A Synthesis of Experimental Studies of Speech Communication Feedback

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide a major summary and synthesis of experimental studies dealing with communication feedback. Two types of studies have been selected for review. First, all available studies which focus on communication receiver response and its effect on the communication source have been included, Second, the reviewer chose relevant studies from the areas of verbal conditioning, small group interaction, psychology of success and failure, and task performance. The article is divided into four major sections: ( a ) the resiilts of the feedback studies, ( b ) a brief methodological evaluation of the studies, ( c ) suggestions concerning future research, and ( d ) conclusions.Communication researchers in the past two decades have begun to place more emphasis on feedback as a variable in the communication process. Beginning with the Leavitt and Mueller study in 1951, there have been over 50 experimental investigations of the effects of receiver response on the attitudes and behavior of communication sources [28]. In the next four sections of this paper are the findings of these experimental studies, an evaluation of the methodologies used to reach these findings, a number of proposals for future research, and a number of conclusions regarding communication feedback. RESULTS O F FEEDBACK STUDIESPerformance of the Communication Source: Delivery 1. Fluency. Of the 12 studies dealing with fluency, eight report that feedback produced a significant effect on fluency. Vlandis found that nonfluencies significantly increased when punishment was introduced as a variable in the speaking situation [53]. Stolz

A Racing Heart, Rattling Knees, and Ruminative Thoughts: Defining, Explaining, and Treating Public Speaking Anxiety

“…Speakers exhibit more cognitive, physiological, and behavioral anxiety when exposed to audiences of greater size and expertise (Bode & Brutten, 1963;Hillmert, Christenfeld, & Kulik, 2002;Long, Lynch, Machiran, Thomas, Public Speaking Anxiety 81 & Malinow, 1982;McKinney et al, 1983;Seta, Crisson, Seta, & Wang, 1989, Experiment 1;Shearn, Bergman, Hill, Abel, & Hinds, 1992) as well as when audiences responded negatively (Bassett, Behnke, Carlile, & Rogers, 1973;Hillmert et al, 2002;Pertaub, Slater, & Barker, 2002) or in a neutral manner (Lepore, 1995;Lepore, Allen, & Evans, 1993;MacIntyre, Thivierge, & MacDonald, 1997) during the speech, compared to audiences who responded in a positive manner (for an early review see Gardiner, 1971). In a more comprehensive study, Ayres (1990) The AIM is a 40-item scale measuring the ''general level of reactivity to emotional experiences'' (Clay et al, 2005, p. 99).…”