Within a speech, anxiety is dynamic rather than static. In order to realize the distributions of the anxiety levels, researchers have identified some crucial stages during a public speech. Behnke and Sawyer (1999), for example, focused on three stages of “anticipatory public speaking,” that is, three specific periods before a speech.
They are the moment when the speech assignment was announced, the moment for preparing the speech, and the moment before the speech began. They found most speakers experienced both the highest trait and state anxiety at the moment before they are going to give a speech, and second when the speech assignment was
announced. Their research suggested that pedagogical strategies may aim at reducing the anxiety not only immediately before a speech but also when the speech
assignment is announced. As for the whole process of a speech, there are other four
stages worthy of observation (Behnke & Sawyer, 1998): one minute before the speech (anticipation), the first minute of the speech (confrontation), one minute before the end of the speech (adaptation), and one minute after the speech (release).
2.6.1 Physiological and psychological arousal patterns of public speaking anxiety Speaking of the patterns of the four stages of the whole process of a public speech, Behnke and Sawyer (1998) suggested there is a difference between physiological arousal patterns and psychological arousal patterns. Physiological arousal patterns are those which were measured through physiological evidence, such as heart rate patterns at the stages. Behnke and Sawyer (1998) concluded that
“confrontation period” seems to the most “physiologically arousing” in many psychophysiological studies since speakers at the moment tend to face the audience with “a dramatic increase in heart rate” (p.163). Psychological arousal patterns, on the other hand, are those tested by psychological measurements. Behnke and Sawyer’s study (1998) has proven that “anticipatory period” is the most “psychologically arousing” since the speakers in their study showed the highest trait anxiety at the phase among the four periods.
2.6.2 Sensitization and habituation
Recently, psychological arousal patterns have gained much more attention from the researchers than physiological arousal patterns in many studies (Behnke &
Sawyer, 1999; Behnke & Sawyer, 2000; Witt & Behnke, 2006). That may be because for many speakers, what they believe they have felt is as important as what they really experience during a speech performance. In addition, researchers have also tried to identify differentiated patterns from the global psychological arousal pattern in order to feed the various needs of different speakers. Behnke and Sawyer (2001), for example, found two complementary psychological state anxiety patterns during the whole process of a public speaking: habituation and sensitization. In the habituation
pattern, speakers show their highest anxiety at the anticipation stage and then descend their anxiety in the following three stages. Sensitization refers to the pattern in which speakers’ state anxiety ascends from the anticipation stage, climaxes at the
confrontation stage, and then declines in the last two stages.
These two patterns can be explained by the neural circuits Gray and McNaughton identified (cited in Lewis et al., 2007). There are three concepts involving in Gray’s theory, including a behavioral approach system (BAS), a behavior inhibition system (BIS), and the comparator (Lewis et al., 2007). During a public speech, the speech performance itself is viewed as a kind of threat or stimulus which provokes anxiety. The BAS guides the individual to actively approach the desired goal with strategies either by facing the threat or avoiding it (Behnke &
Sawyer, 2001). The BIS, however, suppresses the individual’s motor behavior toward the desired goal with increased vigilance (Behnke & Sawyer, 2001). The comparator, on the other hand, is responsible for detecting the mismatch between the actual environment and the expectations of the individual, based on signs of punishment and reward (Behnke & Sawyer, 2001).
The difference of the two patterns depends on the timing of the executions of the BIS and the BAS during the four stages of a speech (Behnke & Sawyer, 2001). In the habituation pattern, the speaker tends to overestimate the threat before giving a speech and then triggers the BIS at first, resulting in the speaker’s anxiety peaking at the anticipation stage. With the repeated exposure to the threat, once the comparator reevaluates the situations in actual environment and detects no new stimulus, the anxiety will then decline. Thus, the control will be shifted from BIS to the BAS later in the habituation pattern. In the sensitization pattern, however, the speaker tends to underestimate the threat with the BAS engaged in the first place, thus causing a relatively lower level of anxiety at the anticipation stage. Later, as the comparator
discovers a higher level of threat than that expected by the speaker, the speaker’s anxiety will then increase and peak at the confrontation stage. As a result, the BAS will then be substituted by the BIS in the sensitization pattern.
Some researchers found that the difference of the participants’ anxiety sensitivity and the strength of the stimuli may be the reasons for forming the two different patterns. Behnke and Sawyer (2001) found that speakers with the
sensitization pattern showed higher levels of anxiety sensitivity and reacted more to the physical sensations of stress. They tended to experience a higher level of anxiety at the initial stages than those with the habituation pattern. Besides, a weak stimulus was found to be associated with formation of the habituation pattern while speakers confronting a strong stimulus were more probable to develop the sensitization pattern (Sawyer & Behnke, 2002).
According to Sawyer and Behnke (2002), within a public speech, most native or ESL learners tended to experience the habituation pattern and to become gradually relaxed during a public speech. This may be because during the process of being trained to present speeches, most people are treated under a relatively supportive and friendly classroom atmosphere and eventually become adapted to the speaking situations (Behnke & Sawyer, 2001). Some speakers, however, might undergo the sensitization effect which hindered them from adjusting to the speech contexts (Sawyer & Behnke, 2002). Since the confrontation stage has been reported as the most physically anxiety-provoking, it is no wonder that these speakers tend to show their highest anxiety when they confront the audience at the first minute of the speech (Sawyer & Behnke, 2002). In addition, the overall anxiety levels of the speakers with the sensitization pattern were also found to be higher than those with the habituation pattern (Lewis et al., 2007; Sawyer & Behnke, 2002).
To reduce speech anxiety, many researchers have tried to take advantage of the
habituation process and to avoid the sensitization effect (Behnke & Sawyer 2004;
Sawyer & Behnke, 2002). Preparation, for example, has been indicated as a useful means to help speakers lower their anxiety before presenting a speech (Lewis et al., 2007). In addition, skills-training, which has been implemented in many basic communication courses, was also found to facilitate anxiety reduction (Sawyer &
Behnke, 2002).
2.6.3 Trait anxiety, sensitization, and habituation
Lewis et al. (2007) found that different levels of trait anxiety could predict the habituation and sensitization patterns of the state anxiety. They divided their
participants into an equal number of high and low anxious speakers based on their trait anxiety and then observed the state anxiety patterns of the two groups during the four stages of a public speech (anticipation, confrontation, adaptation, and release).
They found that high-trait-anxious speakers tended to produce the habituation pattern, that is, to have their highest state anxiety at the anticipation stage and then to descend in the following stages. Low-trait-anxious speakers, however, tended to have the sensitization pattern. They were found to show nearly identical levels of anxiety during the first two stages and then to decline at the last two stages. Their
explanations for the findings were as follows. That is, speakers with high trait anxiety were more self-focused and more likely affected by distractions of negative thoughts at the pre-speaking period. Thus, their anxiety peak at the anticipation stage tended to aversely influence their performance throughout the preparation process of a public speech. Otherwise, low-trait-anxious speakers were calmer and able to develop strategies to complete their speech assignments at the anticipation stage even though their anxiety still climaxed at the confrontation stage.
This study replicated Lewis et al.’s study (2007), which examined how
different levels of trait anxiety affected state anxiety narrow-banded for four different
stages. Since “anticipatory period” has been reported as the most “psychologically arousing,” anticipatory trait anxiety was used in this study to predict the distributions of state anxiety among different stages. The two scales used in that study were adapted in this study. There are two advantages of using them. First, they are narrow-band rather than wide-band scales and can “ be used to improve the
measurement precision of speech anxiety patterns” (Lewis et al., 2007, p.3). Second, the research process in the study makes it possible to learn about the patterns of state anxiety at different stages of a speech rather than the overall anxiety during the speech. The learners may get benefits from the patterns if some appropriate pedagogical strategies are provided after this research (Behnke & Sawyer, 1998).
However, unlike Lewis et al.’s study (2007), there were three differences in this study. First, since this study was conducted through a formal speech contest in a junior high school, the time needed to finish the questionnaires should be controlled.
As a result, only three phases were observed: anticipation, confrontation, and release.
Second, besides the effect of levels of anticipatory trait anxiety, this researcher also wanted to know how gender difference could influence speakers’ psychological patterns of state anxiety at the three stages. Third, this study was a foreign language replication in Taiwan where students learn English as a foreign language rather than a native language. The results of this study might offer a different perspective for future researches to know more about the psychological patterns of public speaking anxiety.