Desire for control and personality as predictors of three communication traits in a public speaking context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Communication in general, and public speaking in particular, are important means to exert influence over other people; control is an enduring motive for communication. People differ substantially in the amount of control they typically want; some seek control and others tend to avoid it. But is the desire for control (DC) redundant with more basic personality traits in predicting individual differences related to public speaking? Participants and procedure This study, conducted with 196 undergraduate students using well-established measures, examines correla-tions among desire for control, the Big Five, and three communication traits specifically referencing public speaking: willingness to communicate, perceived competence, and public speaking anxiety. The measures were administered by questionnaire. Results Correlations show that people with higher DC tend to be more willing to communicate and perceive themselves to be more competent and, to a weaker extent, less anxious. Hierarchical multiple regressions show that the role of DC is not redundant with Big Five personality traits in predicting willingness to communicate and self-perceived competence, but also that DC does not significantly add to predicting public speaking anxiety. Conclusions Speaking in a public context may be especially attractive to persons with a desire for control who tend to feel both willing and able to communicate. Public speaking anxiety appears less consistently related to individual differences in DC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".