Fear of public speaking: the effects of a communicational improvement training on physiological parameters and the perception of communication.

Presentations to audiences are often seen as challenging by university students, causing physiological reactivity on cortisol levels and heart rate, for example. Many students perceive that they have difficulties expressing themselves or do not consider themselves to be good communicators. With the thought that efficient communication is able to bring well-being and more confidence, it is understood that a communication skills training could mitigate adverse effects on the body during public speaking. This study aimed to verify whether a communicational improvement training can improve physiological parameters and perception when speaking in public among university students. This was a prospective, blinded, controlled, and randomized trial. Students from colleges and universities were recruited for this study. Invitations were either in person or via social networks and/or e-mail. There were 39 university students who completed the tasks, ages between 18 and 30. There were two groups: the intervention group (IG) and control group (CG). The intervention group participated in a communicational improvement program for six weeks to work on breathing, articulation, speech rhythm, pneumophonoarticulatory coordination, expressiveness and non-verbal communication. Data of heart rate measures, salivary cortisol analysis, self-perception of public speaking, and presentation ratings were collected. The intervention group presented with lower heart rates and cortisol levels, better presentation ratings, and higher self-perception of public speaking than the control group after participating in the communication improvement training. In this study it was possible to verify the efficiency of a communicational improvement training, being able to improve cortisol levels, heart rate, and perception when speaking in public in university students. Based on the results presented, new studies are suggested: (a) measuring the individual effect of the workshops demonstrated here and (b) comparing this type of intervention with other types of treatment used in the health area (medication, psychotherapeutic, holistic, etc.).