Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.

12176

Willingness to Communicate: Rise, Development, and Some

Future Directions
Nourollah Zarrinabadi1* and Nooshin Tanbakooei2
1
Department of English Language and Literature, University of Isfahan, Iran
2
Department of English Language and Literature, Shahrekord University, Iran

Abstract
In the last 20 years, several scholars have referred to willingness to communicate (WTC) as a useful con-
struct in explaining an individual’s first (L1) and second language (L2) communication. WTC in L2 is de-
fined as a readiness to initiate discourse with specific person(s) at a particular time, using an L2 (MacIntyre,
Dörnyei, Clément, and Noels 1998). This paper presents a sketch of the current themes and research di-
rections in WTC, which are particularly novel or forward-looking. The survey is divided into several
main sections: the origin and theoretical advancements, orientations in research methodology, and direc-
tions for future research. The paper discusses how WTC was originally conceptualized with reference to
L1 communication and, later, introduced as welcome appendage to L2 pedagogy. Furthermore, it com-
pares trait-like and situational views toward L2 WTC and argues for the importance of facilitating WTC
in language learners. Finally, the paper outlines some possible venues for further research that can expand
advance in L2 WTC research.

1. Introduction
Whether an individual prefers to communicate with another individual in a given situation is
inf luenced by the situation constraints of that interlocution. Several variables such as the person’s
feelings, the interlocutor, and the interlocutors’ interests and preferences may have an impact.
Willingness to speak, therefore, is partially situationally-inf luenced; however, individuals show
regular behavioral tendencies with regard to the amount of speaking (Borgetta and Bales, 1953;
Chapelle and Arensberg, 1940; McCroskey, 1997). This consistency in preference to communicate
suggests existence of a personality-type trait named ‘willingness to communicate’ (WTC:
McCroskey, 1992; McCroskey and Richmond, 1987, 1990, 1991). Willingness to communicate is de-
fined as ‘an individual’s predisposition to initiate communication with others’ (McCroskey, 1997:77).
This personality orientation explains the reason an individual starts communication, and
other individual does not under similar situational conditions. The WTC construct proposed
by McCroskey and his colleagues (1985, 1990, 1991) has evolved from the works of Unwilling-
ness to Communicate (UWTC) by Burgoon (1976), Predisposition toward Verbal Behavior
(PTVB) by Mortensen, Arnston, and Lustig (1977), and Shyness by McCroskey and Richmond
(1982). All three constructs claimed to propose a personality variable accounting for general ten-
dency toward communication participation. McCroskey and Richmond (1987), based on the
ideas gleaned from these previous studies, put forward the WTC construct that accounted for
individual’s tendency to start communication when the choice was given. They defined
WTC in first language (L1) as a personality trait, which was relatively stable across different sit-
uations and with various interlocutors.
Scholars reported that several psychological or communication-related variables were related
to L1 WTC: self-perceived communication competence (Barraclough, Christophel, and

© 2016 The Author

Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Willingness to Communicate 31

McCroskey, 1988; MacIntyre, 1994; McCroskey, Buroughs, Duan, and Richmond,1990;

McCroskey and Richmond, 1990; Sallinen-Kuparinen, McCroskey, and Richmond, 1991),
communication apprehension (MacIntyre, 1994; McCroskey, 1997; McCroskey, et al. 1990;
Sallinen-Kuparinen, et al. 1991), shyness (Teven, Richmond, McCroskey, and McCroskey,
2010), anomie (MacIntyre, 1994), alienation (MacIntyre, 1994), introversion (MacIntyre,
1994; McCroskey, 1997), culture (McCroskey and Richmond, 1990), verbal aggression (Teven
et al., 2010).
With regard to language learning and instruction, WTC in a second language (L2) is viewed
both as personality trait and a situational construct. These two viewpoints are described in detail
in the next two subsections.

2. Willingness to Communicate as a Personality Trait

The conceptualization of WTC as a personality feature that is relatively consistent across differ-
ent communication contexts (e.g., public speaking, meeting, group, and dyad) and relatively sta-
ble with various receivers (e.g., friend, stranger, and acquaintance) was nicely captured by
researchers to justify individual differences in L1 communication (e.g., McCroskey and Baer,
1985; McCroskey and Richmond, 1987, 1990, 1991). Therefore, the label ‘trait-like’ is used
to refer to WTC as the inclination to open a conversation, when being free to do so (see
McCroskey and Baer, 1985; McCroskey and Richmond, 1982, 1990; McCroskey, 1992). To
Dörnyei (2005), WTC in one’s L1 is viewed as a trait-like perspective that is developed over
years. Of course, this should be noted that L1 WTC should be interpreted as relatively stable.
This means that a person who is among the highest in sample to communicate with acquain-
tances would also be expected to be among those most willing to speak to strangers even if
his/her WTC declines considerably from acquaintances to stranger, and his is the relative position
in the distribution that is stable and not the absolute score for communicating in each context.
This view of L1 WTC as a trait, which was relatively stable over the time and across situa-
tions, thus persuaded L2 researchers to examine whether tendency to speak in an L2 is trait-like
as well. MacIntyre and Charos (1996) introduced the notion of WTC to language learning and
teaching literature and examined individuals’ tendency to talk in an L2. MacIntyre and Charos
(1996), in their pioneer work, realized that WTC, competence, and anxiety were correlated.
Along with this, initiation of communication in both L1 and L2 could be predictable with
WTC, where competence and anxiety were negatively correlated (MacIntyre, Babin, and
Clément 1999). L2 researchers have also tried to focus on the effects of individual’s variables
on WTC to pinpoint the practical implications of MacIntyre and Charos’ study. The first studies
in the field of L2 learning and instruction examined relationship between L2 WTC and biolog-
ical variables. Maclntyre, Baker, Clément and Donovan (2002, 2003), in an endeavor to inves-
tigate the relationship among sex, age, and WTC, found that gender and age inf luenced WTC.
Moreover, one of the most striking findings of Donovan and MacIntyre’s (2005) study was that
males’ WTC increased as they became older; however, females’ WTC decreases with age. Gen-
erally, females showed higher level of WTC compared to males. In a related vein, Lu (2007)
investigated the impact of age on one’s WTC and reported that person’s degree of WTC in-
creased with age.
The second line of research inspected the role of psychological variables such as motivation,
anxiety, and identity in L2 WTC. The results of these studies showed that perceived
communicative competence and communication anxiety were the strongest predicators of L2
WTC (Baker and MacIntyre, 2000; MacIntyre, 1994; MacIntyre et al., 2001; McCroskey and
Richmond, 1991). L2 WTC was also found to be related to different motivational types. For ex-
ample, integrative motivation closely correlated with L2 WTC (Hashimoto, 2002; Peng, 2007).

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
32 Nourollah Zarrinabadi and Nooshin Tanbakooei

Also, Vatankhah and Tanbakooei (2014) examined the effects of social support on intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation and reported that intrinsically and extrinsically supported L2 learners were
more motivated and of higher WTC. Moreover, the findings of the studies conducted by
MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, and Conrod (2001) and Zarrinabadi and Abdi (2011) determined
that there was a significant relationship between WTC inside and outside the classroom and lan-
guage learning orientations. In a recent study, Zarrinabadi and Haidary (2014) investigated the
relationship between L2 WTC and different identity styles and reported that L2 WTC was sig-
nificantly correlated with informational, normative, and diffuse-avoidant identity styles
(Figure 1).
Following the third line of research, some scholars investigated the role of instructional, ed-
ucational factors and linguistic variables, and their inf luence on L2 WTC. For example,
Yashima (2002) found that language proficiency, attitudes toward learning English, and the in-
ternational community significantly relate to WTC in English among Japanese students.
McIntyre et al. (2003) examined WTC among Canadian immersion and non-immersion stu-
dents and found that language learners who were instructed through immersion program were
higher in L2 WTC.

3. Willingness to Communicate as a Situational Construct

Later, some scholars suggested that WTC is subject to some the situational variables, as well.
Proposing a situated model of L2 WTC, MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, and Noels (1998)
argued that these were some contextual variables that had the potential to exert inf luence on
L2 WTC (Figure 1). MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) defined L2 WTC as ‘a readiness to enter into
discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using an L2’ (547) and developed
a heuristic model that explained situational and enduring variables such as interpersonal

Fig. 1. MacIntyre et al.’s heuristic model of L2 WTC.

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Willingness to Communicate 33

motivation, intergroup motivation, self-confidence, intergroup attitudes, communicative com-

petence, and personality, which inf luenced a person’s level of L2 WTC resourcefully, contin-
gently, and contextually. This multi-layered model was one of the most comprehensive and
widely used theoretical frameworks of variables affecting WTC. The heuristic model consid-
ered the interrelations among the wide range of psychological, linguistic, and communicative
variables inf luence WTC. It was developed to discern why some learners communicate in L2
regardless of their limited linguistic competence, whereas some others shunned doing so, albeit
they were proficientL2 learners.
MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) model entailed six-layer pyramid shape, which allowed to explore
the proximal and distal inf luences on WTC. The first three layers, namely, communication be-
havior, behaviour intention, and situated antecedents correspond to situational inf luences on
WTC at given moment in time. Situational inf luences are characterized as more evanescent
and are dependent on the specific context in which an individual acts at a particular time.
The bottom three layers, to wit motivation propensities, affective-cognitive context, and social
and individual context are assumed as long-term properties of the environment or person,
which cause relatively consistent and enduring inf luence on the process and can possibly apply
to every situation. Each layer in the model serves as the platform on which the upper layer and
factors stand. Therefore, all layers are related to each other, and the factors that are closer to L2
use are those that are related to the specific features of the communication situation, while the
factors far from the top of the pyramid set the stage for L2 use but are more tangential to
moment-to-moment L2. When these factors line up in a positive direction, the individual feels
the willingness to start communication in L2.
3.1. Situation-specific Influences

3.1.1. COMMUNICATIVE BEHAVIOR

The ultimate goal of the language learning process is the L2 use; therefore, it is placed at the top
of the pyramid as the communicative behavior (Layer I) in MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) model.
MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) conception of communicative behavior includes L2 authentic com-
munication that consists of activities such as speaking up in class, reading L2 novels, watching
L2 movies, or using the L2 at work. The goal of this layer is, in essence, creating WTC among
learners. As MacIntyre et al. (1998) put it ‘a program that fails to produce students who are will-
ing to use the language is simply a failed course’ (547).

3.1.2. BEHAVIORAL INTENTION

In an L2 context, an immediate variable that affects communicative use of language is the de-
velopment of the L2 learners’ WTC, which forms the second layer of the pyramid. MacIntyre
et al. (1998:547) define WTC as being ready ‘to enter into discourse at a particular time with a
specific person or persons, using an L2’. Moreover, by the quotation above, MacIntyre et al.
(1998) add that, for instance, if a teacher asks their students a question and the students raise their
hands to show their willingness to answer if called upon, they have committed themselves to a
course of action although this communicative event is a non-verbal one.

3.1.3. SITUATED ANTECEDENTS OF COMMUNICATION

Two situated antecedents of communication factors underpin the third layer of the heuristic
model that is the gateway to WTC: (1) the desire to communicate with a specific person, which

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
34 Nourollah Zarrinabadi and Nooshin Tanbakooei

states that ‘affiliation may be the most important motive in informal situations with an attractive,
L2 speaking interlocutor’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 549) and (2) the state communicate self-
confidence that is described as a temporary feeling of confidence in a particular situation. Actu-
ally, it is an individual’s feeling that gives a person the means to communicate effectively in L2 at
a particular moment in a specific situation. MacIntyre et al. (1998) hold the idea that ‘the state
communicate self-confidence can be distinguished as the trait-like self-confidence and a mo-
mentary feeling of confidence’ (549).
Clément (1980, 1986) stated that perceived competence and a lack of anxiety are key factors
for L2 self-confidence. A state of perceived competence refers to the feeling that one has the
capacities to communicate effectively at a particular moment (MacIntyre, et al., 1998). This state
is more likely to come to light when the speakers are given the conditions that they have devel-
oped language knowledge and skills and are familiar with the encountered situation.

3.2. Stable and Enduring Influence

3.2.1. MOTIVATIONAL PROPENSITIES

The fourth layer of the model addresses motivational tendencies that are inclined to be stable
individual variables. This layer represents the pivotal stage for all L2 learners in which class con-
text and affiliation to class members play fundamental roles. Three variables shape this layer: (1)
interpersonal motivation, (2) intergroup motivation, and (3) L2 self-confidence. Crucial to
these motivational propensities are interpersonal motivation and intergroup motivation, which
concern the desire to communicate with specific persons in the third layer.
In MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) views, interpersonal and intergroup motivations are grounded in
the affective and cognitive contexts and will ultimately contribute to state self-confidence. They
are highly specific to the individual and report one’s relationship to the people who speak the L2
as well as to the L2 itself. Also, in line with the foregoing discussion, MacIntyre (2007) contends
that an individual’s affiliation to a particular community is intergroup motivation, while inter-
personal motives originate from the nomination of one’s social roles within the group. Two es-
sential concepts in determining the specific persons with whom one will communicate are
control and affiliation motives. Control and affiliation motives are closely related to attitudes
and the pattern of the relationship between persons as individuals and as the representative of
language-related groups.

3.2.2. AFFECTIVE AND COGNITIVE CONTEXT

This layer consists of three components, namely, intergroup attitudes, social situation, and
communicative competence, which are, to some extent, isolated from particular communication
situations. Intergroup attitudes indicate L2 students’ desire to communicate with L2 community,
and the sense of satisfaction and fulfillment as one is learning a language. Social situation includes
variables such as the participants, setting, purpose, topic, channel of communication, and the in-
terlocutor’s proficiency level. It is argued that such variables affect one’s degree of self-
confidence and WTC accordingly.
Communicative competence refers to an individual’s level of proficiency, which can
significantly inf luence one’s WTC. Communicative competence along with the interlocutor’s
pattern of personality variables help to determine L2 self-confidence, which is mainly interpreted
by the judgments of proficiency and feeling of apprehensions (MacIntyre et al., 1998). The var-
iables in this layer affect L2 learners’ WTC circuitously by having inf luence on the variables in
the upper layers.

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Willingness to Communicate 35

3.2.3. THE SOCIETAL AND INDIVIDUAL CONTEXT

The last layer includes by two important features: intergroup climate and personality. Inter-
group climate pertains to one’s viewpoints toward the L2 community, the value that the speaker
attributes to it, and the desire that an individual has to adapt and minimize the social distance
between the L1 and L2 communities. Personality is conceptualized as having an indirect impact
on WTC through affective variables such as attitude, motivation, and confidence (MacIntyre
et al., 1998).
MacIntyre et al. (1998) further note that their model has both theoretical as well as practical
implications. Their model adopts a holistic view to shed more light on a set of variables that have
been proved to have an impact on L2 learning and communication. MacIntyre et al. (1998) de-
scribe that the model regards WTC as the final stage of preparing L2 learners for communica-
tion because it symbolizes the possibility that an L2 learner will use the language for the
communicative purpose if given the opportunity.
Owing to this situational view of WTC, several researchers attempted at exploring
different situational factors having an impact on learners’ tendency to speak. In Baker
and MacIntyre’s (2000) study on WTC among immersion and non-immersion students,
WTC was inf luenced by the instructional context. Clément et al. (2003) reported that
WTC was affected by the quality and frequency of L2 contact. Moreover, in her study
on situational WTC among Korean language learners, Kang (2005) reported that
WTC was inf luenced by three psychological conditions of responsibility, security, and
excitement, which were co-constructed by the interaction of situational variables such
as the topic under discussion, interlocutors, and the context of conversation. Of these
psychological conditions, security referred to feeling safe from the anxiety associated with
speaking in an L2. Furthermore, excitement was ‘the feeling of elation about the act of
talking’ (Kang 2005:287), whereas responsibility referred to feeling obliged to send or
receive a message. Upon these findings, Kang (2005) proposed that situational WTC
refereed to

An individual’s volitional inclination towards actively engaging in the act of communication in a spe-
cific situation, which can vary according to interlocutor(s), topic, and conversational context, among
other potential situational variables (291).

Moreover, Cao and Philp (2006) recognized that the group size, familiarity with interloc-
utors, and interlocutors’ participation inf luenced learners’ WTC. Additionally, Cao (2014)
used a multiple case study to examine dynamic and situated nature of L2 WTC within a per-
spective to elaborate on various social, environmental, and individual factors inf luencing
WTC. Cao reported that situational L2 WTC emerges from the interdependence among lin-
guistic factors, classroom environmental conditions, and individual characteristics. Cao also ar-
gued that the effect of these combinations is different from person to person, being facilitative
for some and debilitative for some others. Examining L2 WTC as a complex dynamic system,
Pawlak and Mystkowska-Wiertelak (2015) reported that the Polish learners’ WTC was in a
state of f lux and was affected by variables such as the topic, the planning time, cooperation
and familiarity with the interlocutor, the opportunity to state one’s ideas, and the mastery of
requisite lexis.
Summarizing two viewpoints on L2 WTC, it can be concluded that WTC in L2 is inf lu-
enced both situational and trait variables. A person’s willingness to talk in an L2 in a particular
situation is a function of his or her trait WTC and the situational variables related to that partic-
ular context.

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
36 Nourollah Zarrinabadi and Nooshin Tanbakooei

4. Methodological Approaches Toward L2 WTC

L2 WTC has been investigated through three main methodological approaches: quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods. The quantitative approach toward WTC includes using quan-
titative data collection tools such as questionnaires to inspect the relationships among WTC and
other variables. The quantitative perspective is closely connected with the trait-like view of
WTC try to explore the associations between L2 WTC and other personality-related variables
(see Table 1).
Likert-type questionnaires have been the main tool for assessing WTC in quantitative study.
McCroskey and Baer (1985) developed a scale that measured WTC in four communication sit-
uations (public speaking, meeting, dyads, and small group) and with three types of interlocutors
(strangers, acquaintances, and friends). The questionnaire consisted of 20 items: 12 scored items
(e.g., ‘Talk in a small group of acquintances’) and eight filler ones (e.g., ‘Talk with a
police officer’). McCroskey (1992) modified some wordings of the above scale and presented
the band scores for classifying individuals as high WTC, moderate WTC, and low WTC.
The scale renders information on level of WTC related to each of the four communication sit-
uations, three interlocutor types, and total WTC.
The second mostly used questionnaires are MacIntyre et al.’s (2001) willingness to
communicate inside the classroom and willingness to communicate outside the classroom scales,
which are used in studies examining WTC among L2 learners. Each scale comprises 27 5-point
Likert-type items ranging from 1 (almost never willing) to 5 (almost always willing). Willingness
to communicate inside the classroom questionnaire assesses WTC through reading, writing,
listening, and speaking within the classroom context, whereas willingness to communicate
outside the classroom measures WTC in four skills in real-life, out-of-school contexts.
Furthermore, Weaver (2005) developed a 34-item measure of L2 WTC of Japanese EFL
students and used Rasch model to analyze the psychometric properties of the items.
Qualitative approach was the second methodological orientation toward L2 WTC research.
The trait-like view of WTC was questioned for being decontextualized and ignorant of the ef-
fect of the time, the participants, and the context of communication (MacIntyre et al., 1998).
Qualitative methods became popular because they allowed thick description (Dörnyei, 2007)
of the context and the interlocutors, analyzed individual views, elaborated on the unique dy-
namics of the system, and revealed about the idiosyncratic features (Dörnyei, 2007; Kang,
2005; Zarrinabadi et al. 2014). Qualitative methods permitted detailed analysis of individual’s
tendency to speak in a specific situation and shed more light on the distal and proximal inf lu-
ences on WTC. Several qualitative data collection tools such as interview, diary, focused essay,
and observation have been utilized to examine L2 WTC. Kang (2005), for example, used semi-
structured interview to assess L2 WTC, whereas Cao and Philp (2006) used observation tool to
do so. Also, Zarrinabadi (2014) used focused essay technique to gather data and analyzed them
from a grounded theory perspective (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). In his study,
Zarrinabadi (2014) asked the students to write about situations in which they were most and
least willing to communicate. The participants were required to describe the situations, the in-
terlocutors, and their perceived reason for being willing or unwilling to talk. Table 2 presents a
summary of some of the qualitative studies on L2 WTC.
The third methodological orientation has been to investigate WTC by triangulating quanti-
tative and qualitative methods. This mixed methods approach allowed the researchers to benefit
from the strength of the two main paradigms and to rule out the weaknesses of one methodology
by complementing it by the other method. In such studies, the questionnaires contributed the
quantitative part of the study triangulated with qualitative procedures such as interview or
observation data. Baker and MacIntyre (2000), for instance, used survey questionnaires and

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Table 1. Quantitative studies on L2 WTC.
Authors Objectives
© 2016 The Author
MacIntyre et al. (2001) To investigate the relations among
WTC inside and outside the class,
social supports, and language
learning orientation
MacIntyre et al. (2002) 1. To test the effects of sex, age,
and language (L1 and L2)
2. To examine the correlation
among the communicative variables
Yashima (2002) To examine the relationships among
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
L2 learning, L2 communication,
and socioeducational model
MacIntyre et al. (2003) 1. To test for differences among
students with immersion experience
and traditional language instruction
experience on WTC
2. To examine correlation among
WTC, CA, Perceived competence,
and integrative motivation
Clément et al. (2003) 1. Merging WTC with social
context models
2. Examining the differences
between two language groups
in terms of WTC
Peng (2007) To examine the relationship
between WTC and motivation
Liu and Jackson (2008) To examine the relationship among
anxiety and UWTC and self-rated
English proficiency
Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Participants
79 Canadian junior
high school students
206 junior high school
late French immersion
program
389 Japanese
university students
59 Canadian
university students
378 (248 Franchophone
and 130 Anglophone)
174 Medical college
Chinese students average
age 18.8
547 Non-English major
Chinese university students
aged 14–21
143 Jewish and Arab 6th-grade children Questionnaire
Instrumentation Results
Questionnaire 1. Strong correlation was found
between WTC inside and outside
the class, friendship, knowledge,
and school achievement orientations
2. Social supports from friends
positively influenced WTC
Questionnaire 1. SPCC and CA predicted WTC
2. Age and gender influenced L2 WTC
Questionnaire L2 Communication confidence and
international posture influenced WTC
Questionnaire 1. Immersion experience was
associated with increased WTC
2. WTC correlated very strongly
with motivation among students
with immersion experience
3. CA and perceived competence
correlated with WTC
Questionnaire 1. L2 Confidence was related to WTC
2. Franchophones indicated
higher WTC than Anglophones did
Questionnaire Motivation was the strongest
predictor of WTC
Questionnaire WTC correlated with FL anxiety and
self-rated proficiency
Willingness to Communicate
37
(Continues)
© 2016 The Author
Table 1. (Continued)
Authors
Tannenbaum and Taher (2008)
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
MacIntyre and Doucette (2010)
Peng and Woodrow (2010)
Ghonsooly et al. (2012)
MacIntyre and Blackie (2012)
Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Objectives
1. To examine the influence of
parental and peer attitudes on WTC
2. To investigate the impact of
teaching environment on WTC
To investigate the links among
control variables and
communication-related variables
including WTC
To investigate the interrelationship
of individuals and classroom
contextual variables with WTC
in English
To examine WTC construct and
its underlying variables
To examine the association among
action control, motivated strategy
for learning, integrated motivation,
and non-linguistic outcomes.
Participants
238 14–18 High school
Canadian students
579 Chinese
university students
185 Non-English major
Iranian university students
117 Canadian
high school students
Instrumentation Results
1. Arab children had more positive
attitudes and higher WTC in
Hebrew than Jewish children
2. Strong association was found
between WTC, various attitude
dimensions, and familial and
peer influence
Questionnaire 1. Hesitation was associated with
both higher levels of anxiety and
lower perceptions of communication
competence
38 Nourollah Zarrinabadi and Nooshin Tanbakooei
2. WTC correlated with hesitation
and volatility
Questionnaire 1. Class environment predicted WTC
2. Motivation influenced WTC
through confidence
Questionnaire 1. Attitude toward international
community and L2 self-confidence
predicted WTC
2. Openness to experience affected WTC
Questionnaire Hesitation played a significant role
in predicting WTC
 Willingness to Communicate 39

Table 2. Qualitative studies on L2 WTC.

Authors Objectives Participants Instrumentation Results

Kang 1. To investigate situational Four Korean Semi-structures L2 Situational WTC emerged

(2005) variables affect WTC in
L2 in a communication
situation.
2. How situational WTC is
conceptualized changed
over the course of
communication.
Freiermuth To investigate the potential
and Jarrell of computer-mediated
(2006) communication to
enhance students’ WTC
Cao (2011) 1. To examine learners’
perceptions of individual
and environmental
factors contributing to
their WTC.
2. How individual and
environmental factors
jointly create learners’
WTC
MacIntyre To describe the dynamics of
et al. (2011) the processes underlying
WTC among immersion
students
Peng 1. To examine individual
(2012) and contextual factors
underlying WTC
2. To what extent an
ecological perspective
contribute WTC
Zarrinabadi To investigate the effect of 50
(2014) teacher on learner’s WTC undergraduate
English students
Cao (2014) 1. To examine how WTC is Six (19–26)
demonstrated in L2 class Chinese
2. How individual and university
contextual factors students in
interact and affect WTC New Zealand
male students interview and from the interaction of
aged 23–25 stimulated recalls excitement, responsibility, and
security, which were co-
constructed by topic,
interlocutors, conversational
context.
36 Female Open-ended Online communication produced
Japanese questionnaire, online a more comfortable
university and face-to-face environment increasing
students tasks students’ WTC
Six students from Stimulated-recall L2 WTC emerged from the joint
an advanced- interviews and use of effects of a group of
level EAP class journals individual, environmental, and
aged 20–30 linguistic variables.
100 Canadian Focused essay 1. Teachers and peers, error
junior high technique correction, perceived
school competence, family and
student in friends, and media usage
Grades 7, 8, influenced WTC
and 9 2. Subtle differences in the
communication context can
significantly alter WTC
3. Special care should be given to
understanding the ambivalent
psychological processes they
are going to and the ways
those processes impact L2
communication
Four Chinese Semi-structured 1. WTC was synergistically
university interviews, non- influenced by a range of
students participant classroom individual and environmental
observation, and factors
learning journals 2. The existence of the meso-,
exo-, and macrosystem and
their effect on classroom WTC
Focused essay Teacher’s wait time, error
technique correction, teacher’s decision
on the topic, and teacher’s
support influenced learner’s
WTC
Classroom observation 1. WTC is a dynamic situational
and stimulated-recall variable
interview 2. WTC resulted from
interdependence among
individual classroom
environmental and linguistic
factors

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
40 Nourollah Zarrinabadi and Nooshin Tanbakooei

focused essays to study WTC among immersion and non-immersion Canadian students. In an-
other study, MacIntyre and Legatto (2011), applying a dynamic systems approach toward WTC,
employed questionnaires and researcher’s ratings together with video-taped interviews to analyze
WTC. Table 3 presents an outline of major mixed methods studies on L2 WTC.
While the quantitative and qualitative approaches seem to be useful for researching L2 WTC
from trait and dynamic situational views, respectively, the mixed method approach seems to in-
tegrate the strength of both quantitative and qualitative approaches and produces generalizeable
results that reveal about the situational inf luences as well.

5. The Significance of Generating WTC

The importance of facilitating L2 WTC arises from the role of communication and interaction
in learning a language. Interaction approach and communicative approaches toward language
learning and teaching place great importance on the role of communicative and meaningful
use in learning an L2 (Long, 1985; Swain, 1985, 1995; Lantolf, 2004). Skehan (1989) believed
that learners must talk in order to learn a new language. Language development is drastically im-
proved by interaction, and more language use leads to more language development (Kang,
2005). Given that WTC exerts impact on the frequency of communication occurring inside
and outside the classroom (Clément et al., 2003; Yashima, 2002), it is reasonable to argue for
its inclusion in L2 language programs.
Some scholars have proposed that facilitating WTC should be an integral part of language
learning and teaching (Kang, 2005; MacIntyre et al., 1998, 2003). MacIntyre et al. (1998) sug-
gested that WTC should be the ultimate goal of language learning and instruction. They argued
that generating WTC could help language pedagogy to move toward their ultimate goal of au-
thentic communication between individuals from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
Kang (2005) believed by generating WTC, language teachers would have more active learners

Table 3. Mixed methods studies on L2 WTC.

Authors Objectives Participants Instrumentation Results

Baker and To examine WTC among 195 immersion Questionnaire and 1. Immersion students
MacIntyre (2000) immersion and non- and non- focused essay indicated higher WTC
immersion students immersion technique 2. WTC was related to age
Canadian and gender
students aged 3. WTC was high when
14–18 traveling, meeting
friends, and giving class
presentations
Cao and 1. To investigate how Eight language WTC Questionnaire, 1. No clear correlation was
Philp (2006) context influenced learners at a classroom found between learner’s
learner’s WTC university-based observation, audio- self-report WTC and
2. To examine the factors private recording of group behavioral WTC
affecting learner’s WTC language school and pair work, and 2. The group size,
in the whole class, in New Zealand interview familiarity with
group, and dyadic interlocutors,
interaction interlocutor’s
participation, familiarity
with topic under
discussion, self-
confidence, medium of

(Continues)

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Willingness to Communicate 41

Table 3. (Continued)

Authors Objectives Participants Instrumentation Results

communication, and
cultural background
de Saint Léger and 1. To investigate learners’ 90 Australian Questionnaire, Students’ perceptions and
Storch (2009) perception regarding university focused group attitudes influenced
their speaking ability students interview, teacher’s their WTC
and whole class and assessment on class
small group participation
participation over the
course
2. To examine learner’s
attitudes to the
discussion
MacIntyre and 1. To study WTC from a Six female Questionnaire, L2 1. The results showed both
Legatto (2011) dynamic systems university tasks, videotaped consistency and
approach using an students aged interviews, variation in WTC even
idiodynamic method 19–21 dynamic WTC among a relatively
ratings, and homogeneous sample
researcher’s ratings of speakers.
2. Vocabulary was
identified as a key
process affecting WTC
3. WTC is a dynamic
system
2. To examine the effects
of different tasks and
the amount of speaking
time on WTC
3. To investigate the
variation in WTC over
time and to use a
dynamic systems
approach
4. To document changing
levels of WTC
5. To examine individual
participants’ attributions
for increases and
decreases in WTC

who seek to use their L2 for communication. Also, learners with higher WTC could function
independently and autonomously extending their learning chances both inside and outside the
classroom.
To generate L2 WTC, there is also a need to move from purely theoretical studies on L2
toward studies that produce implications for generating L2 WTC. Recently, Gregerson and
MacIntyre (2013) and Peng (2014), based on the empirical evidence obtained from studies on
L2 WTC, presented several suggestions for facilitating L2 WTC. Additionally, Zarrinabadi,
Ketabi, and Abdi (2014) reported that a bulk of research was conducted on the inf luences on
WTC; however, almost no study tried to put the theory into practice and seek whether it is
practically feasible to facilitate (or create) WTC. Zarrinabadi et al. used the ideas generated by
previous studies to assign students to groups, correct errors, decide on the discussion topics,
and motivate and support the students. They found that the students’ classroom WTC

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
42 Nourollah Zarrinabadi and Nooshin Tanbakooei

improved in many cases. Certainly, more practically-oriented endeavors are needed to provide
suggestions for teachers to create WTC in their learners.

6. Some Future Directions

Although considerable research has been conducted on WTC, it can be claimed that WTC
research is still in its infancy. Many questions have remained unanswered, and many areas are
still unexplored. These questions target theoretical as well as practical issues related to WTC
research. In reference to theoretical aspects, further research is needed on areas such as dynamism
in L2 WTC, WTC in different skills, and WTC in computer-mediated communication
(CMC). Although several studies have attempted to explore various situational factors inf luenc-
ing WTC, further research is mandatory to take a complete cognizance of different linguistic,
psychological, contextual, and social factors that interact to affect f luctuations of WTC from
time to time. And it is only in light of such appreciation that teachers can facilitate WTC in
L2 classrooms.
The second issue is that ‘communication’ in WTC research is reduced to speaking and
other skills are totally neglected. It is obvious that L2 communication between people of dif-
ferent linguistic and cultural backgrounds is not limited to speaking, and it includes skills
such as reading and writing particularly in the internet and social networks. Thus, one
may question whether language learners differ in terms of their willingness to write a letter
or an email in L2 or in terms of their willingness to read a text in an L2. It would be
interesting to examine language learners’ willingness to read, willingness to write, willingness
to listen as well and to see the similarities and differences with willingness to speak. For
example, it would be interesting to examine bilinguals’ willingness to write emails or text
messages in L2 instead of L1 and to see which variables inhibit or enhance such a tendency.
Additionally, future research may delve more into WTC through writing, listening, and
reading to see what variables affect WTC in these skills, or whether the same variables
related to WTC in speaking are at work.
Another interesting line of inquiry would be to investigate L2 WTC in CMC. The study by
Freiermuth and Jarrell (2006) revealed interesting findings about the difference between WTC
in face-to-face and online communication contexts. Future research may examine WTC in
contexts such as social networks, SMS communication, and chatter boxes to see what
inf luences on WTC are at work and whether use of such media can facilitate WTC.
The other line of inquiry would be to see how teachers, teaching techniques, and procedure
inf luence classroom WTC. Teacher is an integral part of classroom interaction and plays a
central role in students’ classroom WTC behavior (Wen and Clément, 2010; Zarrinabadi et al.
2014). Inspecting classroom WTC, some researchers reported that teachers’ error correction, wait
time, and support inf luence classroom WTC (Wen and Clément, 2010; Zarrinabadi et al. 2014).
Further research endeavors may explore those other teacher factors that affect learners’ WTC.
In conclusion, the authors believe that future research is required if WTC research is to assist
language learning and authentic communication among people of different cultural and
linguistic backgrounds. It requisites a complete body of knowledge to completely recognize
the construct and find out how it can be implemented to language teaching programs in sake
of their aforementioned objectives.

Short Biographies

Nourollah Zarrinabadi is a PhD candidate of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) at

University of Isfahan, Isfahan. Zarrinabadi’s current research includes theoretical and empirical

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Willingness to Communicate 43

research on L2 motivation, willingness to communicate, and bilingualism. He holds BA in

English language and literature from Ilam University and MA in TEFL from Allameh
Tabataba’i University.
Nooshin Tanbakooei got her BA in TEFL from Najaf Abad University and is an MA TEFL
graduate from Shahrekord University. Her research interests are located on applied linguistics,
discourse analysis, interlanguage pragmatics, language testing and assessment, and teacher
education. She has published and presented some papers in national and international journals
and conferences.
Note

* Correspondence address: Nourollah Zarrinabadi, Department of English Language and Literature, University of Isfahan,
Isfahan, 73441–81746, Islamic Republic of Iran. E-mail: nur.zarrinabadi@gmail.com

Works Cited
Baker, S. C., and P. D. MacIntyre. 2000. The role of gender and immersion in communication and second language
orientations. Language Learning 50. 311–41.
Barraclough, R., D. Christophel, and J. McCroskey. 1988. Willingness to communicate: a cross-cultural investigation.
Communication Research Reports 5. 187–92.
Borgetta, E. F., and R. F. Bales. 1953. Interaction of individuals in reconstituted groups. Sociometry 16. 302–20.
Burgoon, J. K. 1976. The unwillingness to communicate scale: development and validation. Communication Monographs 43.
60–9.
Cao, Y. 2011. Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological
perspective. System 39. 468–79.
——. 2014. A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate. TESOL Quarterly 48.
789–814.
Cao, Y., and J. Philip. 2006. Interactional context and willingness to communicate: a comparison of behavior in whole class,
group and dyadic interaction. System 34. 480–93.
Chapple, E. D., and C. M. Arensberg. 1940. Measuring human relations: an introduction to the study of the interaction of
individuals. Genetic Psychology Monographs 22. 143–7.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Clément, R. 1980. Ethnicity, contact, and communicative competence in a language. Language: social psychological
perspectives, ed. by H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, and P. M. Smith, 147–54. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
——. 1986. Language proficiency and acculturation: an investigation of the effects of language status and individual
characteristics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 5. 271–90.
Clément, R., S. C. Baker, and P. D. MacIntyre. 2003. Willingness to communicate in a language: the effects of context,
norms, and vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22. 190–209.
de Saint Léger, D., and N. Storch. 2009. Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: implications for willingness to communicate in
an L2 classroom. System 37. 269–85.
Donovan, L. A., and P. D. MacIntyre. 2005. Age and sex differences in willingness to communicate, communication
apprehension, and self-perceived competence. Communication Research Reports 21. 420–27.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in language acquisition. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
——. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Freiermuth, M., and D. Jarrel. 2006. Willingness to communicate: can online chat help? International Journal of Applied
Linguistics 16.189–212.
Ghonsooly, B., G. H. Khajavy, and S. F. Asadpour. 2012. Willingness to communicate in English among Iranian
non-English major university students. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31. 197–211.
Gregerson, T., and P. D. MacIntyre. 2013. Capitalizing on language learners’ individuality: from premise to practice.
Multilingual Matters.
Hashimoto, Y. 2002. Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: the Japanese ESL context.
Second Language Studies 20. 29–70.
Kang, S.-J. 2005. Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System 33.
277–92.
Lantolf, J. P. 2004. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
44 Nourollah Zarrinabadi and Nooshin Tanbakooei

Liu, M., and J. Jackson. 2008. An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language
anxiety. The Modern Language Journal 92. 71–86.
Long, M. H. 1985. Input and second language acquisition theory. Input in second language acquisition, ed. by S. M. Gass and
C. G. Madden, 377–93. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lu, Y. (2007). Willingness to communicate in intercultural interactions between Chinese and Americans. Unpublished MA
thesis. University of Wyoming.
MacIntyre, P. D.1994. Variables underlying willingness to communicate: a causal analysis. Communication Research
Reports 11. 135–42.
——. 2007. Willingness to communicate in the second language: understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process.
Modern Language Journal 9. 564–76.
MacIntyre, P. D., and C. Charos. 1996. Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15. 3–26.
MacIntyre, P. D., Z. Dörnyei, R. Clément, and K. A. Noels. 1998. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: a
situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal 82. 545–62.
MacIntyre, P. D., P. A. Babin, and R. Clément.1999. Willingness to communicate: antecedents and consequences.
Communication Quarterly 47. 215–29.
MacIntyre, P. D., S. C. Baker, R. Clément, and S. Conrod. 2001. Willingness to communicate, social support, and language
learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Language Acquisition 23. 369–88.
Maclntyre, P. D., S. C. Baker, R. Clément and L. A. Donovan. 2002. Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate,
anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language
Learning 52. 537–64.
____. 2003. Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among
junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning 53. 137–66.
____. 2003. Talking in order to learn: willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. Canadian Modern
Language Review 59. 589–607.
MacIntyre, P. D., and J. Doucette. 2010. Willingness to communicate and action control. System 38. 161–71.
MacIntyre, P. D., C. Burns, and A. Jessome. 2011. Ambivalence about communicating in a language: a qualitative study of
French immersion students’ willingness to communicate. The Modern Language Journal 95. 81–96.
MacIntyre, P. D., and J. J. Legatto. 2011. A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: developing an
idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics 32. 149–71.
MacIntyre, P. D., and R. A. Blackie. 2012. Action control, motivated strategies, and integrative motivation as predictors of
language learning affect and the intention to continue learning French. System 36. 533–43.
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly
40.16–25.
McCroskey, J. C. 1997. Willingness to Communicate, Communication Apprehension, and Self-perceived Communication Competence:
Conceptualizations and Perspectives. Avoiding Communication: Shyness, Reticence, and Communication Apprehension, ed. by J. A.
Daly et al., 75–108. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
McCroskey, J. C., and E. J. Baer. 1985. Willingness to Communicate: The Construct and its Measurement. Annual Convention of the
Speech Communication Association. Denver, Colorado.
McCroskey, J. C., and V. P. Richmond. 1982. Communication apprehension and shyness: conceptual and operational
distinctions. Central States Speech Journal 33. 458–68.
____. 1987. Willingness to Communicate and Interpersonal Communication. Personality and Interpersonal Communication, ed. by J. C.
McCroskey and J. A. Daly, 129–56. Newbary Park, CA: Sage.
____. 1990. Willingness to communicate: differing cultural perspectives. Southern Communicational Journal 56. 72–77.
——. 1991. Willingness to Communicate: A Cognitive View. Communication, Cognition, and Anxiety, ed. by M. Booth-
Butterfield, 19–37. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McCroskey, J. C., N. F. Burroughs, A. Daun, and V. P. Richmond. 1990. Correlates of quietness: Swedish and American
perspectives. Communication Quarterly 38. 127–37.
Mortensen, C. D., P. H. Arntson, and M. W. Lustig. 1977. The measurement of verbal predispositions: scale development
and application. Human Communication Research 3. 146–58.
Peng, J.-E. 2007. Willingness to communicate in an L2 and integrative motivation among college students in an intensive
English language program in China. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL 2. 33–59.
——. 2012. Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System 40.
203–13.
——. 2014. Willingness to Communicate Inside the EFL Classroom: An Ecological Perspective.Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Pawlak, M., and A. Mystkowska-Wiertelak 2015. Investigating the dynamic nature of L2 willingness to communicate.
System 50. 1–9.

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Willingness to Communicate 45

Peng, J.-E., and L. J. Woodrow 2010. Willingness to communicate in English: a model in Chinese EFL classroom context.
Language Learning 60. 834–76.
Sallinen-Kuparinen, A., J. C. McCroskey, and V. P. Richmond. 1991. Willingness to communicate, communication
apprehension, introversion, and self-reported communication competence: Finnish and American comparisons.
Communication Research Reports 8. 55–64.
Skehan, P. 1989. Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Strauss, A. L., and J. M. Corbin 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Develop-
ment. Input in Second Language Acquisition, ed. by S. M. Gass and C. G. Madden, 235–53. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Tannenbaum, M., and L. Tahar. 2008. Willingness to communicate in the language of the other: Jewish and Arab students in
Israel. Learning and Instruction 18. 283–94.
Teven J., V. P. Richmond, J. C. McCroskey and L. L. McCroskey. 2010. Updating relationships between communication
traits and communication competence. Communication Research Reports 27. 263–70.
Vatankhah, M., and N. Tanbakooei. 2014. The role of social support on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among Iranian
EFL learners. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 98. 1912–18.
Weaver, C. 2005. Using the Rasch model to develop a measure of second language learners’ willingness to communicate
within a language classroom. Journal of Applied Measurement 6. 396–415.
Wen W. P., and R. Clément. 2010. A Chinese conceptualisation of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language, Culture
and Curriculum 16.18–38.
Yashima, T. 2002. Willingness to communicate in a language: the Japanese EFL context. Modern Language Journal 86. 54–66.
Zarrinabadi, N. 2014. Communicating in a second language: investigating the effect of teacher on learners’ willingness to
communicate. System 42. 288–95.
Zarrinabadi, N., and R. Abdi. 2011. Willingness to communicate and language learning orientations in Iranian EFL context.
International Education Studies 4. 206–14.
Zarrinabadi, N., and T. Haidary. 2014. Willingness to communicate and identity styles of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences 98. 2010–17.
Zarrinabadi N., S. Ketabi, and R. Abdi. 2014. Facilitating willingness to communicate in the second language classroom and
beyond. The Clearing House 87, 213–17.

© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/1 (2016): 30–45, 10.1111/lnc3.12176
Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd