Exploring public speaking anxiety and personal disposition in EFL presentations

Learning and Individual Differences 73 (2019) 92–101

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Exploring public speaking anxiety and personal disposition in EFL presentations

T

Brent Allan Kelsen

⁎

Language Center, National Taipei University, Taiwan

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Personality traits Public speaking anxiety Presentations Foreign language learning

Personality traits and anxiety have been acknowledged for their influence in foreign language (FL) learning situations. Moreover, research recognizes the role of personality characteristics in determining an individual's propensity towards feelings of anxiety. However, relatively few studies investigate associations between personality and anxiety in English as foreign language (EFL) settings, particularly with regard to delivering presentations. This research reports on the associations between personality traits measured via the Big Five Inventory (BFI) and perceived anxiety related to delivering presentations assessed by the Personal Report on Public Speaking (PRPSA). Exploratory factor analysis identified four public speaking anxiety factors: Positive mindset, Physical symptoms, Preparation anxiety and Performance anxiety. Employing these factors as dependent variables in multiple regression equations with personality traits as explanatory variables showed that personality variables Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness and Openness to experience were all significant predictors of public speaking anxiety − explaining 10 to 23% of the variance − contingent upon which factor was employed as the dependent variable. Personality variables were then entered into hierarchical regressions while controlling for English ability and the amount of variance explained ranged from 16 to 32%. Avenues through which this research advances our understanding and knowledge of language learning are discussed.

1. Introduction Foreign language anxiety (FLA) is a concept that has attracted the attention of educators and researchers for decades (Dewaele, 2017). It is defined as “the feeling of tension and apprehension specifically associated with second language contexts, including speaking, listening, and learning” (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994, p. 284) and has been identified as an influential variable in FL achievement (Dewaele, 2017; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; MacIntyre, 2017). It is generally believed that FLA is more intensely manifest in situations where spoken language production occurs (Dewaele, 2002; Woodrow, 2006; Young, 1990). Moreover, speaking in front of others while delivering presentations is thought to pose unique challenges to students learning FLs (Liang & Kelsen, 2018; Woodrow, 2006). Considering that presentations have become a regular feature in academic assignments and a common method of assessment in general academic and EFL settings in recent years (Kelsen & Liang, 2018; Miles, 2009; Otoshi & Heffernen, 2008), there is a need for further research on the public speaking anxiety (PSA) that arises in relation to EFL students delivering presentations. Numerous studies have pointed to the connections between the Big

⁎

Five personality traits – Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Openness to experience – and FL learning (Chamorro-Permuzic & Furnham, 2003; Dewaele & Furnham, 1999; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). In spoken situations, scholars have hypothesized that extraverts possess an advantage due to their lower arousal levels affording them the ability to maintain fluency in stressful situations (Dewaele & Furnham, 1999). Empirical studies such as Ockey (2011) in Japan and Liang and Kelsen (2018) in Taiwan have identified personality traits, and Extraversion in particular, as significant predictors of EFL learners' oral performance. Although studies regarding the influence of personality variables on FLA exist (Dewaele, 2002, 2013; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Macintyre & Thivierge, 1995), there is a lack of research investigating the effects of personality traits on PSA in EFL contexts. Accordingly, this study investigates the intersection of personality traits and public speaking anxiety in an Asian EFL environment. Specifically, it examined associations between enduring personality characteristics and public speaking anxiety. To meet this objective, quantitative data measuring personality traits (via the BFI) and perceived anxiety related to delivering presentations (via the PRPSA) from

Language Center, National Taipei University, 151 Da Xue Rd., Sanxia District, New Taipei City 23741, Taiwan. E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.05.003 Received 6 October 2018; Received in revised form 28 March 2019; Accepted 3 May 2019 1041-6080/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Learning and Individual Differences 73 (2019) 92–101

B.A. Kelsen

209 undergraduate students studying in the English for Specific Purposes program at a university in Taiwan were collected prior to their engaging in presentations. Responses to the PRPSA were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis that lead to the identification of four factors. These factors – Positive mindset, Physical symptoms, Preparation anxiety and Performance anxiety – were then employed as dependent variables in multiple regression equations with personality traits as explanatory variables. The ensuing results showed that different personality traits arose as predictors depending upon the anxiety factors assessed.

highlighted the potential existence of a link between low self-esteem and anxiety particularly in situations where oral communication is considered. Interest in FLA has not diminished over the past decade as researchers have looked to establish the associations between anxiety and numerous related variables. During this period, which MacIntyre (2017) labels the Dynamic Approach, FL scholars have looked beyond FL learning to disciplines such as linguistics, pragmatics, and psychology. For example, Dewaele, Witney, Saito, and Dewaele (2018) discuss the concept of foreign language enjoyment and its implications for anxiety in foreign language classrooms. In another study, Jin and Dewaele (2018) examined FLA and different types of classroom support along with positive orientation. They found that teacher-centered variables had little influence on tertiary students' FLA. Peer emotional support was a significant negative predictor of FLA, but this effect ceased when positive orientation entered the model suggesting that a positive inclination towards FL classrooms fosters subjective wellbeing and optimizes learning. Furthermore, the impact of positive psychology in foreign language learning has attracted considerable attention as educators have sought to understand how fostering constructive mindsets and classroom environments can generate more favorable learning outcomes (MacIntyre & Mercer, 2014; Oxford, 2017). Despite the abundance of research into FLA, numerous researchers have indicated that it remains one of the least understood affective variables in FL acquisition (Dörnyei, 2005; Şimşek & Dörnyei, 2017; Teimouri et al., 2019). In part, this relates to ambiguity surrounding its conceptualization and measurement – such as the type of anxiety being measured – leading to divergence and possible sources of variability in the results of studies on the role of anxiety in FL communication (MacIntyre, 2017; Şimşek & Dörnyei, 2017; Teimouri et al., 2019). Bearing in mind all that is yet to be understood about FLA, Horwitz (2016, 2017) appeals to researchers to consider how anxiety varies across different learner samples and conditions and emphasizes the importance of providing second language students with positive and supportive learning environments.

2. Literature review 2.1. Foreign language anxiety In general terms, FLA relates to the apprehension arising when learners are expected to perform some task in a second or foreign language, and its potential effects are both widespread among second language learners and nuanced according to various stages of language acquisition (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994). A number of recent studies have called attention to how FLA has resonated with both scholars and educators to become the most studied affective variable in FL learning over the past forty years (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Gkonou, Daubney, & Dewaele, 2017; Teimouri, Goetze, & Plonsky, 2019). Moreover, discoveries from a study conducted using neuroimaging techniques identified FLA's neural correlates, thus establishing a biological basis for this construct (Jeong et al., 2016). It is generally accepted that learning a foreign language requires sustained enthusiasm and motivation and investigations into FLA have predominantly found it to have a detrimental effect on cognitive processing, self-esteem, motivation, willingness to communicate, classroom dynamics and achievement (Gkonou et al., 2017; Horwitz, 2017; MacIntyre, 2017; Teimouri et al., 2019). In his comprehensive review, MacIntyre (2017) categorizes FLA according the Confounded, Specialized, and Dynamic Approaches he describes regarding the evolution of research on this topic. Early studies into anxiety in FL situations offered incongruous results (e.g., Scovel, 1978). MacIntyre (2017) identifies this initial period as the Confounded Approach and ascribes the contradictory results to the misplaced focus on facilitating and debilitating anxiety along with the view that some of the types of anxiety under consideration were not associated with language learning environments. Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986)'s landmark examination of FLA heralded the beginning of the Specialized Approach. Their study employed a factor analytic approach and derived three domains – Communication Apprehension, Test Anxiety and Fear of Negative Evaluation – which became known as the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). Furthermore, Horwitz (1986)'s article describing the development and validity of the FLCAS offered clear evidence of FLA as a distinct anxiety from the three general anxieties declared in Horwitz et al. (1986). The FLCAS was seen as a starting point for numerous researchers to further investigate the components of FLCA. In another influential study on FLA, Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert (1999) attempted to decipher differences between writing and speaking components of the FLCAS and conducted a principal component analysis delivering a two-component solution. The first component pointed to low self-confidence especially with respect to English-language speaking ability, whereas the second component was characterized by negative thoughts and emotions relating to English-language classroom performance anxiety. Their analysis revealed that the FLCAS and its two components negatively correlated with the English speaking performance of Taiwanese university students, and that the two components accounted for 3.97% and 4.84% of the variation in English speaking course grades. They concluded that their results pointed to the existence of individual differences in language-skill-specific anxiety, and

2.2. Public speaking anxiety Public speaking is one of the most anxiety-inducing forms of communication and is commonly expressed as one of humankind's most widespread trepidations (Dwyer & Davidson, 2012). According to McCroskey (1997), the anxiety resulting from communication “is the product of at least two interacting factors: characteristic predispositions of the individual (traits), and situational constraints on behavior at a given time (states)” (p.192). Trait anxiety is thought to be relatively unchanging and relates to one's personality, while state anxiety is more transitory and depends upon the moment. However, a further factor identified is situational anxiety, which occurs in certain situations such as when one is required to speak in class or in public (Bodie, 2010; Woodrow, 2006). PSA is regarded as a specific subtype of communication anxiety defined as “a situation specific social anxiety that arises from the real or anticipated enactment of an oral presentation” (Bodie, 2010; p. 72). It is not uncommon for students with PSA to experience distress and avoidance that impair their speaking performance and possibly undermine their social, educational and occupational performance (Bodie, 2010; Pribyl, Keaten, & Sakamoto, 2001; Shi, Brinthaupt, & McCree, 2015). Delivering presentations has been recognized as presenting unique challenges to students learning foreign languages (Woodrow, 2006). Woodrow (2006) analyzed the oral communication habits of 275 students in Australia. After developing a questionnaire to suit the English as a second language nature of the participants, she found that anxiety was a significant factor in oral language communication and that giving oral presentations was the highest rated item on the Second Language Speaking Anxiety Scale developed specifically for her study. She asserts that “giving oral presentations and performing in front of classmates 93

Learning and Individual Differences 73 (2019) 92–101

B.A. Kelsen

were the most reported stressors for in-class situations” (p. 322), while other literature continues to add that FLA, especially while speaking, is likely to be even greater for students from Confucian societies due to a combination of cultural and linguistic characteristics (Mak, 2011). In Taiwan, one of the only published studies examining PSA in an EFL setting surveyed the public speaking anxiety of college students enrolled in a public speaking course (Hsu, 2012). Exploratory factor analysis of student ratings of the PRPSA extracted six factors from the data: Positive attitudes, Emotional consequences, Physical consequences, Insufficient preparation, Feelings of helplessness, and Perfectionist. One significant finding of the study was that although females spent more time preparing for their presentations, they also reported higher PSA.

of French as second language learners and found that extraversion and FLA were negatively associated, and no significant relationship between neuroticism and foreign language learning anxiety was found. They argued that such a result may have underscored FLA as a situationspecific anxiety, in lieu of a general trait anxiety. Dewaele (2002)'s study of communication anxiety in a Belgian sample while speaking French and English revealed higher anxiety while speaking English but not French. Furthermore, in multiple regression analysis, the participants' psychoticism and extraversion ratings negatively predicted anxiety speaking English, while neuroticism positively related to anxiety. Together the personality variables explained 20% of the variation in communication anxiety while speaking English. In a more recent study, Dewaele (2013) analyzed data gathered from multilingual students at a site in the UK and another in Spain and reported a significant positive link between neuroticism and FLA, with higher scores on Psychoticism (characterized by aggressiveness and hostility) and Emotional Stability (compared to Neuroticism) corresponding with lower foreign language learning anxiety in classroom settings and spoken situations. In the case of Taiwan, Kao, Craigie, Kao and Hu (2015) studied associations between personality traits and FLCAS and EFL performance measured via an English proficiency test in 249 university students. Regression analysis revealed extraversion, neuroticism and FLA as significant predictors of English achievement, with neuroticism and FLA showing negative contributions. FLA made the largest contribution and the variables explained a larger proportion of the variation in students with low ability compared to those with high ability. However, the contribution personality traits made in predicting anxiety was not reported. A relatively recent study by Gargalianou, Muehlfeld, Urbig, and van Witteloostuijn (2016) conducted on Dutch speakers points to the necessity of speaking English as a foreign language in today's globalized business environment. The researchers test a number of hypotheses related to personality traits and FLA and observed that FLA was positively correlated with Emotionality and Conscientiousness, but negatively with Extraversion. Suggested reasons for these results comprise: Emotionality including an element of trait anxiety; Conscientious students responding more negatively and emotionally to errors, especially whilst speaking; and extroverts finding social situations less intimidating. In a review article, Dewaele (2017) suggests a number of future directions for researchers including the burgeoning area of psychology and language learning, the impact of teacher-related variables on students' anxiety levels, and the inclusion of more positive emotions such as foreign language enjoyment which can co-exist alongside anxiety and possibly mitigate its debilitating effects. He finishes by encouraging further explorations into FLA and concludes with the claim that future research would benefit from interdisciplinary investigations encompassing multiple disciplines including personality traits and psychology.

2.3. Personality and foreign language learning Today a general consensus holds regarding the universality of the Big Five personality domains Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness to experience across gender, language and culture (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008; McCrae & Terracciano, 2005; Schmidt, Realo, Voracek & Allik, 2008). These characteristics explain individual differences and contribute to the personal variation which determines attitude, temperament, intellect, motivation and learning style, and, therefore, shape not only academic achievement, but also the ability to learn other languages (Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; McCrae & John, 1992). Over the past couple of decades, numerous studies have pointed to the connections between personality traits and language learning (Dewaele, 2017; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). In situations where oral language production occurs, it is generally held that extraverts' lower arousal levels give them an advantage as the stimulation during speech episodes is less likely to surpass their optimal levels and therefore less likely to lead to lower fluency and impaired short term memory during foreign language production (Dewaele & Furnham, 1999). Such advantages are less likely to manifest during the production of written texts and taking of standardized exams. Indeed, empirical studies such as Ockey (2011) identified Extraversion as a significant predictor of oral performance among Japanese college students. Recent studies conducted in Taiwan have also uncovered meaningful associations between personality traits and language learning achievement. Using a sample of college students, Kao and Craigie (2014) discovered that certain personality traits had a significant impact on English achievement. They found that extraverted college students were more likely than their neurotic counterparts to perform better in EFL learning. Other studies have revealed a positive relationship between Extraversion and presentation performance (Kelsen & Liang, 2018; Liang & Kelsen, 2018). However, this effect diminished as language ability increased, leading them to conclude that an extraverted personality may compensate for lower English language proficiency (Liang & Kelsen, 2018). They have also revealed Extraversion and Conscientiousness as partial mediators between project work motivation for students performing group presentations and oral presentation performance (Kelsen & Liang, 2018).

3. Motivation for the study and research questions The ability to communicate effectively through oral presentations is considered an essential competency in academic and professional settings (Evans, 2013; Miles, 2009). With educators striving to adapt curriculums to prepare students for the workplace, presentations have become increasingly commonplace in classroom settings and as tools for assessment (Liang & Kelsen, 2018; Miles, 2009; Otoshi & Heffernen, 2008). As stated by MacIntyre (2017), FLA is a well-researched affective variable and our understanding continues to progress as it is studied in relation to evolving FL learning situations and experiences. However, although communication requiring oral production is generally believed to be more anxiety-inducing for students endeavoring to learn a foreign or second language (Cheng et al., 1999; Horwitz, et al., 1986; Woodrow, 2006; Young, 1991), speaking a FL during the delivery

2.4. Personality and anxiety in foreign language learning Although substantial attention has been given to the individual difference variables personality and anxiety in FL learning contexts, there are relatively few studies investigating the relationships between the two. Macintyre and Thivierge (1995) showed extraversion, emotional stability and openness to experience were significantly negatively correlated with perceived public speaking anxiety. However, as acknowledged by the authors, this study was limited in that participants reported on anxiety they imagined in various contexts rather than reporting on their anxiety resulting from real public speaking situations. In the following year, MacIntyre and Charos (1996) published a study 94

Learning and Individual Differences 73 (2019) 92–101

B.A. Kelsen

of a presentation has rarely received attention in FL literature. In a similar vein, even though the importance of personal disposition has been widely established, Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) point to a situation where personality represents “the most individual characteristic of a human being” yet is the individual difference subject to the most “curiously limited” scrutiny (p.15). Therefore, given the considerable attention that has been paid to anxiety and personality traits in FL learning and the close connection established in the extant literature, this research proposes to investigate the intersection of these two variables in a public speaking context where students were required to conduct presentations as part of their coursework. To analyze the association between personal disposition and PSA in a FL context, the present study investigated several research hypotheses and questions. A number of specific hypotheses regarding personality traits and their associations with overall PSA were formulated based upon previous research on personality traits and FLA and achievement. Extraversion is generally associated with people who are sociable and outgoing and has been found to be correlated with FLA (Dewaele, 2002, 2013; Gargalianou et al., 2016).

(74%) reported scores on the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) ranging from 505 to 980 (M = 751, SD = 96), putting them in the intermediate to advanced level of English learners. This research was conducted in accordance with relevant rules governing collection of data from human subjects mandated by the institution where the study took place and with respect to the academic ethics guidelines proposed by the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan. The surveys were prepared by an experienced research assistant, and prior to completing the questionnaires, participants were informed of the purpose of the study and instructed that there was no obligation to take part in the data collection. Students consenting to participation voluntarily completed the questionnaires with the knowledge that data was collected and stored confidentially. Participation in the study had no bearing upon presentation outcomes or course grades. 4.2. Instruments BFI-44: The BFI-44 (Benet-Martinez & John, 1998; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) is an instrument commonly used to measure the Big Five personality traits. It exhibits strong psychometric properties and convergence with other five-factor models of personality (Carciofo, Yang, Song, Du, & Zhang, 2016). The instrument measures the five personality traits on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree. The traditional Chinese version of the questionnaire was distributed via GoogleForms the week before the presentations took place. PRPSA: The Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA; McCroskey, 1970) instrument measures public speaking anxiety on a 5point Likert scale indicating 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = undecided, 4 = disagree and 5 = strongly disagree over 34-items. The PRPSA was originally used to gauge PSA in one's own language. However, to date, no questionnaire developed specifically to measure PSA in FL settings exists. Therefore, the PRPSA was utilized in the present study due to its relevance to oral presentations, high reliability, and test retest reliability (McCroskey, 1970; McCroskey, 1997), and its use in comparable FL studies (Hsu, 2012; Pribyl et al., 2001). The PRPSA questionnaire was translated from English into traditional Chinese by an assistant trained in translation and back translated into English by a colleague experienced in psychometrics and questionnaire translation. Discrepancies were checked and revised. The word ‘speech’ in the original PRPSA was replaced with the translation for ‘presentation’ to allow for better match with the spoken activity required in the current research setting. The questionnaire was distributed using GoogleForms during class before the presentations began. PRPSA scores are calculated using the three-step formula described in McCroskey (1997; p. 207). Step 1 adds the scores for items 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34. Step 2 combines the scores for items 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 and 26. Step 3 computes the final score from the formula PRPSA = 132 – Total Step 1 + Total Step 2, with a range from 34 to 170. Scores on the PRPSA are categorized as low anxiety (34–84), moderately low anxiety (85–92), moderate anxiety (93–110), moderately high anxiety (111–119) and high anxiety (120–170).

Hypothesis 1. Extraversion is associated with lower PSA. Neuroticism typically correlates with people who have lower emotional stability and therefore are more likely to display nervousness. Neuroticism has been predominantly connected with higher levels of FLA (Dewaele, 2002, 2013; Kao et al., 2015). Hypothesis 2. Neuroticism is associated with higher PSA. Conscientious people often possess the traits of being diligent, careful and deliberate. While they may generally perform well in academic situations, they may react more emotionally to mistakes and corrections in situations such as delivering presentations (Gargalianou et al., 2016). Hypothesis 3. Conscientiousness is associated with higher PSA. Openness to experience and Agreeableness have rarely been featured as having significant correlations with FLA and foreign language achievement. However, Openness to experience is connected with traits such as seeking new encounters and daring, which may be beneficial in public speaking situations. Hypothesis 4. Openness to experience is associated with lower PSA. Further, in accordance with the exploratory nature of the present study, the following research questions were investigated. Research Question 1: What are the underlying factors in FL learners' public speaking anxiety? Research Question 2: Which personality traits predict the underlying factors of FL public speaking anxiety? To answers these questions, the present study utilized the PRPSA questionnaire to collect data on EFL students' self-reported PSA with respect to delivering oral presentations required as a part of their coursework. 4. Materials and methods 4.1. Participants

5. Results

Students enrolled in English for specific purposes courses requiring students to perform presentations as partial fulfillment of their coursework in the fall semester of 2016 (3 classes) and spring (4 classes) and fall (2 classes) semesters of 2017 joined the study. In teams of three to six people, students undertook collaborative oral presentations with duration 10 to 12 min. Each student was required to engage in the preparation and delivery of the presentation, allowing for approximately 2 to 4 min for each team member to speak. Of the 268 students enrolled in the courses, 209 (78%) agreed to take part in the study and completed BFI-44 and PRSPA questionnaires. Of the participants, 154

5.1. Descriptive statistics and initial data analysis Descriptive statistics from data collected from the BFI-44 questionnaire are reported in Table 1. Exploratory data analysis found that there were no significant differences between female and male students for any of the personality trait domains. Data collected from the PRPSA and categorized by the level of anxiety are reported in Table 2. Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.96, representing a high degree of reliability among items. A Pearson Chi95

Learning and Individual Differences 73 (2019) 92–101

B.A. Kelsen

Table 1 BFI-44 descriptive statistics. Cronbach's α Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Conscientiousness Openness to experience

0.83 0.73 0.78 0.81 0.79

M

S

Skewness

3.23 3.66 3.01 3.31 3.38

0.58 0.48 0.59 0.51 0.53

squared test showed no statistically significant association between PRPSA levels and gender, χ2 (4, N = 209) = 3.86, p = .426. Table 3 presents results of ANOVA showing differences in personality traits across the different levels of anxiety. Additional results showed no significant differences in anxiety levels for students according to department, F(5, 203) = 1.1, p = .366; however, significant differences were found for students' TOEIC scores, F(4, 149) = 3.27, p < .01, with students in the low anxiety group reporting higher TOEIC scores (n = 29, M = 795, SD = 99) than those in the high anxiety group (n = 42, M = 750, SD = 96). Furthermore, female TOEIC scores (n = 85, M = 769, SD = 92) were significantly higher (t (152) = 2.64, p < .01) than those reported by males (n = 69, M = 728, SD = 97).

SE

0.23 −0.17 −0.08 0.16 −0.02

0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

Kurtosis −0.55 0.24 0.17 −0.46 0.06

SE 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34

factor correlation matrix is shown in Table 5 and represents acceptable discriminant validity of the four-factor solution. Overall and individual factor descriptive statistics are recorded in Table 6. Exploratory data analysis found no significant differences between female and male scores over the PRPSA factors except for the Preparation factor t(207) = −2.21 (p < .05) where females experienced higher anxiety (M = 3.38, SD = 0.59) than their male counterparts (M = 3.16, SD = 0.66). TOEIC scores correlated with PRPSA (r = −0.32, p < .01) and the extracted factors Positive symptoms of anxiety (r = −0.32, p < .01), Physical feelings towards presenting (r = 0.20, p < .05), Preparation anxiety (r = 0.31, p < .01) and Performance anxiety (r = 0.18, p < .01). 5.3. Correlations

5.2. Exploratory factor analysis

Correlations among variables within and between instruments are shown in Table 7. This shows that students higher in Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Openness to experience generally had more positive mindsets regarding presentations and experienced less Physical, Preparation and Performance anxiety.

A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.93 and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, χ2 (561) = 4546.19, (p < .001), revealed the data were suitable for factor analysis. To determine the number of factors to be selected, different methods were employed. The Kaiser criteria (i.e. Eigen values > 1.0) suggested a six-factor solution, examination of the scree plot indicated a four-factor solution, and parallel analysis recommended three factors (Raiche, 2010). To systematically find the most appropriate solution, three-, four-, five- and six-factor models using principal axis factoring with both orthogonal and oblique rotations of the factor loading matrix were examined. The four-factor solution using principal axis factoring with a Promax rotation to allow for correlation among factors was preferred because of the ease of interpretability of the factors as compared to when other factor models and rotations were applied. Factor loadings > 0.4 and communality > 0.4 were used as selection benchmarks; and for items that loaded onto two factors (i.e. both loadings > 0.4), first the size of the loading was considered as a selection criteria, and the item was retained only if the cross-loading difference was > 0.2 (Howard, 2016). The four factors extracted explained 58% of the variance in PRPSA and are displayed in Table 4. Factors were calculated using the factor loadings resulting from the four-factor solution and computing weighted averages to align the factors to the same range as those of the personality trait variables. The

5.4. Regression analysis 5.4.1. Linear multiple regressions Residual plots assured that assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity and independence of residuals held. Cook's distance ranged from 0 to 0.12 showing that no cases would unduly bias any of the regression models. Average variance inflation factor (VIF) for the regressors was 1.37 indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern for the independent variables used in this analysis. Table 8 exhibits results of multiple regressions employing personality traits as predictor variables and measures of public speaking anxiety as response variables. The regressions show that the predictors of anxiety depended on the type of anxiety predicted. Anxiety, as measured by the PRPSA, was negatively associated with Extraversion and positively with Neuroticism, F(5, 203) = 11.95, p < .001, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) [−15.54, −4.3] and [2.06, 13.0]. Positive feelings towards presenting were significantly associated with Extraversion and

Table 2 Distribution of student PRPSA scores. PRPSA level Female

Male

Total

Count % Gender % PRPSA % Total Count % Gender % PRPSA % Total Count % Gender % PRPSA % Total

Low (34–84)

Moderately low (85–92)

Moderate (93–110)

Moderately high (111–119)

High (120–170)

Total

18 14.5 50.0 8.6 18 21.2 50.0 8.6 36 17.2 100.0 17.2

9 7.3 64.3 4.3 5 5.9 35.7 2.4 14 6.7 100.0 6.7

46 37.1 56.1 22.0 36 42.4 43.9 17.2 82 39.2 100.0 39.2

16 12.9 72.7 7.7 6 7.1 27.3 2.9 22 10.5 100.0 10.5

35 28.2 63.6 16.7 20 23.5 36.4 9.6 55 26.3 100.0 26.3

124 100.0 59.3 59.3 85 100.0 40.7 40.7 209 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: % PRPSA = percentage within the PRPSA level. 96

Learning and Individual Differences 73 (2019) 92–101

B.A. Kelsen

Table 3 ANOVA results for personality traits and anxiety levels. PRPSA level Count

Low (1)

Moderately low (2)

Moderate (3)

Moderately high (4)

High (5)

Total

MSE

F

p

Post-hoc

1,2 > 3,4,5

36

14

82

22

55

209

Extraversion M SD

3.69 0.50

3.64 0.54

3.20 0.50

2.93 0.48

3.00 0.57

3.23 0.58

3.77

14.12

< 0.001

Agreeableness M SD

3.73 0.49

3.69 0.50

3.62 0.44

3.57 0.50

3.71 0.53

3.66 0.48

0.18

0.78

0.54

Neuroticism M SD

2.58 0.60

2.88 0.55

3.02 0.55

3.19 0.40

3.23 0.59

3.01 0.59

2.61

8.47

< 0.001

1 < 3,4,5

Conscientiousness M 3.57 SD 0.51

3.26 0.43

3.35 0.45

3.14 0.45

3.16 0.56

3.31 0.51

1.09

4.51

0.002

1 > 4,5

Openness M SD

3.59 0.51

3.41 0.48

3.20 0.46

3.25 0.56

3.38 0.53

0.72

2.66

0.034

3.50 0.58

Note: Post-hoc is Bonferroni adjusted statistic. MSE = Mean square error between groups; Openness = Openness to experience.

Conscientiousness, F(5, 203) = 7.42, p < .001, 95%CIs [−0.41, −0.04] and [−0.39, −0.04]. Here it must be noted that due to the method employed in the PRPSA questionnaire, with 1 corresponding to strongly agree and 5 to strongly disagree, the result for the first factor shows that higher scores for Extraversion and Conscientiousness resulted in more favorable ratings of the items comprising the Positive factor. For the other factors: Physical symptoms of anxiety were lower in extraverts, F(5, 203) = 5.62, p < .001, 95%CI [0.08, 0.50];

Table 5 Factor correlation matrix. Factor

1

2

3

2 3 4

−0.54 −0.63 −0.51

0.63 0.56

0.52

Table 4 Four-factor solution: Items, factors, communality and variance explained. PRPSA factors and items

F1

Factor 1: Positive mindset 15. I face the prospect of giving a speech with confidence. 16. I feel that I am in complete possession of myself while giving a speech. 8. I look forward to giving a speech. 17. My mind is clear when giving a speech. 24. While giving a speech I know I can control my feelings of tension and stress. 4. Right after giving a speech I feel that I have had a pleasant experience. 12. I enjoy preparing for a speech. 7. Although I am nervous just before starting a speech, I soon settle down after starting and feel calm and comfortable.

0.77 0.75 0.69 0.65 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.43

Factor 2: Physical effects 20. My heart beats very fast just as I start a speech. 32. My heart beats very fast while I present a speech. 33. I feel anxious while waiting to give my speech. 22. Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a speech. 25. I breathe faster just before starting a speech.

F2

F3

F4

0.68 0.72 0.58 0.63 0.54 0.42 0.57 0.57 0.83 0.80 0.62 0.56 0.52

Factor 3: Preparation anxiety (anticipation) 2. I feel tense when I see the words speech and public speech on a course outline when studying. 9. When the instructor announces a speaking assignment in class, I can feel myself getting tense. 6. I have no fear of giving a speech. 1. While preparing for giving a speech, I feel tense and nervous. 14. I get anxious if someone asks me something about my topic that I do not know. 5. I get anxious when I think about a speech coming up. 26. I feel comfortable and relaxed in the hour or so just before giving a speech.

0.61 0.58 0.76 0.64 0.55 0.81 0.68 −0.63 0.62 0.59 0.59 −0.58

Factor 4: Performance anxiety (regulation) 31. I have trouble falling asleep the night before a speech. 34. While giving a speech I get so nervous I forget facts I really know. 19. I perspire just before starting a speech. 30. During an important speech I experience a feeling of helplessness building up inside me. 29. When I make a mistake while giving a speech, I find it hard to concentrate on the parts that follow. Eigenvalue Variance explained by factor Cumulative variance explained by factors

0.77 0.69 0.66 0.65 0.42 0.70 0.52 0.71 0.60 0.56 0.48 0.46

14.14 41.60 41.60

h2

2.43 7.13 48.73

1.95 5.74 54.48

0.56 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.49

1.36 4.01 58.49

Note: h2 denotes item communality; F1, F2, F3 and F4 represent the four extracted factors. Items 3, 10, 11, 13, 18, 21, 23, 27, 28 were not assigned factors due to their factor loadings being lower than 0.4. 97

Learning and Individual Differences 73 (2019) 92–101

B.A. Kelsen

Table 6 PRPSA overall and factor descriptive statistics. Cronbach's α PRPSA Positive Physical Preparation Performance

0.96 0.87 0.86 0.88 0.81

M

SD

105.21 2.97 2.65 2.66 3.47

20.83 0.65 0.75 0.77 0.74

Table 8 Multiple regression analysis of personality traits as predictors of PRPSA.

Skewness −0.10 0.46 0.30 0.41 −0.34

SE

Kurtosis

0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

0.51 0.23 0.13 −0.01 0.31

SE

Variable

Predictor

B

SE B

Beta

t

Adj R2

0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34

PRPSA

Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Conscientious Openness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Conscientious Openness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Conscientious Openness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Conscientious Openness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Conscientious Openness

−9.92 3.81 7.53 −4.33 −2.85 −0.23 0.07 0.12 −0.22 −0.13 0.29 −0.10 −0.18 0.15 −0.05 0.41 −0.19 −0.30 −0.00 0.20 0.16 −0.01 −0.27 0.21 −0.04

2.85 2.92 2.78 2.73 2.64 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10

−0.28 0.09 0.22 −0.11 −0.07 −0.20 0.05 0.11 −0.17 −0.11 0.23 −0.07 −0.145 0.10 −0.035 0.31 −0.12 −0.23 −0.00 0.14 0.13 −0.01 −0.22 0.15 −0.03

−3.48⁎⁎ 1.30 2.71⁎⁎ −1.59 −1.08 −2.44⁎ 0.77 1.27 −2.41⁎ −1.53 2.67⁎ −0.93 −1.72 1.39 −0.49 3.97⁎⁎⁎ −1.74 −2.95⁎⁎ −0.02 2.07⁎ 1.50 −0.12 −2.64⁎⁎ 2.09⁎ −0.41

0.21

Positive

Note: The anxiety factors are weighted averages according to factor loadings.

Preparation anxiety was lower in those with higher scores for Extraversion and Openness to experience, yet higher for those scoring higher on the Neuroticism scale, F(2, 203) = 13.57, p < .001, 95%CIs [0.21, 0.62], [0.01, 0.39] and [−0.5, −0.1]; and Performance anxiety was elevated for those with higher ratings of Neuroticism and lower for those rating higher in Conscientiousness, F(5, 208) = 6.62, p < .001, 95%CIs [−0.48, −0.07] and [0.01, 0.41].

Physical

Preparation

5.4.2. Linear hierarchical regressions Table 9 displays results of hierarchical regressions controlling for the influence of TOEIC in Step 1 and using the significant personality trait predictors from the initial multiple regression analysis in Step 2. TOEIC is employed as a control variable here as it is a covariate often utilized in personality, FLA and PSA studies (Liang & Kelsen, 2018; Matsuda & Gobel, 2004; Pribyl et al., 2001). Additionally, in this study TOEIC revealed significant correlations with all of the anxiety factors extracted in the factor analysis. These results show us that the first step of the regression explained 10% of the variation in PRPSA scores, F(1, 152) = 17.41, p < .001, 95%CI [−0.11, −0.04], and indicate that higher TOEIC scores were linked to lower scores on the PRPSA. With the addition of the personality predictor variables in the second step, the amount of variation explained increased to 32%, F(3, 150) = 24.86, p < .001, 95%CI [−0.08, −0.02]. Therefore, Extraversion and Neuroticism explained a further 22% of the variation, F(3, 150) = 25.71, p < .001, 95%CIs [−19.96, −8.4] and [0.15, 11.2], with higher Extraversion predicting lower PRPSA and Neuroticism predicting higher PRPSA scores. Looking at the individual factors, for the Positive factor, the addition of Extraversion and Conscientiousness in the second step lead to the regression equation explaining 25% of the variation, F(3, 150) = 18.05, p < .001, 95%CIs [−0.53, −0.2] and [−0.41, −0.03], with higher Extraversion and Conscientiousness predicting higher Positive feelings towards presenting. For the Physical anxiety factor, the addition of Extraversion explained a total of 17% of the variation, F(2, 151) = 15.58, p < .001, 95%CI [0.29, 0.68], and indicates that higher ratings for Extraversion predicted lower Physical anxiety. For the Preparation factor, the addition of the personality variables Extraversion, Neuroticism and Openness to experience helped explain 31% of the variation, F(4, 149) = 17.99, p < .001, 95%CIs [0.19, 0.66], [−0.42,-0.00] and [0.03, 0.45], with higher Extraversion and Openness to experience predicting lower Preparation anxiety and higher Neuroticism predicting higher Preparation anxiety. For the

Performance

0.13

0.10

0.23

0.12

Note: Openness = Openness to experience. ⁎ p-value < .05. ⁎⁎ p-value < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p-value < .001.

Performance anxiety factor, the addition of the variables Neuroticism and Conscientiousness in step two lead to the model explaining 16% of the variation, F(3, 150) = 10.05, p < .001, 95%CIs [−0.55, −0.17] and [0.00, 0.46], with higher Neuroticism indicating higher Performance anxiety and higher ratings for Conscientiousness predicting lower Performance anxiety. As a result of the association between Performance anxiety and Gender mentioned earlier, Gender was introduced as a control variable along with TOEIC and reported significant coefficients (B = 0.39, SE = 0.11, Beta = 0.24, t = 3.63, p < .001) with variance explained increasing from 15% to 36%, F(5, 148) = 18.2, p < .001), 95%CI [0.18, 0.60]. 6. Discussion This study sought to uncover the elements of public speaking anxiety and examine the role of personality traits in predicting these public speaking anxiety factors in an EFL context. Overall, average PRPSA scores (M = 105.21, SD = 20.83) and distributions among PRPSA levels were lower than those reported in other studies (McCroskey, 1970; Pribyly et al., 2001) yet close to McCroskey (1970)'s “hypothetical neutral position” of 102 (p. 276). Reasons for this relatively low level of ratings on the PRPSA may relate to the general high English language ability of the students in the courses, students

Table 7 Personality trait and anxiety correlations.

PRPSA Positive Physical Preparation Performance

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Neuroticism

Conscientiousness

Openness

−0.43 −0.34⁎⁎ 0.31⁎⁎ 0.45⁎⁎ 0.27⁎⁎

−0.07 −0.06 0.05 0.03 0.13

0.36 0.24⁎⁎ −0.27⁎⁎ −0.35⁎⁎ −0.33⁎⁎

−0.24 −0.26⁎⁎ 0.19⁎⁎ 0.15⁎ 0.25⁎⁎

−0.18⁎⁎ −0.19⁎⁎ 0.05 0.25⁎⁎ 0.03

⁎⁎

⁎⁎

Note: Values are Pearson's correlations. Openness = Openness to experience. ⁎ p-value < .05. ⁎⁎ p-value < .01. 98

⁎⁎

Learning and Individual Differences 73 (2019) 92–101

B.A. Kelsen

explained by the predictors increasing to between 16 and 32%. Examining the results of multiple regressions in more detail, Total anxiety was significantly predicted by Extraversion and Neuroticism. This result showed that a higher score on Extraversion lead to lower levels of anxiety, while higher Neuroticism lead to higher anxiety. For the most part, these findings corroborate those of previous research (Dewaele, 2002, 2013; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Macintyre & Thivierge, 1995) and support efforts to bolster general English ability as a possible method of lowering PSA. Scholars have written extensively on how anxiety affects FL learners and discussed at length approaches to mitigate its effects. Oxford (2017), for example, notes that both traditional and positive psychology offer numerous interventions to deal with and overcome some of the sources of FLA (e.g., relaxation, cognitive therapies and modelling, exposure, social skills and assertiveness training, hope-based interventions, problem solving, humor, optimism and realistic goal setting). Moreover, Pribyl et al. (2001) suggest some of the most popular conventional methods aimed at reducing PSA such as skills-based training, anxiety reduction techniques, and cognitive interventions. Many of these techniques may be particularly useful for public speaking situations FL students are likely to encounter and selected according to the type of PSA being targeted. Positive attitude towards presenting constituted the most significant of the anxiety factors and was predicted by Extraversion and Conscientiousness, signifying that self-confident, outgoing and diligent students possessed more positive feelings towards presenting, thus supporting the contention that extraverts are more likely to possess the advantage in communication situations requiring oral speech production and corroborating findings of aforementioned research (Dewaele, 2013; Dewaele & Furnham, 1999; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). The importance of harnessing positivity through encouragement and support and its benefits to EFL learners has gained increased recognition in FLA literature (e.g., Jin & Dewaele, 2018) as language educators have become “aware of the importance of improving individual learners' experiences of language learning by helping them to develop and maintain their motivation, perseverance, and resiliency, as well as positive emotions necessary for the long-term undertaking of learning a foreign language” (MacIntyre & Mercer, 2014, p. 156). As noted in current publications (e.g., Jin & Dewaele, 2018; Oxford, 2017), negative emotions rarely exist alone, and it has thus been suggested that educators attempt to highlight the positive emotions, such as curiosity, enjoyment, and hope, that likely co-occur with anxiety. In addition, Dörnyei (2005) offers ideal selves, which “give form, meaning, structure, and direction to one's hopes and threats, thereby inciting and directing purposeful behavior,” (p. 100) as an opportunity for FL learners to conceptualize a positive image of themselves as they strive to achieve their goals. Further to this end, hope-based interventions, humor and optimism, and realistic goal setting have potential for establishing Positive mindsets towards presenting. Physical anxiety was predicted by Extraversion, with extraverts displaying lower levels of anxiety. It has been hypothesized that extraverts will likely cope with stress and perform better in situations where oral communication is required due to their lower tendency towards agitation making them less prone to disfluency, and thus allowing them to more readily access short-term memory (Dewaele & Furnham, 1999). Research suggests systematic desensitization shows promise in reducing somatic symptoms through graduated exposure to public speaking situations (Bodie, 2010). Additionally, measures such as relaxation and breathing techniques along with interventions to reduce negative self-talk and perceptions could be used to enhance composure and reduce the incidence and effects of Physical anxiety. Preparation anxiety was predicted by Extraversion, Neuroticism and Openness to experience. With the inclusion of Gender as a control variable for Preparation anxiety, the amount of variance explained increased to 36%. The results suggest that extraverts (outgoing, assertive and social) and those high in intellect, analytical ability and creativity

Table 9 Hierarchical regressions. Variable

Predictor

PRPSA

Step 1 TOEIC Step 2 TOEIC Extraversion Neuroticism Step 1 TOEIC Step 2 TOEIC Extraversion Conscientious Step 1 TOEIC Step 2 TOEIC Extraversion Step 1 TOEIC Step 2 TOEIC Extraversion Neuroticism Openness Step 1 TOEIC Step 2 TOEIC Neuroticism Conscientious

Positive

Physical

Preparation

Performance

B

SE B

Beta

t

Δ AdjR2

−0.07

0.02

−0.321

−4.18⁎⁎⁎

0.10

−0.05 −14.18 5.68

0.015 2.92 2.79

−0.223 −0.38 0.16

−3.27⁎⁎ −4.85⁎⁎⁎ 2.03⁎

0.22

−0.002

0.00

−0.32

−4.21⁎⁎⁎

0.10

−0.00 −0.36 −0.22

0.00 0.08 0.10

−0.26 −0.33 −0.17

−3.60 −4.38⁎⁎⁎ −2.30⁎

0.15

0.00

0.00

0.20

2.57⁎

0.04

0.00 0.48

0.00 0.10

0.14 0.37

1.85 4.86⁎⁎⁎

0.13

0.00

0.00

0.31

4.02⁎⁎⁎

0.09

0.00 0.42 −0.21 0.24

0.00 0.12 0.11 0.11

0.22 0.31 −0.16 0.16

3.12⁎⁎ 3.58⁎⁎⁎ −2.01⁎ 2.22⁎

0.22

0.00

0.00

0.18

2.20⁎

0.03

0.00 −0.36 0.23

0.00 0.10 0.12

0.11 −0.30 0.16

1.48 −3.77⁎⁎⁎ 2.01⁎

0.13

⁎⁎⁎

Note: ⁎ p-value < .05. ⁎⁎ p-value < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p-value < .001.

undertaking the presentations collaboratively, and the fact that these students enrolled in the courses knowing they required several presentations as part of the class assessment. Furthermore, no difference was revealed for PRPSA ratings among female and male students, possibly attributable to females relatively higher TOEIC scores. As far as the four hypotheses were concerned, Extraversion was associated with lower PSA (Hypothesis 1), Neuroticism was associated with higher PSA (Hypothesis 2), Conscientiousness was associated with lower PSA (Hypothesis 3), and Openness to experience was associated with lower PSA (Hypothesis 4), as shown by the correlation coefficients reported in Table 7. Therefore, three of the four Hypotheses (1, 2 and 4) held as expected. However, when regression analysis was conducted, only Extraversion and Neuroticism significantly predicted PSA as hypothesized, indicating the robustness of the connections between these personality domains and PSA. Once the underlying factor structure of the data was extracted, more nuanced connections between personality traits and the PSA factors appeared. With regard to research question one, exploratory factor analysis was conducted to extract the principal axis structure from the data sample. This lead to the emergence of four PSA factors in order of the amount of variance they explained in the PRPSA: Positive mindset, Physical anxiety, Preparation anxiety and Performance anxiety. These PSA factors cumulatively explained over 58% of the variance in PSA, showed good internal consistency and discriminant validity, and held relatively constant across Gender. In response to research question two, personality traits were entered into regression equations as predictors of the extracted PSA variables. Personality traits alone explained 10 to 23% of the variance in the various components of anxiety. Following this, significant personality variables were entered into hierarchical regression equations after controlling for English ability (TOEIC) with the percentage of variance 99

Learning and Individual Differences 73 (2019) 92–101

B.A. Kelsen

(openness) may be more likely to function well during the preparation stages and accomplish preparation goals, while those low in emotional stability may not achieve the desired outcomes at this stage and to some extent correspond with those of previous studies (Dewaele, 2013; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). Developing skills related to analyzing, planning, researching topics, and managing projects related to presentations may also offer avenues for contextual coaching and could be particularly useful for assisting the preparatory process, enhancing group cohesion and teamwork, and alleviating Preparation anxiety (Bankowski, 2010, Hunter, Westwick, & Haleta, 2014; Kelsen & Liang, 2018). Furthermore, facilitating in-class preparation and allocating time for rehearsal during the preparatory stage may assist in alleviating anxiety and enhancing team presentation performance (Liang & Kelsen, 2018). Performance anxiety was predicted negatively by Neuroticism and positively by Conscientiousness. Pribyl et al. (2001) found that a skillsbased presentation training program for Japanese EFL students significantly reduced students' public speaking anxiety, especially for those in the highest anxiety group, and made a case for considering a combination of approaches such as systematic desensitization and cognitive interventions along with skills training to moderate Performance anxiety. Paralinguistic instruction, including speech regulation, pitch and rhythm, together with body language and gesture instruction may foster delivery confidence, while including learners in presentation goal setting and grading criteria can be employed to stimulate participation and performance in presentations (Bankowski, 2010; Liang & Kelsen, 2018; Otoshi & Heffernen, 2008). Moreover, technology such as virtual reality may provide an alternative method of overcoming the Performance anxiety associated with PSA (Pertaub, Slater, & Barker, 2002).

examine associations between personality traits and PSA. Second, it set out to identify the underlying factors of PSA and assess the connections between personality traits and these components. The results indicated that Extraversion and Openness to experience were associated with lower levels of PSA, while Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were associated with higher levels of PSA. Furthermore, factor analysis extracted four significant factors representing PSA, suggesting that the items of the PRPSA represent a multidimensional construct with distinctive anxiety factors. Each construct was predicted by distinct individual or combinations of personality traits. Thus, this study offers insight not only into the underlying factor structure of PSA in a group of tertiary-level EFL learners but also into the associated personality attributes. Finally, this study hopes to encourage further research into PSA with a view to assisting FL learners to overcome their anxieties and promoting positive attitudes towards speaking in public and delivering effective oral presentations. References Bankowski, E. (2010). Developing skills for effective academic presentations in EAP. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 187–196. Bodie, G. D. (2010). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts: Defining, explaining, and treating public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 59(1), 70–105. Carciofo, R., Yang, J., Song, N., Du, F., & Zhang, K. (2016). Psychometric evaluation of Chinese-language 44-item and 10-item big five personality inventories, including correlations with chronotype, mindfulness and mind wandering. PLoS One, 11(2), e0149963. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149963. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 319–338. Cheng, Y. S., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3), 417–446. Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Psychological and sociodemographic correlates of communicative anxiety in L2 and L3 production. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(1), 23–38. Dewaele, J.-M. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety and psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism among adult bi-and multilinguals. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 670–684. Dewaele, J.-M. (2017). Psychological dimensions and foreign language anxiety. In S. Loewen, & M. Sato (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 433–450). London: Routledge. Dewaele, J.-M., & Furnham, A. (1999). Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning, 49(3), 509–544. Dewaele, J.-M., Witney, J., Saito, K., & Dewaele, L. (2018). Foreign language enjoyment and anxiety: The effect of teacher and learner variables. Language Teaching Research, 22(6), 676–697. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Routledge. Dwyer, K. K., & Davidson, M. M. (2012). Is public speaking really more feared than death? Communication Research Reports, 29(2), 99–107. Evans, S. (2013). “Just wanna give you guys a bit of an update”: Insider perspectives on business presentations in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 32(4), 195–207. Gargalianou, V., Muehlfeld, K., Urbig, D., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2016). Foreign language anxiety in professional contexts. Schmalenbach Business Review, 17(2), 195–223. Gkonou, C., Daubney, M., & Dewaele, J.-M. (Eds.). (2017). New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Horwitz, E. K. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a Foreign Language Anxiety Scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 559–562. Horwitz, E. K. (2016). Factor structure of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale: Comment on Park (2014). Psychological Reports, 119(1), 71–76. Horwitz, E. K. (2017). On the misreading of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) and the need to balance anxiety research and the experiences of anxious language learners. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M Dewaele (Eds.). New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 31–47). Bristol, UK: Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. Howard, M. C. (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51–62. Hsu, T. C. (2012). A study on the EFL students' speech related anxiety in Taiwan. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 1(2), 3–18. Hunter, K. M., Westwick, J. N., & Haleta, L. L. (2014). Assessing success: The impacts of a fundamentals of speech course on decreasing public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 63(2), 124–135. Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Suzuki, W., Sassa, Y., Hashizume, H., & Kawashima, R. (2016). Neural correlates of second-language communication and the effect of language

6.1. Limitations and directions for future study Although this investigation presents a new look at the relationship between personality traits and PSA, it is not without shortcomings. First, the study was conducted on university students with intermediate- to advanced- level English ability. Studies with different age and ability groups may provide contrasting outcomes. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the study tempers the formulation of causal interpretations. An additional constraint was that the study was exploratory and lacked an experimental or quasi-experimental methodology. Finally, the metric used was not specifically designed for FL situations and potentially fails to register some items pertinent to FL settings. Nevertheless, while completing the PRPSA questionnaire students were aware that the items related to their perceptions of PSA relating to the presentation they were about to deliver in English. In light of these limitations, the conclusions concerning pedagogical implications should be interpreted with prudence. Future research might overcome these constraints and extend the existing literature by designing study protocols with longitudinal dimensions and investigating different intervention types to gauge their effectiveness in regulating the distinct factors of public speaking anxiety identified here. Moreover, further studies employing additional measures of general or FL anxiety would add to our understanding of PSA and how it corresponds to anxiety over public speaking in a broader sense, anxiety speaking a foreign language in general, and anxiety related to publicly speaking a FL specifically. Qualitative investigations employing interviews could allow researchers to more accurately identify the foundations of PSA in EFL students and more fully appreciate which strategies could be utilized to overcome this anxiety. Another fruitful direction for research may lie in revisiting and refining the PRPSA to render it more fitting for FL contexts. 7. Conclusion The aims of the present study were twofold. First, it sought to 100

Learning and Individual Differences 73 (2019) 92–101

B.A. Kelsen anxiety. Neuropsychologia, 84, e2-e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia. 2016.02.012. Jin, Y. X., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). The effect of positive orientation and perceived social support on foreign language classroom anxiety. System, 74, 149–157. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory - versions 4a and 5a. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 3(2), 114–158. Kao, P. C., & Craigie, P. (2014). Effects of English usage on Facebook and personality traits on achievement of students learning English as a foreign language. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(1), 17–24. Kao, P. C., Craigie, P., Kao, P. L., & Hu, C. S. (2015). Analyzing the predictive power of foreign language learning anxiety and personality traits on the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) achievement in university students. STUST Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 13, 79–109. Kelsen, B. & Liang, H.Y. (2018). Role of the big five personality traits and motivation in predicting performance in collaborative presentations. Psychological Reports. https://doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118795139. Liang, H. Y., & Kelsen, B. (2018). Influence of personality and motivation on oral presentation performance. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(4), 755–776. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9551-6. MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its development. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.). New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11–30). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3–26. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283–305. MacIntyre, P. D., & Mercer, S. (2014). Introducing positive psychology to SLA. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 153–172. Macintyre, P. D., & Thivierge, K. A. (1995). The effects of speaker personality on anticipated reactions to public speaking. Communication Research Reports, 12(2), 125–133. Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System, 39(2), 202–214. Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign language classroom. System, 32(1), 21–36. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate

personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 407–425. McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37(4), 269–277. McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Self-report measurement. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 191–216). (2nd ed.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Miles, R. (2009). Oral presentations for English proficiency purposes. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 8(2), 103–110. Ockey, G. (2011). Self-consciousness and assertiveness as explanatory variables of L2 oral ability: A latent variable approach. Language Learning, 61(3), 968–989. Otoshi, J., & Heffernen, N. (2008). Factors predicting effective oral presentations in EFL classrooms. Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 65–78. Oxford, R. L. (2017). Anxious language learners can change their minds: Ideas and strategies from traditional psychology and positive psychology. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.). New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 179–199). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pertaub, D. P., Slater, M., & Barker, C. (2002). An experiment on public speaking anxiety in response to three different types of virtual audience. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 11(1), 68–78. Pribyl, C. B., Keaten, J., & Sakamoto, M. (2001). The effectiveness of a skills-based program in reducing public speaking anxiety. Japanese Psychological Research, 43(3), 148–155. Raiche, G. (2010). nFactors: An R package for parallel analysis and non graphical solutions to the Cattell Scree Test. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nFactors. Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168–182. Shi, X., Brinthaupt, T. M., & McCree, M. (2015). The relationship of self-talk frequency to communication apprehension and public speaking anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 125–129. Şimşek, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2017). Anxiety and L2 self-images: The ‘anxious self’. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.). New insights into language anxiety theory, research and educational implications (pp. 51–69). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning, 1–25. Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal, 37(3), 308–328. Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students' perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23(6), 539–553. Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low anxiety classroom environment: What does anxiety research suggest? Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 426–438.

101