A survey of certain audience attitudes toward commonly taught standards of public speaking

Citation preview

A SURVEY OF CERTAIN AUDIENCE ATTITUDES TOWARD COMMONLY TAUGHT STANDARDS OF PUBLIC SPEAKING

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Speech University of Southern California

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts

by William Keith Clark June 1950

UMI Number: EP66024

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI EP66024 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346

This thesis, w ritten by

.WXLL.IAM....XEXTE....GLARK under the guidance of h..iB.. F a c u lty C om m ittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by the C o uncil on G ra duate Study and Research in p a r t ia l f u l f i l l ­ ment of the requirements f o r the degree of

Master of Arts

Date.

...11LM.. 1350.

Faculty Committee

ifc &,JuUtA

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Professor Redding for suggestion of the problem and for valuable direction during the investigation.

The writer

also wishes to thank the other members of the committee, Dr. Milton Dickens and Dr. William B. McCoard, for their interest and helpful guidance throughout this period of graduate study. The writer also wishes to express his gratitude to the members of the following organizations for their kind cooperation:

’’The Filibusters Club;"- the Lions Club,

University Park group; the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, #99; Kiwanis International, University Park group; "Toastmistresses International," Wilshire group; the InterFraternity Mothers Club of the University of Southern California; the Junior Guild of the South Gate, California, Christian Church; and Alpha Pi Omega.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I.

PAGE

INTRODUCTION .................................... Definition of effective public speaking

1

...

1

public speaking .............................

3

Definition of standards of effective

Statement of purpose . .

...................

3

Significance of the study

...................

4

Methods and procedures .......................

7

Preview of remaining chapters ............... II.

REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ....................... Rating scale studies in general

12

.............

12

.....................

16

S u m m a r y .......................................

24

SURVEY OF T E X T S ................................

25

Closely related studies

III.

10

The textbooks surveyed and the results of the s u r v e y ..............................

26

Comparison of “essential” classifications with rating scale criteria .................

34

Bryan-Wilke S c a l e ........................ • . .

35

Purdue Speech Rating Scale ...................

35

Knower’s s c a l e ................................

36

Norvelle’s s c a l e ..............

36

Stevens’ scale ................................

36

iv CHAPTER

PAGE Henrikson’s scale ...........................

36

Summary of Chapter I I I ................. IV,

36

CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

39

Construction of thequestionnaire ............

40

Question I ....................................

40

Question I I ..................................

42

Question I I I ..................................

44

Application of questionnaire .................

44

R e s p o n d e n t s .....................

44

P r o c e d u r e s .................................

45

Summary of Chapter I V ................... V.

PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA Over-all summary

..............

46 . .

47

• , .

47

Question I ................................

.

47

Question I I ............................

50

Question I I I ............................

52

Results by s e x e s ..........................

52

Question I ..............................

52

Question I I .............................

5^

Question I I I ............................... Results by age g r o u p s ...................

5^ 59

Question I .................

59

Question I I ............................

61

Question I I I ............................

65

CHAPTER

PAGE A comparison of the questionnaire results with the textbook survey results ........

68

Summary of

thetextbook survey results

68

Summary of

the questionnaire results. . .

* *

C o m p a r i s o n ............................ S u m m a r y .............. VI.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . .

70 JO

-. .

75

............

79

S u m m a r y ....................................

79

Co n c l u s i o n s ............... ...............

82

Suggestions for furtherresearch

..........

84

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................

8j

APPENDIX A .........

92

APPENDIX B .......................................

94

APPENDIX C .......................................

95

APPENDIX D .......................... .................

96

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE I.

vi PAGE

"Essential" Ratings, by Textbooks and Audiences, of Fourteen Possible Characteristics of Effective Public Speaking ...................

73

TABLE I.

First, Second, and Third Place Rankings of Eight Well Known S p e a k e r s ..................

II.

"Essential," "Doubtful," "Not Essential," "Least Essential," and "Most Essential" Ratings for Fourteen Possible Character­ istics of Effective Public Speaking ........

III.

First, Second, and Third Place Rankings, by Sexes, of Eight Well Known Speakers . . .

IV.

51

53

"Doubtful," and "Not Essential" Ratings, by Sexes, for Fourteen Possible Charac­ teristics of Effective Public

Speaking . . .

55

"Least Essential" and "Most Essential" Ratings, by Sexes, for Fourteen Possible Characteristics of Effective Public S p e a k i n g ..................................... VI.

56

Characteristics Most Frequently Rated in Each of Four Categories:

"Most

Essential," "Doubtful," "Not Essen­ tial ," and "Least E s s e n t i a l .................

5$

vii TABLE VII.

PAGE First, Second, and Third Place Rankings, hy Age Groups, of Eight Well Known S p e a k e r s ................................. . .

VIII.

60

"Doubtful" and "Not Essential" Ratings, by Age Groups, for Fourteen Possible Characteristics of Effective Public S p e a k i n g ..................................

IX.

62

"Doubtful" and "Not Essential" Ratings, by Sexes in Each Age Group, of Four­ teen Possible Characteristics of Effec­ tive Public Speaking .......................

X.

63

nLeast Essential" and "Most Essential" Ratings, by Age Groups, for Fourteen Possible Characteristics of Effective Public Speaking ...........................

XT.

66

"Least Essential" and "Most Essential" Ratings, by Sexes in Each Age Group, for Fourteen Possible Characteristics of Effective Public Speaking ...............

XII.

67

Characteristics Most Frequently Rated, by Age Groups, in Each of Four Categories: "Most Essential," "Doubtful," "Not Essen­ tial, " and "Least Essential" ...............

69

viii TABLE XIII.

PAGE “Essential“ Ratings, by Textbooks and Audiences, of Fourteen Possible Char­ acteristics of Effective Public Speaking . . . .

XIV.

Comparison:

72

“Most Essential11 Ratings with

“Least Essential” Ratings for Fourteen possible Characteristics of Effective Public Speaking ................................ XV.

77

First, Second, and Third Place Rankings, by "Under 21" Age Group, of Eight WellKnown S p e a k e r s .....................

XVI.

9^

"Doubtful»“ “Not Essential," “Least Essential," and "Most Essential" Rat­ ings, by “Under 21" Age Group, for Fourteen Possible Characteristics of Effective Public Speaking .................

XVII.

.

95

First, Second, and Third Place Rankings, by Sexes within Each Age Group, of Eight Well Known S p e a k e r s ...................

96

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In 336 B. C., Aristotle defined rhetoric as "the faculty of discovering in the particular case the available means of persuasion. 11

Since that time, various orators have

sought a definition of "the available means of persuasion." In more recent years, authors of textbooks for public speak­ ing courses have substituted the phrase "the standards of effective public speaking" for Aristotle's original state­ ment.

It is the dual purpose of this study to determine

what at least some of these "standards" are and whether they actually are keys to that elusive something known as "effective public speaking." Definition of effective public speaking. falls into the general field of public address.

This study More

particularly, the present study is concerned with the factors involved in "effective public speaking."

This phrase has

many connotations, all based more or less on Aristotle's concept of the purpose of a speech: object

"...

and the end or

[italics in the original] of the speech is deter­

mined . . . by the audience."^

1 Richard McKeon, editor, The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York: Random House, 19^1)* p. 1335(Or, Rhetoric i. 3» 1358a .)

2 Thonssen and Baird state that: Manifestly, response [italics in the origina^ is the key determinant of effectiveness. This presupposes the ' speaker's intelligent recognition of the necessity of adapting his materials to listeners; of his keeping the audience, rather than formal rules, constantly in mind. . . . A speech is effective, therefore, if it achieves an end orpresponse consistent with the speaker's pur­ pose. . . Gray and Wise state that, 11Just as there are certain factors in the efficiency of our other methods of communica­ tion, so also are there certain factors of efficiency in speech, our most common means of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . D i c k e n s states that, ". . . effective speaking must always be judged in terms of its effect upon the audience."^

Bryant and

Wallace feel that the effectiveness of public speaking ". . . depends to a large degree on whether speaker and audience feel [italics in the originalj

that they have a

common purpose . . . that makes possible the taking of decisions and actions on continuous p r o b l e m s . M o s t

of the

2 Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1948), pp. 460 f. 3 Giles W. Gray and C. M. Wise, The Bases of Speech (New York: Harper Bros., 1934), p. 6 9 . 4 Milton Dickens, The Group Fallacy and Public Speaking," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 17:40, February, 19313 d . C. Bryant and Karl R. Wallace, Fundamentals of Public Speaking (New York: D. C. Appleton-Century Co., 19^7),

p . 22.

other authors of speech textbooks have similar definitions. For purposes of this study,

"effective public speaking"

shall be defined as that public speaking which achieves the speaker’s purpose, whether that purpose be to interest, to inform, or to influence action by persuading and/or convinc­ ing. Definition of standards of effective public speaking. The possibility of breaking down the speech situation into its component parts, or elements, is a subject of controversy. However, a vast majority of speech texts advance certain elements of the speech situation which they contend are essential to effective public speaking. of two general classes:

These elements are

first, those which are specific,

observable, behavioral in nature (e.g., gestures); second, those which are in the nature of general impressions of a speaker's personality (e.g., sincerity).

Those elements, of

both classes, which are classified as "the surest and best assets of the good speaker,n "the criteria of good speech," etc., by a majority (six or more) of the textbooks surveyed in this study, shall be classified as the "standards" of effective public speaking.'

For purposes of the present study,

the terms "standards" and "criteria" are used interchangeably. Statement of purpose.

As has been pointed out, various

elements of public speaking have been suggested as essential

attributes of an effective speaker.

A majority of the

speech textbooks describe these elements as "the criteria of good speech/' or in similar ways.

As a result, certain of

these elements may be classified as standards of effective public speaking by virtue of repetition in a number of speech texts.

In very few instances, however, has a textbook writer

verified experimentally the validity of such standards in terras of actual audience attitudes towards them. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the most commonly stated criteria really are standards of effective public speaking in the sense that they represent opinions of various flesh-and-blood audiences rather than merely theoretical concepts established by the speech texts. This general purpose may be broken down into three specific objectives:

(l) to determine what elements in the

speech situation are classed as essential by a majority of the important speech texts examinedj

(2) to determine how

closely audience ratings of the relative importance of each of the elements correspond to the ratings by the textbooks; (3 ) to suggest implications of the audience criteria when applied to the evaluation of certain contemporary speakers. Significance of the study. significant for four reasons.

This study is felt to be

First, such phrases as "of

prime importance," etc., used by various speech textbooks in

^

classifying alleged essentials of speech, are perhaps unduly categorical.

To the knowledge of the writer, very little I ^

controlled experimental evidence for these statements has

j

been cited or, apparently, sought.

I

1

This study should

explore methods of validating these "essentials." Second, a student in a speech course is judged on the basis of these textbook standards by instructors and by his fellow

students.

The student is being trained to speak

before

audiences after his college career is ended, yet he

\

J

is judged on standards applicable to student audience situa­ tions, standards which may be of doubtful value in post­ college speech situations.

This study may possibly fore-arm

the student by forewarning him, i.e., by giving him knowledge of what standards are likely to be applied by adult, non-college audiences. Third, this study will aid in evaluating the validity of the

criteria included in speaker rating scales. In

recent years, the use of scales to judge the effectiveness of public speakers has become relatively common.

The

criteria for rating the speakers were evolved chiefly from the standards set forth in speech textbooks and/or the opinions of workers in the field of speech, including the authors of the scales themselves.

In only two studies^ were

---------

Lee J. Norvelle, "Instruction in a Basic Speech Course," Speech Monographs, 1: 41 - 65, 1934; E. H. Henrikson, "_An Analysis of the Characteristics of Some 'Good1 and •Poor’ Speakers," Speech Monographs, 11: 120-124, 1944.

6 actual audiences asked what they considered were the cri­ teria of speaking effectiveness, for purposes of including their answers as criteria in rating scales.

Apparently none

of the authors of any of the scales has actually attempted to test the reliability of his scale on the basis of an audience's attitudes toward the scale's criteria. In casting light upon the validity of the criteria included in speaker rating scales, this study should co­ incidentally suggest an evaluation of the validity of various conclusions arrived at by the authors of the scales.

Knower

concluded that: The use of rating scales makes possible a fairly accurate weighting of the elements in the total situa­ tion . , . [and] . . . a more scientific objective, and verifiable basis of measuring speech effectiveness in terms of a specific performance.' However, if the elements used in judging are invalid as cri­ teria,

"a fairly accurate weighting” becomes impossible, and

the measurements of speech effectiveness are inaccurate. Norvelle concluded: . . . that this method provides a means of securing the best criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a given speech, i. e., the recording of definite responses on given factors, by each member of the audience while the speech is being given.

7 F. H. Knower, "A Suggestive Study of Public Speak­ ing Rating Scale Values," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 15:3041, 1921. ^ Norvelle, op. cit., p. 6 5 .

7 Again, if the standards established by the textbooks are invalid, obviously some or all of the rating scale criteria are invalid, and the recordings of responses are relatively meaningless. Methods and procedures.

Using the terminology em­

ployed by Whitney in his Elements of Research to classify acceptable methods for graduate studies, the present study may be said to employ "the descriptive method."

Whitney

lists several variations of the descriptive method, the one applying most directly to the present thesis being that of "the research survey."

Whitney says:

The survey . . . is an organized attempt to analyze, interpret, and report the present status of a social institution, group, or area. It deals with a crosssection of the present, of duration sufficient for examination— that is, present time, not the present moment. Its purpose is to get groups of classified, generalized, and interpreted data for the guidance of practice in the immediate future.9 The procedures used in making this study may be described as follows: (l)The bibliographies and other sources of reference are:

Gilkinson's listing of studies in speech;^ the table

of contents for the Quarterly Journal of Speech (1915-19^8)

9 p. L. Whitney, The Elements of Research (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19^6), p. 155« ^ Howard Gilkinson, Outlines in Research in General Speech (Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 19'46") pp. 1-8 0 .

8 and the Speech Monographs (1934-1948)> Knower1s record of theses in the speech f i e l d ; ^ and Thonssen and Fatherson's 12 Bibliography of Speech Education.

Each title which

suggested an evaluation of the elements of effective speak­ ing or the use of a speaker rating scale was listed. (2)

All studies whose titles had been listed were

read carefully and summarized.

All rating scale criteria

and lists of speaking elements were noted. (3)

The sources for the criteria were noted also.

(4)

Ten public speaking texts were selected by the

writer and members of his committee as representative in the field.

Each text was read carefully and note was made of

each element of speech which was classified by the author as essential to effectiveness, as described by such phrases as "a criterion of good speech," etc. B r i g a n c e , -*-3

Bryant and Wallace,

The texts were by Gray and Wise, ^5 Monroe, ^

F. H. Knower, "Graduate Theses," Speech Monographs, 2:1-49, 1945 (also Vols. 3-12, 14-16).

IP

Lester Thonssen and Elizabeth Fatherson, Bibli­ ography of Speech Education (New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1939). 13 w. N. Brigance, Speech Communication (New York: Crofts and Company, 1947. 14 Bryant and Wallace, o j d . cit. ^

Gray and Wise, op. cit.

Alan H. Monroe, Principles of Speech (brief ed.; Chicago: Scott, Foreman and Company, 1945).

9 Murray,1"'7 Sarrett and Foster,1^ Thonssen and Weaver,

on

Winans,

(5)

pi

and Woolbert.

G i l k i n s o n , 1 ^

pp

A tabulation was made of the total number of

authors who classified each element as "essential." (6 )

A questionnaire was constructed,, including among

other items those elements classified as essential by a majority (six or more) of the texts surveyed.

(Full explana­

tion of the contents and methods of constructing the questionnaire will be given in Chapter III.) (7)

Certain audiences were surveyed by means of the

questionnaire. (8 )

The results of the audiences' responses were

tabulated and interpreted from several viewpoints in order that inter-relationships and over-all conclusions might be

^ E l w o o d Murray, The Speech Personality (New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1939)• l fi

Lew Sarett and W. T. Foster, Basic Principles of Speech (Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin Company, Cambridge Press, 1936). IQ ^ Lester Thonssen and Howard Gilkinson, Basic Train­ ing in Speech (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 19^7)• pA A. T. Weaver, Speech (New York: Longmans, Green, and Company, 19^6). ^ James A. Winans, Speech Making (New York: D. C. Appleton-Century Company, 19^3$) • pp

Charles H. Woolbert, Fundamentals of Speech (New York: Harper Bros.; revised ed.; 1927).

10

suggested. Preview of remaining-chapters.

Chapter II is

entitled, "Review of Literature," and will include a review of studies done in the general area of speaker rating scales, of those studies employing rating scales with tested cri­ teria, and of articles and studies dealing with the classifying of elements of effective speech.

The textbooks

surveyed will not be reviewed in Chapter II. Chapter III, "Survey of Texts," will include the tabulations of the elements in the speech situation which were listed as essential by the ten speech texts surveyed, rankings of these elements by the speech texts, and compari­ son of the textbook "standards" with the criteria used in the various rating scales. Chapter IV, "The Questionnaire and Its Application," will describe the construction of the questionnaire, its component parts, and the application of it in surveying certain audiences. Chapter V is entitled "Presentation and Interpreta­ tion of the Data," and will include an over-all summary of the data acquired through the application of the question­ naire, the results of the survey (analyzed by audiences, sex, and age groups), the comparison of the questionnaire with the text survey results, and interpretation of the findings..

11

Chapter VI,

"Summary and Conclusions," will summarize

briefly, propose certain conclusions, and suggest directions for further research.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In addition to the ten speech textbooks studied (a critical evaluation of each will be given in Chapter III), a study was made of the customary indices and bibliographies Titles which suggested the use of rating scales or an evalu­ ation of the elements of effective speech were listed. Careful study of these articles has revealed that, while there has., been much research done in the area of the possibilities and limitations of speaker rating scales, and of methods of evaluation of judgments expressed through the application of rating scales, there is only one study which utilized criteria suggested by both texts and an audience, and apparently neither this study nor any other has dealt with an evaluation of the standards of effective speaking in terms of actual audience attitudes toward them.

Thus, in

terms of directly related studies, there is apparently no literature to review./

However, to establish a background,

two lines of research will be examined:

first, studies in

the general usage of rating scales; and second, three studies which are closely if not directly related to the present one. Rating scale studies in general.

Of the studies

13 utilizing rating scales, only those are significant for the present investigation which involve judgments of speaking 1 ability. Therefore, studies such as those by Utterback, 2 3 Woodward, and Millson will not be considered.

^

Of the studies involving the use of rating-scale 4 criteria, Stinchfield*s was one of the first. In this one, tests were formulated whose purposes were to measure the general effectiveness of an individual's speech.

These tests

were designed to measure, subjectively, speech "behavior" and voice, and, objectively, other speech elements such as articulation, rate, vocabulary, etc.

The tests were

primarily for discovering physical speech deficiencies. Apparently none of the elements were incorporated in the tests because of their suggested importance by textbooks or audiences.

As stated previously, this study was one of

the first in developing speaker rating methods, and its

^ William E. Utterback, "The 'Extension1 Audience," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 16:194-200, April, 1930. o H. S. Woodward, "Measurement and Analysis of Audience Opinion," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 14:94-111, February, 1928. ^ W. A. D. Millson, "Measurement of Speech Values," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 22:5^-553* December, 1936. ^ Sarah M. Stinchfield, "Practical Speech Measure­ ments," Quarterly Journal of Speech Education, 9:77-8^* February, 1923.

14 occasional ambiguity and over-all haziness of purpose may be explained on that basis. R In another study, Knower-^ reports that a list of questions grouped into four sets of scales were given student judges.

Some of the questions concerned the

speaker's concept of his purpose, material used,

"mobility"

of the speech itself, correctness of grammar, use of humor, poise, bodily movement, sincerity, volume, tone and rate of voice, pitch, volume, attitude toward audience, and gestures. The students were to judge one another on the basis of the criteria suggested by the scale.

Some of Knower's conclu­

sions concerning the possibilities of accurately weighing the elements in the total situation and of developing a more scientific basis for measuring speech effectiveness through the utilization of rating scales have been evaluated else-

, I -

where in this thesis.^ In a study done by Bryan and Wilke,

7

a speaker rating

scale was perfected-after some years of experimentation (1934 to 1939)*

The speaker rating scale was composed of a list

of sixteen criteria.

Each criterion was accompanied by five

or more descriptive adjectives in order that the speaker's

^ F. H. Knower, "A Suggestive Study of Public Speak­ ing Hating Scale Values," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 15: 30-41, 1921. ^ Supra, p. 5« 7 A. I. Bryan and W. H. Wilke, "A Technique for Rating Public Speeches," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 5 :80-90 , 1941.

15 performance could be rated on the basis of degrees. criteria were:

The

opening remarks, voice, personal appearance,

distinctness and pronunciation, flow of words, personality, self-control, degree of energy, command of language, plat­ form behavior, sincerity, clear line of thought, interest­ ingness of speech, reasoning, concluding remarks, and value of speech..

An example of the range from good to bad of the

descriptive adjectives to be used in rating the speaker's ability follows: of words?

"How would you describe the speaker's flow

Fluent— Easy--Unimpeded--Hesitant--Labored.”

No

sources for the standards are given, nor is there any mention made of an attempt to check the validity of the standards on the basis of audience attitudes toward them. o

A brief review of the study may be found in Gilkinson. G i l k i n s o n ^ also reviews an experimental study by

Monroe, Remmers, and Venemann-Lyles^^ in which the authors reportedly had male students in speech classes rate each %

other's performances for posture, directness, action, en­ thusiasm, voice, attention, objectivity, concreteness, motivation, organization, and general effectiveness.

These

-

Howard Gilkinson, Outlines in Research in General Speech (Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co., 194FJ, p. 45. 9 Ibid.. p. 6 8 . 10 Loo. cit.

16

criteria are contained in the Purdue Rating Scale, and their source is a speech text written by a member of the Purdue staff at that time."*'"*'

The purpose of the study was to de­

termine the students' ability to rate; it was not concerned with either the actual effectiveness of each speaker or with the validity of the rating standards, themselves. Several other studies reviewed by Gilkinson

12

are

concerned with coefficients of correlation indicating the amount of agreement among raters.

As they are related only

indirectly to the present study, no more than the authors' names will be listed. Hurd,

14

Gilkinson,

15

They were: and Drushal.

Gilkinson and Knower, 16

13

17 The study by Thompson '

is similar to the four and, therefore, will also not be dis­ cussed. Closely related studies.

The studies next to be

discussed are closely related to the present inquiry.

One

^ John A. McGee, Persuasive Speaking (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1929)• 1p Gilkinson, op. cit., p. ^513 Ibid., pp. 54 f. !4 Ibid., p. 59. ^ Ifoid« f p • 53 *

16 Ibid., p. 49. Wayne N. Thompson, "The Characteristics of Student Raters of Public Speaking Performances," Speech Monographs. 13:45, 1946.

17 deals with the problem of evolving a rating scale whose standards were suggested, at least in part, by textbooks. Another deals with the problem of establishing the validity of rating scale standards by an actual survey of audience attitudes toward those standards.

The third deals with

both problems and is concerned, in part, with incorporating and correlating the two. The latter study was done by Norvelle.

18

It concerns

itself with correlating and incorporating the problems of evolving a rating scale, some of whose standards have been suggested by textbooks; and it concerns itself with estab­ lishing the validity of these standards on the basis of audience attitudes toward them.

Norvelle employed a rating

scale containing the "elements that make up an effective speech."

These elements were determined by (l) examining

twelve speech textbooks and selecting those elements of the speech situation emphasized most and whose relative import­ ance was agreed upon by the authors;

(2 ) compiling listings

of the eight most important elements of the speech situation made by ten colleagues at the University of Iowa;

(3) de­

termining what points various judges at speaking contests used as bases for judgments; fifty prominent speakers;

(4) compiling lists given by

(5 ) getting opinions of sixty-

-j o

Lee J. Norvelle, "Instruction in a Basic Speech Course," Speech Monographs, 1:41-65, 193^«

18 seven students of advanced speech; and (6 ) compiling listings of the eight most important elements by a group of thirty-two men in the ’’Speakers’ Club” of Davenport, Iowa.

The results

were compiled and a rating scale constructed containing the ten elements most often cited.

They were:

idens, audibility,

language, directness, agreeableness, emphasis, naturalness, poise, position (including posture and bodily action), and gestures.

In discussing these elements, Norvelle added that

’’There must also be brevity, spontaneity, sincerity, en­ thusiasm, and originality.

If these important elements are

overlooked, the speaker cannot hope to speak in an effective 19 manner." five.

However, Norvelle does not define any of these

His main purpose was to determine how much the

speakers improved over a period of time.

The attitudes of

the student audiences toward the validity of the categories in the scale were not investigated.

One of the author’s

conclusions has been cited previously, in which he stated that ’’this method provides a means of securing the best cri­ teria for evaluating the effectiveness of a given speech . ,.20 . . Another conclusion of importance to the present study i s :

Ibid., p. 45. Supra, p. 5-

.

. . . that the application of the method devised for this study provides a fairly accurate measurement of the several factors upon which effective speaking depends.21 The method devised does not, however, take into account the listings by non-academic audiences of the important elements of public speaking.

The single small audience of

a relatively non-academic nature which was surveyed was a group of people who were receiving training in speech and could be considered to be on much the same level as the advanced public speaking students. Stevens^2 completed another study which dealt, among other things, with the problem of evolving a rating scale whose standards were suggested partly by textbooks.

One of

the first studies in the use of the rating scale technique in judging speaking ability, this one utilized a scale con­ taining fifteen criteria for rating the effectiveness of student speakers by student judges.

The criteria were

elements "which in the experience of the writer and the opin23 24 ion of such recognized authorities as Dolman, Houghton, 21 Loc. cit. 22 ¥. E. Stevens, "A Rating Scale for Public Speakers, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 14:223-232, 1928. 23 John Dolman, A Handbook of Public Speaking (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1922). 2^ H. G. Houghton, Elements of Public Speaking (Boston Ginn and Company, 1916).

West,

25

26

Woolbert, are most likely to be determiners of 27 success." The fifteen criteria were: physique, voice,

relation to audience, utterance, facial expression, mobility, humor, gestures, responsiveness (to audience reactions), emotion, logic, scope of vision, fluency, diction, and sin­ cerity.

Each criterion was broken down into four or five

degrees of attainment, ranging from poor to excellent; for example: gestures —

conspicuously absent; inhibited or

listless; unconstrained but awkward; wild, distracting; graceful and natural.

On the basis of the ratings given by

student judges to student speakers, the author concluded that the speaker who succeeds before student audiences is characterized by . . intimate relation to his audience, wide-awake appearance, easy movement, response to reactions of his audience, use of gestures, and fluency. . . . The poorest speaker paid little or no attention to his audience, does not move easily, uses no humor at all, uses almost no gestures, shows no emotion, and is not forcefully sincere. Since the selection of criteria was from textbooks, again the fact that the textbooks said it made it so, and the

R. W. West, Purposive Speaking (New York: Mac­ millan Company, 1924). Charles H. Woolbert, Fundamentals of Speech (New York: Harper Bros.; first edition; 1920). 27 Stevens, op. cit., p. 224.

28

Ibid., p. 232.

audiences* attitudes toward the criteria were not tested. The third'study which is closely related to this thesis was done b y - H e n r i k s o n . H i s purpose was (1) to compile a list of the; characteristics of good and bad 'speaking cited by 235 student speakers in speeches in which they stated what characteristics they thought good and bad speakers possessed, and (2) to determine the rela­ tive importance of the nine categories of characteristics emerging from the 235 speeches, as determined by the rank­ ings given them by fifty-four other students.

Henrikson

says: A comparison was made of the influence of an item in the selection of a speaker as good or poor by com­ paring the number of times the item was mentioned and the direct rating of the i m p o r t a n c e . 50 The nine categories of characteristics of a good speaker mentioned most often in the 235 speeches, with their re­ spective rankings by the fifty-four respondents, were: 1.

choice of subject;.2.

of material; 4*

voice; 5*

effect on audience; 3.

choice

organization; 6. language; 8.

physical aspects of delivery; 9. general appearance.

Relevaxtt

E. H. Henrikson, "An Analysis of the Character­ istics of Some *GrOod* and *Poor* Speakers," Speech Mono­ graphs , 11:120-124, 1944. 50 Ibid., p. 123. .

to the present inquiry is one of Henrikson's conclusions: A comparison of the number of times a factor is mentioned in describing a good or poor speaker with the ranking of the assumed importance of that item in selecting such a speaker shows some significant similarities. . .31 The audiences Henrikson worked with were student audiences, and the elements, or "categories," used were suggested by the students and judged and evaluated by the students. Assuming that both groups were using the same speech text­ book in their courses, the writer does not feel that the similarities were necessarily ’’significant.” A fourth study, that of Lyle, should be mentioned, both as background for the present thesis and as a warning for future investigators.

The title,

”An Experimental

Evaluation of Certain Functional Criteria of the Effective­ ness of Platform Speech,”^2 is misleading.

The "functional

criteria" with which the study is concerned are (l) ratings by students,

(2) ratings by instructors, and (3) grades

given by instructors, rather than the "criteria” defined in this study as the elements of speaking effectiveness. Lyle used the Purdue Speech Rating Chart developed by Monroe 31

Ibid., p. 12^.

32 Elizabeth Vennemann Lyle, "An Experimental Evalua­ tion of Certain Functional Criteria of the Effectiveness of Platform Speech," (unpublished Master's thesis, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1937).

23 and McGee to be used in connection with McGee's speech text33 book* and she correlated ratings made by two hundred speech students with those made by six instructors of speech. The study dealt with the problem of evaluating student audiences' and instructors' attitudes toward the elements of the rating scale.

'The "functional criteria” were evaluated

only in terms of judgments made by students and instructors on the basis of the three criteria in the scale with the highest rankings.

These were:

"attention,” "organization,”

and "enthusiasm," and as the word "attention" is used rather ambiguously (some of the qualifying adjectives--"not vital, . . . dry,

. . . stale,

. . . humorous,

. . . concrete,

. .

. animated”--indicate the actual element to be subject mat­ ter) , some of the conclusions appear to be questionable. A fifth study which should be mentioned briefly is 'ik. that done by Toussaint. The purpose of this study was to compile a list of the most common annoying characteristics of public speakers.

The methods employed in the study were

similar to those of the present thesis, in that non-academic audiences were surveyed. But, obviously, Toussaint addressed himself only to the problem of undesirable traits of speak­ ers, rather than to positive criteria. 33 Ibid,, p. 4 f. Qii

..

J Sylvester Roy Toussaint, Common Annoyances m Public Speakers,” (unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1938).

24 Summary.

This chapter has offered a brief summary

of several studies done in the general field of speaker ratings and a more lengthy summary of five studies which have a closer bearing on the present investigation.

The

studies reviewed are concerned with either judging speakers on the basis of certain criteria contained in the rating scales or with establishing the validity of the ratings. The present study is concerned, rather, with how valid are the criteria themselves (upon which ratings are based) in terms of actual judgments from non-academic audiences. The next chapter will describe the investigation of ten speech textbooks for the purpose of determining what elements of the speaking situation are classified as "essential” by a majority of these texts.

CHAPTER III SURVEY OF TEXTS The purpose of this chapter is to pursue the first of the three objectives of this study* i. e.. * to determine what elements in the speech situation are classified as "essen­ tial" in ten representative speech texts.

Henrikson reports

that: All attempts made to find the distinctive qualities of good speaking begin with the assumption that excel­ lence in speech is to be determined functionally* that is* by considering the purpose of the speaker* the circumstances, and the effect of the speech on the hearers. Knower asserts that: There are those who say that any attempt to break . up the speech situation into elements will ignore the relationship of the elements which is* in many cases* the more important f a c t o r . ^ However, it is a safe generalization that all speech text­ books do attempt to break up the speech situation into elements* and that each textbook advances certain of these elements as those which are "the criteria of good speech." Studies have been done which considered these elements from the standpoints of the purpose of the speaker and the

^ E. H. Henrikson* "An Analysis of the Characteristics of Some ’Good1 and ’Poor' Speakers," Speech Monographs, 1 1 :121* 1944. o F. H. Knower* "A Suggestive Study of Public Speaking Rating Scale Values," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 15:40*

1921.

circumstances; however, apparently .no study has been done which dealt with these elements and their effect on the hearers. The textbooks surveyed and the results of the survey. To determine the effect of these elements of the speech situation, the writer first surveyed ten speech textbooks which were considered to be both prominent and representative of varying points of view.

These textbooks are: Brigance,

Speech Communication; Bryant and Wallace, Fundamentals of Public Speaking; Gray and Wise, The Bases of Speech; Monroe, Principles of Speech; Murray, The Speech Personality; Sarett and Foster, Basic Principles of Speech; Thonssen and Gilkinson, Basic Training in Speech; Weaver, Speech; Winans, Speechmaking; and Woolbert, Fundamentals of Speech.^ Each of these texts was found to contain discussions of certain elements of the speech situation, elements which the particular text classified as essential to speaking success.

These criteria were noted and then grouped under

several categories deemed by the writer to be mutually ex­ clusive.

A tabulation was made of the number of textbooks

classifying each element as "essential;"

the elements were

then arranged in rank order according to the number of

^ Supra, p. 7.

27 "essential" classifications received. Those elements which were classified as "essential" by a majority (six or more) of the texts are listed below. For each one, the ranking is given, along with the textbooks which classified it as essential, and two samples of descrip­ tive phrases from various texts. 1.

"Purposiveness" —

classified as "essential" by

all ten texts (the only category so classified); two descriptive statements were:

"Good speech has the distinguishing 4 quality of purposiveness," and "Purposefulness is a desired c characteristic. 2.

"Directness" -- classified as "essential" by nine

of the ten texts:

Brigance,

6 Gray and Wise,' 7 Monroe, 8

Murray,^ Sarett and Foster,1^ Thonssen and Gilkinson,^ ---------

A. T. Weaver, Speech (New York: Longmans, Green, a Company, 1946), p. 32. ^ Lester Thonssen and Howard Gilkinson, Basic Training in Speech (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 19^7)> p. 46. ^ W. N. Brigance, Speech Communication (New York: Crofts and Co., 19^7), p. 11; 7 - - f Giles W. Gray and Claude M. Wise, The Bases of Speech (New York: Harper Bros., 193*0., P« 63k o Alan H. Monroe, Principles of Speech (brief ed.; Chicago: Scott, Foreman, and Co., 19^5)> P« 29^ Elwood Murray, The Speech Personality (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1939)* P* 19* 10 Lew Sarett and W. T. Foster, Basic Principles of Speech (Cambridge, Mass: Houghton-Mifflin Co., Cambridge Press, 1936), p. 86. 11 Thonssen and Gilkinson, o£. cit., p. 363-

28 Weaver,

12

Winans,

13

Woolbert.

14

Descriptive phrases

included:". . . the good public speaker . . . Jhas aj direct looking-the-audience-in-the-eye mode of communication*"

15

direct.



3.

andL ”, nA speaker who is genuinely communicative is I!16 •

"Gestures” —

nine texts:

also classified, as "essential” by

Brigance, Bryant and Wallace, Monroe, Murray,

Sarett and Foster, Thonssen and Gilkinson, Weaver, Winans, 17 and Woolbert. Typical statements follow: "That gestures do aid in communication of ideas is the unwritten testimony l8 I of all great speakers," and 1 d "In perfect speaking, every movement would be a gesture.

12

,,19

Weaver, pp. cit., p. 78.

13

Winans, Speech Making (New York: D. C. AppletonCentury Co., 1938), p. 28 ff. 14 Woolbert, Fundamentals of Speech (New York: Harper Bros.; revised ed.; I927J, p. oO. 15

16

Brigance, loc. cit. Sarett and Foster, loc. cit.

17 ' Brigance, pp. cit., p. 23 ff.; D. C. Bryant and Karl R. Wallace, Fundamentals of Public Speaking (New York: D. C. Appleton-Century Co., 1 9 W ) > P* 50; Monroe, op. cit. , p. 31; Murray, loc. cit; Sarett and Foster, pp. pit., p. 166; Thonssen and Gilkinson, op, pit., p. 77 ff.; Weaver, pp. pit., p. 171 ff.; Winans, pp. pit., p. 428 ff. Woolbert, op. cit.., p. 127* 18 Monroe, loc. pit. ^

Woolbert, loc. cit.

1

i/

4.

"Conversational quality"

"essential" by eight of the ten texts:



classified as Brigance, Bryant and

Wallace, Murray, Sarett and Poster, Thonssen and Gilkinson, 20 Weaver, Winans, and Woolbert. , . . speech-making conversation, enlarged and modified, but conversation still," and "The most effective speaking is in the conversational ,,22 mode, were two of the descriptive assertions. 5.

"Animation" -- also eight classifications as

"essential":

Brigance, Gray and Wise, Monroe, Murray,

Sarett and Poster, Thonssen and Gilkinson, Weaver, and 2*5 Woolbert. J Two sample descriptions were: "Good speech is 24 characterized by animation," and "There are three general principles of effectiveness in the area of the visible speech 25 code: (l) animation . . . ”

Brigance, o j d . cit. , p. 41; o p . cit., p. 27j Murray, loc. cit. ; cit.. p. lo; Thonssen and Gilkinson, Weaver, o j d . cit. , p. 76; Winans, o j d . o p . cit. , p. 56. 21 Winans, loc. cit.

Bryant and Wallace, Sarett and Foster, o p . op. eft., p. 363; cit. , p. 16; Woolbert,

^ Weaver, loc. cit. 23 Brigance, op. cit. , p. 13; Gray and Wise, o j d . cit. p. 44; Monroe, op. cit., p. 5; Murray, loc. cit.; Sarett and Foster, o j d . eft., 116 f; Thonssen and Gilkinson, o j d . cit p. 365; Weaver, o j d . cit. , p. 168; Woolbert, o j d . eft., p. 88 24 Gray and Wise, loc. cit. 25 Weaver, loc. cit.

30 6.

’’Poise" -- a third category with eight classifi­

cations as ’’essential” :

Brigance, Bryant and Wallace, Gray

and Wise, Monroe, Murray, Sarett and Poster, Weaver, and 26 Winans; descriptive sentences included: "The visual evidence of proper bodily behavior on the platform is 27 28 poise," and "The integrated speaker has poise . . . "

7.

"Coordinated body movement" -- classified as

"essential" by seven of the ten texts:

Brigance, Bryant and

Wallace, Monroe, Sarett and Foster, Thonssen and Gilkinson, Weaver, and Winans. included: a whole

29

Statements describing the category

"For efficient service, the body must function as

[italics in the original] ,

and,

"...

and co31 ordinated movement of the body mark a skillful speaker."

25

Brigance, c>jd. c i t . , p. 27; Bryant and Wallace, o p . c i t . ,p. 50; Gray and Wise, ojd. cit., p. 45; Monroe, o p . cit., p. 6; Murray, l o c . c i t .; Sarett and Foster, o p . jcit.,p. 321; Weaver, ojd. c i t . , p. 32; Winans, oj). cit. , p. 42. 27 Bryant and Wallace, l o c . cit. 28 Murray, l o c . cit.

^ Brigance, ojd. eft., p. 31; Bryant and Wallace, l o c . c i t . ; Monroe, loc. cit.; Sarett and Foster, ojd. ci t ., p. 116 f ; Thonssen and Gilkinson, o p . c i t ., p. 90; Weaver, o p . cit., p. 168; Winans, ojd. cit. , p. 428 ff. 30

Bryant and Wallace, l o c . c i t .

Monroe, loc. cit.

31 8.

"Easily'heard" —

also seven "essential"

classifications:

Brigance, Gray and Wise', Monroe, Murray, 32 Thonssen and Gilkinson, Weaver, and Woolbert. Two descrip­ tive statements were:

"The voice must be sufficiently loud

to carry to the last row of the audience,"

33

and, "The

integrated speaker adjusts his audibility or loudness to his 34 audience and situation." 9.

"Agreeable voice" —

by six of the ten texts:

classified as "essential"

Bryant and Wallace, Gray and

Wise, Murray, Sarett and Foster, Thonssen and Gilkinson, 35 and Woolbert. Typical descriptive statements included: "Good speech has agreeable voice quality,

,*36

and, "The

integrated speaker has a pleasant and agreeable quality of „37 voice. Three other elements might be noted which received five of ten possible "essential" listings.

They were:

32

Brigance, ojd. cit. , p. 41 f f ; Gray and Wise, o p . c i t . , p. 36; Monroe, pp. c i t . , p. 42; Murray, l o c . c i t . Thonssen and Gilkinson, op. c i t ., 363 f . ; Weaver, pp. c i t ., p. 32; Woolbert, o p . c i t . , p. 147. Gray and Wise, l o c . cit.

34 ^ Murray, l o c . cit. 35

Bryant and Wallace, pp. pit., p. 33^; Gray and Wise, op. pit., p. 10; Murray, l o c . pit.; Sarett and Thonssen and Gilkinson, pp. cit., Foster, pp. pit., p. 194; p. 97; Woolbert, pp. pit., p. 157* 36 Gray and Wise, loc. c i t .

37

Murray, l o c . c i t .

32 "sincerity," "good pronunciation and enunciation," and "well-chosen subject."

"Fluency," which was listed by

M o n r o e , ^ should be noted^ not for the one"essential" classification it received, but rather because it was the only criterion that was given both an "essential" and a "non-essential" rating: "Fluency . . . ^ n f j . . . mark a 39 skillful speaker" and "Fluency is a grave danger. It fl40 tempts to utterance too frequent and too profuse. For the sake of further clarification, following is a list of the ten textbooks investigated and the criteria classified by each as "essential": Brigance:

"conversational quality," "sincerity,"

"directness," "animation," "coordinated body movement," "gestures," "poise," "purposiveness," "easily heard," "sense of humor," and "attention." Bryant and Wallace:

"purposiveness," "poise^"

"gestures," "well-chosen subject," "good pronunciation and enunciation," "agreeable voice," "coordinated body movement," "sincerity," and "conversational quality." Gray and Wise:

"poise," "directness," "good pro­

nunciation and enunciation," "agreeable voice," "animation," --------- 38

39 40

Monroe, op. cit., p. 6 . Loc. cit. /

James A. Winans, Public Speaking (New York: D. C. Appleton-Century Co., 1917)* P* 17*

33 "purposiveness," ,leasily heard," and "semantic soundness." Monroe:

"well-chosen subject," "animation," "pur­

posiveness," "poise," "fluency," "coordinated body movement," "knowledge," "directness," "gestures," "easily heard." Murray:

"usage of good grammar," "good pronunciation

and enunciation," "directness," "gestures," "agreeable voice," "conversational quality," "purposiveness," "animation," "poise," "easily heard," "sincerity," and "mental objectivi­ ty." Sarett and Foster:

"poise," "agreeable voice,"

"directness," "animation," "coordinated body movement," "sincerity," "conversational quality," "well-chosen subject," "gestures," "purposiveness," "attention." Thonssen and Gilkinson:

"agreeable voice," "anima­

tion," "directness," "well-chosen subject," "gestures," "coordinated body movement," "conversational quality," "purposiveness," "easily heard," and "personal appearance." Weaver:

"purposiveness," "easily heard," "good

pronunciation and enunciation," "poise," "conversational quality," "directness," "animation," "coordinated body movement," "gestures," "attention," "personal appearance," and "organization."

34 Winans:

"conversational quality,

(including "lively

sense of communication")," "well-chosen subject," "purt

posiveness," "sincerity," "gestures," "directness," and "poise." Woolbert:

"agreeable voice," "usage of good

grammar," "directness," "good pronunciation and enuncia­ tion, " "animation," "conversational quality," "coordinated body movement," "gestures," "purposiveness," "easily heard." Comparison of "essential" classifications with rating scale criteria.

As has been stated, rating scales

used in studies of speaking ability have included as cri­ teria certain standards set forth in speech textbooks.

In

evaluating the validity of the•textbook-established stand­ ards, this study will coincidentally evaluate some of the criteria used by the rating scales.

How closely the two

evaluations coincide may be seen by comparing the "essen­ tial" classifications from texts with the rating scale criteria.

In comparing, however, it must be remembered that

some scales have used "qualifying adjectives" to explain the criteria, and if these adjectives are considered, some scales may have, for example, five criteria which may be grouped under more than five "essential" categories due to the wider scope of the "qualifying adjectives." The six rating scales discussed in Chapter II were

35 41

the Bryan-Wllke Scale, the Purdue Speech Rating Scale, 43 44 45 Knower’s scale, Norvelle's scale, Steven’s scale, 46 and Henrikson’s scale. The scales and their criteria

42

which are similar to the elements listed as ’’essential" by the ten textbooks are as follows: Bryan-Wilke Scale;

Of sixteen criteria used, seven

may be included in six of the categories listed as "essen­ tial" by the texts examined in the present study:

"poise,"

"animation," "sincerity," "purposiveness," "good pronuncia­ tion and enunciation," "agreeable voice." Purdue Speech Rating Scale:

Of eleven criteria

used, eight may be included in seven of our "essential" categories:

"directness," "animation," "coordinated body

movement," "agreeable voice," "conversational quality," "well-chosen subject," and "purposiveness."

~4l Supra, p. 12. 42 43

Supra, p. 13*

.Supra, p. 11 f. 44 . Supra, p. 14 f. 45 Supra, p. 16 f. 46 Supra, p. 17 f.

36 Knower1s scale:

Of the forty-nine criteria used,

approximately thirty may "be grouped under nine "essential" categories:

"purposiveness," " easily heard," "agreeable

voice," "poise," "coordinated body movement," "gestures," S "animation," "sincerity," "well-chosen subject." Norvelle1s scale:

Of ten criteria used, eight may

be grouped under as many categories:

"easily heard,"

"directness," "good pronunciation and enunciation," "con­ versational quality," "agreeable voice," "poise," "ges­ tures," "coordinated body movement." Steven's scale:

Of fifteen criteria used, five may

be grouped under the following six "essential" categories: "conversational quality," "coordinated body movement," "gestures," "sincerity,

agreeable voice," "easily heard."

Henrikson1s scale:

Of nine criteria used, five may

be grouped under ten "essential" categories:

"animation,"

"well-chosen subject," "poise," "purposiveness," "easily heard," "agreeable voice," "coordinated body movement," "gestures," "directness," "conversational quality." Summary of Chapter.

An investigation of elements

of the speech situation which have been classified as "essential" to speaking effectiveness by ten speech text­ books revealed that nine categories of elements were so

37 classified toy a majority of the ten texts.

The texts

which were investigated were Brigance, Bryant and Wallace, Gray and Wise, Monroe, Murray, Sarett and Poster, Thonssen 47 and Gilkinson, Weaver, Winans, and Woolbert.' The nine "essential" categories (which will be referred to hence­ forth as "standards" or "criteria") were:

"purposiveness,"

"directness," "poise," "gestures," "conversational quality, "coordinated body movement," "animation," "easily heard," "agreeable voice." The criteria used by each of the six rating scales reviewed in Chapter II may be grouped under at least six of these standards. The writer realizes that phrases which were judged indicative of an "essential" classification may carry different connotations in the opinions of other investi­ gators.

The elements were considered as objectively as

possible, therefore, and those described by phrases which seemed to the writer to be "fence-straddling" in nature were not considered as "essential" classifications.

Supra, p. 7

The next chapter will relate the construction the questionnaire and the procedures followed in its application.

CHAPTER IV CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE The reliability of the questionnaire technique for gathering data has long been a subject of controversy. Whitney cites the adverse opinions of several investigators to substantiate his statement that ". . . the questionnaire is, perhaps, the worst device can use. . .

{the beginning researcher]

However, Kelley is reported as stating that,

"Unless and until experimental science relieves us of the need of human judgments,

. . . this wayward child of science, p

feeble as it is, will remain an indispensable helper."

Whipple gives the following seven criteria for con­ structing a questionnaire: 1. It should be within the comprehension of those who are to answer it. 2.

It should demand a minimal amount of writing.

3. It should be directed primarily to matters of ascertainable fact and less often to matters of opinion. 4. It should elicit unequivocal replies, especially if these are later to be subjected to statistical treatment.

F. L. Whitney, The. Elements of Research (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1946), p. 136. ^ T. L. Kelley, Scientific Method (The Macmillan Company, 1932), cited by Whitney, loc. cit.

40 5. It should deal with matters that are worth in­ vestigating and that will seem to the recipients to be worth investigating. 6 . Although demanding only brief replies, it should stimulate supplementary communications from the re­ cipients. 7. It should promise the respondent a copy of the published results.3 The writer believes these criteria, with the excep­ tion of No. 3* have been followed in constructing the ques­ tionnaire used in the present study.

It was impossible to

follow that criterion, as the purpose of the study jLs to survey audience opinions, i. e., attitudes of the audiences toward the items in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was composed essentially of three questions, one of which is divided into two sections.

The

respondents are also asked to spegify their respective age groups, sex, and occupation. study were:

The age groups used in this

under 21, 21-29* 30-49* 50 years and over.

The

questionnaire in its entirety is included in the Appendix. The first question in the questionnaire was as follows:

y

I. Rank the following men according to your opinions of their ability as public speakers.

3 G. M. Whipple, "The Improvement of Educational Research," School and Society, 28:249-250, 1927* cited by Whitney, o j d . cit., p. 137 •

41 In the instructions that followed, the respondents were asked to place a "l,f after the best speaker,

''2 ” after

the next best, and "3" after the third best; a "4" was to be placed after all the others, excepting only those whom the respondents felt unqualified to rate for such reasons as having never heard the man, etc.; an ”0 " was to be placed after those names.

The eight speakers were:

Vice-President

Barkley, Winston Churchill, Thomas Dewey, Eric Johnston, the late Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harold Stassen, President Truman, and Walter Winchell. Little attempt will be made by the writer to inter­ pret the responses received to this question, as the probability of error due to political bias, etc. is so great, as was shown in Haiman’s study.

The question was inserted

as part of a technique known as "interviewing along the time line." "Interviewing along the time line . . . aims to get the history of the act just as it went on from step to step.

. . fOrJ Following up the respondent’s own experience (T by the order of questioning . . ."^ It was felt that by the use of this technique, the answers to the second question

^ F. S. Haiman, "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Ethos in Public Speaking," Speech Monographs, 16:190-202. ^ ^he Technique of Marketing Research, ed. by American Marketing Association (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937)* p. 64, ^Italics in the original/]

42 would be more meaningful:

the recipient,

on the basis of

the answer given in Question I, would designate whether each of the fourteen characteristics of delivery (and personality) were necessary, unnecessary, or of no value at all to a good speaker.

In order to use this technique as efficiently as

possible, the eight men were chosen in order to present a wide range of speaking styles.*

An example of how it was

hoped this "time line" reaction would operate would be the person who, having rated President Truman first, might con­ sider the criterion "gestures" as entirely unnecessary,

or

of little importance. The second question was as follows: II. A. Which of the following characteristics of delivery and personality must a good speaker possess? B. Name any other characteristics you consider essential (if insufficient space, use reverse side). In the instructions, the recipients were asked to encircle one of the three letters, E — ceded each criterion listed:

D —

N, which pre­

the letter "E" if the

characteristic were considered "essential;" "D" if 'doubtful" whether essential or not;

the letter the letter

* The writer realizes the varying degrees of opinions regarding.the "speaking styles" of public speakers. What was sought, however, was merely a typical list of (l) nationally-known men (2) whose speaking "styles" differed greatly. The writer feels these two aims were met by these eight men.

43 nN" if the characteristic were considered definitely "not essential." Of the fourteen characteristics to be rated in Question II, nine were those elements classified as essen­ tial by a majority of the ten texts (items 1, 2, 4, 6 , 7> 9, 11} 13* and 14 on the questionnaire), three were classi­ fied as essential by five of the ten texts (Nos. 5* 8 , and 10 - ’’good pronunciation and enunciation, ” "sincerity, " and "well-chosen subject"), and two were so classified by less than half" the ten texts surveyed (Nos. 3 and 12 — grammar" and "fluency").

"correct

These two particular criteria

were added in an admittedly subjective manner; they were derived from opinions of speech teachers based on impres­ sions of criteria apparently used by many adult audiences. It was also felt that a questionnaire containing no more than nine "textbook criteria" would produce unduly structured responses; that is, suggestion and inertia might operate to discourage the mention of opinions deviating from the standard list. a random order.

The criteria appear on the questionnaire in For purposes of clarification, all but

three of the characteristics are accompanied by defining adjectives.

The three undefined criteria ("correct grammar,"

"good pronunciation and enunciation," and "well-chosen sub­ ject”) were felt to be reasonably self-evident.

All

defining adjectives were derived from one or more of the

44 ten textbooks. Space was provided (Section B, Question II) for further comment by the respondents, thus satisfying Whipple's sixth criterion.^ The third question was divided into two sections: III. Of the characteristics you have checked or listed as essential. which ONE do you consider the most essential? Of the characteristics you have checked as not essential, which ONE do you consider to be most non-essential? This is the only question which violates Whipple's second criterion,

tlIt should demand a minimum amount of writing,"'

which Woodward perhaps paraphrased when he referred to ". . . a high state of inertia when asked to use pencils as O well as minds." The audience members, however, could — and did —

overcome this "inertia" by specifying only the

numbers of the items, without bothering to write them out in full. Application of questionnaire:

respondents.

The eight

audiences surveyed contained a total of 271 respondents and

^ Whipple, loc. cit. 7

8

Ibid.

H. Audience Opinion," February, 1928.

S. Woodward, "Measurement and Analysis of Quarterly Journal of Speech. 14:94,

^5 included four male and four female groups.

All are from the

"Greater Los Angeles area" and are believed to be typical of middle income business and professional people.

Unavailabil- .

ity and restrictions of time prevented the surveying of

/

audiences "typical" or "cross-sectional" of the entire

\

United States population; it was felt that the use of only one or two labor unions, for example, would merely confuse the interpretation of the data by introducing subjects not in the middle income or business and professional classifi­ cations . The eight audiences were (all in the city or environs of Los Angeles):

Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks

#99; Lions Club, University Park group; Kiwanis International, University Park group;

"Filibusters Club" (a group patterned

after the "Toastmasters");

"Toastmistresses, International,"

Wilshire group; the Inter-Fraternity Mothers Club of the University of Southern California; The Junior Guild of the South Gate, California, Christian Church; and Alpha Pi Omega, a women’s non-academic sorority. The following procedures were followed in each appli­ cation of the questionnaire: 1.

The hectographed questionnaire sheets were passed

out to the members of the audience, who were requested not to begin writing until the questionnaire had been explained. 2.

A short statement regarding the purpose of the

46 survey was made. 3.

The questionnaire was read aloud, emphasizing

the instructions and the need for filling out all sections, particularly both parts of Question III. 4.

The questionnaires were collected and the re­

sponses were tabulated on the bases of speaker rankings, "E,

m

"D,11 and "N” responses, and the answers to Question III. Summary of Chapter IV.

A questionnaire was con­

structed which included three main questions,

(l) the rank­

ing of eight nationally-known men according to their abilities as public speakers,

(2 ) the designating of four­

teen characteristics (including the nine textbook "standardsn) of speech as essential, not essential, or doubtful criteria of effective public speaking, and (3 ) the selecting of the ONE most essential characteristic and the ONE most nonessential (ergo, least essential) characteristic. Eight non-college audiences, totaling 271 listeners and including four male and four female groups, were sur­ veyed by the questionnaire, and the answers were tabulated on several bases. The next chapter will present and interpret the data accumulated from the questionnaire.

CHAPTER V PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA The problems Involved in attempting a study such as this have been aptly summarized by Woodward: Audience opinion is an elusive thing. Shy at times, at times graciously pliable and accommodating; some­ times stolidly indifferent, emotionally effervescent sometimes; sometimes vociferous and belligerent; intelligent, informed, and self-expressive, or unin­ formed and averse to exposing its ignorance; generally revealing a high state of inertia when asked to use pencils as well as minds, — an inertia that urging and cajolery can only partially overcome. This chapter proposes to present and interpret the results of an effort to get this elusive thing on record and evaluate it.

Since the present study is purely descriptive t

the data have not been submitted to statistical treatment. They are the results merely of a survey of audience atti­ tudes.

The chapter will include an over-all summary of the

data, an analysis by sex and age groups, a comparison of the audience responses with the text survey, and an interpreta­ tion of the findings. I. Question I .

OVER-ALL SUMMARY

The respondents were asked to rank eight

nationally-known and typical public figures according to

V'H. S. Woodward, "Measurement and Analysis of Audience Opinion, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 14:94, February, 1928.

48 their ability as speakers, by placing a "ln after the best speaker, a ”2" after the next best speaker, and a M3 U after the third best; a "4" was to be placed after all the others, with the exception of those whom the respondents felt them­ selves unqualified to rank (for such reasons as having never heard them speak, etc.); an ,f0 n was to be placed after those names.

The eight men were:

Vice-President Barkley, Winston

Churchill, Thomas Dewey, Eric Johnston, the late Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harold Stassen, President Truman, and Walter Winchell. There were 271 respondents, including 165 women and 106 men.

The total number of first, second, and third place

votes, and the percentage of total responses per rank per speaker are shown in Table I.

On the basis of first place

rankings, it may be seen that Roosevelt was the most highly rated of the eight men, Churchill was second, Stassen was third, Dewey fourth, Winchell fifth, Barkley sixth, Johnston seventh, and Truman last.

In the light of the publicity

given President Truman's "off-the-cuff11 speaking style, it is interesting to note that he received only two of a pos­ sible 271 votes for the first place ranking, seven for second, and fifteen for third.

Roosevelt was ranked higher

than Churchill by 66% of the respondents and higher than Dewey by 8 3 .2$ of the respondents.

Churchill was ranked

higher than Roosevelt by 3 6 .8$ of the respondents.

Dewey

49 TABLE I FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD PLACE RANKINGS OF EIGHT WELL KNOWN SPEAKERS*

Names (arranged alphabet­ ically)

2nd place ranks

1st place ranks

N o . -- %

12 --- 4

29 —

11

4 9 -- 18

89 —

33

37 —

14

207 --- 77

28 —

10

46 —

17

85 —

31

1 8 -- 7

32 -- 12

55 —

19

148 -- 55

76 —

28

18 ---7

2 4 2 -- 90

1 5 -- 6

30 —

11

57 —

21

1 0 2 -- 44

2 -- 1

7 —

3

15 —

6

2 4 ----9

n

6 8 -- 25

8 —

3

Churchill

81 —

30

Dewey

1 1 -- 4

Johnston Roosevelt Stassen Truman Winchell **Totals

Total times ranked

No. - $

No. -- fo Barkley

3rd place ranks

5 —

No. —

2

$

1 0 -- 4

2 2 -- 8

280 - 105

282 - 104

_ 2.6



270 - 101

*Total respondents s 271; 1 vote = 0.37$; off to nearest whole number. **Votes include tie votes.

..

xxxxxxxxxx

totals rounded

was ranked higher than Roosevelt by 10.8$ of the respond­ ents. Question II.

The respondents were asked to indicate

whether they regarded each of fourteen characteristics of delivery (and personality) as "essential" to a good speaker, definitely "not essential," or "doubtful."

Of these four­

teen, nine were textbook standards of effective speaking, i. e., had been rated essential to speaking effectiveness by six of the ten representative texts.

The characteristics

were placed in random order on the ballot. On the basis of the results shown in Table II, Sec­ tion A, it may be seen that the characteristics with the three highest percentages of "essential" ratings (by audience members) were "poise," "easily heard," and "agree­ able voice."

The characteristic rated "doubtful" by the

largest percentage of the over-all audiences was "gestures." The second largest percentage of "D" ratings was received by "coordinated body movement," and the third largest by "animation." The characteristics receiving the largest percentages of "not essential" ratings were also, in order, "coordinated body movement," and "animation."

"gestures," These were

the only characteristics receiving more than 10$ of the "N" ratings.

51 TABLE II "ESSENTIAL" "DOUBTFUL," "NOT ESSENTIAL," "LEAST ESSENTIAL," AND “MOST ESSENTIAL" RATINGS FOR FOURTEEN POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPEAKING* Characteristics (in order of presenta-

rt tt * it

11 T \ I t

E ratings

TD ratings

No.

No,

%

'N' ratings

fo No.

$

"L"

nM n

ratings

ratings

No.

%

No.

$

Poise

252 - 93

1 3 -5

3

1

1 ~

0

38 - 14

Agreeable voice

242 - 90

2 2 -8

4 -- 1

0 —

0

27 - 10

Correct grammar

204 - 75

43 -1 6

21 — 8

6 —- d

3 -

1

Directness

234 - 87

31 -11

3 —

1

2 — 1

4 -

1

Good pronunciation and enunciation 228 - 84

37 -14

3 —

1

0 —

0

9 —

3

Animation

146 - 54

85 -31

37 - 14

23 —

s

0 -

0

Coordinated body movement

123 — 46

96 -3 6

49

18

42 - 16

0 -

0

Sincerity

236 - 87

26 -10

2

1 - 'G



6 -

80 - 30

%

Conversational quality

195 - 72

65 -24

8 -

3

10 -

4

13 -

Well-chosen subject

214 - 79

35 -13

19 -

7

6 -

2

31 - 11

Gestures

73 - 27

112 -41

Fluency

205 - 76

47 -17

Purposiveness

226 - 84

34 -13

Easily heard

242 - 90

19 - 7

83 - 31

5

0 -

0

7 -

3

25 -

9

97 - 36

6

7

8 -

3

4 -

7 -

3

4 - __1

15 - _6

**Total - 74

93

16

mm

1

*Total respondents = 268; 1 rating = 0.37$; all figures rounded off to nearest whole number. **Only one item could be rated "L" by each respondent; only one item could be rated "M" by each respondent; the respondent could rate as many items as he chose as "D," "N," or "E."

52 Question III,

The respondents were asked to list the

two characteristics they considered the "most essentialIT and the "least essential."

Each respondent could rate any number

of characteristics "E," "£>,11 and "N;11 however, only one characteristic could be rated "L" and "M.n

The results are

shown in Table II, Section B, p. 51* Only two characteristics were rated "L" by more than 10^ of the respondents.

They were, again, "gestures," first,

and '/coordinated body movement," second.

"Animation" was

rated "least essential" by 9-2$, the others receiving 4^ or less of the "L" ratings. The characteristic which was rated "most essential" by the largest percentage of the respondents was "sincerity." Second was "poise," and "well-chosen subject" was third. This completes a brief survey of the over-all results. The next two sections of this chapter will consider a break­ down of the results, first by sexes, and secondly by age groups. II. Question JE.

RESULTS BY SEXES

The speakers who were ranked first,

second, and third by the female audiences were Roosevelt, Churchill, and Dewey, respectively, on the basis of first place rankings.

These results are contained in Table III.

The male audiences also ranked Roosevelt first,

53 TABLE III FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD PLACE RANKINGS, BY SEXES, OF EIGHT WELL KNOWN SPEAKERS*

.Names - (arranged alphabetically)

1st place ranks

2nd place ranks

3rd place ranks

M

Z

M

Z

4

2

6

2

25

39

35

Dewey

5

3

Johnston

2

Total times ranked

M

Z

M

11

10

21

14

30

13

16

73

85

11

9

14

22

30

34

2

4

11

9

17

15

30

60

47

22

39

7

6

89

92

Stassen

4

9

11

11

21

22

36

42

Truman

1

1

4

1

7

3

12

5

Winchell

3

4

9

26

10

_...2Z

22

108

106

Z & Barkley Churchill

Roosevelt

**Totals

104: 107

.1

102 110

xxxxxxxx

*Total female respondents: 165— 1 ranking = .6$; Total male respondents: 106— 1 ranking = 1$; totals rounded off to nearest whole number. **Totals include ties in rankings.

54 Churchill second, and Stassen third.

These results are also

shown in Table III, p. 5 3 . The female listeners ranked Roosevelt first 60$ of the time; Churchill, 25-2$.

The males gave Roosevelt the

higher rating 48$ of the time; Churchill, 32$. Question II.

In', terms of percentage of "doubtful"

ratings received, both the male and female respondents ranked "gestures,1' "coordinated body movement," and "anima­ tion," in that order.

Likewise, both sexes similarly ranked

the same three characteristics, in the same order, as "not essential."

A comparison of the total percentages of "D"

and "N" ratings by female audiences with those by male audiences is shown in Table IV. Question III.

Both the male and female audiences

ranked "gestures," "coordinated body movement," and "ani­ mation" in that order in total percentage of "least" essential ratings received.

Complete comparative results

are shown in Table V, p. 56. "Sincerity" was rated "most essential" by the largest percentage of both male and female audience members.

The

male audiences ranked "agreeable voice" second and "pur­ posiveness" third.

The female audiences ranked "poise"

second and "well-chosen subject" third. shown in Table V.

Results are also

55 TABLE IV 11DOUBTFUL11 AND nNOT ESSENTIAL” RATINGS, BY SEXES, FOR FOURTEEN POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPEAKING* Characteristics (in order of presenta­ tion on questionnaire)

flD n ratings M

Z



"N" ratings M

F

&

&

~

Poise

2

10

0

3

Agreeable voice

5

13

1

2

Correct grammar

8

30

5

.12

Directness

9

16

2

0

Good pronunciation and enunciation

9

22

1

1

Animation

30

35

12

17

Coordinated body movement

32

42

16

22

Sincerity

11

7

3

1

Conversational quality

21

30

2

5

Well-chosen subject

10

18

4

12

Gestures

37

51

31

31

Fluency

16

21

4

9

Purposiveness

11

16

2

5

6

9

0

7

Easily heard

*Total female respondents: 163 - 1 rating = .6 total male respondents: 108 - 1 rating = ± % 3 ‘ totals rounded off to nearest whole number.

56 TABLE V MLEAST ESSENTIAL" AND "MOST ESSENTIAL" RATINGS, BY SEXES, FOR FOURTEEN POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPEAKING* Characteristics (in order of presentation on questionnaire)

"L" ratings

"N" ratings

F

F

M

fo

M

%

Poise

0

1

19

7

Agreeable voice

0

0

10

11

Correct grammar

1

4

1

2

Directness

1

1

2

1

Good pronunciation and enunciation

0

0

2

5

Animation

8

10

0

0

16

15

0

0

Sincerity

0

1

28

33

Conversational quality

2

7

5

5

Well-chosen subject

1

5

14

7

40

30

0

0

Fluency

1

6

1

5

Purposiveness

0

4

9

10

_2

__8

_2

86

99

88

Coordinated body movement

Gestures

Easily heard **Totals

71

*Total female respondents: 163-1 rating = .6$; total male respondents: 108-1 rating * 1 totals rounded off to nearest whole number. **As only one of the criteria can be rated "L" or "M," totals indicate total response to question.

57 The three characteristics receiving the highest per­ centage of "L, " "N," and "D" ratings, and the five character­ istics receiving the highest percentage of "M" ratings are shown in Table VI, parts A (combined rankings), B (rankings by female respondents), and C (rankings by male respondents). It may be seen that ’’gestures," "coordinated body movement," and "animation" are ranked first, second, and third, re­ spectively, by each of the male and female audiences, with respect to the total percentages of "L," "N, " and "D" ratings. The same five characteristics ("sincerity," "agreeable voice," "poise," "purposiveness," and "well-chosen subject") were ranked from first to fifth with respect to the total per­ centages of "M" ratings by both male and female audiences, but the exact rankings differ within each sex group — exception of "sincerity," as noted previously.

p

with the "Agreeable

voice" was ranked second in percentage of "M" ratings received by male audiences and fourth by female audiences; "purposiveness" was ranked third by the male audiences and fifth by the female respondents;

"poise" and "well-chosen

subject were ranked second and third, respectively, by the female audiences and were tied for fourth place ranking by the male respondents.

2

Supra, p. 55

TABLE VI CHARACTERISTICS MOST FREQUENTLY RATED IN EACH OF FOUR CATEGORIES: "MOST ESSENTIAL." "DOUBTFUL." "NOT ESSENTIALlr~AND~~ITLEAST ESSENTIAL"*

V

0 t e s M

A. COMBINED (Male & Female) Rank : order: of : rating: Top Five %

; 1. Female Rank : order: of : rating: Top Five

B.

i

BY SEXES • : 2. Male Rank : order: of : rating: Top Five

V

i

0 t e s

33

M

1st

Sincerity

32

1st Sincerity

28

1st Sincerity

2nd

Poise

15

2nd Poise

19

2nd Agreeable voice 11

3rd

Well-chosen subject 12

0

0 q □

1

4th

Agreeable voice

11

5th Purposiveness 10 D 0 U B T

1st Gestures

0 T L E A S T

3rd Well-chosen subject 14 4th Agreeable voice

10

q o (Poise 4th(Well-chosen ( subject

) ) )

7

44 1st

Gestures

37

1st

Gestures

D 0 U B T F

31

N

2nd Coordinated body movement 22 3rd Animation 17 1st Gestures 30 2nd Coordinated body movement 15 3rd Animation 10

0

51

3rd Animation

34 3rd Animation

30

2nd Coordinated body movement 42. 3rd Animation 35

1st Gestures

33 1st

31

1st Gestures

2nd Coordinated body movement 20 15 3rd Animation 1st Gestures 39 2nd Coordinated body movement 17 3rd Animation 9

T

5th Purposiveness 9

2nd Coordinated 2nd Coordinated body movemo± 32 body movement 38

I1 N

10

3rd Purposiveness

Gestures

2nd Coordinated body movement 16 3rd Animation 12 1st Gestures 40 2nd Coordinated body movement 16 3rd Animation 8

E

1 L E A S ■ T

♦Percentages rounded off to nearest whole number (See Tables II, IV, and V).

,

The three characteristics with the largest percentage of "L," "N, " and "D" ratings were all "textbook standards” of speaking effectiveness (as previously defined).

However,

of the five characteristics receiving the largest percent­ ages of "M" ratings by both audiences, two were not textbook standards, each having been described as "essential” by only five of the ten texts surveyed.

The two were "sincerity,"

which was ranked first by both males and females, and "wellchosen subject," which was ranked second by the female re­ spondents, and tied for fourth place ranking by the males. The greatest single difference between the two sexes was in the percentage of "doubtful" ratings for "gestures": 37$ of the female, and 51$ of the male respondents. Ill RESULTS BY AGE GROUPS* Question I .

The rankings of the eight speakers by

the different age groups are given in Table VII.

Roosevelt

was ranked first, Churchill second, and Stassen third by all age groups.

There was only one notable difference in the

comparative ratings by sexes: the female audiences between * the ages of thirty and forty-nine gave Roosevelt a much greater margin of first-place votes over Churchill (56$ to

*As there were only five respondents in the "Under 21" age group, the ratings by this group are presented only in the Appendix.

60

TABLE VII FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD PLACE RANKINGS, BY AGE GROUPS OF EIGHT WELL KNOWN SPEAKERS* Names (arranged alphabet­ ically)

First place rankings

Second place rankings fo . 21-29 30-49 50*

Third place rankings % 21-29 30-49 50 f

21-29

* > 30-49

50+

Barkley

0

4

0

4

4

6

11

11

16

Churchill

9

35

34

34

35

27

16

10

24

Dewey

0

5

6

9

14

3

18

18

10

Johnston

2

1

2

9

6

6

7

11

13

74

54

50

16

30

34

2

10

5

Stassen

5

6

6

7

11

24

14

28

18

Truman

2

0

0

5

3

0

4

7

3

_2

4

2

lit

6

5

23

10

13

94

109

100

98

109

105

95

105

102

Roosevelt

Winchell **Totals

*Total respondents, 21-29* 5 7 - 1 vote « 1.8$; total respondents, 30-49: 130 - 1 vote = 0.8$; total respondents, over 50: 6 5 - 1 vote = 1.6$. ^5 respondents in ’’Under 21" group; 14 respondents checked no age group); totals rounded off to nearest whole number. **Totals include ties in rankings.

61 30.8$) than did the males in the same age group (54$ to 44$)* Question II.

Of the fifty-six respondents in the

"21-29" age group, nine were males and forty-seven were females.

In tabulating the over-all results in this age

group, each rating was taken as representing 1 .8$ of the total responses from respondents aged twenty-one to twentynine.

On the basis of the results of the survey as shown

in Table VIII, it may be seen that the criteria with the highest percentage of "doubtful" ratings in this age group were, once more,

"gestures," "animation," and "coordinated

body movement," in that order. went substantially the same:

The "not essential" ratings "gestures" first,

"coordinated

body movement" second, and "animation" third. Of the 123 respondents in the "30-49" age group, fifty-one were men, seventy-two were women.

"Gestures"

received the highest percentage of "D" ratings, with "co­ ordinated body movement" second, and "animation" third. These same three criteria were ranked in the identical order as "not essential."

A difference between male and female

respondents in the "30-49" age group may be noted in Table IX, page 6 3 .

Among the "doubtful" items,

"gestures" was ranked

first by the male respondents and second by the female re­ spondents;

"coordinated body movement" was ranked first by

the female respondents and second by the male respondents.

62 TABLE V I I I ’'DOUBTFUL" AND "NOT ESSENTIAL" RATINGS, BY AGE GROUPS, FOR FOURTEEN POSSIBLE CHARACTER­ ISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPEAKING*

Characteristics (in order of presenta­ tion on questionnaire)

$ of "D" ratings

$ of "N t ratings

h

21-29

30-49

Poise

2

3

11

0

1

2

Agreeable voice

4

7

18

0

3

2

Correct grammar

16

19

21

5

8

8

Directness

13

13

13

0

2

2

Good pronunciation and enunciation

11

15

14

0

2

0

Animation

36

30

32

9

16

18

' 32

38

40

16

17

27

Sincerity

27

8

5

2

2

3

Conversational quality

23

21

35

2

4

2

Well-chosen subject

16

14

10

7

6

8

Gestures

40

43

35

2

4

2

Fluency

11

14

27

0

7

5

Purposiveness

14

11

16

5

2

3

Easily heard

7

6

6

2

3

5

Coordinated body movement

504 : 21-29

30-49

*Total respondents, 21-29: 5 6 - 1 vote * 1.8$; total respondents, 30-49: 129 - 1 vote = .8$; total respondents, over 50: 64 - 1 vote * 1 .6$. (5 respondents in "Under 21" group; 14 respondents check no age group); totals rounded off to nearest whole number.

50+

63 TABLE IX

"DOUBTFUL11 AND "NOT ESSENTIAL" RATINGS, BY SEXES WITHIN EACH AGE GROUP, FOR FOURTEEN POSSIBLE CHAR­ ACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPEAKING* Characteristics in order of presenta­ tion in questionnaire)

% of "N1 ratings

$ of "d " ratings 21-•29 M. F

Over 50

30- 49 M F

F

21-29 M F 0 0

30-49 M F 2 0

0

2

6

1

M 18

Agreeable voice

11

2

14

3

15

18

0

0

4

Correct grammar

44 10

30 13

27

12

11

4

Directness

22 10

18 10

18

6

0

Good pronunciation and enunciation

22 48

30 6

18

9

0 40

40 24

33

Poise

Animation

Over 50 M F 3

0

3

0

3

16

3

6

9

0

0

3

0

3

0

0

2

1

0

0

27

22

6

16 17 21 lg

11 16

20 15 30 21

3

Coordinated body movement

44 28

42

36

39

36

Sincerity

11 28

6

10

3

6

0

2

0

3

3

3

Conversational quality

11 24

28

17

39

27

0

2

10

0

o

3

Well-chosen subject

11 16

24

7

12

6

22

4

10

4 12

3

Gestures

44 36

60

34

39

27

Fluency

11 10

18

11

21

30

0

0

8

7

9

0

0 16

16

8

24

6

22

2

2

3

3

3

8

3

9

3

11

0

8

6

9

0

Purposiveness Easily heard

11

6

44 20

32 43 33 42

*Total male respondents: 21-29 = 9* 1 vote = 11$; 30-49=54, 1 vote = 2$; over 50 = 31, 1 vote s 3$* Total female respondents: 21-29 = 47, 1 vote = 2$; 30-49 = 75* 1 vote =114$ ; over 50 = 33* 1 vote = 3$. All totals rounded off to nearest whole number.

64 n££t essential11 ratings, the female audiences ranked "gestures" first,

"animation" second, and "coordinated

body movement" third, while the male respondents, after also rating "gestures" first, ranked "coordinated body movement" second, and "animation" and "correct grammar" third.

The results of the combined rankings by the "30-4911

age group are shown in Table VIII, page 62. Of the sixty-four respondents in the "50 years and over" age group, thirty-one were males, and thirty-three were females.

Each rating was tabulated as representing 1.6$

of the total responses in this age group.

On the basis of

the results shown in Table VIII, page 62, it may be seen that the rankings according to percentages of "D" ratings vary from those by the other two age groups.

"Coordinated

body movement," as a "doubtful" criterion of effectiveness, ranked second in the "30-49" ratings and third in those by the "21-29n group, but was ranked first by the "50 years and over" age group.

"Conversational quality," ranked fifth by

the ”21-29n age group and fourth by the "30-49" group, is tied with "gestures" for second-place ranking by the "over50" group.

"Gestures" was ranked first, however, by both of

the other two age groups. A difference also may be seen (Table IX, page 63) in the "D" ratings by the male and female respondents in the

65 "50 years and over" group.

“Gestures," "conversational

quality," and "coordinated body movement" are ranked first by the male respondents.

"Coordinated body movement" is

ranked first by the female audiences; sixth by the males —

"fluency



ranked

is ranked second; and "gestures,"

"animation," and "conversational quality" are ranked third by the female respondents. Both the male and the female respondents in the "50 years and over" age group ranked "gestures," "co­ ordinated body movement," and "animation" first, second, and third, respectively, in percentage of "N" ratings re­ ceived. Question III.

As "least essential," all three age

groups ranked "gestures" first,

"coordinated body movement"

second, and "animation" third.

These results, by age groups,

are shown in Table X; and Table XI, page 67, shows the re­ sponses by sexes within the age groups. In percentage of "most essential" ratings received, "poise" was ranked first,

"sincerity" second, and "pur­

posiveness" third by the "21-29" age group. age group ranked "sincerity" first, "well-chosen subject" third.

The "30-49"

"poise" second, and

The "50 years and over" age

group ranked "sincerity" first, and "well-chosen subject" third.

"purposiveness" second, In the "30-49" age group,

66 TABLE X

’’LEAST ESSENTIAL” AND "MOST ESSENTIAL1 RATINGS, BY AGE GROUPS, FOR FOUR­ TEEN POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPEAKING* • •

Characteristics (in order of presenta­ tion in questionnaire)

£ of "L” ratings 21-29 30-49

of ”M ” ratings 21- 29 30-49 %



50*

50*

Poise

0

1

0

23

12

6

Agreeable voice

0

0

0

5

10

6

Correct grammar

4

4

0

0

3

0

Directness

0

0

0

2

2

0

Good pronunciation and enunciation

0

0

0

2

2

5

Animation

13

10

6

0

0

0

Coordinated body movement

18

16

14

0

0

0

Sincerity

0

0

2

18

31

35

Conversational quality

2

4

2

5

7

0

Well-chosen subject

0

2

0

16

10

10

29

41

42

2

0

0

Fluency

2

4

0

5

3

2

Purposiveness

2

0

0

13

8

13

Easily heard

0

1

2

9

5

_8

- 70

83

68

100

93

85

Gestures

**Totals

*A11 totals rounded off to nearest whole number (see Table VIII for total numbers of respondents in each group). **Totals indicate percentage of response to question (minus 14 respondents checking no age group).

67 TABLE XI vLEAST ESSENTIAL1’ AND ’’MOST ESSENTIAL” RATINGS, . BY SEXES WITHIN EACH.AGE GROUP, FOR FOURTEEN POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPEAKING* Characteristics (in order of presenta­ tion in questionnaire)

% of nL ” ratings 21-•29 M p

’30-49 M F

% of ”M ” ratings

50+ M F

21-*29 M F

30-49 M F

11 24

6 17

Poise

0

0

0

0

0

0

Agreeable voice

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

14

Correct grammar

0

4

8

1

0

0

0

0

Directness

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Good pronunciation and enunciation

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

3

0

0

12 15

0

0

Animation

11 12

12 10

Coordinated body movement

22 16

14 18

3

9

7

9

3

6

1

0

0

2

2

3

0

0

2

2

l

3 6

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sincerity

0

0

0

0

0

3

33 14

Conversational quality

0

2

8

1

0

3

11

Well-chosen subject

0

0

6

0

0

0

11 16

Gestures

44 24

Fluency

11

0

8

1

Purposiveness

11

0

0

0

Easily heard

_o _o 99 62

**Totals

28 52

__2 __0 86 83

50+ M F

0 0

34 31 33 33 8

4

7

0

0

6 14

6 12

33'> 5

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

4

8

0

3

0

0

0

11 12

14

4

9 15

__2 _0 57 69

11 _8 99 94

0 _8 12 100 93 69 90

♦All totals rounded off to nearest whole number (See Table J.X for total numbers of respondents in each group). **Totals indicate percentage of response to question.

the rankings by male and female respondents differed widely both groups ranked "sincerity” first, but the male respond­ ents ranked "agreeable voice" and "purposiveness" second — the females ranked them, respectively, fifth and seventh — while the females ranked "poise" second and "well-chosen subject" third, the males ranked them both sixth. by age groups are shown in Table X.

Results

Table XI, page 6 7 ,

shows the differences by sexes within the age groups, A summary of the rankings by age groups may be seen in Table XII, which shows the three criteria which received the highest percentage of "D, " "N, " "L," and "M" ratings by each of the three age groups.

The highest differences are

in the "D" ratings by the,,‘over-50" group as compared with ratings by the other two groups, and in the first-place ranking of "M" criteria by the "21-29” group as compared with the other two age groups. IV.

A COMPARISON OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS WITH THE TEXTBOOK SURVEY RESULTS

Summary of the textbook survey results.

Ten speech

textbooks^ were investigated for the purpose of determin­ ing what elements of the speaking situation each listed

^ Supra, p. 2 6 .

69 TABLE X I I CHARACTERISTICS MOST FREQUENTLY RATED, BY AGE GROUPS, IN EACH OF FOUR CATEGORIES: "MOST ESSENTIAL," "DOUBTFUL," "NOT ESSENTIAL," AND “ ^LEAST ESSENTIAL"*

Rank order of rating

21-29

Rank " order of 0 rating

%

Kank order of Over 50 rating

' 30-49

%

M

1st

Poise

23 - 1st

Sincerity

31

1st

35

M

0 s

2nd

Sincerity

18

2nd

Poise

12

2nd Purposivenessl3

0 S

3rd

Well-chosen'>16 subject

3rd

Well-chosen' 10 subject J

T D n U B T F U T,

1st

Gestures

39

1st Gestures

2nd

Animation

36

2nd Coordinated body movement

N 0 T

1st Gestures

L i! A S T

3rd Coordinated body movement 32 25

3rd

Animation

1st Gestures

Sincerity

3rd Well-chosen subject

10

T

30

1st Coordinated body movement 40 2nd([Gestures ) Conversational^ 5 quality ) 3rd Animation 32

38

1st Gestures

43

38

42

2nd Coordinated body movement 16

2nd Coordinated body movement 17

2nd Coordinated body movement 14

3rd Animation

3rd Animation

16

3rd Animation

6.

1st Gestures

40

1st Gestures

42

1st Gestures

9 29

T?

j

2nd Coordinated body movement 18

2nd Coordinated body movement 16

2nd Coordinated body movement 14

3rd Animation

3rd Animation

3rd Animation

13

10

*Totals rounded off to nearest whole number (See Tables VIII and X ) .

6

D o VJ

u B T F U L N 0 T

L ji A S T

70

as "essential” to speaking effectiveness.

The nine ele­

ments so named by a majority (six or more) of the texts were the following:

"purposiveness," "gestures," "direct­

ness," "conversational quality," "animation," "coordinated body movement," "easily heard," "agreeable voice," and "poise."4 Summary of the questionnaire results (Question II). The respondents were asked to rate each of fourteen char­ acteristics of delivery and personality as "essential," "doubtful"

(whether it was essential or not), or definite­

ly "not essential."

Of these fourteen characteristics,

nine were classified as essential by a majority of the ten texts, three by five of them, and two were added for pur­ poses previously described.

"Doubtful" audience ratings

ranged from 44.8%> of the total audience respondents for "gestures" to 5*2$

"poise;"

"not essential" ratings

ranged from 33*2$ for "gestures" to only 1 .2% for three criteria:

"poise," "directness," and "good pronunciation’

and enunciation.

,,6

Comparison.

4

The textbooks were investigated for

Supra, p. 27 ff.

5 „ Supra, p. 43. ^ Supra, Table II, p. 51•

71 the purpose of determining what elements of the speaking situation are rated "essential” by each.

The percentages

listed in Section A of Table XIII., therefore * represent the "E" ratings of the texts.

Section B of Table XIII

represents what the respondents were sure of as "essential" 7 criteria for effective speaking. Differences between the percentage of "essential" ratings by the texts and by the audiences surveyed in this study may be seen in Figure 1, page 73* which presents the data contained in Table XIII in a different fashion.

These

differences in "essential" ratings range from 2.7^ for "directness" to 66.5$ for "fluency."

The Figure is arranged

in order, top to bottom, from the largest difference where the textbook ratings were higher than the audience ratings to the largest difference where the audience ratings were higher than the textbooks'. Three differences between textbooks and audiences are noticeably large.

"Gestures" is rated "essential" by

90$ of the texts surveyed, but by only 27-2$ of the audiences, or a difference of 6 2 .8$.

The writer was originally under

the impression that some of the textbooks would qualify their "E" rating by saying that a good gesture is an un­ noticed gesture, but such is not the case.

7 Supra, Table II, p. 51.

None of the ten

72 TABLE X I I I

"ESSENTIAL” RATINGS, BY TEXTBOOKS AND AUDIENCES, OF FOURTEEN POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPEAKING'"

Characteristics

Texts %

Audiences* i

Difference: Audiences com­ pared to texts .... ... < T ' -

Purposiveness

100

84

-16

Directness

90 .

87

- 3

Gestures

90

27

-63

Poise

80

94

fl4

Conversational quality

80

73

- 7

Animation

80

55

-23

Coordinated body movement

70

46

-24

Easily heard

70

90

+20

Agreeable voice

60

90

+30

Sincerity

50

88

+38

Well-chosen subject

50

80

+30

Good pronunciation and enunciation

50

85

+35

Correct grammar

20

78

+58

Fluency

10

77

+67

*Percentage figures for audiences rounded off to nearest whole number.

73 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gestures

Texts Audienoes

Animation

Texts Audiences

XX O Coordinated body movement

Texts Audiences

Purposiveness

Texts Audiences

Conversational quality

Texts Audiences

Directness Poise

XXX) XXX) x x x x x x d o x x

Easily heard Well-chosen subject

XX3X) XX X)

Agreeable voice

XXX) XXX)

exxx)

exxxx) xx xx XXX)

Correct Grammar

X)0XX)

Texts Audiences

XX XXX)

Texts Audiences

:x]ocxx)X)

Texts Audiences

XXXXX) xxxx

Texts Audiences Texts Audiences

XX XX XXX)X)

Fluency

Texts Audiences

xxxx XXXXjX) xxxx 10

20

30

40

50

Texts Audiences Texts Audiences

XXX)X)

Good pronuncia­ tion & enunciation

XX ex

XXX)

xxxx XXX) XXX

go x:

Sincerity

Texts Audiences

XX)XXX)XXXXXXX)

60

70

30

90 100

FIGURE 1 "ESSENTIAL" RANKINGS, BY TEXTBOOKS AND AUDIENCES, OF FOURTEEN POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPEAKING* *Total respondents: 268-1 rating = .31%; total texts: 10-1 rating = 10$.

texts examined so qualify their ratings.

Two of the ten

state that "Older, highly discriminating, and critical o persons do not like many gestures . . . " and "On

^sedentary menj neither awkwardness nor grace will make i m p r e s s i o n .

But on the basis of the results shown in

Table VIII, page 60, it may be seen that this is only partially true, as 54.8$ of the group aged twenty-one to twenty-nine as well as 8 0 .8$ of the "30-49" group and 75*2$ of the "50 years and over" group rated "gestures either as "doubtful" or "not essential" criteria for effec­ tive speaking.

Therefore, there still remains a difference

of 35-2$ between the "E" ratings of the texts and the "21-29" age group. "Correct grammar" and "fluency" are the other two characteristics whose ratings by the texts and the audiences show wide differences.

Only 10$ of the texts (Monroe

rated "fluency""essential,

but 7 6 .5$ of the audiences so

considered it, a difference of 66.5$*

Only 20$ of the

texts considered "correct grammar" "essential," but it was rated "E" by 77*8$ of the audience respondents.

® Elwood Murray, The Speech Personality (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1939) P* l6B. 9 / C. H. Woolbert, Fundamentals of Speech (New York: Harper Bros.; revised ed.; 1927)> p. 113* ^ Alan H. Monroe, Principles of Speech (brief ed.; Chicago: Scott, Foreman, and Company, 194577”P* 6

75 Of the nine textbook standards, six received lower percentages of "E" ratings by audiences than by textbooks. They were:

"gestures/1 6 2 .8$ difference;

25 .5$ difference; ference;

"animation/1

"coordinated body movement," 24,1$ dif­

"purposiveness," 1 5 *7$ difference;

"conversational

quality," 7.2$ difference; and "directness,11 2.7$ differ­ ence.

The three standards receiving higher percentages of

"E" ratings by audiences than by texts were: "poise," 14$ higher;

"easily heard," 20$ higher; and "agreeable voice,"

30$ higher.

"Fluency" and "correct grammar" have been

discussed previously; the other three of the "non­ standards" were: "sincerity," rated by 38$ more respondents than texts;

"good pronunciation and enunciation," with 35$

more "E" ratings by audiences than texts; and "well-chosen subject," with 29*9$ more. Summary.

In terms of number of first-place rankings,

Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stassen, in that order, were the three top-ranking speakers.

Whether these speakers repre­

sent to the audience members examples of such highly-rated qualities as "sincerity," "poise," and "well-chosen subject" is a matter for conjecture (and/or further investigation). Results on Question I are shown in Tables I (p. 49), III (p. 53), and VII (p. 60). A summary of the ratings received by the fourteen'

76 characteristics is shown in Table XIV.

On the basis of the

data presented in Table XIV, it may be seen that it was a possibility that the same percentage of respondents might rate one item "most essential” and "least essential,” that is, that the "M" ratings alone are meaningless.

The "M" and

"L" ratings received by "well-chosen subject” is an example of this:

"well-chosen subject" was rated "most essential”

by 12% of the respondents — essential" by

but it was also rated "least

of the audience members.

Of significance^,

however, is the rating of "gestures," "coordinated body movement," "animation," and "correct grammar" as "least

I

essential" by the four highest percentage of ratings and "most essential" by the four lowest percentages. "Sincerity" was rated "most essential" by the largest percentage of respondents, and "gestures" was rated "least essential" by the largest percentage.

An explanation for

the low rating of "gestures" which might be offered is that the term is rather abstract, and the audiences may have had a mental image of awkward, distracting gestures which are obviously not essential.

However,

"coordinated body move­

ment," which is a relatively concrete term, received the second highest percentage of "least essential" ratings. Is one to conclude, therefore, that awkward, un-coordinated movement is acceptable?

77 TABLE X IV COMPARISON: ’’MOST ESSENTIAL” RATINGS WITH "LEAST ESSENTIAL11'RATINGS FOR FOURTEEN POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC SPEAKING

"M" Ratings

"L" Ratings

Rank

. Characteristics**

1st:

Sincerity

30

14th: Sincerity

0

2nd:

Poise

14

13th: Poise

0

3rd:

Well-chosen subject

11

12th: Agreeable voice

0

4th:

Agreeable voice

10

11th: Good pronunciation and enunciation

0

Rank

Characteristics**

%*

5th:

Purpo s ivene s s

9

10th: Purposiveness

1

6th:

Easily heard

6

9th: Easily heard

1

7th:

Conversational quality

8th: Directness

1

7th: Well-chosen subject

2

5

Good pronunciation and enunciation

3

Fluency

3

6th: Correct grammar

2

10th:

Directness

1

5th: Fluency

3

11th:

Correct grammar

1

4th: Conversational quality

4 9

8th: 9th:

12th:

Animation

0

3r&: Animation

13th:

Coordinated body movement

0

2nd: Coordinated body movement

16

1st: Gestures

36

14th:

Gestures

0

*Percentages rounded off to nearest whole number (See Table II). **In descending order, from more essential to less essential in both columns'.'

78 The textbooks and audiences differed by 2,7%> to 38% in percentages of "E" ratings for eleven of the fourteen characteristics.

Two characteristics,

"correct grammar"

and "fluency" were rated "E" by larger percentages (77,6% and 78.5%>} respectively) of the audiences than by the texts (20% and 10%),

"Gestures" was rated "essential" by 90^ of

the texts, but by only 27.2$ of the audiences. The next chapter will draw certain conclusions, and propose suggestions for further research.

CHAPTER V I

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The function of this chapter shall be three-fold: first, to summarize in general terms the material presented in this study; second, to state the conclusions which seem indicated by the data accumulated; third, to indicate pos­ sible lines of future research in the light of the present study. Summary.

The purpose of this thesis was to determine

whether some of the most commonly-stated textbook criteria really are standards of effective public speaking in the sense that they represent opinions of certain adult, off-

.

campus "flesh-and-blood" audiences rather than merely

I

theoretical concepts established by speech texts.

)

This

general purpose was broken down into three specific objec­ tives:

(l) to determine what elements in the speech

situation are classed as essential by a majority of the ten texts examined;

(2) to determine how closely audience ratings

of the relative importance of each of the elements correspond to the ratings of the textbooks;

(3) to suggest

implications of the audience criteria when applied to the evaluation of certain contemporary speakers. The methods, techniques, and procedures were

80 essentially as follows: (1)

Ten speech textbooks considered representative

of the field were read carefully and note was made of any elements of the speech situation which were classified as essential to effectiveness; a tabulation was made of the number of texts classifying each element as essential. (2)

A questionnaire was constructed, the three main

questions calling for, first, a ranking of eight nationallyknown men according to their ability as public speakers^*; second, a rating of fourteen elements of speech (including the nine classified as "essential'1 by a majority of the texts) by indicating three categories: "essential," 2 "doubtful," or "not essential ;" and, third, the listing of 3 criteria considered "most essential" and "least essential ." (3)

Eight audiences, numbering 271 adults, none of

whom were college students, responded to the questionnaire. (4)

The results of the audiences’ responses were 4 tabulated and interpreted from several viewpoints in order to arrive at inter-relationships and conclusions. Before proceeding to the enumeration of certain

1 Supra, pp. 40-42. 2 Supra, p. 42 f. 3 Supra, p. 44 £. ^ Supra, pp. 47-78.

conclusions which are suggested by the results of the survey the writer would like to list what some readers may consider as limitations of this study:

(a) the choice of the ten

texts was purely a subjective one, and other investigators may feel that these ten are not representative; 4(b) as was stated previously, phrases which were judged indicative of an "essential” classification may carry different connota­ tions in the opinions of different investigators^;

(c) all

conclusions are based on the reactions of the admittedly limited number of cases surveyed, and, as people and groups of people differ, no hard-and-fast generalizations are offered concerning what other groups of people may think about these elements of effective speaking in other situa­ tions;

(d) the elements listed on the questionnaire are

factors of both delivery and personality, and are, respectively, concrete and abstract terms, the meanings of the latter being admittedly a matter of individual interpre­ tation by the respondents;

(e) the data presented were not

submitted to any statistical checks. The question has already been raised, audiences know m o r e .than the experts?"

"Do these

and the only answer

is that apparently the audiences at least think they know what they like, and iftthose likes disagree with the experts' ideas, then the speech training based on the theoretical concepts of textbooks will not produce effective

^ Supra, P • 37•

82 speaking if the audiences refuse to accept those concepts. Conclusions.

How closely what the listeners thought

coincided with what the authors thought has been stated in the previous chapter.

On the basis of the data presented

and interpreted there, the following conclusions seem indicated: (1)

The method of direct audience polling provides

' *’

a means of securing the actually operative criteria of effective public speaking, i. e., the characteristics which certain audiences feel are essential to a good speaker. (2)

Of eight nationally-known men listed in the

questionnaire (Barkley, Churchill, Dewey, Johnston, Roosevelt, Stassen, Truman, and Winchell), Roosevelt was ranked first, Churchill second, and Stassen third in terms of speaking ability.

Roosevelt was ranked higher than Churchill by 66$

of the respondents and higher than Dewey by 8 3 .2$.

Churchill

and Dewey were ranked higher than Roosevelt by 3 6 .8$ and 10.8$ of the respondents, respectively. (3)

Nine criteria of effective speaking were classi­

fied as essential by a majority (six or more) of the ten textbooks surveyed; these were: "purposiveness,M "directness,” "gestures,” "coordinated body movement," "conversational quality," "animation," "poise,""easily heard," and "agreeable voice."

83 w

Audience ratings of the fourteen characteristics

included in the questionnaire differed from textbook ratings by margins of from 2 .7$ to 6 6 .5$ of the responses on ind.1v idu al 1.terns. (5)

Twelve of the fourteen characteristics included

in the questionnaire were classified "essential11 by a majority of the audiences surveyed; they were: "poise," "agreeable voice," "correct grammar," "directness," "good pronunciation and enunciation," "animation," "sincerity," "conversational quality," "well-chosen subject," "fluency," "purposiveness," and "easily heard." (6 )

Two of the fourteen characteristics were not

classified "essential" by a majority of the audiences surveyed; they were: (7)

"animation" and "gestures."

One standard -- "gestures" —

was rated "essen­

tial" by only 2 7 -2$ of

the respondents, a difference of

6 2 .8$ between audience

and textbook ratings.

(8 )

"Gestures"

was rated the least essential of the

fourteen characteristics by the audiences surveyed. (9)

Two characteristics, neither of which were text­

book standards, were rated "essential" by a larger percent­ age of respondents than of texts (both margins were over 55$)9 they were "correct grammar" and "fluency." (10)

"Sincerity," although not rated "essential"

by a majority of the texts, was rated the most essential of

84 the fourteen characteristics by the audience members. (11)

There was usually little difference between

ratings by male and female audiences; both sexes rated "gestures," "coordinated body movement," and "animation" highest in "doubtful," "not^essential," and "least essential" ratings, and "sincerity" was ranked first in percentage of "most essential" ratings by both sexes. (12)

There was no difference in rankings of "not

essential" and "least essential" characteristics: cases,

in both

"gestures," "coordinated body movement," and "anima­

tion" were ranked in that order by all three age groups. (13)

Differences between ratings by the three age

groups (21-29j 30-49* and over 50) occurred in "doubtful" ratings —

"gestures" was rated first by the "21-29" age

group and the "30-49" group, but the "over 5 0 " group ranked "coordinated body movement" first and "gestures" second — and in the "most essential" ratings —

"sincerity," ranked

first by the "30-49" age group and the "over 50" group, was ranked second (and "poise" first) by the "21-29" group. (14)

Rating scales based upon criteria secured by

the methods used in this study should make possible a more scientific, objective, and verifiable basis for measuring some of the determinants of speech effectiveness. Suggestions for further research.

The most obvious

’85 lines of future research indicated by this study are those which would answer some of the anticipated criticisms pre­ viously cited: (1)

a wider survey of speech textbooks, possibly

including all now in use; (2)

a different division of the age groups, partic­

ularly of the wide "30-49M group; (3 )

several possible lines of research for purposes

of determining the components of such abstract and general­ ized characteristics as "sincerity," "poise," and "fluency;" or of such ambiguous categories as "gestures." (4)

the construction of a new questionnaire based

on the results of the three previously suggested lines of future research; (5)

a survey, by means of the new questionnaire, of

a more inclusive cross-section of audiences, i. e., a larger sampling of audiences representing a complete range of income levels, occupational groups, age levels, and geo­ graphic location. (6)

an appropriate and more precise statistical

analysis of the data, emphasizing particularly analyses of differences and correlations. A statement by Henrikson may well suggest the true significance of this study: The value of jjlenrikson1sj study £ a n d of the present onej stems from the idea . . . that what the listener

86

thinks about the speech^ the effect it has on him, is of major importance,6 If future investigations substantiate the differences of opinions between audiences and textbooks indicated by the data accumulated in this study, the writer feels a definite purpose in the furtherance of speech education will have been served by this thesis.

6

E. H. Henrikson, "An Analysis of the Characteristics of Some igood' and 'poor* Speakers," Speech Monographs 11:12k,

19^4 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS

Aristotle., The Rhetoric. Richard McKeon, editor, The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House,

TpTT

American Marketing Association, editors, The Technique of Marketing Research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937. -Brigance, W. Norwood, Speech Communication. Crofts and Company, 19^7*

New York:

Bryant, Donald C., and Karl R. Wallace, Fundamentals of Public Speaking. New York: D. C. Appleton-Century Comp any, 19^7 • Dolman, John, A Handbook of Public Speaking. Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1923*

New York:

Gilkinson, Howard, Outlines of Research in General Speech Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 19^6. MOST~ESSENTIAL" RATINGS, BY "UNDER 21" AGE GROUP, FOR. FOURTEEN POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPEAKING* Characteristics

"D" "N" "L"

"M”

Poise

0

0

0

40$

Agreeable voice

0

0

0

0

Correct grammar

0

0

0

0

Directness

0

0

0

0

Good pronunciation and enunciation

0

0

0

0

20$

0

0

0

Animation

0

Coordinated body movement .

Z..Q.

0

o-.

0

40$

Conversational quality

0

0

0

0

We 11-chosen subject

0

ro o

Sincerity

20$ 20$

20$

0

Gestures

0

0

20$

0

Fluency

0

0

0

0

Purposiveness

0

0

0

0

20$

0

20$

0

Easily heard

*(Five responses; 1 vote = 20$)

TABLE X V II

FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD PLACE RANKINGS, BY SEXES WITHIN EACH AGE GROUP, OF EIGHT WELL-KNOWN SPEAKERS* 21

rH

i —1

29 :1- 2i) 2nds 3rds M F M F

0

0

0

4

11 10

22

6

0 38

22 14

0

0

0 10

22 16

Dewey

0 22

•x

Churchill



Barkley

II

Speakers

(Msl lsts M F

Johnston

11

6

22

4

Roosevelt

33 76 44 10

0

2

Stassen

22

2 11

6

0

6

Truman

0

2

Winchell

0

2 11 14

11 16 0

30 -• 49 (M: 1=2$; Fsl-1 lsts 2nds 3rds M F M F M , F 2

6

0

Over 50 (M: 1=3$; F: 1 -3$) 1st s 2nds 3rds M F F M M F

7 14

10

0

0

44 31 36 36 12

10

30

4

6 14 15 24

15

0

1 10

4 12

54 56 34 28 10 8

6 12 11

6

6

9

21

33

21

30

24

21

3

9

0

6

12

6

11

0

3

12

0

15

9

io

45

48

33

30

0

3

28 29

6

6

18

27

15

18

.

> § H X v u—1 •

4

0

0

0

6

4 10

0

0

0

0

3

3

11 24

6

3

8

4

6 13 :

3

0

6

3

9

15

*(A11 percentages rounded off to nearest whole number)

vo o\