintheclassroomswouldinvolve studentsfromthe"high"categorythanfromthe "low" :onceearlyintheterm,oncenearthemiddleoft heterm, (Zakahi& McCroskey,1989)examinedwillingnesstocomm unicateasa potentialcauseofa problemcommonlyexperiencedbyresearchersw hodependonthevoluntaryparticipationofstu dents(orothertypesofpeople)whomustappear forparticipationata placeotherthantheirnormalclassroom(orpla ceofemployment).

10 Theproblemwasthatofthe"noshow."A totalof381studentswerescreenedforpartici pationina lecturecoursewhichdidnotrequireanyoralpe rformancefromanystudentnordidit havea (completetheWTCscale) (1987) , thesamemanneriftheycouldnotbecontacted(n olongerintheu,niversity,phonedisconnecte dandnonewnumber).Subjectswerecontactedby a naiveconfederatewhowasblindtoboththepurp oseofthestudyandwhatcategorya , ,recordedasrefusals, ,92percent(23)ofthehighwilling-to-commun icategroupagreedtoparticipate,butonly68p ercent(17) ,thisdifferencewasverysignificant(p.<.00 01).Individualswhoreportedtothestudyassc heduled(reschedulingwaspossibleif conflictsarose) (52%)ofthehighwillingtocommunicategroupr eportedforthestudyasinitiallyscheduledbu tonlysix(24%) ,statisticallythisdifferencewasverysigni ficant(p.<.001).Thus,oftheoriginal50subj ectscontacted,38%appearedforthestudyassc heduled,butit wastwiceaslikelythata highWTCsubjectwouldappearasit wasthata 'confederateinthisstudywasverypersistent inattemptingtogetthe"noshows" ,theywereplacedina "participatedlater" theydidnot, (alow-willing) ,21(84%) (52%) ,thisdifferenceisverysignificant(p.)