Description

The Willingness to Communicate Scale (WTC-20) is a self-report measure developed by James C. McCroskey and Virginia P. Richmond to assess an individual’s general predisposition to initiate or participate in oral communication when free to choose whether to communicate.

Willingness to communicate refers to the probability that a person will choose to speak in different social situations and with different types of people. It is considered a relatively stable communication predisposition, although it may vary across situations.

The WTC-20 is unrelated to the World Telecommunication Conference or the field of telecommunications.

Purpose

The principal purpose of the WTC-20 is to assess the extent to which an individual is willing to communicate orally in different contexts.

The scale may be used to:

  • assess general willingness to communicate;
  • identify situations in which an individual tends to avoid speaking;
  • examine differences associated with familiarity with the receiver;
  • investigate relationships with communication fear and anxiety;
  • examine associations with extraversion, sociability, and self-esteem;
  • evaluate educational or communication interventions;
  • investigate willingness to participate in discussions, meetings, and public presentations.

Willingness to communicate is not equivalent to actual communication competence. A person may have advanced communication skills but remain unwilling to speak in certain situations. Conversely, someone may be highly willing to communicate without possessing equally strong communication skills.

Structure

The WTC-20 consists of 20 hypothetical communication situations:

  • 12 items contribute to the scores;
  • 8 items serve as fillers and are not scored.

The scored items are organised according to two dimensions.

Communication Context

Four communication contexts are assessed:

  • group discussions;
  • meetings;
  • interpersonal conversations;
  • public speaking.

Type of Receiver

Willingness to communicate is examined in relation to:

  • strangers;
  • acquaintances;
  • friends.

Combining these dimensions provides a detailed communication profile. For example, an individual may be highly willing to engage in interpersonal conversations with friends but reluctant to speak publicly or communicate with strangers.

Administration

Respondents estimate the percentage of occasions on which they would choose to communicate in each situation.

Responses range from:

  • 0: Never
  • 100: Always

Any intermediate value from 0 to 100 may be used to express the respondent’s perceived likelihood of communicating.

Participants should answer according to what they would genuinely choose to do rather than what they consider socially desirable or expected. The scale may be administered in paper-based or electronic form and requires only a few minutes to complete.

Scoring

All scores range from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate greater willingness to communicate.

Communication-Context Subscales

  • Group discussion: Add items 8, 15, and 19 and divide by 3.
  • Meetings: Add items 6, 11, and 17 and divide by 3.
  • Interpersonal conversation: Add items 4, 9, and 12 and divide by 3.
  • Public speaking: Add items 3, 14, and 20 and divide by 3.

Receiver-Type Subscales

  • Stranger: Add items 3, 8, 12, and 17 and divide by 4.
  • Acquaintance: Add items 4, 11, 15, and 20 and divide by 4.
  • Friend: Add items 6, 9, 14, and 19 and divide by 4.

Total Score

The total WTC score is calculated by adding the Stranger, Acquaintance, and Friend subscale scores and dividing the result by 3.

Equivalently, the mean of the 12 scored items may be calculated. The eight filler items are excluded from all calculations.

Interpretation

The original reference values are as follows:

  • For group discussions, scores below 57 indicate low willingness, whereas scores above 89 indicate high willingness.
  • For meetings, scores below 39 indicate low willingness, whereas scores above 80 indicate high willingness.
  • For interpersonal conversations, scores below 64 indicate low willingness, whereas scores above 94 indicate high willingness.
  • For public speaking, scores below 33 indicate low willingness, whereas scores above 78 indicate high willingness.
  • For communication with strangers, scores below 18 indicate low willingness, whereas scores above 63 indicate high willingness.
  • For communication with acquaintances, scores below 57 indicate low willingness, whereas scores above 92 indicate high willingness.
  • For communication with friends, scores below 71 indicate low willingness, whereas scores above 99 indicate high willingness.
  • For the overall WTC score, scores below 52 indicate low willingness, whereas scores above 82 indicate high willingness.

Scores falling between the two thresholds are not classified as particularly low or high. These reference values were derived from the original normative data and are not diagnostic cut-offs. They should be applied cautiously across different countries, age groups, and cultural contexts.

Data Analysis

Analysis of WTC-20 data may include:

  • descriptive statistics for the total score and seven subscales;
  • examination of score distributions and possible floor or ceiling effects;
  • comparisons across gender, age, or educational groups;
  • correlations with communication apprehension, extraversion, and perceived communication competence;
  • exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis;
  • assessment of internal consistency;
  • regression analysis to identify predictors of willingness to communicate;
  • longitudinal comparisons or intervention evaluations;
  • measurement-invariance testing across cultural or language groups.

Subscale scores frequently provide more information than the overall score because willingness may vary substantially according to the communication context and the type of receiver.

Reliability and Validity

Studies examining the WTC-20 have provided support for its internal consistency and construct validity. Evidence of validity includes theoretically expected relationships with:

  • communication apprehension and anxiety;
  • perceived communication competence;
  • sociability;
  • introversion and extraversion;
  • communication avoidance;
  • actual participation in communication activities.

Willingness to communicate is considered relatively stable, but it may also be influenced by situational factors, including the topic of conversation, the social environment, emotional state, and the relationship with the receiver.

Limitations

The WTC-20 is based on hypothetical situations and self-reported intentions. Stating an intention to communicate does not guarantee that the individual will behave in the same way under real-life conditions.

Additional limitations include:

  • susceptibility to socially desirable responding;
  • dependence on cultural communication norms;
  • differences in how respondents define a friend or acquaintance;
  • inability to assess communication quality or effectiveness;
  • inability to measure language proficiency;
  • inability to diagnose social anxiety.

The original WTC-20 assesses general willingness to communicate. Although it has been widely used in second-language research, it should not automatically be considered a measure of willingness to communicate in a specific foreign language. An appropriately adapted and validated version is required for this purpose.

Use in a new language or cultural context requires systematic translation, cultural adaptation, and renewed assessment of reliability, factorial structure, and reference values.

References

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 119–131). Sage.

McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the Willingness to Communicate Scale. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16–25.

McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, Colorado.

MacIntyre, P. D., Babin, P. A., & Clément, R. (1999). Willingness to communicate: Antecedents and consequences. Communication Quarterly, 47(2), 215–229.