"Imagine All The

Article
Imagination, Cognition and

Personality: Consciousness in
“Imagine All the Theory, Research, and Clinical
Practice
People”: Imagined 0(0) 1–34
! The Author(s) 2020
Interactions in Virtual Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Reality When Public DOI: 10.1177/0276236620938310

journals.sagepub.com/home/ica
Speaking
Leah E. LeFebvre1,*,
Luke LeFebvre2,*, and Mike Allen3
Abstract
This study explores the relationship between public speaking anxiety (PSA) and
Imaginary Interactions (IIs). Participants (N ¼ 17) were recruited from the multi-
section departmental introductory public speaking course. Virtual reality (VR) as a
potential form of II treatment for PSA blurs the reality between imagined and actual
interactions. This study utilized a sequential explanatory approach to examine infer-
ential and descriptive findings. The inferential investigation employed a four-stage
design requiring participants to complete pre-test PSA and post-test assessments
before and after VR simulations, exploring II functions and attributions. The follow-
up descriptive analysis expanded and generated new understanding for the complex-
ities of II through participants’ experiences using directed content analysis. Utilizing
VR as an extension of IIs highlighted the rehearsal function, and variations in attri-
butions for discrepancy and specificity between VR realism and artificial simulated
perceptions. The implications suggest that VR provides students in public speaking
1
Department of Communication Studies, University of Alabama
2
School of Information Science, University of Kentucky
3
Department of Communication, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
*These authors have contributed equally to this article.
Corresponding Author:
Leah E. LeFebvre, Department of Communication Studies, University of Alabama, 210-J Reese Phifer Hall,
Box 870172, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, United States.
Email: leahlefebvre@gmail.com
2 Imagination, Cognition and Personality
environments a treatment mechanism that minimizes the cognitive strain to imagine

the scene and setting of the situation, while simultaneously providing assistance in
PSA reduction.
Keywords
public speaking anxiety, imagined interactions, visual imagery, virtual reality, interven-
tion treatment, introductory communication course
“Imagine All the People”1: Imagined Interactions in Virtual

Reality When Public Speaking
A barrier for many students participating in the introductory communication
course—and everyone who must speak publicly—is public speaking anxiety
(PSA). PSA describes the most heavily examined and researched communication
constructs (1909 to present) by the discipline of communication
studies (McCroskey et al., 2014). Estimates suggest as many as 80% of the
population experience context-based communication apprehension—with over
70% related to the specific context of public speaking (see Faravelli et al., 2000;
Richmond et al., 2013). Beebe (2013) estimated that 1.3 million students
enroll each year in public speaking courses, translating into as many as
910,000 students experiencing anxiety. A major challenge for students involves
learning to manage the anxiety associated with the speaking context. Most clas-
ses recommend students practice a speech to reduce the anxiety levels about the
upcoming event.
Virtual reality (VR) offers a potential alternative intervention treatment to
help students overcome PSA when developing public speaking skills by increas-
ing the value of the practice speech. Groups of students seldom gather outside of
class to rehearse for a presentation and most classes lack the available time to
rehearse the entire presentation for each and every student. Students are
expected to practice the presentation alone or speaking to perhaps to a friend
or family member. The realism of IIs becomes more realistic and immersive for
the speaker with the use of virtual reality technology.2 The current study
employs a sequential explanatory approach through mixed methods to assess
the relationship between PSA and IIs through the use of VR. Specifically, how
may an emergent technology blur the reality between imagined and actual inter-
actions. VR provides students a treatment mechanism to: (1) minimize the cog-
nitive strain to imagine the scene and setting of the situation during the II of
practice speaking while (2) simultaneously providing assistance to reduce PSA
by increasing the effectiveness of IIs.
LeFebvre et al. 3
Oral Communication Competency

The university-level introductory communication course is a higher education
core curricular program that provides a platform to cultivate communication
competence and critical thinking skills (LeFebvre, 2017). Furthermore, the vast
majority of introductory communication courses focus instruction around
public speaking skill acquisition (87.8%; Morreale et al., 2010,2016) due to
the interconnection of oral communication competency to academic, personal,
and professional success (Bourhis & Allen, 1992; Morreale & Pearson, 2008;
National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2016; National Postdoctoral
Association, 2009).
Conventionally, introductory public speaking courses require four speeches
per semester (LeFebvre & LeFebvre, 2019). These speeches are delivered to an
audience and require students to learn how to
choose and narrow a topic; determine a thesis and main points; analyze and adapt
to an audience; gather information by conducting research; employ supporting
materials soundly, clearly, and persuasively; organize ideas strategically for a spe-
cific audience and occasion; use language accurately, clearly, vividly, and appro-
priately; and demonstrate verbal and nonverbal congruence as to deliver a message
fluently and convincingly. (Lucas, 1999, p. 76)
A principal obstacle for success in the public speaking course remains the asso-
ciated and anticipated fear of public speaking by students. Imagine the challenge
of attempting to accomplish presentational tasks while terrified of speaking.
This type of social anxiety is known as “stage fright” or public speaking anxiety
(PSA; Schlenker & Leary, 1982). The distinguishing characteristic of PSA
involves the presence of an audience and expectations tied to public speaking
designate a situation-specific anxiety (Clevenger, 1984). As a result, PSA oper-
ates as an obstacle to student learning that requires the introductory communi-
cation course (Greene & Sparks, 1983a, 1983b) to function as the primary
mechanism at institutions of higher education to train learners to appropriately
manage the anxiety for effective communicative or social interaction
(Bodie, 2010).
Public Speaking Anxiety

PSA stimulates excessive physiological arousal and/or negative cognitive
thoughts related to the expectation or actual presentation (Daly et al., 1997).
The experience of PSA generates long-term negative emotional, cognitive, and
behavioral ramifications (Behnke & Sawyer, 1999; Sawyer & Behnke, 1997)
increasing avoidance or withdrawal from communicative interaction (Allen &
Bourhis, 1996; McCroskey & Beatty, 1984; Richmond et al., 2013). PSA
becomes experienced in a particular situation and at a particular time, operating
as a context-based fear (Bodie, 2010; McCroskey, 1984). The occurrence of PSA
becomes a reaction to the anticipated or real performance required for an oral
presentation (McCroskey, 1970).
Reducing PSA usually addresses the emotional (systematic desensitization),
cognitive (cognitive modification), or behavioral (skills training) elements of the
task. Systematic desensitization (SD) changes the association by reducing the
sensations and activating the relaxation response with the speaking situation
(Benson & Klipper, 2000; Paul, 1966). Cognitive modification (CM) focuses on
altering the beliefs of the speaker about the event to permit success for speech-
making (Ayers, 1988, 1992; Motley, 1990). Skills training (ST) assumes skill
deficiency(s) that impedes competent speaking or presentational skills. The
three techniques may be combined with a person experiencing three dual com-
binations (SD þ CM, SD þ ST, CM þ ST) or a triple combination
(SD þ CM þ ST) of approaches. Meta-analytic research (Allen et al., 1989)
and subsequent studies (Whitworth & Cochran, 1996) identified three individual
and four combinatorial methods for reducing PSA: (1) SD, (2) CM, (3) ST, (4)
CM þ ST, (5) SD þ ST, (6) SD þ CM, and (7) SD þ CM þ ST. Findings (e.g.,
Allen et al., 1989; Ayers et al., 1993; Dwyer, 2000; Hopf & Ayers, 1992) clearly
indicated that the most effective treatment method for reducing PSA employs a
combination of all three treatments (i.e., SD þ CM þ ST). A combinatorial tech-
nique involves each of the treatments (SD, CM, and ST) without regard for their
arrangement to mitigate PSA. The PSA combination treatment provides a learn-
er with the most efficient approach to manage public speaking fears, while
advancing toward communication competency. However, the courage to
pursue competent communication is an interpersonal endeavor and it is an
intrapersonal communication orientation initially that is then shared outwardly
toward a given audience.
Imagined Interaction (II)

Imagined interactions describe a cognitive process whereby individuals generate
mental imagery3 emphasizing an anticipated or retrospective communication
encounter (see Honeycutt, 2003: Honeycutt et al., 1989). Through mental imag-
ery, individuals consciously consider a specific communication context either
before an interaction helping to formulate upcoming conversations (rehearse),
or to recall after interactions as an effort to improve effectiveness (replay;
Honeycutt, 2008). The II becomes a means of planning and preparing for the
interaction to improve effectiveness. Previous studies explored competitive
public speaking (forensics – individual events and debate) as well as communi-
cation apprehension in an instructional classroom setting (see Choi et al., 2015;
Gotcher & Honeycutt, 1989; Honeycutt et al., 2009). IIs provide a sense of
LeFebvre et al. 5
realism for individuals to develop a detailed prescription that could serve to

reduce anxiety associated with a forthcoming expected communicative encoun-
ter. The focus of the II within a specific context creates a specific communication
event with unique elements and challenges for the speaker/communicator. The
research points to the need to consider the specific elements of the setting as a
means for understanding the implications of II for the communicator.
Imagined Interactions (IIs) simulate real-life conversations without conse-
quences through internal dialogue. During IIs, individuals can work through
representations of communication events and determine how to prepare for
interactions, or plan for contingencies (Gotcher & Honeycutt, 1989) in conjunc-
tion with the actor(s) involved and in the communicative context. Prior schol-
arship has primarily observed mental imagery processes in intrapersonal and
interpersonal contexts directing empirical applications towards description and
explanation. IIs are created and sustained in the mind of one communicator
(Vickery, 2019) and involve communication with a real person (Edwards et al.,
1989). By engaging in the mental imagery process, individuals practice, (re)con-
ceptualize, and/or change prior communicative experiences.
Functions and Attributes

The II theory posits functions and attributes to develop a system that provides a
combination of motivational and functional explanations for the operation and
use of IIs. The functions describe the reasons (motivations) for which people use
IIs, whereas the attributes provide characteristics about the functions. Attributes
have been explored in association with each motivation and explain how the
function serves to satisfy the goal of the II. Figure 1 displays the complex
interrelationships between functions and attributes. Next, we delineate the spe-
cific definitions of each function and attribute to understand their nuances.
The six II functions describe rationale for engaging in IIs. Functions can
operate in isolation or concurrently. IIs serve to include: (1) rehearsing mes-
sages, (2) aiding people in self-understanding, (3) providing emotional catharsis,
(4) compensating for a real interaction rehearsal, (5) maintaining relationships,
and (6) linking or managing conflict (see Honeycutt, 2003; Honeycutt & Ford,
2001). Rehearsal manages anticipated dialogue (Honeycutt, 2010). Rehearsing
highlights the ability to replay or make adjustments for the real interaction. Self-
understanding operates to bring self-awareness and uncover personal thoughts,
attitudes, beliefs, and values through imagined conversations (Bodie et al.,
2013). Compensatory provides the means to replace a real conversation when
people are not physically or emotionally available (Rosenblatt & Meyer, 1986).
Catharsis functions to release tension or uncertainty (Bodie et al., 2013).
Relational maintenance describes how conversations function to aid in relational
development. Conflict links reference the ability to retroactively or proactively
recount conflict, as a means to manage the conflict in the human mind.
Figure 1. Imagined Interactions: Interrelationships Between Functions and Attributes.
The eight II attributes include: variety, frequency, proactivity, retroactivity,

dominance, discrepancy, valence, and specificity (Honeycutt, 2003, 2010, 2015).
Variety examines the breadth of topics and partners experienced. Frequency
refers to the quantity, or II regularity. Proactivity refers to interactions that
occur prior to actual communication, whereas retroactivity involves assessment
of interactions after communication. Dominance examines the amount of con-
tributions between self and others and engagement ratio between individuals
and others during the imagined dialogue. Discrepancy explores the difference (or
degree) between actual and imagined communication. Valence references the
amount and variety of emotions experienced, or more simply articulated II
(dis)comfortableness. Last, specificity explores the amount of detail. Each attrib-
ute helps to explain patterns of similarity and differences between functions.
Bodie et al. (2013) found complex associations between functions and attrib-
utes. The theory specifically delineates an underlying assumption that the eight
attributes are related to all six functions and functions can be compared and
contrasted in terms of II attributes (see Bodie et al., 2013). The level of abstrac-
tion between functions and attributes highlights that functions could demon-
strate more trait levels, and attributes explore state-levels (Van Kelegom &
Wright, 2013). For practical purposes, researchers have not overtly distin-
guished between the levels of abstraction. The specific delineation between the
conceptualization of functions and attributes and the varying abstraction is
limited; thereby, we build on previous scholarship surrounding IIs and PSA
LeFebvre et al. 7
and highlight functions and attributes most germane to this context and the use
of VR. II is not a single and unitary experience but one with different and
divergent possibilities. Understanding the association between the various func-
tions and attributes begins to articulate and understand what elements of the
experience play a role in generating outcomes in a given context or situation
(i.e., public speaking).
Public Speaking Contexts

The imagination allows for cognitive scripts that provide communicators with
the ability for verbal and/or visual representations of past or anticipated com-
munication behaviors. Verbal imagery involves imagining the dialogue, conver-
sation, or message content, whereas visual imagery involves setting the scene
and seeing the interaction (Sheldon et al., 2015). Verbal-only IIs are perceived as
more emotionally intense and less similar to actual communication than mixed-
imagery interactions; although fewer in frequency, IIs that incorporate visual
imagery were perceived as more pleasant (Zagacki et al., 1992). Moreover, they
argued that the inclusion of verbal imagery influences vividness, which affects
people’s planning and expectancy formation in communication contexts.
Intrapersonal communication is the foundation to all other types of communi-
cation, and embedded in the hierarchy of interpersonal, small group, organiza-
tion, societal, cultural, or mass communication (Honeycutt, 2015). The breadth
of II scholarship has primarily investigated interpersonal interactions; however,
several scholars have explored IIs in family (Rosenblatt & Meyer, 1986), health
(Sheldon et al., 2015), intercultural (McCann & Honeycutt, 2006), and instruc-
tional contexts (Choi et al., 2015). IIs must be contextualized for domain specific
communication. This present study explores public speaking and Personal
Report of Communication Apprehension (PRPSA)4 in an instructional class-
room setting. Three prior studies (Choi et al., 2015; Gotcher & Honeycutt, 1989;
Honeycutt et al., 2009) investigated related constructs – forensics and commu-
nication apprehension. These previous studies lend themselves well to the public
speaking context – forensics is an activity that involves the presentation of
arguments and advocacy skills or reasoned discourse (i.e., a specific event that
incorporates a form of competitive public speaking; Allen et al., 1999) and
communication apprehension relates to the fear of communication with
others (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Initially, Gotcher and Honeycutt (1989) explored IIs in forensics competi-
tions, or competitive public speaking through individual events and debate, to
determine whether competitors utilized mental imagery in preparing and eval-
uating performances, highlighting how several attributes (activity [now frequen-
cy], dominance, retroactivity, proactivity, discrepancy, and success) enhance
performance. They found that forensics competitors used IIs at varied amounts
depending on their need to evaluate and reevaluate possible messages as a
rehearsal function (Gotcher & Honeycutt, 1989). Moreover, forensics compet-

itors often used IIs to help compensate for a lack of experience in performance
and forensics, and the more IIs experienced, the less discrepancy between imag-
ined and actual interactions. This study explored how using both verbal and
visual imagery helped competitors rehearse messages and prepare for possible
exigencies in public speaking settings (Gotcher & Honeycutt, 1989). With the
theory framework still in its infancy, the prior investigation did not include all
functions and attributes.
Honeycutt et al. (2009) also applied IIs to communication competence oper-
ationalized as communication apprehension. They examined how undergradu-
ate students use IIs to reduce fear of communication. They investigated how IIs
can function to develop communication skills and a lack of cognitive scripts,
and work to reduce communication apprehension or discomfort. They tested
communication apprehension levels against two functions, catharsis and
rehearsal, and one attribute, discrepancy. The findings provided partial support
for increasing communication apprehension levels as use of II catharsis function
decreased but only in the public speaking context, not other contexts. Their
results showed that increased levels of communication apprehension failed to
predict decreased apprehension with the use of II rehearsal showing that func-
tion was unsupported. The findings supported the conclusion that as commu-
nication apprehension increased then II discrepancy increased for total
communication apprehension as well as all four communication contexts. The
study stressed the importance of applying II to other public speaking contexts to
reduce communication apprehension and other anxiety constructs (Honeycutt
et al., 2009).
More recently, Choi et al. (2015) examined how rehearsal functions of IIs
contributed to improved speech performance when employing visualization
practices. In two studies, they investigated verbal rehearsal, particularly the
number of silent pauses, vocalized pauses, and total disfluencies and communi-
cation apprehension. They found clear evidence that decreased communication
apprehension was impacted by rehearsal and a fewer number of disfluencies.
Their study then posited to explore how rehearsal functioned with imagery,
verbal, visual, and mixed modes. Participants utilizing imagery rehearsal expe-
rienced the most visualization, and became the most effective at reducing
rehearsal disfluencies. Therefore, visualization utilized as verbal, visual,
and mixed imagery in speech preparation positively impacted both
the actual speech outcome and speaker confidence (Choi et al., 2015).
These findings demonstrated a clear linkage between communication planning
specificity and rehearsal effectiveness that resulted in change to communication
apprehension.
IIs offer the opportunity to examine public speaking and communication
apprehension. These three prior studies validate that IIs provide insights and
improvement for public speaking. However, no studies have investigated public
LeFebvre et al. 9
speaking and situational communication apprehension. These prior studies

highlight the foundation for studying IIs as treatments to public speaking and
also demonstrate the necessity to further investigate its application for perfor-
mance skills for learners associated with the introductory communication
courses.
Public Speaking Anxiety and Imagined Interactions Using

Virtual Reality
This study assesses the relationship between PSA and IIs. Specifically, emergent
immersive technology helps to blur the reality between imagined and actual
interactions. Recently, Berkos (2010) completed an exploratory study to deter-
mine II when communicating online. Emergent technology promotes new con-
ceptualizations and extensions building prior scholarship. Consequently, this
study explores how VR can help facilitate the discrepancy between imagined
and real interactions through a virtual interaction (see Edwards et al., 1989;
Zagacki et al., 1992). VR versatility and flexibility can aid in creating and rec-
reating almost any speaking audience or situation, and provide almost lifelike
similarities. Therefore, VR provides a new platform to explore how IIs inter-
ventions may function for reducing PSA (see Davis et al., 2020; Frisby et al.,
2020).
Calls to action push for future research exploring visual imagery and the
importance or representation in IIs (Zagacki et al., 1992). Furthermore, prior
scholarship has determined that the imagined interactants primarily consider
verbal imagery; even though, the mixture of verbal and visual imagery generate
more pleasantness and closer vividness to the actual interaction. VR can operate
as a conduit to help facilitate visual imagery, since prior scholarship has sug-
gested people neglect to focus on both imageries. The immersive nature of VR
helps facilitate the ability to manifest II visual imagery. The ability to simulate
the visual may increase pleasantness and decrease discrepancy between the
imagined and real speech. By helping to simulate the visual, both the visual
and verbal imagery can help to proactively create cognitive scripts and allow
for higher expected outcomes for the interaction (Meyer, 1997). The use of VR
reduces the need to cognitively create an audience, a setting with a lectern, the
use of a projector with PowerPoint slides, and using speaker notes. The speaker
practices in a setting more closely resembling the actual speech reducing the
need for cognitive load devoted to some elements creating a greater correspon-
dence between the imagined situation and the actual event.
The advancement in technologies now allows for the combination of these
treatments simultaneously via VR offers the unique possibility within a public
speaking class for addressing all three elements (SD þ CM þ SK). The develop-
ment of public speaking skills becomes addressed within the course as well as
through the practice of the presentation in VR. The rehearsal and practice
effects may be enhanced by exposure to the VR environment. The cognitive
elements are impacted by receiving feedback in the practice session that can
replace incorrect beliefs about the setting with a more accurate sense of the
context for the upcoming event. The desensitization occurs by creating a sense
of exposure to the situation and permitting the student to practice relaxing
while encountering the stimulus that creates the anxiety producing reaction.
The fear becomes reduced through the immersive environment by creating a
no-risk situation in which the person practices (Ruscella, 2019).
VR creates a more effective treatment environment for enacting changes to
reduce PSA. Due to the highly immersive nature of virtual environments, par-
ticipants cognitively and actively become transported to speak with any audi-
ence for whatever context. Through this immersion, a person’s senses—visual
and auditory—are transported to a virtual world (Biocco & Levy, 1995a).
Virtual creations allow a speaker to experience a situation that appears realistic
and authentic. Because VR provides a space for people to interact without real
world constraints, the speaking occasion can be reenacted without involvement
from other students or the instructor. These virtual environments replace the
experience of a live speaking context with digital ones (Fox et al., 2009). Virtual
humans elicit the same psychological responses people experience in the pres-
ence of real humans (Slater et al., 2006), and participants interact with virtual
humans similarly to real people (Donath, 2007; Garau et al., 2005). Due to the
perceived reality of both speaking context and audience to a user, VR provides a
technological platform in concert with the introductory communication course
that may function as an effective interventive combinatorial treatment
(SD þ CM þ ST) for reducing PSA. The following hypothesis is posited:
H1: Participants in VR will report a significant decrease in PRPSA.
Prior studies have investigated the associations between rehearsal and catharsis
II functions in combination with public speaking contexts and PSA. Rehearsal
functions permit practice and generate a simulated experience to practice the
behavioral sequences. VR simulation should increase the value of each function
of II by creating more similarity between the II elements and the VR experience.
Thus, previous research has established explicit findings that merit further
exploration and investigation in this context of rehearsal and catharsis func-
tions. The compensation and self-understanding functions of II should improve
in VR because the greater correspondence to simulated reality permits the
speaker to experience elements that cognitively provide an increase in informa-
tion. Therefore, the utilization of emergent technology offers fertile ground to
explore how presentational conversations are enacted when virtual people are
present. The speaker no longer imagines an audience, the speaker experiences
the audience in the VR simulation. The previous research involving forensics
LeFebvre et al. 11
(Gotcher & Honeycutt, 1989) found that less experience created a greater gap
between II and the actual event, VR may simply reduce that gap, increasing the
value of the II in improving performance. For the purposes of this study, we
explore four II functions: rehearsal, catharsis, compensation, and self-
understanding.
VR simulations create an opportunity for further exploration of cognitive
processes, while expanding the bifurcation between the imagined and real.
By exploring cognitive thoughts about public speaking and uncovering different
aspects of the self, these two II functions explore the engagement and reflection.
This study explores the public speaking context building off of previous studies
and highlights how the intrapersonal foundation extends to a simulated audi-
ence with the exploration of two new II functions not previously considered with
public speaking contexts. We highlight these four functions that show how II
function as experienced through VR and reduce PSA. The following hypotheses
are posited:
H2A: The II rehearsal function experienced through VR will be associated with

reduced post-PSA score.
H2B: The II catharsis function experienced through VR will be associated with
H2C: The II compensation function experienced through VR will be associated
with reduced post-PSA score.
H2D: The II self-understanding function experienced through VR will be associated
with reduced post-PSA score.
The II attributes which operate as a construct of functions help to inform

variations within the VR treatment. Prior studies have investigated the associ-
ations with discrepancy (Honeycutt et al., 2009) and specificity (Choi et al.,
2015) in public speaking contexts and PSA. This study specifically examines
three attributes: (a) discrepancy, (b) specificity, and (c) valence. We limited
this investigation to these three attributions since attributes highlight situational
factors. As such, we determined these three attributes correspond well to the VR
simulation and processes in which people engage in specific communication
contexts. Other attributes of II were not utilized since the use VR lacks some
of the observable attributes. The rationale for neglecting the other five were –
limited the variety (both by topic and involved participants), frequency (limited
to this particular VR interaction), proactivity and retroactivity (only simulated
before the actual performance), and dominance (limited to self-initiated verbal
communication). By examining discrepancy, valence, and specificity, we can
begin to build on previous empirical generalizations and future directions calls
to action to delineate how attributes occur during the VR simulation. Therefore,
we posit the following hypotheses on the II attributes:
H3A: The II specificity attribute experienced through VR will be associated with

H3B: The II valence attribute experienced through VR will be associated with
H3C: The II discrepancy attribute experienced through VR will be associated with
Method
Recruitment
After receiving approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB), we recruited participants by contacting the public speaking course coor-
dinator to obtain permission to recruit from instructors who taught course
sections. Upon receiving approval from the coordinator, we contacted the
four instructors (teaching summer sessions); each granted permission to recruit
students to participate from their course sections. The recruitment process
involved a two-prong approach: (1) Classroom visitation and (2) Email follow-
up. We visited each class and discussed the opportunity to participate in a
research study that utilizes VR as a technological mechanism for practicing
the presentations they would prepare for the course. Also, during the classroom
visitation, a 360-degree class video recording5 was made (see Figure 2). Anyone
who did not want to be part of the recording could leave the room. No one
obviated participation in the recording. Students interested wrote their name,
email address, and mobile number on signup form. We then contacted interested
students via email to complete the initial Qualtrics survey.
We delineated the participants initially recruited and then specifically denoted
the participants who continued after initial recruitment in study. Instructors
offered varying compensation for participation; therefore, attrition occurred
from recruitment to participation (similar attribution parallels other VR studies,
see Davis et al., 2020). Participants (N ¼ 36) who were initially interested in
study participation were recruited from the departmental introductory public
speaking course at a large southern university in multiple sections with different
instructors.6 Their ages ranged from 18 to 26 years old (M ¼ 20.63, SD ¼ 1.68).
Their current student classification was: 5.6% freshman, 19.4% sophomore,
22.2% junior, and 50.0% seniors. The majority (91.7%) of participants were
domestic students. One participant identified as an international student and
two opted not to disclose. Participants’ sex included: 58.3% female, 38.9% male,
and 0.5% unidentified. Similarly, participants indicated their gender as: 58.3%
female, 36.1% male, and 5.3% did not identify. Participants reported ethnicity
as: 58.3% Caucasian, 11.1% African American, 11.1% multiracial, 8.3%
LeFebvre et al. 13
Figure 2. 360-degree Classroom Video Recording.
Hispanic or Latino(a), 5.6% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2.8% Middle Eastern,

and 2.8% did not identify.
Sample Participants. The study sample consisted of participants (N ¼ 17) recruited

and able to engage in this study. The ages ranged from 18 to 26 years old
(M ¼ 21.00, SD ¼ 1.90). Their current student classification was: 5.9% fresh-
man, 5.9% sophomore, 23.5% junior, and 64.7% seniors. The majority
(91.7%) of participants were domestic students. One participant identified as
an international student and two opted not to disclose. Participants’ sex includ-
ed: 70.6% female and 29.4% male. Similarly, participants indicated their gender
as: 70.6% female, 23.5% male, and 5.9% unidentified. Participants reported
ethnicity as: 52.9% Caucasian, 11.8% African American, 17.6% multiracial,
11.8% Hispanic or Latino(a), 5.9% Asian or Pacific Islander. Students had
the opportunity to opt out of the study during any study stage. Participants
completed four stages to this study subsequently detailed in chronological order
(see Table 1).
Stage 1. Participants shared individual demographics, reported previous public

speaking experience, outlined experience with virtual reality technology, and
completed the Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA;
McCroskey, 1970). The PRPSA measurement consisted of 34 Likert scale
items via 5-point response choices (1 ¼ Strongly Disagree to 5 ¼ Strongly
Table 1. Stages to the Virtual Reality Simulation for Public Speaking.
Stage Survey Speech type Participants
1 Pre-study survey N ¼ 36
2 a. Preliminary virtual reality Informative n ¼ 16
b. Post virtual reality
3 a. Preliminary virtual reality Persuasive n ¼ 12
b. Post virtual reality
4 Post-study survey n ¼ 14
Agree), participants answered statements that included: “I perspire just before

starting a speech.” Participants’ answers were placed into the formula
PRPSA ¼ 72 – Total Step 2 (12-items) þ Step 1 (22-items). PRPSA scores
range from 34 to 170 (High 131, Moderate 130 and 99, Low 98) with
the national PRPSA average of 114.6 (SD ¼ 17.2).7 The reliability in this sample
was high (Cronbach’s a ¼ .95, pre-test M ¼ 113.14, SD ¼ 27.72).
After students completed the pre-study survey, they were contacted within a
72-hour timeframe and provided a Calendly link for identifying a VR presen-
tation practice date and time. Additionally, students were asked in the follow-up
email to provide any speaker notes or PowerPoint slides for upload for the VR
simulation. Participants who completed the Qualtrics survey were invited to the
VR simulation location at the Communication Training Center.
Stages 2 and 3. Upon arrival to the VR simulation participants reaffirmed IRB

consent for participation in the study. Participants then completed Stage 2 for
the informative presentation and returned later in the semester for Stage 3 for
the persuasive presentation. Participants completed identical questions for Stage
2 and Stage 3. The only differences resided with the type of presentation – Stage
2 focused on the informative presentation and Stage 3 on the persuasive pre-
sentation. To begin, participants responded to open-ended questions related to
VR aspirations for the simulation. Additionally, participants described public
speaking fears via two open-ended questions and Likert scales for rating that
fear prior to the VR simulation (see L. LeFebvre et al., 2018, 2019).
The virtual environment platform utilized for the study was a fully immersive
virtual reality setup, which incorporated wearable equipment that allowed partic-
ipants to move in the physical environment. A head-mounted display (HMD)
rendered the virtual environment. The HMD (i.e., Oculus Rift) included a head-
piece with LCD screens affixed in front of the eyes to provide a wide, stereoscopic
view of the virtually generated three-dimensional environment (Fox et al., 2009).
Spatial audio drivers were affixed inside the headset to provide immersive sound to
enhance the auditory experience of the VR simulation. Upon affixing the HMD,
participants entered a 360-degree video recording8 of the classroom context and
LeFebvre et al. 15
Figure 3. Virtual Reality Screenshots of Classroom Audience From Speaker Perspective.
audience members. In order to reproduce the actual presentation context and audi-
ence a 360-degree video was made of the classroom environment with the students
and instructor. The 360-degree videos are digital video recordings that include a
view from every direction of the recorded environment. When the 360-degree video
is displayed in a sphere (as is displayed in VR) the individual experiences complete
immersion into that virtual environment (see Figure 3 and 4).
Then participants were asked to answer questions from the Survey of
Imagined Interactions (SII; Honeycutt, 2009) using a 5-point Likert scale
(1¼Strongly disagree; 5¼Strongly agree). This multidimensional instruction
contains eight factors reflecting the II functions. This study examined four
functions: compensation, catharsis, rehearsal, and self-understanding. These
functions were each slightly modified to match this context. We deleted several
items for compensation, catharsis, and self-understanding, and replaced lan-
guage for catharsis and rehearsal.9 Sample items include: compensation
(“Imagining talking to an audience substitutes for the absence of real
communication.”), catharsis, (“Imagined interactions help me relieve tension
and stress.”), rehearsal (“Imagined interactions help me plan what I am going
to say for an anticipated encounter.”), and self-understanding (“Imagined inter-
action helps me understand myself better.”). The Cronbach’s a of the function
scales were as follows: compensation (0.83), rehearsal (0.68), and self-
understanding (0.70). The catharsis function only included two-items and
Figure 4. Virtual Reality Screenshots of Speaker Notes From Speaker Perspective.
therefore, we reported the intercorrelation, which was significant, r ¼ .58,

p < .05. The Cronbach’s a of the attribute scales were as follows: discrepancy
(0.81), specificity (0.41), and valence (0.93).
Then participants engaged in the VR simulation to practice their informative
presentation. After the VR simulation, participants described and responded to
open-ended questions regarding their experience in the VR environment. Also,
participants described their most intense public speaking fear in open-ended
questions, and responded to Likert-type scales for rating the fear (see L.
LeFebvre et al., 2018, 2019).
Stage 4. Participants again completed the PRPSA measure (Cronbach’s a ¼ .95,

M ¼ 109.86, SD ¼ 23.00). Then they completed two open-ended questions that
described how they felt the VR simulation(s) impacted their presentation per-
formance and grade and to illustrate how they felt about participating in the VR
public speaking simulation. No extra credit or compensation was granted for
participation from the researchers rather instructors determined participation
compensation or extra credit.
Results
Prior to reporting the findings, the participant sample is further described based
on their experience with public speaking and VR usage. The majority (88.2%) of
LeFebvre et al. 17
participants did not have experience with high school debate and/or forensics,
and the minority, two participants had participated in both organized and club
debates as well as forensics. Participants were split on their prior experience with
public speaking education: 52.9% with experience and 47.1% without experi-
ence. They were asked about their comfortability with emerging technology; the
majority of participants (70.6%) indicated somewhat to extreme comfort.
However, most participants (70.6%) had not frequently interacted with VR
technology, and a smaller percentage had slight (17.6%) to very frequent
(11.8%) interaction. Those familiar with the technology had used VR primarily
through gaming systems or their place of employment.
H1. Participants completed a PRPSA assessment at the beginning of the
course (prior to VR simulations and any speech) and again at the end of the
course (after the VR simulations and all speeches). A comparison of the change
score of the PRPSA found the pretest (M ¼ 113.14) compared to posttest
(M ¼ 109.85) demonstrated a nonsignificant decline, t(14) ¼ .89, p > .05. While
the size of the effect, d ¼ .52, would be viewed as large, with the small sample size
(n ¼ 14)10; it lacked the power to provide significance for the size of the effect. H1
did not receive significant statistical support.
H2. The next set of hypotheses examined the II functions – rehearsal, cathar-
sis, compensation, and self-understanding as experienced through VR to test
associations with post-PSA scores. A significant negative correlation was
observed between rehearsal and reduced post-PSA scores, r ¼ .69, p < .05,
which supports the hypothesis. A negative correlation indicates that as a
person was motivated to use VR as a means of behavioral and emotional
rehearsal, the post-PSA score was lower. A significant negative correlation
existed between II catharsis function and post-PSA score, r ¼ .61, p < .05,
which supports this hypothesis. A significant negative correlation existed
between the II compensation function and reduced post-PSA score, r ¼ .75,
p < .05. The correlation indicates that as a person was motivated by a compen-
sation motivation the score of the PSA was reduced. The significant negative
correlation, r ¼ .72, p < .05 between the self-understanding function and
reduced post-PSA score supports the hypothesis. The correlation indicates
that as a person who used VR for self-understanding, the level of
PSA decreased.
H3. The next set of hypotheses examined the II attributes – specificity,
valence, and discrepancy as experienced through VR to test associations with
post-PSA scores. The correlation between specificity and post-PSA score was
significant and negative, r ¼ .61, p < .05. A non-significant negative correlation
was observed between valence and post-PSA score, r ¼ .40, p > 05, therefore,
the hypothesis failed to receive support. The positive correlation between dis-
crepancy and post-PSA score was positive and non-significant, r ¼ .07, p > .05.
The hypothesis failed to receive support (see table 2).
Table 2. Correlations Between Functions, Attributes, and Post-PSA Score.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 M SD
1 Catharsis – 7.27 2.09

2 Compensation 0.45 – 10.10 1.36
3 Rehearsal 0.50 0.57** – 16.53 2.45
4 Self-understanding 0.50 0.15 0.18 – 9.73 2.28
5 Specificity 0.76** 0.48 0.36 0.27 – 10.41 1.96
6 Valence 0.32 0.26 0.03 0.57 0.08 – 9.58 1.17
7 Discrepancy 0.11 0.07 0.31 0.09 0.16 0.28 – 18.13 4.50
8 Post-PSA 0.62* 0.73* 0.69* 0.72** 0.61* 0.40 0.07 – 109.86 23.00
Reliability 0.58 0.83 0.68 0.70 0.41 0.93 0.81
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Qualitative (Follow-Up) Analysis

This study addressed confirmatory analyses investigated in the hypotheses, we
triangulated the findings with research questions to explore the descriptive pro-
cess (see Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). By applying post-hoc analyses, using
open-ended questions for qualitative analyses, we can produce holistic infer-
ences through inferential and descriptive procedures. A sequential explanatory
approach was applied. We concurrently collected the quantitative and qualita-
tive data. Then we invested that started with the quantitative findings based on
prior scholarship and building qualitative analyses. This follow-up analysis
offers an additional opportunity to expand and generate new understanding
for the complexities of II.
Analysis
We conducted a directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Patton,
2015). This methodology is employed when previous scholarship aids in building
the coding scheme. However, this content analysis acknowledges that previous
conceptualizations may benefit from further description or more development in
a specific context (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Specifically, for II which has been
studied primarily through inferential statistics, applying a direct content analysis
extends the conceptualizations derived in empirical scholarship to descriptive
applications from participants’ experiences. Thereby, we initially developed
the codebook from previous definitions and allowed for further nuance
and flexibility.
To begin, we reviewed all the open-ended questions participants completed
throughout the VR simulation research process at each stage. During prelimi-
nary and post VR, participants answered several open-ended questions. During
the post VR, they answered four open-ended questions as a reflection of their
LeFebvre et al. 19
experience in VR (operating as their II). We note that IIs occur before the event
(and the VR simulation operated before the public speaking assignment), there-
by, the reflection afterwards Upon several iterative readings, we coded for four
separate open-ended questions that addressed functions and attributes: (1)
Please reflect on what you were looking forward to in the public speaking sim-
ulation. (2) Please describe the most recent imagined interaction you had in the
public speaking simulation. Be sure to indicate your relationship to the audience
and what topic(s) were discussed. (3) What would you change about your public
speaking simulation? (4) How authentic or realistic did the virtual reality expe-
rience feel to you? The first two questions highlighted the event and the latter
two questions the II.
Each question response is presented as an individual unit of analysis. The first
open-ended questions focused on function had 52 responses, while the latter two
questions emphasized attributes that had 51 responses – these occurred across
both informative and persuasive presentation simulations. The small sample,
limited open-ended responses, and codes did not allow for refinement to the
coding without utilizing all the responses. Therefore, data was coded through
content analysis consensus by the authors (see L. E. LeFebvre et al., 2020 for
similar procedures). When developing the coding scheme, the process of dia-
logue amongst authors allowed for thoughtful discussion surrounding the nuan-
ces of coding for imagined interactions (since this process was not utilized
previously). Differences and discrepancies were negotiated through dialogue
amongst authors. We improvised (see Tracy, 2010) by utilizing dialogue
rather than intercoder reliability to allow for practices that enriched understand-
ing the participants’ experiences and building on study’s overall purpose. We
coded for the four functions and three attributes previously identified in this
study, and allowed for a miscellaneous code.
Results
The results illuminated the four functions and three attributes analyzed through
the inferential statistics. Figure 5 synthesizes the directed content analysis of
participants’ responses.
On the left-side represents from the highest to the lowest frequency of
observed functions. Similarly, the right-side represents the highest to lowest
frequency of observed attributes. The size of the functions and attributes relates
to the frequency in which participants spoke about them. The quotations high-
light examples that distinguish the II functions and attributes.
Functions. The functions are presented here in descending order of each frequen-
cy: rehearsal (57.4%), compensation (22.2%), catharsis (11.1%), self-
understanding (5.6%), and miscellaneous (3.7%). Rehearsal allowed for
anticipation of the actual speaking occasion or acted as a dress rehearsal (for
Figure 5. Participants’ Perception of Imagined Interactions Functions and Attributes.

Note: Functions are represented on the left-hand side and attributions on the right-hand side.
Miscellaneous percentages are not illustrated.
planning and message rehearsal) to test speaker notes, speech dialogue, and the
nonverbal behavior in the speech setting. Through the VR simulation, partic-
ipants were able to experience the telepresence of the classroom as presenters
and imagined themselves speaking. “I was able to see my class exactly as it was
set up and if I looked down I was able to see my notes on a screen near the floor”
and “I noticed I was moving my head around to look at everyone and use
my hand a lot to get everyone’s attention.” The rehearsal function was
delivery-focused on the message transmission of the presenter or presentation
content, similar to a dry run. Compensation allowed participants to engage in
simulated presentational conversations with people not physically present.
Participants allowed themselves to feel as if they had an audience and people
were reacting (e.g., “some nodding from people”), even with static visualiza-
tions. Moreover, a participant emphasized “difficult to practice tone in front of
a mirror or with friends.” The compensation function focused on desensitization
toward the audience or listener presence, whereby the presenter became inocu-
lated to the existence of artificial attendees.
Catharsis offered the ability to release tension (or handle stress) leading up to
their informative and persuasive presentations. This function allowed partici-
pants to feel more confident and relaxed about their upcoming presentation. As
one participant noted, “I felt a lot more confident speaking in the VR
LeFebvre et al. 21
simulation . . . ” Catharsis focused less on the process, and more on the resulting
release from the run-through. Self-understanding highlighted the opportunity for
internal growth and uncovering personal feelings, thoughts, and beliefs about
their upcoming presentation to uncover opposing or differing aspects of the self.
“I was actually glad to present in a simulation before my actual speech because
it helped me identify what I was lacking and what other things I should work on
more.” The VR simulation provided a new awareness of their strengths and
weaknesses prior to the graded presentation. Although less observed, the self-
understanding function focused on their feelings in the VR simulation and their
transference to mitigate those feelings during actual presentation. For instance,
their ability to feel “unprepared,” “uncomfortable,” or “relief” allowed for them
to re-evaluate decisions and then change upcoming feelings and experience.
Miscellaneous represented responses that did not fit into these functions. For
instance, participants spoke about their general excitement for the VR simula-
tion and/or their speech content.
Attributes. Also, the attributes are presented here in descending order of each
frequency: discrepancy (47.1%), specificity (33.3%), valence (11.8%), and mis-
cellaneous (5.9%). Additionally, results revealed three attribute categories from
students’ VR public speaking II simulation. Discrepancy represented an incon-
gruity between VR and reality. The discrepancy attribute concentrated on min-
imized positional movement within the simulation or non-reactiveness of
audience members in the VR operating as the II. Participants varied in their
relationship to the audience and its reactionary responses. One participant noted
that, “ . . . as soon as I put on the goggles I was somewhere else.” Another par-
ticipant commented that, “Though I obviously knew it was a VR simulation,
seeing myself in the audience reminded me all the more of that fact which made
it seem a little less real.” Realism varied for participants in the similarity, yet
small discrepancies in authenticity.
Specificity referred to the level of detail and distinction of images contained
with the II. The specificity attribute emphasized sensory experiences – visual or
auditory. The sensory experiences drew parallels closer or farther from reality.
One participant commented, “ . . . for a moment I forgot that I was in a simu-
lation because it provided a picture of the classroom that I will actually be giving
my speech in.” Alternatively, other participants noted differences in audience
and scenario. For instance, “They were barely moving and there was no noise”
and “I couldn’t see eyes to make eye contact.” Specifically, variation in detail
related to issues with the visual clarity displayed by the audience 360-degree
recording or absence of ambient classroom noise that occurs when occupied by a
group of students.
Valence denoted the amount and diversity of emotions experienced while
envisioning the presentation. The valence attribute attended to emotional occur-
rences (i.e., tension experienced, similarity of anxieties involved in the
speechmaking process) stimulated by the simulation. The VR simulation

allowed rehearsal and opportunity to experience their emotions of public speak-
ing. One participant commented about their physiological reactions. “My body
reacted how it has in the past when I spoke in front of my class.” Another
participant spoke about the change in confidence. “I feel like having those
mess-ups made me feel more confident in my speech because I was able to
mess up in the same environment but not feel so pressured.” Miscellaneous
represented responses that did not fit into these attributes. For instance, partic-
ipants spoke about their preparation prior to the VR simulation or specific
speech organization and/or content.
Discussion
This study examined VR as an II treatment to PSA utilizing confirmatory and
exploratory methods. II treatments have been applied to the context of public
speaking; however, few studies in the field of communication have begun to
explore the implications for emergent immersive technology adaptations oper-
ating as IIs. VR assisted in the process of maximizing participant capabilities to
experience the public speaking situation, without being burdened with synthe-
sizing the entire context from mental images. The simulated images of the VR
environment allowed for the emergence of effective strategies for speaking
(Davis et al., 2020; Frisby et al., 2020). Previous research has demonstrated
that IIs helped to mitigate communication apprehension (Choi et al., 2015;
Honeycutt et al., 2009), and this study specifically examined PSA. Findings
highlight that four II functions were negatively correlated with post-PSA.
These results suggest positive practical implications for VR use as an II treat-
ment for public speaking.
Specifically, this study aimed to utilize VR simulations as extensions of II to
(a) lessen the impact of PSA on public speaking experiences in conjunction with
(b) extending the application of the II framework to VR settings. The findings,
even with a small sample size, pinpoint promising associations between II func-
tions and attributes. Rehearsal and compensation were the most prevailing
functions students reported experiencing in VR. This study elevates the similar-
ity between actual and simulated presentations whereas earlier investigations
using VR for speech rehearsals did not integrate the use of speaker notes and
visual aids (see Davis et al, 2020; Frisby et al., 2020). Previously, Choi et al.
(2015) found that the influence of rehearsal reduced overall speaking disfluencies
(one sign of PSA, see Allen & Bourhis, 1996). Rehearsal essentially is the goal of
practice, increasing the value of the practice effort should improve the effective-
ness of behavior. Results of this investigation highlight the negative association
with post-PSA, which might suggest that mixed imagery offered by VR provides
an optimal training ground for public speaking skills. Although Honeycutt et al.
(2009) found rehearsal was not a predictor of CA; this study may offer evidence
LeFebvre et al. 23
for further investigations to determine if rehearsal is a predictor for the specific

domain of PSA in public speaking classrooms. Participants highlighted how the
VR simulation considerably aided the II rehearsal function.
Similarly, participants expressed the ability to desensitize themselves to the
act of public speaking without a “real” audience in a rehearsal environment that
mirrored the actual classroom. II compensation and catharsis functions delin-
eate different nuances for understanding the effects of VR treatment. VR
allowed participants to process and experience the physical space where the
speech would later be delivered. Paradoxically, the artificialness and lack of
reality creates a better set of conditions to prepare for the real presentation
by permitting a sharp focus on the elements of the presentation contributing
to improving the quality of the speech. The ability of the person to master the
negative emotional response provides a means to decrease the physiological
response (increased blood pressure, heart rate, palmar sweat, etc.) related to
anxiety that diminishes the quality of the performance (Owens & Beidel,
2015). The process of desensitization to diminish PSA involves exposure to
the anxiety producing stimulus and the ability to reduce the sensitivity (anxiety
felt) when exposed to the stimulus. The opportunity to engage in VR changed
the perceptual association of overstimulation. Essentially, the VR, by providing
a less intense experience permitted the student to manage the situation by reduc-
ing the absolute perception of the situation. Student practice by focusing on the
presentation with less sensitivity to the stimulation of the situation.
As for the II attributes, specificity had a significant association with
post-PSA, whereas discrepancy and valence did not find any associations with
post-PSA. Although II specificity was negatively correlated with PRPSA, the
qualitative findings highlighted variability within participants’ perceptions of the
VR simulation. II specificity explores the amount of detail offered through
the VR simulation. For some participants, the VR environment appeared
almost lifelike, whereas for others the quality of the digital recording may
have caused the simulation to feel not completely realistic. The ability to
ground what usually would have been an imaginative experience with VR
allowed participants to focus on the delivery of the presentational message.
VR simulates presence with the intention of desensitizing via perceptual and
psychological immersive stimuli (Lombard & Ditton, 1997). Senses were acti-
vated through the VR simulation, and participants noted disparate visual and
auditory perceptions. For instance, participants shared that the lack of sound in
the VR simulation felt dissimilar in comparison to a real classroom.
Qualitative findings observed similar variability in participant perception for
discrepancy. The quality of the digital recording influenced perceptions of real-
ness. The question becomes the point of reference: Does practicing a speech
alone in a room offer greater advantage than a VR environment that simulates
the actual setting of the presentation? If VR technology is capable of improve-
ment, it may offer, in the future, improved possibilities and increase the “reality”
or correspondence to the targeted situation, unlike the traditional practice

method which remains unchanged. The dynamic nature of VR means constant
improvement in the technology may increase positive outcomes. The VR expe-
rience may be targeted for the individual speaker needing some specific element
in the simulation to improve, enhancing the experience by targeting individual
needs. Lastly, the valence attribute may have been influenced, or overtaken, by
conflating feelings of performing a speech, participating in a research study, or
utilizing VR technology. Therefore, this attribute may have been difficult to
isolate.
The inferential statistics further corroborated qualitative findings surround-
ing II functions and attributes. Due to the diffuse nature of IIs as well as the
conglomerated relationships between functions and attributes, segmentation is
challenging; however, participant feedback about the VR simulation provides
valuable insights for examining IIs. The triangulation of sequential explanatory
mixed methods tie together the inferential and descriptive findings. Participants’
perceptions of their experiences using VR simulations highlight their perceptions
within treatment interventions. Specifically, findings indicate participants
describing particular functions related to the event, or in this case an upcoming
speech, whereas attributes delineated the interaction in VR. These notations
relate to the level of abstraction between functions and attributes previously
argued that suggests functions could demonstrate more trait levels, and attrib-
utes explore state-levels (Van Kelegom & Wright, 2013). For that reason, the
inferential statistics utilized PRPSA levels would likely find more significant
relationships, in contrast to attributes (with only one significant relationship).
If attributes are focused more on the VR simulation then an upcoming event
(speech) further scholarship would be warranted to observe alternative predic-
tors (e.g., familiarity with technology, quality of VR images, immersiveness of
technology). These discrepancies between significant relationships observed for
II functions and attributes may help to further delineate their abstract
intersections.
Practical Implications
VR emerged recently in educational settings, the technology has been around for
nearly three decades (Wiederhold & Riva, 2019), yet the opportunities for appli-
cation in instructional settings remain in infancy. VR currently lacks widespread
accessibility for the general population at the consumer-oriented level (Fink,
2017). In this study’s sample, most participants possessed little prior VR expe-
rience. However, as VR headsets gain more exposure and become more preva-
lent for users (much like previous video recording and replay technologies) the
technology continues to increase. The potentialities and integration of VR tech-
nologies offer a relatively cheap approach for the introductory course to help
LeFebvre et al. 25
treat PSA (see Davis et al., 2020). The point being that happenings that occur in
the VR world can ripple through to the real world (Marx, 2019).
Adapting immersive technologies for education is a new frontier (Ruscella,
2019). As VR becomes more cost affordable and user pervasive, the technology
has the potential to assist with the further development and refinement of soft
skills (Stupar-Rutenfrans et al., 2017). VR provides the potential as a practical
means of speech rehearsal that may reduce the levels of PSA experienced during
an actual speech. One challenge for the teaching of public speaking involves the
need to practice effectively with an audience that can combine the use of
PowerPoint and speaker notes. Current VR technology provides that capability,
the next step requires evaluating and documenting the effectiveness of the appli-
cation. If VR demonstrates success, the continued reduction in cost makes the
technology affordable and increasingly accessible.
Limitations and Future Directions

This study has a rather small homogeneous sample. Even so, several of the hypoth-
eses were supported; although, a larger sample, with control and intervention
groups, would be able to determine whether the VR treatment is an effective treat-
ment for Post-PSA. These comparisons could provide greater functionality for
students, and especially students with higher public speaking anxiety and commu-
nication apprehension. Additionally, a larger sample would afford the opportunity
to parse out how the II functions and attributes intersect in this specific domain.
For instance, Bodie et al. (2013) found in public speaking contexts that II rehearsal
function is more likely to be discrepant than all other II functions, except relational
maintenance. This study analyzed four specific II functions and three II attributes,
and could not test the relationships between II functions and attributes; however,
with a larger sample size, future investigations could parse out interactions between
functions and attributes in this domain.
The elements of the actual VR experience necessary for maximum benefit
remain unknown. For example, does inclusion of the PowerPoint presentation
and the speaker notes (at a lectern) provide additional benefit to the experience.
Should the audience reaction and setting be varied relative to the speech inten-
tion. The question of diversity in the audience remains an element not a part of
the understanding of the situation, as well as the issues of feedback or respon-
siveness of the audience to statements remains an issue. The understanding of
how the depicted situation in the VR translates or maps onto the real life situ-
ation remains unclear.
Conclusion
The capabilities for emergent immersive technology—such as VR—in the class-
room environment provides new opportunities for speechmaking. The VR
simulation provides an intermediary experience linking the imagined and actual

communication encounter. Through the exact digitally rendered classroom
space of the course, duplication of the audience, and ability for the speaker to
upload speaker notes for the presentation in the VR simulation learners are
offered the ability to attend to PSA and advance learning outcomes for instruc-
tional environments. This study offered support for the relationship between IIs
and PSA. Technologically, limitations still exist in how interactional a simulated
audience can be when compared to a live audience. Therefore, the interplay
between the speaker and audience translates to a transmission (linear-process)
rather than transactional communication process. Nevertheless, these findings
highlight the potential VR offers as an II treatment for both verbal and visual
imagery to significantly enhance the visualization of a communicative
interaction.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Matthew Parnell and Sarah Dweik for their assistance with data
collection.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
ORCID iDs
Leah E. LeFebvre https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7307-2895
Luke LeFebvre https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7578-1102
Notes
1. The phrase “imagine all the people” originated from the song “Imagine,” which is co-
written and performed by English musician John Lennon.
2. Imagined interactions should not be confused with “self-talk.”
3. Virtual reality technology is a communication interface that uses computer generated
images to simulate a three-dimensional environment that can be interacted with by a
user(s) in an immersive manner that feels real to a person (Biocco & Levy, 1995b).
Immersive is defined as “the degree to which a virtual environment submerges the
perceptual system of the user in computer-generated stimuli. The more the system
captivates the senses and blocks out stimuli from the physical world, the more the
system is considered immersive” (Biocco & Delaney, 1995, p. 57).
LeFebvre et al. 27
4. Honeycutt et al.’s (2009) study utilized the Personal Report of Communication

Apprehension (PRCA). The PRCA is a measure to assess trait-like and context-
based communication apprehension. Their conclusions highlight total apprehension,
group discussions, meetings, interpersonal interactions, and public speaking engage-
ments for communication anxiety. Implications of the study offer grounds for exam-
ining public speaking via the PRPSA, which is the most appropriate measure for
examining situational communication apprehension, such as public speaking. Thus,
this study builds on these findings by exclusively focusing on public speaking
apprehension.
5. A 360-degree camera or omnidirectional camera video records a view of every direc-
tion at the same time to be played back on spherical displays.
6. The introductory communication course was a core curriculum or general education
requirement for undergraduate student enrollment.
7. See McCroskey (1970) for the PRPSA report.
8. Previous studies (Anderson et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2002; Price & Anderson, 2012;
Wallach et al., 2009) were limited by the use of virtual audiences that demonstrate
low representational quality (Alsina-Jurnet et al., 2011; Aymerich-French et al.,
2014) and inadequate renditions of audience characteristics (Anderson et al., 2005;
Morina et al., 2014).
9. We deleted several II function subscale items: compensation (one-item), catharsis
(one-item), and self-understanding (two-items). We also modified changes to II
rehearsal to reflect a change from one-to-one to one-many communication, and
also changed rehearsal from partner to speech.
10. Only participants who expressed interest in participating in the VR simulation com-
pleted the pre-PRPSA. No compensation was provided due to restrictions for this
particular IRB. Therefore, participation by other students was limited and based on
incentives provided by willing individual graduate teaching assistants. Unfortunately,
the general PRPSA of those students who participated against a control group
cannot be analyzed.
References
Alsina-Jurnet, I., Gutierrez-Maldonado, J., & Rangel-Gomez, M. (2011). The role of
presence in the level of anxiety experienced in clinical virtual environments.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 504–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2010.09.018
Allen, M., Berkowitz, S., Hunt, S., & Louden, A. (1999). A meta-analysis of the impact of
forensics and communication education on critical thinking. Communication
Education, 48(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529909379149
Allen, M., & Bourhis, J. (1996). The relationship of communication apprehension to
communication behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Quarterly, 44(2),
214–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379609370011
Allen, M., Hunter, J. E., & Donohue, W. A. (1989). Meta-analysis of self-report data on
the effectiveness of public speaking anxiety treatment techniques. Communication
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
health disorders (5th ed.).
Anderson, P. L., Price, M., Edwards, S. M., Obasaju, M. A., Schmertz, S. K., Zimand,
E., & Calamaras, M. R. (2013). Virtual reality exposure therapy for social anxiety
disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 81(5), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033559
Anderson, P. L., Zimand, E., Hodges, L. F., & Rothbaum, B. O. (2005). Cognitive
behavioral therapy for public-speaking anxiety using virtual reality for exposure.
Depression and Anxiety, 22(3), 156–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20090
Ayers, J. (1988). Coping with speech anxiety: The power of positive thinking.
Communication Education, 37(4), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378730
Ayers, J. (1992). An examination of the impact of anticipated communication and commu-
nication apprehension on negative thinking, task relevant thinking, and recall.
Communication Research Reports, 9(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099209359892
Ayers, J., Ayers, F. E., Baker, A. L., Colby, N., De Blasi, C., Dimke, D., Docken, L.,
Grubb, J., Hopf, T., Mueller, R. D., Sharp, D., & Kathleen Wilcox, A. (1993). Two
empirical tests of a videotape designed to reduce public speaking anxiety. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 21(2), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00909889309365362
Aymerich-French, L., Kizilcec, R. F., & Bailenson, J. N. (2014). The relationship between
virtual self similarity and social anxiety. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 19, 944.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00944
Beebe, S. A. (2013, May). Our “front porch.” Spectra, 49(2), 3–22.
Behnke, R. R., & Sawyer, C. R. (1999). Milestones of anticipatory public speaking anx-
iety. Communication Education, 48(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03634529909379164
Benson, H., & Klipper, M. Z. (2000). The relaxation response. HarperCollins.
Berkos, K. M. (2010). The role of imagined interactions in online communication. In J. M.
Honeycutt (Ed.), Imagine that: Studies in imagined interaction (pp. 115–125). Hampton.
Biocco, F., & Delaney, B. (1995). Immersive virtual reality technology. In F. Biocco &
M. R. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality (pp. 57–124). Erlbaum.
Biocco, F., & Levy, M. R. (1995a). Virtual reality as a communication system. In F. Biocco
& M. R. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality (pp. 15–32). Erlbaum.
Biocco, F., & Levy, M. R. (1995b). Communication applications of virtual reality. In F.
Biocco & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality (pp. 127–157).
Erlbaum.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903443849
Bodie, G. D., Honeycutt, J. M., & Vickery, A. J. (2013). An analysis of the correspon-
dence between imagined interaction attributes and functions. Human Communication
Research, 39(2), 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12003
Bourhis, J., & Allen, M. (1992). Meta-analysis of the relationship between communica-
tion apprehension and cognitive performance. Communication Education, 41(1),
68–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529209378871
Bourhis, J., & Allen, M. (1992). The role of videotaped feedback in the instruction of public
speaking: A quantitative synthesis of published empirical research. Communication
Research Reports, 15(3), 256–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099809362121
LeFebvre et al. 29
Choi, C. W., Honeycutt, J. M., & Bodie, G. D. (2015). Effects of imagined interactions
and rehearsal on speaking performance. Communication Education, 64(1), 25–44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.978795
Clevenger, T. (1984). Analysis of research on social anxieties. In J. A. Daly & J. C.
McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication
apprehension (1st ed., pp. 219–236). Sage.
Daly, J. A., McCroskey, J. C., Ayers, J., Hopf, T., & Ayers, D. M. (1997). Avoiding com-
munication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed.). Hampton Press.
Davis, A., Linvill, D. L., Hodges, L. F., Da Costa, A. F., & Lee, A. (2020). Virtual reality
versus face-to-face practice: A study into situational apprehension and performance.
Communication Education, 69(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2019.1684535
Donath, J. (2007). Virtually trustworthy. Science, 317(5834), 53–54. https://doi.org/10.
1126/science.1142770
Dwyer, K. K. (2000). The multidimensional model: Teaching students to self-manage
high communication apprehension by self-selecting treatments. Communication
Edwards, R., Honeycutt, J. M., & Zagacki, K. S. (1988). Imagined interactions as an
element of social cognition. Western Journal of Communication, 52(1), 23–45. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10570318809389623
Edwards, R., Honeycutt, J. M., & Zagacki, K. S. (1989). Gender differences in imagined
interactions. Sex Roles, 21, 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289906
Faravelli, C., Zucchi, T., Viviani, B., Salmoria, R., Perone, A., Paionni, A., Scarpato, A.,
Vigliaturo, D., Rosi, S., D’adamo, D., Bartolozzi, D., Cecchi, C., & Abrardi, L.
(2000). Epidemiology of social phobia: A clinical approach. European Psychiatry,
15(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-9338(00)00215-7
Fink, C. (2017, October 30). VR training the next generation of workers. Forbes. https://
www.forbes.com/sites/charliefink/2017/10/30/vr-training-next-generation-of-workers/
#70653a464f51
Fox, J., Arena, D., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtual reality: A survival guide for the
social scientist. Journal of Media Psychology, 21(3), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1027/
1864-1105.21.3.95
Frisby, B. N., Kaufmann, R., Vallade, J. I., Frey, T. K., & Martin, J. C. (2020). Using
virtual reality for speech rehearsals: An innovative instructor approach to enhance
student public speaking efficacy. Basic Communication Course Annual, 32, 59–78.
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1587&context=bcca
Garau, M., Slater, M., Pertaub, D. P., & Razzaque, S. (2005). The responses of people to
virtual humans in an immersive virtual environment. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and
Virtual Environments, 14(1), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/1054746053890242
Gotcher, J. M., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1989). An analysis of imagined interactions of
forensic participants. National Forensic Journal, 7, 1–20. http://www.nationalforensic
journal.org/uploads/9/1/9/3/91938460/vol7no1.pdf
Greene, J. O., & Sparks, G. G. (1983a). Explication and test of a cognitive model of com-
munication apprehension: A new look at an old construct. Human Communication
Research, 9(4), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00704.x
Greene, J. O., & Sparks, G. G. (1983b). The role of outcome expectations in the expe-
rience of a state of communication apprehension. Communication Quarterly, 31(3),
212–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378309369506
Harris, S. R., Kemmerling, R. L., & North, M. M. (2002). Brief virtual reality therapy for
public speaking anxiety. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(6), 543–550. https://doi.org/
10.1089/109493102321018187
Honeycutt, J. M. (1995). Imagined interactions, recurrent conflict and thought about
personal relationships: A memory structure approach. In J. E. Aitken & L. J.
Schedletsky (Eds.), Intrapersonal communication processes (pp. 138–150). Midnight
Oil Multimedia.
Honeycutt, J. M. (1999). Typological differences in predicting marital happiness from
oral history behaviors and imagined interactions. Communication Monographs, 66(3),
276–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376478
Honeycutt, J. M. (2003). Imagined interactions. Hampton Press.
Honeycutt, J. M. (2004). Imagined interaction conflict-linkage theory: Explaining the persis-
tence and resolution of interpersonal conflict in everyday life. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 23(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.2190/240J-1VPK-K86D-1JL8
Honeycutt, J. M. (2008). Imagined interaction theory: Mental representations of inter-
personal communication. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging the-
ories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 77–87). Sage.
Honeycutt, J. M. (2010). Imagine that: Studies in imagined interaction. Hampton.
Honeycutt, J. M. (2015). Imagined interaction theory: Mental representation of interper-
sonal communication. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in
interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 75–88). Sage.
Honeycutt, J. M., Choi, C.W., & DeBerry, J. R. (2009). Communication apprehension
and imagined interactions. Communication Research Reports, 26(3), 228–236. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08824090903074423
Honeycutt, J. M., Edwards, R., & Zagacki, K. S. (1989–1990). Using Imagined
Interaction features to predict measures of self-awareness: Loneliness, locus of con-
trol, self-dominance, and emotional intensity. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,
9(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.2190/02 L8
Honeycutt, J. M., & Ford, S. G. (2001). Mental imagery and intrapersonal communica-
tion: A review of research on imagined interactions (IIs) and current developments. In
W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook 25 (pp. 315–345). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Honeycutt, J. M., & Gotcher, J. M. (1991). Influence of imagined interactions on com-
municative outcomes: The case of forensic competition. In R. Kunzendorf (Ed.),
Mental imagery (pp. 139–143). Plenum.
Honeycutt, J. M., Zagacki, K. S., Edwards, R. (1989). Intrapersonal communication,
social cognition, and imagined interactions. In C. V. Roberts & K. W. Watson (Eds.),
Intrapersonal communication processes (pp. 166–184). Gorsuch Scariskbrick.
Honeycutt, J. M., Zagacki, K. S. & Edwards, R. (1992–1993). Imagined interaction,
conversational sensitivity, and communication competence. Imagination, Cognition
and Personality, 12(2), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.2190/B9PC-5IRJ-1D7N-4M94
Hopf, T., & Ayers, J. (1992). Coping with public speaking anxiety: An examination of
various combinations of systematic desensitization, skills training, and visualization.
LeFebvre et al. 31
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/

00909889209365328
Hsieh, H-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1049732305276687
LeFebvre, L. (2017). Basic course in communication. In M. Allen (Ed.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 87–90). Sage.
LeFebvre, L., & LeFebvre, L. E. (2019). The introductory communication course from
1956 to 2016: A meta-synthesis. Communication Education, 69(2), 199223. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03634523.2019.1679380
LeFebvre, L., LeFebvre, L. E., & Allen, M. (2018). Training the butterflies to fly in
formation: Cataloguing student fears about public speaking. Communication
Education, 67(3), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1468915
LeFebvre, L., LeFebvre, L. E., Allen, M., Buckner, M. M., & Griffin, D. (2019).
Metamorphosis of public speaking anxiety: Student fear transformation throughout
the introductory communication course. Communication Studies, 71(1), 98–111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2019.1661867
LeFebvre, L. E., Carmack, H. J., & Pederson, J. R. (2020). “It’s only one negative
comment”: Women instructors’ perceptions of (un)helpful support messages following
hurtful course evaluations. Communication Education, 69(1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03634523.2019.1672879
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), JCMC321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
Lucas, S. E. (1999). Teaching public speaking. In A. L. Vangelisti, J. A. Daly, & G. W.
Friedrich (Eds.), Teaching communication: Theory research, and methods (2nd ed.,
pp. 75–84). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marx, P. (2019, December 9). Taking virtual reality for a test drive. The New Yorker.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/09/taking-virtual-reality-for-a-test-
drive
McCann, R. M., & Honeycutt, J. M. (2006). A cross-cultural analysis of imagined
interactions. Human Communication Research, 32(3), 274–301. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00276.x
McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech
Monographs, 37(4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757009375677
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly &
J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communica-
tion apprehension (pp. 13–38). Sage.
McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J. (1984). Communication apprehension and accumu-
lated communication state anxiety experiences: A research note. Communication
Monographs, 51(1), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390185
McCroskey, L. L., Teven, J. J., Minielli, M. C., & Richmond McCroskey, V. P. (2014).
James C. McCroskey’s instructional communication legacy: Collaborations, mentor-
ships, teachers, and students. Communication Education, 63(4), 283–307. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03634523.2014.911929
Meyer, J. R. (1997). Cognitive influences on the ability to address interaction goals.

In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory
(pp. 71–90). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morina, N., Brinkman, W., Hartanto, D., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2014). Sense of
presence and anxiety during virtual social interactions between a human and virtual
humans. PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e337. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.337
Morreale, S. P., Myers, S. A., Backlund, P. M., & Simonds, C. J. (2016). Study IX of the
basic communication course at two- and four-year U.S. colleges and universities: A re-
examination of our discipline’s “front porch.” Communication Education, 65(3),
338–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1073339
Morreale, S. P., & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is important:
The centrality of the discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education, 57(2),
224–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701861713
Morreale, S. P., Worley, D. W., & Hugenberg, B. (2010). The basic communication
course at two- and four-Year U.S. colleges and universities: Study VIII—The 40th
Anniversary. Communication Education, 59(4), 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03634520701861713
Motley, M. T. (1990). Public speaking anxiety qua performance anxiety: A revised model
and alternative therapy. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(2), 85–104.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1292258507?accountid=7098
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2016). Job outlook 2016. National
Association of Colleges and Employers. https://www.naceweb.org/
National Postdoctoral Association. (2009). NPA core competencies. National
Postdoctoral Association. http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/?CoreCompetencies
Owens, M. E., & Beidel, D. C. (2015). Can virtual reality effectively elicit distress asso-
ciated with social anxiety disorder? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 37(2), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9454-x
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Paul, G. L. (1966). Insight vs. desensitization in psychotherapy: An experiment in anxiety
reduction. Stanford University Press.
Price, M., & Anderson, P. L. (2012). Outcome expectancy as a predictor of treatment
response in cognitive behavioral therapy for public speaking fears within social anx-
iety disorder. Psychotherapy, 49(2), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024734
Richmond, V. P., Wrench, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (2013). Communication apprehen-
sion, avoidance, and effectiveness (6th ed.). Pearson.
Rosenblatt, P. C., & Meyer, C. (1986). Imagined interactions in the family. Family Relations,
35(2), 319–324. https://www.jstor.org/stable/583641?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Ruscella, J. J. (2019, October 18). Virtual reality and job interviews. Academic Minute.
https://academicminute.org
Sawyer, C. R., & Behnke, R. R. (1997). Communication apprehension and implicit mem-
ories of public speaking state anxiety. Communication Quarterly, 45(3), 211–222.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379709370061
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A concep-
tualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.92.3.641
LeFebvre et al. 33
Sheldon, P., Grey, S. H., Vickery, A. J., & Honeycutt, J. M. (2015). An analysis of
imagined interactions with Pro-Ana (Anorexia): Implications for mental and physical
health. Imagination, Cognition and Personality: Consciousness in Theory, Research, and
Clinical Practice, 35(2), 166–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236615587493
Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., Pastrang, N., &
Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience
experiments. PLoS One, 1(1), e39. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039
Student Loan Hero. (2017). Ready to payoff your student loans? We thought so. Student
Loan Hero, Inc. https://studentloanhero.com
Stupar-Rutenfrans, S., Ketelaars, L. E. H., & van Gisbergen, M. S. (2017). Beat the fear
of public speaking: Mobile 360 video virtual reality exposure training in home envi-
ronment reduces public speaking anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 20(10), 624–633. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0174
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent
qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1077800410383121
Van Kelegom, M. J., & Wright, C. (2013). The use of imagined interactions to manage
relational uncertainty. Southern Communication Journal, 78(2), 91–106. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1041794X.2012.726688
Vickery, A. (2019). Everyday (imagined) talk: An exploration of everyday conversational
topics and imagined interaction features. Imagination, Cognition and Personality:
Consciousness in Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice, 39(2), 175–198. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0276236618809670
Wallach, H. S., Safir, M. P., & Bar-Zvi, M. (2009). Virtual reality cognitive behavior
therapy for public speaking anxiety: A randomized clinical trial. Behavior
Modification, 33(3), 314–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445509331926
Whitworth, R. H., & Cochran, C. (1996). Evaluation of integrated versus unitary treat-
ments for reducing public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 45(4),
306–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379060
Wiederhold, B. K., & Riva, G. (2019). Virtual reality therapy: Emerging topics and future
challenges. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(1), 3–6. https://doi.
org/10.1089/cyber.2018.29136.bkw
Zagacki, K. S., Edwards, R., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1992). The role of mental imagery and
emotion in Imagined Interactions. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 56–68. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01463379209369820
Author Biographies
Leah E. LeFebvre (PhD, University of Texas) is an assistant professor in the
Department of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama. Her pri-
mary research focuses on communicative intersections on romantic relationships
and emerging technology. Specifically, she explores the proliferation of online,
recordable technologies that influence past, current, and future communication,
relationship processes, and memory. Recent articles appear in Communication
Monographs, Journal of Loss and Trauma, Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, Mobile Media & Communication, Personal Relationships, and
Social Media þ Society.
Luke LeFebvre (PhD, Wayne State University) is an assistant professor in the

School of Information Science at the University of Kentucky. His research
examines innovative and foundational communication education, instructional
communication, and pedagogical practices. Recent articles appear in
Communication Education, Communication Quarterly, Communication Studies,
Communication Teacher, Review of Communication, and the Southern
Communication Journal. He has received early career awards from Central
States Communication Association, National Communication Association,
and International Communication Association.
Mike Allen (PhD, Michigan State University, 1987) is professor and chair in the
Department of Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He
has served as editor of Communication Monographs and Communication Studies,
published over ten books, 100 journal articles, and 100 book chapters in the area
of social influence approaches in Communication. Recent articles appear in
Communication Education, Computers in Human Behavior, American
Behavioral Scientist, Journal of Family Communication, and Marriage and
Family Review. He is the recipient of the John E. Hunter award for career
achievement in meta-analysis given by the “International Communication
Association.”

"Imagine All The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

"Imagine All The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Imagination, Cognition and

Reality When Public DOI: 10.1177/0276236620938310

environments a treatment mechanism that minimizes the cognitive strain to imagine

“Imagine All the People”1: Imagined Interactions in Virtual

Oral Communication Competency

Public Speaking Anxiety

Imagined Interaction (II)

realism for individuals to develop a detailed prescription that could serve to

Functions and Attributes

Figure 1. Imagined Interactions: Interrelationships Between Functions and Attributes.

The eight II attributes include: variety, frequency, proactivity, retroactivity,

Public Speaking Contexts

rehearsal function (Gotcher & Honeycutt, 1989). Moreover, forensics compet-

speaking and situational communication apprehension. These prior studies

Public Speaking Anxiety and Imagined Interactions Using

H1: Participants in VR will report a significant decrease in PRPSA.

H2A: The II rehearsal function experienced through VR will be associated with

The II attributes which operate as a construct of functions help to inform

H3A: The II specificity attribute experienced through VR will be associated with

Figure 2. 360-degree Classroom Video Recording.

Hispanic or Latino(a), 5.6% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2.8% Middle Eastern,

Sample Participants. The study sample consisted of participants (N ¼ 17) recruited

Stage 1. Participants shared individual demographics, reported previous public

Table 1. Stages to the Virtual Reality Simulation for Public Speaking.

Stage Survey Speech type Participants

Agree), participants answered statements that included: “I perspire just before

Stages 2 and 3. Upon arrival to the VR simulation participants reaffirmed IRB

Figure 3. Virtual Reality Screenshots of Classroom Audience From Speaker Perspective.

Figure 4. Virtual Reality Screenshots of Speaker Notes From Speaker Perspective.

therefore, we reported the intercorrelation, which was significant, r ¼ .58,

Stage 4. Participants again completed the PRPSA measure (Cronbach’s a ¼ .95,

Table 2. Correlations Between Functions, Attributes, and Post-PSA Score.

1 Catharsis – 7.27 2.09

Qualitative (Follow-Up) Analysis

Figure 5. Participants’ Perception of Imagined Interactions Functions and Attributes.

speechmaking process) stimulated by the simulation. The VR simulation

for further investigations to determine if rehearsal is a predictor for the specific

or correspondence to the targeted situation, unlike the traditional practice

Limitations and Future Directions

simulation provides an intermediary experience linking the imagined and actual

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

4. Honeycutt et al.’s (2009) study utilized the Personal Report of Communication

Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/

Meyer, J. R. (1997). Cognitive influences on the ability to address interaction goals.

Monographs, Journal of Loss and Trauma, Journal of Social and Personal

Luke LeFebvre (PhD, Wayne State University) is an assistant professor in the

You might also like