This section contains literature review of the key theoretical foundations of WTC constructs, approaches to conceptualizing WTC, development of L2 WTC models, risk-taking and WTC, and the relation of social media to communication. Besides, it introduces theories and studies regarding social presence, media richness, and media choice performed by the social media users. Finally, empirical studies on the relation between WTC in English and social media usage in the L1 or L2 contexts are
reviewed.
Theoretical Foundations of WTC Construct
In McCroskey and Richmond’s (1990a) article on WTC studies, five primary foundations for the development of its construct were identified: works of Phillips (1968) on reticence, McCroskey (1970) on communication apprehension (CA), Burgoon (1976) on unwillingness to communicate (UnWTC), Mortensen, Artson, and Lustig (1977) on predispositions toward verbal behavior (PVB), and McCroskey and Richmond (1982) on shyness. They were introduced as follows.
The interest and concern of WTC are said to originate from Phillips’s (1968) recognition of reticence—a speech-personality disorder afflicting the “normal”
speaker. One suffers from reticence may be defined as “a person for whom anxiety about participation in oral communication outweighs his projection of gain from the situation” (p.40). While previous research on stage fright and stutter reinforced the connection between inadequacy of speaking performance and one’s emotional disturbance, Phillips proposed reticence as a problem of social personality in general communication contexts and believed that it was associated with deeper psychological factors.
Following Phillip’s (1968) conceptualization, McCroskey (1970) labeled the
phenomenon of communication-bound anxiety “communication apprehension (CA)”, which was subsequently defined as “an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons”
(McCroskey, 1977, p.78). Rather, from Burgoon’s (1976) perspective, the construct of CA , reticence, anomia, alienation, introversion, and self-esteem were regarded as composing elements of unwillingness of communicate (UnWTC)—“a chronic tendency to avoid and/or devalue oral communication” (p.60). UnWTC was later conceptualized as a counterpart of WTC, referring to the probability of one’s tendency to initiate a conversation when free to do so (McCroskey & Baer, 1985).
The fourth theoretical basis of WTC is Mortensen et al.’s (1977) idea of
predispositions toward verbal behavior (PVB) in L1 communication. They considered PVB to be a predictor of one’s actual talking frequency across different social
contexts. Another important construct related to WTC is shyness, which was conceptualized as the tendency to be timid and talk less (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982) or as a social anxiety (Leary, 1983). Although some researchers viewed CA and shyness as conceptually alike (Parks, 1980), McCroskey and Richmond (1982) concluded that CA and shyness form a “genus-specie relationship” instead of being parallel constructs. Besides, both CA and reticence were suggested to be two possible subcategories of shyness, resulting from fear and poor communication skills
respectively.
The constructs of reticence, CA, UnWTC, PVB, and shyness share a similar assumption that the tendency toward withdrawal from interaction is generally based on individual traits. They all provide significant theoretical foundations for WTC theories and studies in L1 and L2 communication as well.
Approaches to Conceptualizing WTC
This section introduces three approaches to conceptualizing WTC: trait-like, situational, and ecological approaches.
Trait-like Approach to WTC
Evolved from Burgoon’s (1976) UnWTC, the notion of WTC in L1 communication was proposed by McCroskey and Richmond (1987) as a
“personality-based, traitlike predisposition which is relatively consistent across a variety of communication contexts and types of receivers” (p.134). In other words, one’s WTC in one context (e.g., discussing in meetings) is argued to be correlated with that in other communication contexts (e.g., talking in dyads or interacting within a small group); also, one’s WTC with one kind of receiver (e.g., acquaintances) is argued to be correlated with that with other kinds of receivers (e.g., friends or
strangers). Moreover, McCroskey and Richmond (1990b) labeled the variables which were claimed to exert a certain degree of influence on individuals’ WTC as
“antecedents”, which included introversion, self-esteem, communication competence, CA, and cultural diversity. They concluded that WTC was positively associated with frequency and amount of communication involving desired outcomes.
A number of studies indicated that individuals tended to experience higher CA when speaking in foreign languages than when using their mother tongue (Allen &
Andriate, 1984; McCroskey, Fayer, & Richmond, 1985). Subsequently, MacIntyre (1994) applied the WTC construct to the domain of L2 communication, suggesting that CA and self-perceived competence were the two most immediate factors determining one’s level of WTC across different situations, while anomie and alienation—correlates of UnWTC in Burgoon’s (1976) earlier work—were not identified as casual factors. In addition, some other personal traits were demonstrated
to correlate with one’s L2 WTC by researchers who believed that WTC is a
predisposition, including L2 self-confidence (Clément, Baker, & MacIntyre, 2003;
Kang, 2005; Peng & Woodrow, 2010; Yashima, 2002; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, &
Shimizu, 2004), learning motivation or orientation (Hashimoto, 2002; MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Donovan, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004), international posture (Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004), age and gender (MacIntyre, et al., 2002), and foreign language anxiety (Chu, 2008; Liu & Jackson, 2002).
However, some scholars argued that the picture would not be complete without taking situational factors into consideration. In particular, MacIntyre (2007) called for a methodology adapted to the dynamic nature of WTC as a volitional decision that underlies communication at specific moments. This situational perspective is presented as follows.
Situational Approach to WTC
Analyzing WTC from the situational perspective, some scholars claimed that WTC would vary across cultural or contextual settings. For instance, levels of teacher immediacy—the instructors’ effort to narrow down the psychological distance between teachers and students in class—might affect students’ WTC levels (Cao, 2011; Hsu, 2006; Lin, 2003; Wang, 2008; Wen & Clément, 2003). The extent of social support for language learning, especially from one’s friends, was shown to influence WTC among L2 French immersion students outside the classroom (MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Conrod, 2001). MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, and Donovan (2003) also suggested that previous immersion experience would promote the WTC among the university-level students. In Tiu’s (2001) study, it was discovered that if provided with opportunities for practical speaking or normal conversation, high school students would experience greater WTC in the English class. Kang (2005) discovered that the
emergence of situational WTC among Korean college students is susceptible to the joint role of three situational determinants (i.e., topic, interlocutor, and speaking context) and three psychological antecedents (i.e., security, excitement, and
responsibility), suggesting that WTC is a dynamic situational construct changing from moment to moment rather than a trait-like stable tendency. In a more recent research, Cao and Philp (2006) examined L2 learners’ differences in WTC when engaged in the interaction of whole class, small group, and dyad. They found that interlocutor effect and group size or perceived suitable speaking opportunity would come into play in WTC levels.
According to the discussion above, situational and contextual factors should be considered when examining one’s WTC in addition to individual characteristics.
Taking this situational view, MacIntyre et al. (1998) defined L2 WTC as “a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using an L2” (p.547). MacIntyre et al.’s conceptualization is widely used in L2 research. The following section presents an ecological view expanded from the situational
perspective.
Ecological Approach to WTC
Ecology implies “the relationships between all the various organisms and their physical environment” (van Lier, 2002, p.14). From the ecological perspective, the language-learning contexts are “socially constructed and dynamically negotiated on a moment-by-moment basis” (van Lier, 2000, 2002, as cited in Cao, 2011, p.469) and learners are “immersed in an environment full of potential meanings” as they interact
“within and with this environment” (van Lier, 2000, p.245). In other words, an ecological approach values the interdependence between internal and external
variables with focal focus on contextual analysis from a holistic view. As forerunners
in analyzing WTC from an ecological perspective, Wen and Clément (2003)
discovered that students’ motivational orientations, affective perceptions, and societal contexts all played a critical role in determining their WTC besides personality factors.
However, the first typical ecological approach to researching WTC is Cao’s (2009) qualitative analysis of situational WTC among six university L2 learners in New Zealand. More recently, several researchers took an ecological perspective, exploring the intertwined relationship among a range of potential antecedents to WTC in the L2 classrooms of China (Peng, 2012; Peng & Woodrow, 2012) and New Zealand (Cao, 2011). These antecedents spanned individual, linguistic, contextual, and societal levels. As Peng (2012) concluded, “from an ecological perspective, a learner is an organism embedded in the environment…any changes in a learners’ behavior would affect the psycho-social atmosphere in the environment, which in turn causes changes to all parties involved” (p.211).
Development of L2 WTC Models
This section presents WTC models in L2 communication (MacIntyre et al., 1998;
Peng & Woodrow, 2010; Wen & Clément, 2003) which marked the influence of intrapersonal factors on individuals’ WTC and informed the conceptual framework of the current study.
MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) Model
MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic model (see Figure 1) is one of the most comprehensive constructs to account for WTC among L2 learners. In the model, linguistic, communicative, and social-psychological variables are integrated to form a pyramid composed of six hierarchical layers: The bottom three layers—those of motivational propensities, affective-cognitive context, and social and individual
context—are hypothesized to serve as the basis for the rest of the factors to play their role in rendering the final outcome of WTC. For example, one’s personality and motivation for L2 learning are relatively enduring and stable in comparison with factors of state self-confidence or desire to talk with a specific person. On the other hand, the upper three layers—those of communication behavior, behavioral intention, and situated antecedents—presumably assume the role of higher immediacy in
influencing individual’s WTC level with respect to specific situations or interlocutors.
Figure 1. MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) Heuristic Model of WTC Variables
Although the value of MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) WTC model is evidenced in several studies (Dörnyei, 2003; Hashimoto, 2002; MacIntyre et al., 2001; Matsuda &
Gobel, 2004; Wen & Clément, 2003; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004), these studies were primarily conducted with students in the Western-culture world. As engendering pancultural assumptions about WTC might be hardly justifiable
(McCroskey & Richmond, 1990a), an L2 WTC construct customized for EFL learners
is warranted. An ecological model of WTC in a Chinese setting was proposed by Wen and Clément (2003), as presented below.
Wen and Clément’s (2003) WTC Model
With the hope of extending MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) heuristic model to a Chinese setting, Wen and Clément (2003) proposed a Chinese conceptualization of WTC in English, in which the cultural values of Confucianism are brought into the picture. In the paper, a number of factors embedded in the Confucian Classics that might influence one’s WTC were discussed and labeled as “societal context”,
“personality factors”, “motivational orientation”, and “affective perceptions” on a continuum with DC (i.e., Desire to Communicate) and WTC as both ends, as shown in Figure 2.
Within the model, a distinction between DC and WTC is made: The former is conceptualized as “a deliberate choice or preference” while the latter focuses on the readiness to talk. Wen and Clément (2003) noted that an individual having the desire to communicate may choose to withdraw from the attempt due to anxiety or the tense atmosphere in a specific context. In other words, one is likely to experience a complex process from having the desire to talk to actually engaging in a conversation.
Wen and Clément’s (2003) WTC model seems quite well-rounded as a preliminary attempt to take an ecological approach to WTC, which involves a dynamic interplay among communicative, linguistic, and social-psychological
correlates among Chinese students. However, the model is yet to be objectively tested by empirical studies.
Figure 2. Variables Moderating the Relation between DC and WTC in the Chinese EFL Classroom (Wen & Clément, 2003)
Peng and Woodrow’s (2010) L2 WTC Model
Having a similar focus to Wen and Clément (2003) on WTC among Chinese EFL learners, Peng and Woodrow (2010) developed another L2 WTC model, also adopting an ecological approach. They perceived classroom dynamics to be related to
individual and contextual variables. Figure 3 shows their model. On the one hand, among the four variables investigated, Peng and Woodrow’s (2010) model
hypothesized individual’s L2 communication confidence as the most significant predictor of WTC among Chinese university students, which is consistent with
previous findings (e.g., Clément et al., 2003; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; MacIntyre et al., 1998; Yashima, 2002) despite regional variance. On the other hand, Peng and Woodrow (2010) specifically underlined the controlling power of culture-fueled beliefs on students’ motivation and L2 self-confidence. The cultural influence on Chinese learners will be further discussed in the next section.
Figure 3. Peng and Woodrow’s (2010) Hypothesized L2 WTC Model in the Chinese EFL Classroom
It should be noted that both Wen and Clément’s (2003) and Peng and Woodrow’s (2010) L2 ecological WTC models are confined to classroom settings. Moreover, most of the previous WTC studies only paid attention to the face-to-face or speaking aspect of communication. The gaps thus motivated the researcher to investigate whether the communication mode (i.e., written or oral/aural) would exert a significant influence on WTC among Taiwanese undergraduate EFL students when they
authentically communicate in English through social media outside the classroom.
Besides, the researcher intends to examine the role of risk-taking propensity, a personal trait highlighted in Wen and Clément’s (2003) model, in WTC with respect to different communication modes and immediacy of social media. Issues related to risk-taking propensity are addressed in the following section.
The Role of Risk-Taking Propensity in WTC
This section is concerned with the relation between WTC and a personality factor that has been briefly discussed in the previous chapter—risk-taking propensity
specifically regarding L2 learners in the EFL settings.
According to Naiman et al. (1975) and Rubin and Thompson (1982), one of the prominent attributes of successful language learners is the capacity to willingly make an intelligent guess, thereby suggesting the importance of risk-taking in L2 learning.
Risk-taking is defined as “any consciously, or nonconsciously controlled behavior with a perceived uncertainty about its outcome” (Trimpop, 1994, p.9). To facilitate communication in an L2, some risks are unavoidable, such as making mistakes, feeling frustrated, being laughed at, receiving a negative judgment from others, or imposing embarrassment on oneself (Beebe, 1983). Like individuals afflicted with CA,
“people who fear negative evaluation rarely initiate conversation and interact minimally” (Gregerson & Horwitz, 2002, as cited in Liu & Jackson, 2008, p.72).
Applying the notion to the L2 classroom with a narrower focus, Ely (1986) labeled the construct Language Risk Taking, referring to one’s tendency to bear risks in using the L2 in the class setting.
As mentioned earlier, in Wen and Clément’s (2003) conceptualization of WTC among Chinese, one of the variables on the continuum from DC to WTC is
“personality factors” (see Figure 3). As two subcategories of personality factors, risk-taking and ambiguity tolerance were recognized by Wen and Clément as culturally significant and affectively correlated with WTC among Chinese students.
East Asian students have been notoriously regarded as shy, conservative, self-effacing, passive, reticent, and therefore unwilling to speak in L2 in class (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996;
Flowerdew & Miller, 1995; Tsui, 1996; Zimbardo, 1977) since they have long been encouraged to restrain the desire to talk in the class. Also, it is considered ‘selfish’ to waste other students’ class time by expressing one’s own ideas in Chinese classrooms (Bond, 1996; Kennedy, 2002). For example, a participant in Peng’s (2012) qualitative study revealed his concern that if being too verbally expressive, “others will think you
are a crank” (p.207).
As a result, East Asian or Chinese students are often considered to be low risk-takers and cautious monitors who tend to overemphasize both accuracy and self-correction (Wen & Clément, 2003). Along a similar line, Kang (2005) labeled one of the psychological antecedents to situational WTC as security, referring to
“feeling safe from the fears that nonnative speakers tend to have in L2 communication”
(p.282). In other words, if one reports satisfactory level of security, then one is arguably more willing to try out the newly learned language and to bear the risk of failure.
Based on the discussion above, it is concluded that risk-taking propensity may play a role in WTC construct in a Chinese cultural context. It is then arguably
worthwhile to examine how Taiwanese EFL students’ risk-taking propensity relates to WTC in English via social media.
Social Media and Communication
The following sections discuss the attributes of social media available, the common ways to classify social media (i.e., Social Presence and Media Richness Theory) and the role of personality factors on individuals’ media choice. The two popular social media under study—Facebook and Skype—and the communication functions they mainly feature are introduced as well.
Attributes of Social Media
Since the launch of the Internet in the 1960s, how we communicate has been dramatically revolutionized and it is an ongoing process around the globe. Thanks to the technological inventions and the advancement of computer-mediated
communication (CMC), people are not required to meet with each other at the same
time in the same place to “talk” anymore. Compared with face-to-face communication, CMC features aloneness, anonymity, expression equality, and time delay (Berge
&Collins, 1995; Tu, 2000; Wang & Woo, 2007). With CMC, participants are provided a less threatening environment in which they can voice themselves more freely and equally (Chu, 2008; Joinson, 1998; Tu, 2000; Warschauer, 1996) since online audience is less likely to judge the opinion by who they are. Also, it was pointed out that with visual anonymity, CMC allows shy and considerate people more
opportunities to comment without the fear of negative reactions (Chun, 1994; Phllips, 1983; Hartman, et al., 1991). The phenomenon motivated Van Gelder (1990) and Misanchuk, Morrison, and Peterson (1997) to refer to CMC as “egalitarian”. Online communication or CMC can be synchronous (real time) or asynchronous
(time-delayed). Asynchronous CMC systems, in particular, enable media users not only to retrieve the information whenever they want but also to prepare their responses without time pressure.
CMC provides a virtual technological platform for social media to evolve and operate on. As Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) defined, social media is “a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content”
(p.61). According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2007), User Generated Content (UGC) needs to meet three basic
requirements: being published on a networking website publicly accessible to a particular group of people, showing creative effort, and being produced outside of professional practices. Corresponding to the concept of UGC, Musser and his associates (2007) identified three key features of social media as user participation, openness, and network effects, which capture the participatory essence of social networking value. It seems that social media not only invite user to get involved in the
public sharing but also level the playing ground in the digital world.
One of the typologies of Web 2.0 tools (i.e., social media applications) was proposed by Conole and Alevizou (2010). From their perspective, Web 2.0 tools could be categorized as media sharing, media manipulation and mash ups, instant messaging, chat and conversational arenas, online games and virtual worlds, social networking, blogging, social bookmarking, recommendation systems, wikis and collaborative editing tools, and syndication. In a similar fashion, Kaplan and Haelein (2010) classified them as blogs, collaborative projects, SNSs, content communities, virtual social worlds, and virtual game worlds depending on their degree of
self-presentation/self-disclosure and social presence/media richness. The following section is concerned with the two most common theoretical approaches to
categorizing social media—Social Presence and Media Richness.
Theoretical Approaches to Classifying Social Media
Regardless of the convenience and other benefits inherent in the CMC tools, they still do not replace the most traditional communication media—that is face-to-face interaction. One of the reasons is the sacrifice of the multiple resources of verbal or
Regardless of the convenience and other benefits inherent in the CMC tools, they still do not replace the most traditional communication media—that is face-to-face interaction. One of the reasons is the sacrifice of the multiple resources of verbal or