ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 307

www.rsisinternational.org

The Influence of Cognitive Factors in Public Speaking Anxiety

Izlin binti Mohamad Ghazali,

Nurul Nadiah Dewi Faizul Ganapathy,

Mohd Hafriz Abdul Hamid,

Sharifah Nadia binti Syed Nasharudin,

Suzilla Jamari,

Noor Hanim Rahmat

1, 2, 4, 6

Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia

Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Puncak Alam, Malaysia.

Centre of Language Studies, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.922ILEIID0030

Received: 22 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 22 October 2025

ABSTRACT

Public speaking anxiety (PSA) is a prevalent challenge that can hinder learners’ academic and personal

development. This study draws on Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1986) and the three-component of

PSA model by Bartholomay and Houlihan (2016). Quantitative data were obtained through a four-part

survey adapted from Public Speaking Anxiety Scale (PSAS) and completed by 159 undergraduates.

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients were used for analysis. Participants experienced

the highest cognitive anxiety from fear of forgetting their words, followed by concerns about audience

judgment and embarrassment. Behavioural signs, such as handshaking and fidgeting, were moderate.

Physiologically, the most prominent self-reported response during speeches was elevated heart rate,

accompanied by reduced relaxation. Significant positive relationships were indicated between cognitive

factors and both behavioral factors and physiological factors. These findings highlight the dynamic interplay

between internal experiences and external expressions of PSA. They also support a framework where

cognitive appraisals (SCT personal factors) influence behaviours and physiological arousal (Bartholomay &

Houlihan, 2016). The results suggest the need for cognitively focused, theory-informed interventions in

public speaking education.

Keywords: public speaking anxiety (PSA), cognitive anxiety, behavioural signs, physiological responses,

Social Cognitive Theory, PSA three-component model

INTRODUCTION

Public speaking is a form of oral communication delivered before a large audience, combining both the skill

and the art of speaking. To be effective, it requires two key components: the ability to speak and the

technique of delivering the speech. For many non-native English students, three major challenges arise—

mastering the language, delivering the speech effectively, and building self-confidence. Consequently,

speaking in front of others in a formal setting can be quite difficult for them. Developing the confidence to

address an audience takes considerable effort. According to Mufanti (2017), factors such as anxiety, fear,

shyness, lack of confidence, and discomfort can hinder students’ ability to communicate. However, there is

no shortcut to success; continuous practice is essential for improving speaking skills and refining verbal

communication. Similarly, public speaking refers to the act of delivering a speech to a live audience,

involving processes such as preparation, structured organization, and the effective conveyance of a clear and

engaging message. It may take various forms, ranging from formal presentations at professional conferences

to informal addresses in social settings.

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 308

www.rsisinternational.org

Moreover, public speaking entails the delivery of informative, persuasive, or entertaining messages to large

audiences through structured speeches or lectures (Sugiyati & Indriani, 2021). Its fundamental objectives

are to convey information, influence perspectives, or provide entertainment. An effective speech should

generate a lasting impression by offering meaningful and valuable insights (Dansieh et al., 2021). As a

communicative practice, public speaking enables individuals to engage with their communities, disseminate

ideas, and address pressing societal concerns. By voicing their perspectives, speakers can initiate change

and foster positive outcomes, irrespective of the scale of impact. Furthermore, it serves as a medium for

self-expression and empowers individuals to exert personal influence on issues of significance (Lucas &

Stob, 2020).

On the other hand, anxiety is a common emotional experience in both humans and other animals. According

to Spielberger (1972), anxiety arises from the perception of a threat, shaped by symbolic interpretations,

anticipation, and elements of uncertainty. A specific branch of anxiety research focuses on language anxiety,

which refers to the stress, fear, worry, and nervousness associated with language use (Horwitz et al., 1986).

Zheng (2008) further identifies language anxiety as a challenge linked to psychological factors, including

self-belief, self-reflection, and habitual behaviors when speaking outside the classroom environment. Public

speaking anxiety (PSA), a form of situational anxiety (Bodie, 2010), occurs when individuals experience

fear or apprehension while preparing for or delivering a speech (Taly & Paramasivam, 2020). This anxiety

is particularly pronounced when speaking in a second or foreign language.

In Malaysia, research has consistently indicated that undergraduates experience moderate to high levels of

public speaking anxiety (PSA), particularly during English oral presentations. Dellah et al. (2020) identified

peer pressure, perceived inadequacy in language proficiency, and fear of negative evaluation as key factors

contributing to heightened speaking anxiety in classroom presentation settings. More recently, Zabidin et al.

(2023) reported that test-oriented speaking situations elicited higher levels of anxiety compared to

interpersonal communication, underscoring the severity of this issue within academic environments.

Nevertheless, many individuals continue to experience anxiety related to public speaking. For some, this

fear stems from the desire to perform well, while for others, it arises from a lack of confidence in using the

language before an audience. Ibrahim et al. (2021) identified both internal and external factors as

contributors to public speaking anxiety and emphasized the need for further research on this phenomenon.

The present study seeks to investigate the underlying causes of students’ public speaking anxiety, with

particular attention to addressing cognitive factors, behavioural factors and physiological factors.

Statement of Problem

Public speaking anxiety (PSA) remains a significant challenge for ESL learners in higher education,

involving cognitive, behavioural, and physiological components (Syed Abd Rahman et al., 2025). In

Malaysia’s multilingual context, students report fear of judgment, cognitive interference, and physical

discomfort during English oral presentations (Mokhtar, 2025; Ch’ng et al., 2025). Anxiety and confidence

levels vary across academic disciplines, suggesting that factors beyond language proficiency, such as task

familiarity and academic norms, contribute to the development of PSA (Badrasawi et al., 2021).

Although Syed Abd Rahman et al. (2025) applied the tripartite model of PSA in Malaysian ESL contexts

and examined relationships among cognitive, behavioural, and physiological factors, their analysis did not

investigate how these relationships are influenced by audience and situational contexts. Such influences, as

highlighted by Ye et al. (2024), remain insufficiently explored.

This study builds on the same framework, focusing specifically on learners’ perceptions of cognitive,

behavioural, and physiological factors of PSA, with particular emphasis on the relationship between

cognitive factors and other anxiety components, alongside the influence of self-efficacy and audience

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 309

www.rsisinternational.org

context in Malaysian ESL classrooms. By doing so, it aims to deepen understanding of PSA’s

multidimensional nature and its effects on students’ academic experiences.

Objective of the Study and Research Questions

This study is done to explore factors for public speaking anxiety. Specifically, this study is done to answer

the following questions;

 How do learners perceive cognitive factors in public speaking anxiety?

 How do learners perceive behavioural factors in public speaking anxiety?

 How do learners perceive physiological factors in public speaking anxiety?

 What is the relationship between cognitive factors and all other factors in public speaking anxiety?

II. Literature Review

Theoretical Framework of the Study: Social Cognitive Theory and Public Speaking Anxiety

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), developed by Bandura (1986), provides a comprehensive framework for

understanding human behaviour through the interaction of cognitive, behavioural, and environmental

factors. According to Ibrahim et al. (2021), SCT explains how both environmental and cognitive influences

shape individual behaviour. Central to SCT is the concept of self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s belief

in their ability to perform a task effectively. This belief significantly influences motivation and learning

processes (Zanardi & La Rosa, 2023), which in turn affect performance outcomes (Tafriha & Hasan, 2024).

In the context of public speaking, SCT highlights how confidence in one’s speaking ability shapes

experiences and social interactions, influencing public speaking anxiety (PSA). Low self-efficacy can

increase anxiety before and during speech delivery, whereas high self-efficacy may reduce it. Bandura’s

triadic model which are personal factors (thoughts and beliefs), behavioural factors (actions and responses),

and environmental factors (social context and surroundings) interacts continuously to explain the

development and maintenance of PSA. Tafriha and Hasan (2024) note that individuals with low public

speaking self-efficacy are more prone to anxiety. Megawati and Apriani (2023) found that students with

higher anxiety often demonstrate lower speaking performance, supporting SCT’s premise that confidence in

ability directly affects outcomes.

Building on SCT, this study also adopts Bartholomay and Houlihan’s (2016) three-component PSA model,

which conceptualises anxiety as cognitive, behavioural, and physiological. The model informed the design

of the Public Speaking Anxiety Scale (PSAS), operationalizing cognitive appraisals (e.g., fear of forgetting

words), observable behaviours (e.g., fidgeting, reduced eye contact), and autonomic responses (e.g.,

increased heart rate, sweating). The alignment between SCT and the PSAS triadic framework ensures

conceptual coherence: personal factors correspond to cognitive appraisals, behavioural factors to observable

actions, and environmental factors to audience context and situational triggers.

Factors for Public Speaking Anxiety

Public speaking anxiety arises from the interaction of cognitive, behavioural, and physiological factors, each

influencing communication effectiveness and overall performance.

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 310

www.rsisinternational.org

Cognitive contributors to PSA include fear of negative evaluation and perceived self-efficacy (Syed Abd

Rahman et al., 2025). Fear of negative evaluation refers to anxiety about being judged or criticized by the

audience, which can heighten stress levels (Pike & Raymundo, 2024; Megawati & Apriani, 2023). Grieve et

al. (2021) describe PSA as situational social anxiety triggered by actual or anticipated audience evaluation,

with cognitive distortions exacerbating anxiety. Situational variables, such as audience size, spatial

arrangement, and engagement, further amplify PSA (Ye et al., 2024). Perceived self-efficacy, as highlighted

in SCT (Bandura, 1986), regulates anxiety responses, with lower self-efficacy associated with higher PSA

(Ahmed et al., 2025).

Behavioural factors reflect how individuals act in response to fear. Avoidance is common, with students

often declining speaking opportunities or under-preparing, which reinforces anxiety (Ibrahim et al., 2022).

Nervous habits such as fidgeting, trembling, or reduced eye contact are also observed. Audience

characteristics, including size and perceived scrutiny, influence behavioural responses, further affecting

anxiety levels (Mohd Sobri Paridaluddin et al., 2023).

Physiological reactions are triggered by speech anxiety and often manifest as increased heart rate, excessive

sweating, and trembling hands (Taly & Paramasivam, 2020; Huda et al., 2024). These responses are part of

the body’s fight-or-flight mechanism and can heighten cognitive anxiety, especially when interpreted as

signals of impending failure (Megawati & Apriani, 2023). Recurrent physiological symptoms can disrupt

communication and create a reinforcing cycle of anticipatory anxiety.

In summary, PSA is influenced by:

 Cognitive factors: fear of negative evaluation, self-efficacy, situational audience variables;

 Behavioural factors: avoidance, nervous habits, reactions to social context;

 Physiological factors: elevated heart rate, sweating, trembling hands.

Understanding these factors is essential for designing targeted interventions to reduce PSA in educational

and professional contexts.

Past Studies

Research on public speaking anxiety (PSA) has consistently highlighted the complex interplay of cognitive,

behavioural, and physiological factors. Mokhtar (2025) conducted a qualitative study on undergraduates at a

Malaysian public university, revealing that students frequently experienced strong emotional reactions, such

as nervousness and fear, along with physical symptoms like trembling hands and accelerated heartbeat

during both virtual and physical presentations. Ye et al. (2024) employed a mixed-methods approach with

297 students to examine the influence of audience size, engagement, and spatial arrangement on PSA. They

identified three main factors: engagement in a large audience, confinement or evaluation anxiety, and

audience disengagement, demonstrating that environmental and audience-related conditions significantly

affect anxiety levels. Mohd Naser and Mat Isa (2021) investigated 150 undergraduates at UiTM Shah Alam,

finding that PSA was moderately prevalent and significantly related to oral presentation performance.

Building on these studies, Ibrahim et al. (2021) examined the causes of fear in public speaking among

undergraduate students through the lens of Social Cognitive Theory. The study found that speaking before a

large audience was the most influential external factor, whereas personal issues, time preferences, and worry

about underperforming were less impactful. Internally, nervousness scored highest, while concerns about

physical appearance were least significant. Students also reported strategies to manage anxiety, including

creating a positive impression, correcting mistakes mid-speech, and using familiar vocabulary, showing how

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 311

www.rsisinternational.org

cognitive, behavioural, and environmental factors interact to shape PSA in line with SCT’s triadic

reciprocity.

Similarly, Syed Abd Rahman et al. (2025) focused on cognitive, behavioural, and physiological factors

among undergraduates. Cognitive challenges included fear of verbal failure and social evaluation, while

self-confidence remained relatively low, suggesting that anxiety does not always coincide with low

confidence. Behavioural factors were moderate, with trembling voices and shaking hands most frequent,

and poor eye contact least common. Physiological responses were the most prominent, with nervousness

highest and sweating lowest, illustrating how bodily stress reinforces cognitive anxiety. These findings

support the interconnectedness of PSA dimensions and confirm SCT’s relevance in explaining the triadic

interaction of personal, behavioural, and environmental factors in ESL contexts.

Overall, these studies indicate that PSA among students arises from a combination of emotional,

behavioural, physiological, and situational factors. Audience-related variables such as size, engagement, and

spatial layout consistently influence anxiety levels, while cognitive and metacognitive strategies can

mediate these effects. The evidence also underscores the moderate prevalence of PSA among Malaysian

undergraduates and its direct impact on oral presentation performance, highlighting the need for targeted

interventions that address both psychological and environmental dimensions.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

The conceptual framework of the study is presented in figure 1 below. This study is rooted from the social

cognitive theory by Bandura (1986). The theory states that people learn by watching others as well by

experience. Bandura (1986) states that cognitive factors play an important role in learning. Four cognitive

processes are identified and they are attention, retention, motor reproduction and motivation. In the context

of public speaking anxiety, this anxiety is a learned cognitive behaviour. A person pays attention to how the

audience behaves. This memory then is retained in this mind and their motor reproduction system reacts in

terms of behaviour before and during the speech. If the reaction is positive, chances of the presenter

enjoying the speech is high. Fear towards presentation is therefore a learned behaviour (Rahmat, 2019).

According to Bartholomay and Houlihan (2016), there are three factors that cause public speaking anxiety.

Firstly, cognitive factors refer to the speaker's feeling of nervousness, which may lead to embarrassment in

front of the audience. It could also refer to the worry that the speaker has that the audience would think they

are not a good speaker. Next, behavioural factors refer to situations such as the speaker having a trembled

voice while presenting or even the speaker finding it difficult to make eye contact when they spoke. Finally,

physiological factors would mean the speaker sweats during the speech or the speaker not feeling relaxed

while giving the speech.

Figure 1- Conceptual Framework of the Study

COGNITIVE

FACTORS

BEHAVIOURAL

FACTORS

PHYSIOLOGICAL

FACTORS

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 312

www.rsisinternational.org

How do Cognitive Factors Influence Public Speaking Anxiety?

METHODOLOGY

This quantitative study is done to explore the influence of cognitive factors on public speaking anxiety. A

convenient sample of 158 participants responded to the survey. The instrument used is a 5 Likert-scale

survey. Table 1 below shows the categories used for the Likert scale; 1 is for Never, 2 is for Rarely, 3 is for

Sometimes, 4 is for Very Often and 5 is for Always.

Table 1- Likert Scale Use

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Very Often

Always

Table 2 shows the distribution of items in the survey. The instrument is replicated from the constructs by

Bartholomay and Houlihan (2016) to reveal the variables in the table below. Section B has 8 items on

Cognitive factors. Section C has 4 items on Behavioural factors and section D has 5 items on Physiological

factors.

Table 2- Distribution of Items in the Survey

VARIABLE

SUB-

CATEGORY

Cronbach

Alpha

COGNITIVE

.917

BEHAVIOURAL

.811

PHYSIOLOGICAL

.880

TOTAL ITEMS

.948

Table 2 also shows the reliability of the survey. The analysis shows a Cronbach alpha of .917 for Cognitive

factors, .811 for Behavioural factors and .880 for Physiological factors. The overall Cronbach alpha for all

17 items is .948 and this shows a good reliability of the instrument used (Jackson, 2015). Further analysis

using SPSS is done to present findings to answer the research questions for this study.

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 313

www.rsisinternational.org

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Demographic Background

Table 3- Percentage for Demographic Profile

Table 3 depicts the demographic profile of 158 participants based on gender, age group, mode of learning,

self-rated English proficiency, experience with an audience and training experience in public speaking. The

majority of the respondents (63%) were aged between 21 and 23 years old and most of them were female

(72%). Most respondents were full-time students (92%) who rated themselves as being able to communicate

in English (86%). In terms of experience with an audience, a high percentage (91%) reported having such

experience, though 83% of the respondents indicated that they had not received any form of training in

public speaking.

Findings for Cognitive Factors

This section presents the answer to research question 1: How do learners perceive cognitive factors in public

speaking anxiety?

Figure 2- Mean for Cognitive Factors

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 314

www.rsisinternational.org

As displayed in Figure 2, the highest anxiety-inducing cognitive factor was fear of being at a loss for words

during speaking (M=3.8, SD =0.9), followed by worry about what the audience thinks of their speaking

ability ( M=3.7, SD=1.1) and fear of embarrassing themselves in front of the audience (M=3.6, SD=1.1).

Learners also reported difficulty refocusing after making mistakes in their speech (M = 3.4, SD = 0.9),

while experiencing both a lack of confidence when giving speeches and post-speech dissatisfaction (M =

3.3, SD = 1.1, M = 3.3, SD = 1.0, respectively). Additionally, learners found giving a speech to be terrifying

(M = 3.2, SD = 0.9). The lowest anxiety factor was difficulty focusing on speech content during delivery

(M= 2.9, SD= 1,1), suggesting that their fears about speaking may be worse than the actual speaking

experience itself.

Findings for Behavioural Factors

This section presents the answer to research question 2- How do learners perceive behavioural factors in

public speaking anxiety?

Figure 3- Mean for Behavioural Factors

Figure 3 shows the mean for behavioural factors. Two items share the mean of 3.2. The first is item 1

(M=3.2, SD=1.2) which states that the learners’ hands shook when they gave the speech. Next is item 2

(M=3.2, SD=1.0) and it states that the learners fidgeted before they spoke. Similarly, two items shared the

same mean of 3.1. The first is item 3 (M=3.1, SD=1.0) which states that the learners’ voice trembles when

they give the speech. Item 4 (M=3.1, SD= 1.1) states that the learners found it difficult to make eye contact

when they spoke.

Findings for Physiological Factors

This section presents the answer to research question 3- How do learners perceive physiological factors in

public speaking anxiety?

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 315

www.rsisinternational.org

Figure 4- Mean for Physiological Factors

Based on Figure 4, the most influencing physiological factor in public speaking was that learners reported

an increased heart rate (M= 3.5, SD=0.9). This is followed by not feeling relaxed while giving a speech

(M=3.2, SD=1.1). Next, the tense feeling before giving a speech and sweating while giving a speech also

contributed towards the learners’ PSA physiologically with M=3.1, SD=1.0 and M=2.7, SD=1.1

respectively. Lastly, feeling sick before speaking in front of a group was the least frequently reported

physiological factor for public speaking anxiety among the learners with M=2.5, SD=1.1.

Findings for Relationship between All Factors in Public Speaking Anxiety

This section presents the answer to research question 4- What is the relationship between cognitive factors

and all other factors in public speaking anxiety? To determine if there is a significant association in the

mean scores between all other factors in public speaking anxiety, data is analysed using SPSS for

correlations. Results are presented separately in table 4, 5 and 6 below.

Table 4- Correlation between Cognitive and Behavioural Factors

Table 4 shows there is an association between cognitive and behavioural factors. Correlation analysis shows

that there is a high significant association between cognitive and behavioural factors (r=.773**) and

(p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level and positive correlation is

measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate

positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is

also a strong positive relationship between cognitive and behavioural factors.

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 316

www.rsisinternational.org

Table 5- Correlation between Cognitive and Physiological Factors

**Correlation is significant at the level 0.01 (2-tailed)

Table 5 shows there is an association between cognitive and physiological factors. Correlation analysis

shows that there is a high significant association between cognitive and physiological factors (r=.733**) and

(p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level and positive correlation is

measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate

positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is

also a strong positive relationship between cognitive and physiological factors.

CONCLUSION

This study examined learners’ perceptions of cognitive, behavioural, and physiological factors in public

speaking anxiety (PSA) and the interrelations among these factors, guided by Bandura’s (1986) Social

Cognitive Theory (SCT). SCT posits triadic reciprocity, whereby personal factors (thoughts and beliefs),

behavioural factors (actions and responses), and environmental influences (social context and surroundings)

dynamically interact. In the context of PSA, cognitive, behavioural, and physiological responses are shaped

by both internal processes and the evaluative nature of the audience.

Learners’ perceptions on cognitive factors - audience related emphasis

Cognitive factors were the strongest contributors to PSA, with learners reporting fear of losing words,

concerns about audience judgement, and potential public embarrassment. Using the instrument adapted

from Bartholomay and Houlihan (2016), these findings align with SCT’s triadic reciprocity, showing how

environmental factors such as audience size, seating arrangement, and visible engagement heighten

evaluative awareness. This awareness interacts with cognitive biases, including underestimating one’s

performance, amplifying anxious thoughts and triggering behavioural and physiological responses (Ye et al.,

2024; Cheng et al., 2017). The results highlight the key role of audience-related evaluation and situational

cues in shaping learners’ personal cognitions and observable reactions.

Learners’ perceptions on behavioural factors in PSA

Guided by SCT, learners’ observable behaviours reflect the interplay between personal cognitions and

environmental cues during public speaking. Learners reported behaviours such as handshaking and

fidgeting, reflecting internal cognitive strain, especially in response to audience evaluation. Previous

research similarly links these behaviours to cognitive appraisals and anxiety levels (Mokhtar, 2025; Rahmat,

2025; Syed Abd Rahman et al., 2025). These behaviours can become self-reinforcing, as noticing one’s own

nervous actions may heighten perceived loss of control, further intensifying anxious thoughts. reactions.

Learners' perceptions on physiological factors in PSA

From an SCT perspective, physiological responses emerge as part of the reciprocal interaction between

cognition, behaviour, and environmental triggers. Learners described sensations such as a heavy chest and

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 317

www.rsisinternational.org

reduced relaxation (Mokhtar, 2025). Although physiological measures do not always align with self-reports

during speaking tasks (Gallego et al., 2021), these symptoms were connected to audience-focused cognitive

apprehensions. Learners appeared more attuned to cognitive and behavioural reactions during performance,

yet these were accompanied by physiological arousal consistent with SCT’s reciprocal model.

Relationships Between Cognitive, Behavioural, and Physiological Factors

Cognitive anxiety showed strong positive correlations with both behavioural and physiological symptoms,

confirming SCT’s principle of reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1986; 1977). Audience-related cognitive

concerns acted as a catalyst, fuelling visible anxiety behaviours and physiological arousal, which in turn

reinforced negative self-appraisals. This cyclical pattern situates audience awareness as a central,

differentiating factor in PSA, extending prior SCT-based findings (Syed Abd Rahman et al., 2025).

These interconnected cognitive, behavioural, and physiological factors, particularly the audience-focused

cognitive processes, provide a foundation for discussing the theoretical and conceptual implications of PSA

in ESL contexts.

Implications and Suggestions for Future Research

Theoretical and Conceptual Implications

This study reinforces and extends Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (1986, 1997) by applying it to

public speaking anxiety (PSA) among Malaysian ESL learners. The study used an instrument replicated

from the constructs of Bartholomay and Houlihan’s (2016) in their three-component PSA model as the

conceptual framework. Findings support SCT’s core idea of triadic reciprocity. Strong interactions were

observed among cognitive, behavioural, and physiological aspects of PSA, consistent with the theoretical

framework outlined in Sections 2.1 and 2.3.

Cognitive anxiety was the most prominent factor. Learners frequently reported fear of forgetting words,

concerns about audience evaluation, and potential public embarrassment. Audience-related variables such as

size, seating, and engagement heightened evaluative awareness. This aligns with Bandura’s (1986) view that

the environment shapes cognition and behaviour. While the SCT-based PSA model identifies audience-

focused evaluation within cognitive factors, these findings provide empirical support for this mechanism.

In Malaysian ESL learners, audience-focused cognitive concerns clearly influenced behavioural and

physiological responses (Syed Abd Rahman et al., 2025; Mokhtar, 2025; Rahmat, 2025; Cheng et al., 2017).

Observable behaviours included handshaking and fidgeting. Physiological responses included increased

heart rate and reduced relaxation (Mokhtar, 2025). Cognitive biases, such as underestimating one’s

performance relative to external evaluation (Cheng et al., 2017), reinforced this ongoing cycle of anxiety.

These results confirm SCT’s principle of reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1986, 1977) and show that PSA

is a multidimensional, interactive phenomenon rather than a set of isolated experiences. Targeting audience-

focused cognitions and self-efficacy could improve both behaviour and physiology. Overall, the findings

provide empirical support for the three-component PSA model of Bartholomay and Houlihan (2016),

confirming its relevance in explaining cognitive, behavioural, and physiological interactions in Malaysian

ESL learners.

Pedagogical Implications

The findings of this study confirm that cognitive factors are the most dominant component of public

speaking anxiety (PSA) in ESL students. Therefore, pedagogical interventions should place a primary

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 318

www.rsisinternational.org

emphasis on efforts to reduce cognitive anxiety, especially through training that helps students identify and

challenge their irrational beliefs about speaking performance. Integrating cognitive restructuring strategies

into communication courses can help students change negative perceptions to a more realistic perspective.

In addition, the use of simulated audience situations with varying sizes, positions, and levels of audience

involvement can train students to adapt to various levels of stress in a controlled environment. Graduated

exposure activities can also be implemented to increase self-confidence or self-efficacy, in line with the

concept of Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, where consistent small success experiences can reduce

perceptions of threat. In addition, meta-cognitive reflection practices such as journaling or analyzing speech

recordings can help students assess their own strengths, correct misconceptions, and increase awareness of

actual achievements versus imagined negative perceptions.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

For future research, there are several potential research directions that are still underexplored in the

literature. First, studies could focus on the development and evaluation of an intervention module based on

Audience-focused Cognitive Reappraisal, which is a method of changing students' cognitive appraisal of the

audience from a threat to a source of support. This study could test the effectiveness of the module in

reducing cognitive anxiety specifically. Second, the use of virtual reality (VR) technology in controlled

cognitive exposure deserves to be explored in more depth. Although VR has been used in public speaking

training, there have been few studies evaluating the effects of manipulating audience factors such as

audience size, facial reactions, or position on reducing cognitive anxiety in ESL students. Third,

longitudinal studies that observe changes in cognitive, behavioral, and physiological factors over time could

provide empirical evidence for Bandura's triadic reciprocal model in local contexts. Finally, cross-cultural

comparative studies could be conducted to assess whether the perception of audience threat influences PSA

to the same extent among ESL students from different cultural backgrounds, or if specific cultural factors

have unique effects on the cognitive dimensions of PSA.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper represents a joint effort of all authors, and we gratefully acknowledge each other’s contributions

to the development, analysis, and writing of this work. We also thank the reviewers for their constructive

feedback, which helped improve the final version of the paper.

REFERENCES

1. Ahmed, W. M. M., Abdalmotalib, M. M., Mohammed, G. T. F., Siddig, M. M. Y., Salih, H. S., Ahmed, A.

A. A., & Abdullateef, S. S. (2025). Public speaking anxiety and self-efficacy among Sudanese medical

students: a cross-sectional study. BMC psychology, 13(1), 600.

2. Badrasawi, K. J. I., Abu Kassim, N. L., Zubairi, A. M., Md Johar, E., & Sidik, S. S. (2021). English

language speaking anxiety, self-confidence and perceived ability among science and technology

undergraduate students: A Rasch analysis. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 29(S3),

309–334. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.S3.16

3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.

4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Theory: A Social Cognitive Theory.

5. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-98423-000

6. Bartholomay, E. M., & Houlihan, D. D. (2016). Public Speaking Anxiety Scale: Preliminary

psychometric data and scale validation. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 211–

215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.026

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 319

www.rsisinternational.org

7. Bodie, G. D. (2010). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts: Defining, explaining, and

treat-ing public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 59, 70–105.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452090344.3849

8. Ch’ng, L. C., Chan, A. N., & Noor Ain, S. (2025). Exploring ESL public speaking anxiety among

undergraduates. Journal of Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 146-169.

10.24191/cplt.v13i1.4234

9. Cheng, J., Niles, A. N., & Craske, M. G. (2017). Exposure reduces negative bias in self-rated

performance in public speaking participants. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry.

54. 101-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.07.006

10. Dansieh, S. A., Owusu, E., & Seidu, G. A. (2021). Glossophobia: The fear of public speaking in ESL

students in Ghana. Language Teaching, 1(1), p22–p22.

11. Dellah, N. F., Zabidin, N., Nordin, N. A., Amanah, F. H., & Atan, M. A. (2020). Glossophobia:

Evaluating university students’ speaking anxiety in English oral presentations. Jurnal Ilmi, 10(1), 116–

126.

12. Gallego, A., McHugh, L., Penttonen, M., & Lappalainen, R. (2021). Measuring public speaking anxiety:

Self-report, behavioral, and physiological. Behavior Modification, 46(4), 782–798.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445521994308

13. Grieve, R., Woodley, J., Hunt, S. E., & McKay, A. (2021). Student fears of oral presentations and public

speaking in higher education: A qualitative survey. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(9),

1281–1293. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1948509

14. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern

Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/327317

15. Huda, N., Bibi, M., Sajjad, M., Mukhtar, S., & Mukhtar, R. (2024). Stage fright to scholarly flight: the

impact of public speaking anxiety and fear of negative evaluation on academic performance in university

students. JHRR, 4(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v4i3.1331

16. Ibrahim, N., Anuar, N. A. K., Mokhtar, M. I., Zakaria, N., Jasman, N. H., & Rasdi, N. N. (2021).

Exploring Fear of Public Speaking Through Social Cognitive Theory. International Journal of Academic

Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(1), 135–154.

17. Jackson,S.L. (2015) Research methods and Statistics-A Critical Thinking Approach (5

Edition) Boston,

USA:: Cengage Learning.

18. Lucas, S. E., & Stob, P. (2020). The art of public speaking. McGraw-Hill.

19. Megawati, M., & Apriani, T. (2023). The Dynamics of Public Speaking Anxiety and its Impact on

Speaking Performance: A Study Among College Students in Business and Economics. Jurnal Ilmiah

Manajemen Kesatuan. https://doi.org/10.37641/jimkes.v11i3.2156

20. Mohd Naser, N. A., & Mat Isa, I. A. (2021). Public Speaking Anxiety in Oral Presentation Class among

Undergraduates. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(10).

https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v11-i10/11456

21. Mohd Sobri Paridaluddin, N. F., Zhang, J., & Chen, R. (2023). Factors of public speaking anxiety (PSA)

and strategies to mitigate PSA among postgraduate students of Malaysian public universities in online

presentations. International Journal of Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics (IJMAL), 7(3), 15-35.

22. Mokhtar, M. (2025). Factors of public speaking anxiety (PSA) and coping strategies among Malaysian

public university students in virtual and physical presentations. Asian Journal of Research in Education

and Social Sciences, 7(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.55057/ajress.2025.7.2.15

23. Mufanti, R., Nimasari, E. P., & Gestanti, R. A. (2017). Can I be a public speaker? Get ready for speech

(2nd ed.). CV. Nata Karya. https://isbn.perpusnas.go.id/Account/SearchBuku?searchTxt=9786026199553

24. Pike, C. and Raymundo, J. (2024). Public speaking classroom anxiety and oral language performance of

senior high school students. International Journal of Linguistics Literature and Translation, 7(7), 143-

151. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2024.7.7.15

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXII October 2025

Page 320

www.rsisinternational.org

25. Rahmat, N.H. (2019) Cycle of Fear in Learning: The Case for Three Language Skills. American Journal

of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(1), 151-162.

https://onlinesciencepublishing.com/index.php/ajssh/article/view/129/151

26. Rahmat, N. H. (2025). The influence of beliefs and expectations from public speaking. International

Journal of Research and Innovation.

27. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Self-efficacy and human motivation. In Advances in

Motivation Science (pp. 153–179). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2020.10.001

28. Spielberger, C. D. (1972a). Anxiety: current trends in theory and research. 1.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-657401-2.50008-3

29. Sugiyati, K., & Indriani, L. (2021). Exploring the level and primary causes of public speaking anxiety

among English department students. Journal of Research on Language Education, 2(1), 57–66.

30. Syed Abdul Rahman, S. A., Nasarudin, M. R., Suhar Rezwan, N. B., Zainal Abidin, N. S., Yusri, N. A., &

Arman, N. S. (2025). Investigating public speaking anxiety among undergraduates. International Journal

of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 15(7), 205–220.

https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v15-i7/26055

31. Tafriha, I. B., & Hasan, Moh. A. K. (2024). The Influence of Self-Efficacy on Arabic Public Speaking

Anxiety/         . Athla, 5(1), 16–27.

https://doi.org/10.22515/athla.v5i1.9428

32. Taly, B. C., & Paramasivam, S. (2020). Speaking Anxiety Among Postgraduate International Students in

the Academic Context of a University in Malaysia. International Journal of Linguistics, 12(1), 198.

https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v12i1.16053

33. Yaikhong, K., & Usaha, S. (2012). A Measure of EFL Public Speaking Class Anxiety: Scale

Development and Preliminary Validation and Reliability. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 23-35.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1080110.pdf

34. Ye, T., Elliott, R., McFarquhar, M., & Mansell, W. (2024). The impact of audience dynamics on public

speaking anxiety in virtual scenarios: An online survey. Journal of Affective Disorders, 363, 420–429.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.07.061

35. Zabidin, N., Mohamad, N. A., Razali, N. A., Ramlan, A. N. M., & Rahmat, N. H. (2023). How does

motivation affect communication apprehension, fear of negative evaluation and test anxiety among ESL

learners. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting Finance and Management Sciences,

13(2), 218-220.

36. Zanardi, T., & La Rosa, S. (2023). Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective (pp. 22–35).

Elsevier eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.14004-7

37. Zheng, Y. (2008). Anxiety and Second/Foreign Language Revisited. Canadian Journal for New Scholars

in Education, 1(1), 1-12.