![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Parks’ (1980) criticism of the cross‐situational consistency of communication apprehension produced several studies that replicated the measures and procedures, hut found different results. A meta‐analysis of 17 studies was conducted to determine what conclusions are warranted given the available data. The meta‐analysis disclosed a large effect (combined z = 17.48, p < .0001) for cross‐situational consistency. The average r between trait‐CA and state/situational anxiety was .473. Further analysis of the “file drawer problem” showed that over 96 non‐significant tests must be unpublished in various file drawers to reduce the combined z to statistical non‐significance. Thus, the meta‐analysis warrants a strong claim for the cross‐situational consistency of communication apprehension
