The Communication Anxiety Regulation Scale: Development and Initial Validation

Abstract

A series of studies present the development and validation of the Communication Anxiety Regulation Scale (CARS), a self-report measure designed to assess the use of emotion regulation strategies to manage acute communication anxiety—in contrast to measures of general emotion regulation tendencies. Study 1 delineates the item derivation and selection process that yielded the final 12 CARS items. Results of an exploratory factor analysis supported the existence of four distinct subscales, each representing one of four anxiety regulation strategies (suppression, reappraisal, avoidance, and venting). Study 2 confirmed this factor structure and also examined correlations of the CARS with existing measures in an attempt to establish concurrent validity. Finally, Study 3 presents results of an item-sort task demonstrating the scale’s face validity and items’ substantive validity. Overall, findings provide preliminary support for the utility of the CARS as measure of communication anxiety regulation to be used by communication and psychology researchers.

Keywords::

• Communication Anxiety
• Emotion Regulation
• Measure
• Self-Report Scale
• Speech Anxiety

The authors would like to thank Brian Armenta for his assistance with data analysis and helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.

Notes

Although participants in this study were not asked about their experience of anxiety in response to the imagined speech scenario, subsequent data collected using this exact procedure (N = 675) indicated that participants consistently report feeling significantly more anxiety immediately after the imaginal speech induction than beforehand, t(673) = 25.16, p < 0.01.

Because participants were instructed to imagine that they had no restrictions on what they could do to regulate their emotions, some items entailed the use of materials (e.g., computers, video games) or actions (e.g., leaving the situation) that might not typically be available to participants in the imagined scenario. These items were included because our primary goal was to ensure that we fully represent the construct of interest (e.g., avoidance, reappraisal) rather than whether the items were feasible within the imagined scenario, although advances in technology make several of these options possible now.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kaitlin Hanley White

Kaitlin Hanley White (Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University, 2013) is a Postdoctoral Research Associate inthe Department of Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Matt C. Howard

Matt C. Howard (M.S., The Pennsylvania State University, 2013) is a Doctoral Student in the Department of Psychology at The Pennsylvania State University.

Bu Zhong

Bu Zhong (Ph.D., University of Maryland, 2006) is an Associate Professor inthe Department of Journalism at The Pennsylvania State University.

José A. Soto

José A. Soto (Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, 2004) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at The Pennsylvania StateUniversity.

Christopher R. Perez

Christopher R. Perez (Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University, 2013) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at LaVerne University.

Elizabeth A. Lee

Elizabeth A. Lee (Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University, 2011) is an Associate Director in the Department of Organizational Effectiveness at Central Washington University.

Nana A. Dawson-Andoh

Nana A. Dawson-Andoh (M.A., American University, 2007) is a Doctoral Student in the Department of Psychology at The Pennsylvania State University.

Mark R. Minnick

Mark R. Minnick (B.A., The Pennsylvania State University, 2007) is a Doctoral Student in the Department of Psychology at The Pennsylvania State University.