Communicator style and social style: testing atheoretical interface.
Publication: Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
Date: Friday, February 1 2008
The purpose of this empirical study was to examine the interface between two key models of communication style: social style and communicator style. Social style is based on a two-by-two matrix composed of two dimensions of observable patterns of behavior: assertiveness and emotiveness. Communicator
Keywords: communication; leadership style; social style; communication style; behavioral style
**********
It is by now axiomatic that effective communication is an essential component of effective management and leadership. The search for ways to understand complex communication behavior, however, is an evolving process. One mechanism for understanding communication behavior has been the notion of style. A number of models of style have been proposed in various disciplines, including leadership style (Blake & Mouton, 1974; Fiedler, 1967; House & Mitchell, 1974), relational style (e.g., Bales & Cohen, 1979; Borgatta, Cottrell, & Mann, 1958), social style (Buchholz, 1976; Buchholz, Lashbrook, & Wenburg, 1976; Merrill & Reid, 1981), and communicator style (Norton, 1978, 1983). Although each model has distinct features, all have in common the notion that some pattern of human behavior can be observed by others and will have some impact on an individual's success in interpersonal communication, organizational leadership, management, or other interpersonal endeavors. Only two of these models--social style and communicator style--are specifically concerned with general patterns of communication behavior, and these are the focus of this investigation.
Although each model has been tested independently, to date the models have rarely been examined together. The purpose of this research is to examine the dimensions of communication behavior underlying each model and to test the theoretical interface among them in hopes of establishing a coherent, unified model of communication behavior.
Social Style Model
Over the past 30-plus years, social style has been used extensively to train managers and sales personnel to increase behavioral versatility through role shifting. This model has been the subject of extensive research and application in the private sector, as well as the focus of limited academic testing. A trainee is typically asked to have five coworkers or regular co-interactants complete an instrument (Snavely, 1992) to indicate the trainee's other-perceived social style. The trainee is taught to understand and accurately identify his or her social style and those of others. Ultimately, the participant learns how to alter his or her communication strategies to adapt to the styles of others.
The result of learning such strategies appears to be positive. Prince (1986) reported that "both formal and informal assessments have found that more productive and satisfying work relationships have resulted from the [social style] training" (p. 66).
The social style model was developed as a two-dimensional matrix descriptive of human interactive behavior (Buchholz, 1976; Buchholz et al., 1976; Merrill & Reid, 1981). V. J. Lashbrook and W. B. Lashbrook (1980) and Snavely and Waiters (1983) reported four underlying assumptions about human behavior that frame the concept of social style:
1. Humans develop relatively stable behavior patterns.
2. Humans form immediate impressions about others based on verbal and nonverbal behavior.
3. The way individuals behave toward one another is largely determined by their perceptions of each other.
4. The most prevalent and probably the most important perceptual dimensions are assertiveness and responsiveness. (Snavely & Walters, 1983, p. 122)
Assertiveness
The assertiveness dimension of social style is defined as "the degree to which a person is perceived as attempting to influence the thoughts and actions of others" (Wenschlag, 1987, p. 22). The assertive person is one "who shows a tendency to state opinions or beliefs with assurance, confidence, or force" (Snavely, 1981, p. 133). Assertiveness is an action dimension often associated with an orientation to task. Highly assertive people are perceived by others as being confident, active, ambitious, opinionated, risk taking, fastpaced, directive, and competitive. Low assertive individuals, however, are perceived as being private, quiet, easygoing, submissive, risk avoiding, supportive, and reserved (W. B. Lashbrook & V. J. Lashbrook, 1979).
Early research that tested the impact of assertiveness on other key work-related perceptions indicated that assertive managers were seen as being more powerful and competent than their low assertive counterparts (Sullivan, 1977). W. B. Lashbrook, V. J. Lashbrook, Parsely, and Wenburg (1977) found that assertive college students were trusted more and were perceived as being more versatile than nonassertive students. In a study of 375 adults, Snavely (1981) found assertiveness to be associated with perceptions of trust, power, extroversion, versatility, and value similarity. Knutson and Lashbrook (1976) found highly assertive individuals as having lower communication apprehension when compared to low assertive individuals. Snavely and Walters (1983) concluded that assertiveness is associated with the managerial role, which calls for directiveness and decisiveness. Bacon and Severson (1986) found that assertiveness was a strong predictor of leadership emergence in small groups.
Emotiveness
The second dimension of social style was originally termed responsiveness. Unfortunately, the term responsiveness may not readily convey the meaning of the dimension. All authors describe responsiveness as involving emotive behavior. However, people may "respond" to others in nonemotive ways. In fact, the dimension does not involve degree of response but rather type of response. As a result, recent research has instead used the term emotiveness.
Emotiveness can be defined as "the degree to which a person is perceived as expressing feelings when relating to others" (Wenschlag, 1987, p. 26). Snavely (1981) described the emotive person as "someone who appears to express emotional states through verbal and nonverbal behavior" (p. 133). A nonemotive person is more controlled and is therefore harder to read. Emotiveness does not indicate the amount of emotion that a person experiences but rather the amount of emotion one demonstrates during interaction with others. More important, the social style model posits that assertiveness and emotiveness are independent dimensions. Highly emotive individuals are perceived as emotional, people oriented, dramatic, approachable, permissive, subjective, easygoing, open, and sociable. Low emotive people are seen as independent, cool, rational, objective, cautious, impersonal, and business-like (W. B. Lashbrook et al., 1977).
The research on emotiveness suggests that a number of positive evaluations are associated with more emotive styles. Several studies have found a correlation between emotiveness and perceptions of versatility and trust (Buchholz, 1976; W. B. Lashbrook, Knutson, Parsely, & Wenburg, 1976; W. B. Lashbrook et al., 1977; Snavely, 1981; Sullivan, 1977). Sullivan (1977) found emotiveness to be associated with sociability, social attraction, interpersonal solidarity, composure, and low dogmatism. Knutson and Lashbrook (1976) found those with highly emotive styles to be less apprehensive about communicating. Snavely and Walters (1983) found that emotiveness was perceived as being more communicatively competent than nonemotiveness. They concluded that
subordinates may find it easier to relate to "emoting" behavior than to non-responsive, controlled behavior. The latter style may be seen as too cold, detached or uncaring. Because they do not tend to express emotions in an overt manner, these individuals may find it more difficult to convey to others whatever empathy or versatility they feel. (p. 131)
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Style Matrix
Combinations of the communication behavior dimensions of assertiveness and emotiveness in a 2 x 2 matrix (see Figure 1) result in four distinct styles. Those low in both assertiveness and emotiveness are termed analyticals; those low in assertiveness and high in emotiveness are termed amiables; those high in assertiveness and low in emotiveness are termed drivers; and those high in both dimensions are termed expressives.
It is interesting to note that individuals do not necessarily perceive themselves in the same way that others perceive them. Unfortunately, little research has been conducted to understand the reasons or the extent of these perceptual differences. Prince (1991) reports industry findings that managers are only 30% accurate in estimating their own styles when compared to the perceptions of others. People may know their own thoughts, feelings, and intents but can only observe the enacted behavior in others.
May and Gueldenzoph (2006) examined how persons of the same or different social styles worked together in groups. They found that group members rated others of the same style higher than they did those with any other social style. Those with opposite styles were not rated differently than were those with adjacent styles.
Thompson and Klopf (1995) found cultural and sex differences in perceptions of social style. Specifically, in their study, North Americans and Korean men were found more assertive than Finnish and Japanese men. Furthermore, men in each culture under study (North America, Korea, Finland, Japan) tended to be more assertive, whereas women tended to be more emotive. The results were discussed in terms of cultural expectations--some cultures expect more assertiveness from men than do others. Likewise, most cultures expect men to be more assertive than women and for women to be more emotive than men. The researchers also noted that there was variance within each group; so, gender and culture were not deterministic of style. However, these results suggest the importance of considering gender and nationality as variables in style research.
As such, social style theorists have stressed that no style is inherently the best style, although certainly, some behaviors may be more or less appropriate for a given context. Wenschlag (1987) concludes that style "isn't a trait or quality. So you should not look at it as something that is either good or bad. It is just a way for you to describe how you perceive ... behavior" (p. 22). Although that may be true in a philosophical sense, it may also be true that there are strengths to certain styles given a situational context.
Measurement of Social Style
A number of instruments exist for the measurement of social style. Buchholz, Lashbrook, and Wenburg (1976), Merrill (1981), and Snavely (1992) each used scales that are, in practice, given to five individuals who regularly interact with the person whose style is being measured. These scales determine social style by means of quartile splits on the population. Style is conceived as a comparative, rather than absolute, perception. As a result, approximately 25% of the population falls within one of the four social styles, 25% in another style, and so on. To be consistent with social style theory, a factor structure representative of the assertiveness and emotiveness dimensions must be orthogonal, and assertiveness and emotiveness should have a low and statistically insignificant correlation. The most recent instrument (Snavely, 1992) satisfies these requirements and consists of a series of Likert-type items with high face validity and reported reliability.
Communicator Style Model
A number of other style systems have emerged in the social science literature. Notable among these is communicator style, to which Norton (1978, 1983) and his associates have conducted a number of studies on its various aspects. Norton (1983) broadly conceives of communicator style as "the way one verbally, nonverbally, and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood" (p. 19). He also suggests that communicator style is a relatively enduring pattern of human interaction. His model has been conceptualized and measured as a self-perception of communication style. The relationship between self and other-perceptions of communicator style is as weak as it is for social style. Norton (1977) found that teachers viewed themselves as better communicators and more effective teachers than did students.
Communicator Style Dimensions
Based on a number of studies, Norton's conclusion (1983) was that there are several relevant dimensions of style: dominant, dramatic, contentious, animated, impression leaving, relaxed, attentive, open, precise, and friendly. The dependent variable in the model is communicator image, which is the person's self-perception of his or her effectiveness as a communicator. Norton suggested that the dimensions of communicator style may be multicollinear (intercorrelated) and mulifaceted (an individual may exhibit characteristic patterns across the communicator style dimensions). Norton also suggests that some dimensions would be better predictors of communicator image than others. Most of the research on communicator style has been conducted in the context of teacher effectiveness.
Dominant style is similar to the social style dimension of assertiveness (Norton, 1983). Those who communicate in a dominant style tend to be more confident, enthusiastic, forceful, competitive, self-confident, self-assured, conceited, and business-like (Schereer, London, & Wolf, 1973). A low dominant style has been associated with teacher effectiveness in two empirical studies (Norton, 1977; Sallinen-Kuparinen, Marttinen, Peramaki, & Porhola, 1987).
Dramatic style involves exaggerations, fantasies, stories, metaphors, and other devices used to highlight or make more visible the content of a message. In teaching contexts, the dramatic style has been described as being more entertaining than the other styles. The dramatic communicator is drawing attention to the message. Norton (1983) notes that "the dramatic style often gives away true feelings" (p. 66), suggesting a link to emotiveness. Dramatic style has been found to be associated with communication satisfaction among students (Andersen, Norton, & Nussbaum, 1981; Norton & Nussbaum, 1980; Prisbell, 1994; Sallinen-Kuparinen, 1992; Sallinen-Kuparinen et al., 1987).
Contentious style is argumentative. Norton (1983) has suggested that contentious style would be closely associated with dominant style.
Animated style uses nonverbal cues (eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures) to communicate emotions. As such, animated style and emotiveness should be closely related. Norton (1983) concludes that this style "punctuates literal meaning, signals moods, indicates theatrical emphases, increases or decreases intensity, and filters qualitative content" (p. 68).
Impression-leaving style, when exhibited, results in individuals' being remembered because of their communicative behavior. It is not clear exactly what behaviors are involved in this dimension. Impression leaving has been linked to teacher effectiveness (Andersen et al., 1981; Norton, 1977; Sallinen-Kuparinen et al., 1987). Additionally, Duran and Zakahi (1987) found impression leaving to be strongly related to communication satisfaction in interpersonal interactions.
Relaxed style is related to the concept of social anxiety. Those with a relaxed style do not manifest signs of anxiety in their communication patterns. Relaxed style projects calm, serenity, confidence, and comfortableness. Relaxed style has been related to teaching effectiveness (Andersen et al., 1981; Prisbell, 1994; Sallinen-Kuparinen et al., 1987).
Attentive style involves empathy and listening skills and should not correlate positively with dominant or dramatic style. Attentive style has been found to be associated with communication satisfaction (Duran & Zakahi, 1987; Inglis, 1993; Norton, 1977; Prisbell, 1994; Sallinen-Kuparinen et al., 1987).
Open style is associated with gregarious, unreserved, nonsecretive, and self-disclosive behavior. Those with an open style show more of their feelings and emotions than do those of other styles. As such, it logically relates to emotiveness. Those with open style tend to be perceived as being socially attractive and trustworthy (Giffin, 1967) and as effective teachers (Andersen et al., 1981).
Friendly style ranges from a basic lack of hostility to deep levels of intimacy. The friendly communicator is one who confirms others and positively recognizes co-interactants. This involves emotive behavior and sociability. Prisbell (1994) found friendliness to be the strongest predictor of student satisfaction with instructors' communication in the classroom. Andersen et al. (1981) also found a link to teacher effectiveness. Duran and Zakahi (1987) found other-perceived friendly style to be a primary predictor of communication satisfaction.
Precise style has to do with being able to unambiguously explain concepts. Those with a precise style are perceived as being in control of the content. Precise style was shown (Norton, 1983) to be associated with effective teaching.
Other Communicator Style Research
Although most research has focused on teachers, some work in an organizational setting has been conducted. Norton (1983) suggested that communicator styles may cluster to form other styles of communication behavior. One such cluster that has been studied is the affirming style, which is a combination of high attentive, friendly, and relaxed styles. Norton concluded that social attraction was predicted best by this style. Infante and Gorden (1989) and Infante, Rancer, and Jordan (1996) found that arguments were perceived more positively with an affirming style than with a nonaffirming style. Infante, Anderson, Martin, Herington, and Kim (1993) also found subordinates' satisfaction was higher with superiors using an affirming style.
Bednar (1982) found objective measures of managerial performance to be linked to perceptions of communicator style. Subordinate satisfaction was linked to leaders' styles that were open, friendly, calm, relaxed, and attentive (Baker & Ganster, 1985) and, in another study, to impression leaving, open, friendly, and flexible styles (Honeycutt & Worobey, 1987).
Measurement of Communicator Style
The Communicator Style Measure (CSM) is a self-report Likert-type measure developed by Norton (1978). Most of the research on this concept has used this measure, and it consists of 51 items, of which 45 are scored. Six items are filler items, which are intended to be ignored. Norton also developed measures to fully explore the dramatic, open, and attentive styles. Norton demonstrated construct and content validity as well as reliability for the CSM.
Model Comparison
Social style differs from Norton's communicator style construct (1983) in a number of respects. Although both concentrate on communication behavior, social style research emphasizes patterns of behavior across communication behavior dimensions--or style--and style correlates. Communicator style research focuses primarily on dimensions of communication behavior and their correlates. Snavely and Waiters (1983) noted that
these independent variables [dimensions] can be viewed as possessing more or less of each social style dimension. For example, the dominant and animated communicator styles are both high in assertiveness; the open and friendly styles are both high in [emotiveness]. (p. 121)
As a result, communicator style and social style have been conceptualized as complementary, rather than competing, style systems. The social style model may be seen as a macro model of style, whereas communicator style involves micro-behavioral strategies or habits that are used to implement various social styles. For example, whereas emotive social style is a general habit, there are many ways to be emotive, including being dramatic, open, and friendly.
Sorenson and Savage (1989) examined the relationship between communicator style and relational style. Their factor analysis of the CSM revealed two main factors: Dominance and Supportiveness. These factors are conceptually similar to the social style dimensions of assertiveness and emotiveness. The Dominance factor included items from contentious, precise, and dominant communicator styles. The Supportiveness factor included items from open, dramatic, friendly, attentive, and animated communicator styles.
However, beyond Kearney's work (1984) on teaching style, to date there has been little or no research to examine the empirical relationship between communicator style and social style. The goal of this research is to begin this examination. An understanding of the structure of the domain of communication behavior represented by the communicator style and social style models is helpful to the theoretical conceptualization of style and the eventual construction of a single style model.
Research Questions
This study revolves around three research questions:
1. To what extent are the dimensions of social style and communicator style unique constructs?
2. Can a combined model of style be derived to best characterize the nature of communicative behavior?
3. What are the best predictors of communicator image?
Method
Sample
Social style data were collected from 1,456 North American undergraduate and graduate students. Forty-eight percent (n = 692) of the respondents were female, and 52% (n = 764) were male. The mean age of the sample was 24, with a range from 19 to 47 years. Of this sample, 852 also completed the communicator style instrument.
Measures and Procedures
Social style. Responses of 1,456 students to the Social Style Questionnaire (Snavely, 1992) were factor analyzed. Initial components were extracted by a principal components analysis. Consistent with previous research and the conceptualization of social style as having orthogonal dimensions, components with an eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 were retained and subjected to a varimax rotation. The adequacy and interpretability of the rotated factor pattern were determined by the following criteria: A given variable was considered meaningful if it had a loading of .40 or greater; variables with meaningful loadings on more than one factor were eliminated; a factor must be defined by a minimum of three meaningful variables; variables loading on a factor share the same conceptual meaning; different factors have distinct conceptual meanings; and the factor pattern demonstrated simple structure. An item analysis was performed on the variables defining each factor. Items were dropped from a scale if their removal increased the reliability (coefficient alpha) of the scale.
Communicator style. Responses of 852 students to the CSM (Norton, 1983) were factor analyzed. Initial components were extracted by a principal components analysis. Consistent with previous research and the conceptualization of communicator style as having oblique relationships, components with an eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 were retained and subjected to a promax rotation. The adequacy and interpretability of the rotated factor pattern were determined by the same criteria used for the Social Style Questionnaire. An item analysis was performed on the variables defining each factor. Items were dropped from a scale if their removal increased the reliability (coefficient alpha) of the scale.
Uniqueness of the constructs. The uniqueness of the social style and communicator style constructs was examined by factor analyzing the scales developed in the preceding analyses. Initial components were extracted by a principal components analysis. Components with an eigenvalue equal to or greater than one were retained and subjected to a promax rotation. The adequacy and interpretability of the rotated factor pattern were determined by the same criteria used for the questionnaire items.
Communicator image. The relationship between communication behavior and self-perceptions of communication effectiveness (communicator image) was tested using multiple regression. Factor scores were computed for the factors derived from the factor analysis of scales, and communicator image was regressed on the factor scores using stepwise multiple regression.
Results
The results of the factor analysis of social style items are summarized in Table 1. Consistent with past research, two factors--Assertive and Emotive, accounting for 58% of the total variance--emerged from the analysis. Variables defining each factor are in italics. Both scales achieved acceptable levels of reliability as indicated by Cronbach's coefficient alpha--.86 for Assertive and .83 for Emotive.
Results of the factor analysis of communicator style items are presented in Table 2. Eight factors accounting for 51% of the total variance were found--Dramatic, Image, Contentious, Relaxed, Attentive, Impression Leaving, Open, and Accurate. Variables defining each factor are in italics. Nonitalicized variables did not achieve meaningful loadings on any factor. Scale reliability ranged from .62 (Accurate) to .82 (Open).
The Dramatic factor contains items from Norton's Dramatic and Animated scales (1983). The Image factor combines items from the Communicator Image and Dominant scales. Three items from Norton's Contentious Scale define the Contentious Scale in this analysis. The Relaxed Scale is identical to Norton's. The Attentive Scale contains items from Norton's Attentive and Friendly scales. The Impression Leaving scale is the same as Norton's. The Open scale is defined by three items from Norton's Open scale. The Accurate scale contains two items from Norton's Precise scale.
The factor analysis of the resulting scales developed in the preceding analyses is presented in Tables 3 and 4. Four factors accounting for 69% of the total variance were found--Assertive, Emotive, Relaxed, and Accurate. Scales defining each factor in italics. The factors are relatively independent; the average correlation among the four factors is .138.
The stepwise multiple regression is reported in Tables 5, 6, and 7. The Emotive, Assertive, and Relaxed factors all entered the model. The Accurate factor did not enter the stepwise model. A total of 35.6% of the variance in the dependent variable (image) was explained by these style factors.
Discussion
The goal of this research was to test the theoretical interface between the communicator style and social style constructs. The following discussion considers each of the three research questions, limitations of this study, and future directions for style research.
The first question asks to what extent the two models were unique constructs. The results of the factor analysis indicate that the constructs overlap. Neither model adequately maps the domain of communication behavior underlying the two models. Four factors emerged from the analysis: Assertive, Emotive, Relaxed, and Accurate.
Strong support for the factor structure and reliability of social style (Snavely, 1992) was found. Both the assertive social style (alpha = .86) and the emotive social style (alpha = .83) were replicated. The dimensions of communicator style did not remain intact. The dramatic and animated styles collapsed into one factor (Dramatic), as did friendly and attentive (Attentive). The combined factors achieved acceptable reliability for basic research--alphas ranged from .62 to .82 (Nunnally, 1967). The reliability of the Attentive and Accurate scales was problematic and suggests that additional scale development may be needed. After the item analysis, only two items formed the Accurate scale. The dominant style did not emerge in this data as a separate factor. Thus, the communicator style dimensions in this study were dramatic, open, contentious, impression leaving, relaxed, accurate, and attentive. As Norton (1983) suggested, these dimensions may be multifaceted. Our results confirm his suggestion.
The factor analysis of scale scores resulted in four factors. The first factor, Assertive, was composed of 14 items (alpha = .88) from the Assertive, Contentious, and Impression Leaving scales. Because all involve an action dimension of communicative behavior, this could be expected. Again, we suggest that assertiveness is best viewed as the macro dimension of style. Although being contentious and leaving an impression are clearly assertive aspects of behavior, assertiveness is not, for example, necessarily contentious.
Sixteen items (alpha = .83) from the Emotive, Dramatic, Open, and Communicator Image scales formed the second factor, labeled Emotive. This is not too surprising, given that being dramatic, animated, and open all involve different ways of expressing emotion while communicating. Examination of the items of each factor confirms that although Emotive is a general factor involving the expression of emotion, the communicator style factors involve specific ways of communicating emotion. To that extent, this supports the idea that emotiveness may be a macro component of style, and the dimensions of communicator style may be micro aspects of style.
The third factor was Relaxed, and it contains all four items from the Relaxed scale. This appears to be a factor of style relatively independent from either social style dimension. The correlations between relaxed style and the social style dimensions are fairly low (.18 with Emotive and .24 with Assertive). It is also conceptually a unique construct. A person can be relaxed or tense with any social style. Snavely and Waiters (1983) discussed a related concept of social anxiety as a key dimension of communicative competence. This research suggests that it may more appropriately be considered an evaluative element of style that affects communication competence.
The fourth factor, Accurate (alpha = .68), was composed of six items from the accurate and attentive styles. Five of the items came from the Attentive scale and one item from the Accurate scale. Both factors have to do with accuracy in communication. The attentive items have to do with accurate listening, active listening, and being attentive to others. The accurate items are directly tied to precision and accuracy in encoding messages. This factor represents another evaluative style component, which is relatively independent of the other dimensions (average r = .13). Because only one item came from the original Accurate scale, it is difficult to interpret this factor. It clearly involves an attempt to accurately decode messages, but it is unclear if it relates to encoding messages. Possibly, there are two separate dimensions involved--encoding and decoding-and the encoding dimension has not been fully explicated.
These results contrast markedly with Sorenson and Savage's factor analytic study (1989), which yielded a simple two-factor solution. However, that study used modified single-item measures of other-perceived communicator style. The general findings with regard to the first two factors are, however, consistent with Sorenson and Savage. Both studies argue for two primary dimensions of behavior. The Relaxed and Accurate factors in the present study were not identified by Sorenson and Savage as unique factors. In fact, the relaxed style did not load with either dominance or supportiveness in that study. Attentive style loaded with supportiveness but had a fairly high secondary loading with dominance (.40). This study suggests one reason why relaxed did not load with dominance or supportiveness: It may be a unique construct in its own right.
The second research question asks whether a combined model of style could be derived to best characterize the nature of the domain of communication behavior represented by the communicator style and social style models. We answer that question in the affirmative. These results suggest that communication style may be a function of at least four distinct style factors: Emotive, Assertive, Relaxed, and Accurate. However, because the fourth factor, Accuracy, had low reliability and did not emerge as significant in the regression analysis, it is not included in the model at this time. Until that dimension can be more reliably measured, it is best to use a three-dimensional model. This suggests a new model that has social style as a base but expands to include at least one evaluative aspect of communicator style: relaxed. We term this three-dimensional model transactional style (see Figure 2). Transaction is the level of communication (Snavely, 1997) characterized by simultaneous (face-to-face) encoding and decoding of messages. This is the realm in which transactional style is most relevant.
It is important to note that although transactional style may be a positive addition to the discussion of communicative style, the fact that a number of communicator style dimensions are not included does not diminish the importance or validity of these dimensions. For example, identifying a contentious, impression-leaving, or dominant communicator style is informative and may provide information beyond the general notion of assertiveness about the way in which people communicate. Although the scale scores loaded together, they appear to be conceptually and operationally distinct.
The third research question asks which dimensions of style would be the best predictors of communicator image. Norton (1983) identifies communicator image as the dependent variable for his model. Those with a higher score on communicator image perceive themselves to be better or more effective communicators.
The results of the regression analysis suggest that the transactional style model (emotive, assertive, and relaxed) was significant, and it explained nearly 35% of the variance in communicator image. The strongest predictor in the model was, not surprisingly, emotive, which alone accounted for about 30% of the variance. These results provide evidence of the construct validity of the model (Norton, 1983) and are significantly larger than typical results using communicator style dimensions.
Limitations
An important limitation in this study is that all the measures were self-perceptions of style. Other-perceptions of style may produce contradictory results. Second, whereas the sample was relatively large and provided statistical power, most of the participants were college students. The average age (24 years) and range (up to 40) suggests a somewhat more diverse sample than a typical study of college students. However, this still may limit the degree to which we can generalize these findings to the population. It should be noted that the social style construct has been widely studied and confirmed using nonstudent adults in work environments, and so we do not expect to see significant differences based on age of adults. The sample was also American; as such, generalization to other cultures may not be warranted. Levy, Wubbels, Brekelmans, and Morganfield (1997) found that perceptions of dominant style varied by culture.
Future Research
Clearly, this is a first step in the conceptualization of transactional style, a model based on both social style and communicator style. As such, additional research is called for to substantiate the transactional style constructs. Furthermore, scale development is necessary to establish a better scale to measure accurate style than presently exists. The low reliability (.68) of the accurate dimension was especially problematic and may have contributed to its lack of predictive power. It may be that new items would better capture the conceptual notion of communication accuracy, which may ultimately be a valid addition to the model.
Some research has begun to look at cultural and gender differences in style. Additional research is needed to fully explore these issues. For example, although there were no differences in assertiveness between men and women in this study, there were some gender differences in terms of emotiveness (women were seen as being somewhat more emotive than men). A related issue involves the gender of the rater. If perceptions of emotiveness are influenced by cultural expectations, then the gender of the rater may influence the evaluation of others' style depending on participant gender. Most important, it will be important to discover whether men and women use different constructs to evaluate style. To date, these are empirical questions worthy of study.
A critical issue in the development of the transactional style instrument involves a measurement question: Should the scales reflect self-perceptions or other-perceptions of style? Alternative scales should be developed and related to independent objective-based measures of communication competence. The development of scales for further study should be based on transactional style dimensions conceptualized and measured in a similar manner.
Finally, once the dimensionality of transactional style is solidified, research is needed to link style to organizational effectiveness. To date, much of the communicator style research has focused on teaching effectiveness. Clearly, however, style should have impacts on superior-subordinate relationships, managerial effectiveness, and subordinate satisfaction. In this regard, it will be important to study more diverse age groups to improve generalizability of the model.
References
Andersen, J. F., Norton, R. W., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Three investigations exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30, 377-392.
Bacon, C. C., & Severson, M. L. (1986). Assertiveness, responsiveness, and versatility as predictors of leadership emergence. Communication Research Reports, 3, 53-59.
Baker, D. D., & Ganster, D. C. (1985). Leader communication style: A test of average versus vertical dyad linkage models. Group and Organization Studies, 10(3), 242-259.
Bales, R. F., & Cohen, S. P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press.
Bednar, D. A. (1982). Relationships between communicator style and managerial performance in complex organizations: A field study. Journal of Business Communication, 19(4), 51-76.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1974). Building a dynamic corporation through grid organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Borgatta, E. F., Cottrell, L. S., & Mann, J. H. (1958). The spectrum of individual interaction characteristics: An interdimensional analysis. Psychological Reports, 4, 279-319.
Buchholz, S. W. (1976). The effects of training in managing interpersonal relationships on the perceptions of social style: An empirical study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. (UMI No. 7714635)
Buchholz, S. W., Lashbrook, W. B., & Wenburg, J. R. (1976). Toward the measurement and processing of social style. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Portland, OR.
Duran, R. L., & Zakahi, W. R. (1987). Communication performance and communication satisfaction: What do we teach our students? Communication Education, 36, 13-22.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 102-120.
Honeycutt, J. M., & Worobey, J. L. (1987). Impressions about communication styles and competence in nursing relationships. Communication Education, 36(1), 217-227.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-98.
Infante, D. A., Anderson, C. M., Martin, M. M., Herington, A. D., & Kim, J. (1993). Subordinates' satisfaction and perceptions of superiors' compliance-gaining tactics, argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and style. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 307-326.
Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1989). Argumentativeness and affirming communicator style as predictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with subordinates. Communication Quarterly, 37, 81-90.
Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S. & Jordan, F. F. (1996). Affirming and nonaffirming style, dyad sex, and the perception of argumentation and verbal aggression in an interpersonal dispute. Human Communication Research, 22(3), 315-334.
Inglis, M. (1993). The communicator style measure applied to nonnative speaking teaching assistants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 89-105.
Kearney, P. (1984). Perceptual discrepancies in teacher communication style. Communication, 13(1), 95-108.
Knutson, P. K., & Lashbrook, W. B. (1976). Communication apprehension as an antecedent to social style. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco.
Lashbrook, V. J., & Lashbrook, W. B. (1980). Social style as a basis for adult training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Speech Association, Chicago.
Lashbrook, W. B., Knutson, P. K., Parsely, M. L., & Wenburg, J. R. (1976). An empirical examination of versatility as a consequence of perceived social style. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, San Francisco.
Lashbrook, W. B., & Lashbrook, V. J. (1979). The statistical adequacy of the social style profile. Eden Prairie, MN: Wilson Learning.
Lashbrook, W. B., Lashbrook, V. J., Parsely, M. L., & Wenburg, J. R. (1977). A study of the relationship between social style and measures of perceived versatility and interpersonal trust. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Berlin.
Levy, J., Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., & Morganfield, B. (1997). Language and cultural factors in students' perceptions of teacher communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1), 29-56.
May, G. L., & Gueldenzoph, L. E. (2006). The impact of social style on student peer evaluation ratings in group projects. Journal of Business Communication, 43(1), 4-20.
Merrill, D. (1981). Personal styles and effective performance: Make your style work for you. Radnor, PA: Chilton.
Merrill, D., & Reid, R. (1981). Personal styles and effective performance. Radnor, PA: Chilton.
Norton, R. (1977). Teacher effectiveness as a function of communicator style. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 1 (pp. 525-542). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Norton, R. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication Research, 4, 99-112.
Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Norton, R., & Nussbaum, J. (1980). Dramatic behaviors of the effective teacher. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 4 (pp. 565-582). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Prince, G. L. (1986). Staff development for improving administrators' social style. Journal of Staff Development, 71, 66-72.
Prince, G. L. (1991). Style and versatility: The unique factors. Educational Considerations, 18(2), 7-10.
Prisbell, M. (1994). Students' perceptions of instructors' style of communication and satisfaction with communication in the classroom. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1398.
Sallinen-Kuparinen, A. (1992). Teacher communicator style. Communication Education, 41, 153-166.
Sallinen-Kuparinen, A., Marttinen, P., Peramaki, P., & Porhola, M. (1987). Teacher effectiveness and communicator style. In A. Sallinen-Kuparinen (Ed.), Perspectives on instructional communication (pp. 97-111). Jyvaskyla, Finland: University of Jyvaskyla.
Schereer, K., London, H., & Wolf, J. (1973). The voice of confidence: Paralinguistic cues and audience evaluation, Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 31-44.
Snavely, W. B. (1981). The impact of social style upon person perception in primary relationships. Communication Quarterly, 29, 132-143.
Snavely, W. B. (1992). The measurement and evaluation of social style. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV.
Snavely, W. B. (1997). Human communication in organizations. In F. Luthans (Ed.), Virtual OB. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Snavely, W. B., & Walters, E. V. (1983). Differences in communication competence among administrative social styles. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 11(2), 120-135.
Sorenson, R. L., & Savage, G. T. (1989). Signaling participation through relational communication: A test of the leader interpersonal influence model. Group and Organization Studies, 14(3), 325-354.
Sullivan, D. L. (1977). Explorations in stylistic interpersonal communication: A conceptual framework and an empirical strategy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. (UMI No. 7723162)
Thompson, C. A., & Klopf, D. W. (1995). Social style among North American, Finnish, Japanese and Korean university students. Psychological Reports, 77, 60-62.
Wenschlag, R. (1987). The versatile salesperson. New York: John Wiley.
William B. Snavely
San Diego State University
John D. McNeill
Miami University
William B. Snavely is professor of management emeritus from Miami University and currently serves as professor of communication and Director of the School of Communication at San Diego State University.
John D. McNeill is professor of management emeritus from Miami University (Oxford, Ohio) and currently resides in Louisville, Kentucky.
Table 1
Factor Analysis of Social Style Items (Varimax Rotated Factor
Loadings)
Item Assertive Emotive Communalities
Usually takes charge .836# .092 .707
Seems to want to control
situations .798# .039 .639
Behaves aggressively .792# -.033 .628
Is assertive .747# .029 .560
Seems competitive by nature .706# .025 .499
Could be described as
tough-minded .683# -.204 .509
Is an argumentative person .649# -.212 .466
Is people oriented .048 .836# .701
Is a sociable person .085 .774# .607
Is a warm person -.149 .770# .615
Is approachable -.115 .755# .563
Is willing to relate to others -.046 .689 .476
Coefficient alpha reliability .860 .83
Note: Variables defining each factor are in italics.
Note: Variables defining each factor are in italics indicated with #.
Table 2
Factor Analysis of Communicator Style Items (Promax Rotation--Pattern
Matrix Loadings)
Item Dram Img Cont
Often I physically and vocally act out
what I want to communicate. .840# -.137 -.160
I very frequently verbally exaggerate
to emphasize a point. .740# .025 .013
I actively use a lot of facial
expressions when I communicate. .694# -.136 -.171
I tend to constantly gesture when I
communicate. .683# .039 -.081
Regularly I tell jokes, anecdotes, and
stories when I communicate. .595# .152 -.086
I dramatize a lot. .537# .072 .134
I am very expressive nonverbally in
social situations. .511# .013 .109
The sound of my voice is very easy to
recognize. .423# -.357 .134
I laugh easily. .490# -.091 -.075
I am vocally a loud communicator. .373 .054 .244
I find it extremely easy to maintain a
conversation with a member of the
opposite sex whom I have just met. -.166 .787# -.136
I always find it very easy to
communicate on a one-to-one basis
with strangers. .090 .763# -.257
In most social situations I generally
speak very frequently. .138 .659# .203
In a small group of strangers I am a
very good communicator. .080 .622# .067
I am dominant in social situations. .215 .535# .173
I am an extremely open communicator. .238 .301 -.114
I have an assertive voice. .041 .264 .259
Once I get wound up in a heated
discussion, I have a hard time
stopping myself. .063 -.173 .758#
It bothers me to drop an argument that
is not resolved. .039 -.248 .744#
When I disagree with somebody, I am
very quick to challenge them. -.273 .179 .734#
I am very argumentative. .097 -.117 .672#
I try to take charge of things when I
am with people. .008 .239 .507#
I am always an extremely friendly
communicator. .291 .087 -.450#
I am comfortable with all varieties of
people. .213 .316 -.388
In most social situations I tend to
come on strong. .155 .304 .339
The rhythm or flow of my speech is
sometimes affected by my nervousness. .152 .106 .086
I have some nervous mannerisms in my
speech. .156 .156 .088
Under pressure I come across as a
relaxed speaker. -.080 -.061 .018
I am a very relaxed communicator. .025 .201 -.109
I am a very good communicator. .100 .232 -.046
Out of a random group of six people,
including myself, I would probably
have a better communicator style than
l, 2, 3, or 4 of them. .065 .070 .300
I am an extremely attentive
communicator. -.043 .052 .147
I really like to listen very carefully
to people. -.085 -.123 -.012
Whenever 1 communicate, I tend to be
very encouraging to people. -.049 .139 -.218
Usually, I deliberately react in such a
way that people know that I am
listening to them. .291 -.167 .296
To be friendly, I habitually
acknowledge verbally others'
contributions. -.034 .348 -.039
Because I have a loud voice, I can
easily break into a conversation. .289 .164 .070
I readily express admiration for
others. -.164 .171 .027
I leave people with an impression of me
which they definitely tend to
remember. .075 .244 -.039
I leave a definite impression on
people. .126 .091 .066
What I say usually leaves an impression
on people. -.288 .191 .052
The way I say something usually leaves
an impression on people. .217 .133 .059
I readily reveal personal things about
myself. .008 -.125 -.013
Usually I do not tell people much about
myself until I get to know them well. .004 -.075 .070
As a rule, I openly express my feelings
and emotions. -.072 .144 .008
I like to be strictly accurate when I
communicate. -.029 -.453 .013
Very often I insist that other people
document or present some kind of
proof for what they are arguing for. -.016 .097 .170
In arguments I insist upon very precise
definitions. -.075 -.270 .044
I am a very precise communicator. -.050 .097 -.044
My eyes reflect exactly what I am
feeling when I communicate. -.020 -.024 .119
I can always repeat back to a person
exactly what was meant. -.021 .135 .061
Coefficient alpha reliability .78 .79 .76
Item Rlxd Attv ImprLv
Often I physically and vocally act out
what I want to communicate. -.023 -.183 .072
I very frequently verbally exaggerate
to emphasize a point. -.229 -.080 -.014
I actively use a lot of facial
expressions when I communicate. -.029 .228 .170
I tend to constantly gesture when I
communicate. -.171 .146 .002
Regularly I tell jokes, anecdotes, and
stories when I communicate. -.004 -.063 -.242
I dramatize a lot. .012 -.039 .029
I am very expressive nonverbally in
social situations. -.095 .165 .240
The sound of my voice is very easy to
recognize. .190 -.185 -.029
I laugh easily. .210 .091 -.083
I am vocally a loud communicator. .175 -.125 -.068
I find it extremely easy to maintain a
conversation with a member of the
opposite sex whom I have just met. -.055 .070 .199
I always find it very easy to
communicate on a one-to-one basis
with strangers. -.029 -.033 .097
In most social situations I generally
speak very frequently. -.148 .032 -.033
In a small group of strangers I am a
very good communicator. .096 .131 .079
I am dominant in social situations. -.104 -.084 .209
I am an extremely open communicator. .167 .210 -.011
I have an assertive voice. .133 -.208 .203
Once I get wound up in a heated
discussion, I have a hard time
stopping myself. -.140 .005 -.071
It bothers me to drop an argument that
is not resolved. -.136 .167 .126
When I disagree with somebody, I am
very quick to challenge them. .032 -.046 .086
I am very argumentative. .011 -.092 .052
I try to take charge of things when I
am with people. .099 .179 .010
I am always an extremely friendly
communicator. .077 .372 -.042
I am comfortable with all varieties of
people. -.014 .043 .209
In most social situations I tend to
come on strong. -.086 -.055 .148
The rhythm or flow of my speech is
sometimes affected by my nervousness. -.896# .021 .010
I have some nervous mannerisms in my
speech. -.831# -.036 -.177
Under pressure I come across as a
relaxed speaker. .824# -.058 .051
I am a very relaxed communicator. .654# -.032 .096
I am a very good communicator. .390 .265 .021
Out of a random group of six people,
including myself, I would probably
have a better communicator style than
l, 2, 3, or 4 of them. .386 .286 -.092
I am an extremely attentive
communicator. .085 .784# -.071
I really like to listen very carefully
to people. .051 .714# .071
Whenever 1 communicate, I tend to be
very encouraging to people. -.121 .575# -.042
Usually, I deliberately react in such a
way that people know that I am
listening to them. .156 .551# -.122
To be friendly, I habitually
acknowledge verbally others'
contributions. -.175 .462# -.163
Because I have a loud voice, I can
easily break into a conversation. .079 -.435# .001
I readily express admiration for
others. .007 .386 -.175
I leave people with an impression of me
which they definitely tend to
remember. .049 -.146 .752#
I leave a definite impression on
people. .057 -.058 .684#
What I say usually leaves an impression
on people. .141 -.121 .610#
The way I say something usually leaves
an impression on people. .022 .045 .498#
I readily reveal personal things about
myself. .009 -.042 -.072
Usually I do not tell people much about
myself until I get to know them well. -.120 .003 .083
As a rule, I openly express my feelings
and emotions. -.140 .264 -.078
I like to be strictly accurate when I
communicate. -.088 .257 .229
Very often I insist that other people
document or present some kind of
proof for what they are arguing for. -.339 .091 -.126
In arguments I insist upon very precise
definitions. -.068 .118 .300
I am a very precise communicator. .339 .271 -.025
My eyes reflect exactly what I am
feeling when I communicate. -.096 .246 .308
I can always repeat back to a person
exactly what was meant. .071 .312 -.021
Coefficient alpha reliability .80 .68 .78
Item Open Accrt [h.sup.2]
Often I physically and vocally act out
what I want to communicate. -.010 .039 .546
I very frequently verbally exaggerate
to emphasize a point. -.061 -.063 .473
I actively use a lot of facial
expressions when I communicate. .060 -.164 .563
I tend to constantly gesture when I
communicate. -.016 .054 .451
Regularly I tell jokes, anecdotes, and
stories when I communicate. -.001 .015 .428
I dramatize a lot. -.043 -.389 .449
I am very expressive nonverbally in
social situations. -.067 -.116 .424
The sound of my voice is very easy to
recognize. -.022 .233 .375
I laugh easily. -.025 -.310 .313
I am vocally a loud communicator. .257 .010 .642
I find it extremely easy to maintain a
conversation with a member of the
opposite sex whom I have just met. -.043 -.054 .498
I always find it very easy to
communicate on a one-to-one basis
with strangers. -.053 -.100 .488
In most social situations I generally
speak very frequently. .090 -.157 .651
In a small group of strangers I am a
very good communicator. .019 .004 .480
I am dominant in social situations. -.006 .005 .613
I am an extremely open communicator. .242 .025 .543
I have an assertive voice. .084 .171 .493
Once I get wound up in a heated
discussion, I have a hard time
stopping myself. .004 .071 .535
It bothers me to drop an argument that
is not resolved. .132 -.077 .524
When I disagree with somebody, I am
very quick to challenge them. -.041 .076 .612
I am very argumentative. -.183 .191 .602
I try to take charge of things when I
am with people. -.109 -.095 .388
I am always an extremely friendly
communicator. -.083 .152 .467
I am comfortable with all varieties of
people. -.125 -.072 .241
In most social situations I tend to
come on strong. .222 -.022 .563
The rhythm or flow of my speech is
sometimes affected by my nervousness. .019 .153 .630
I have some nervous mannerisms in my
speech. .042 .188 .605
Under pressure I come across as a
relaxed speaker. .091 -.045 .638
I am a very relaxed communicator. .018 -.032 .578
I am a very good communicator. -.013 .227 .522
Out of a random group of six people,
including myself, I would probably
have a better communicator style than
l, 2, 3, or 4 of them. -.015 -.070 .351
I am an extremely attentive
communicator. -.024 .206 .597
I really like to listen very carefully
to people. .086 .137 .526
Whenever 1 communicate, I tend to be
very encouraging to people. .053 .162 .444
Usually, I deliberately react in such a
way that people know that I am
listening to them. -.158 -.140 .445
To be friendly, I habitually
acknowledge verbally others'
contributions. .034 .107 .349
Because I have a loud voice, I can
easily break into a conversation. .239 .191 .644
I readily express admiration for
others. .262 -.100 .278
I leave people with an impression of me
which they definitely tend to
remember. -.071 -.098 .659
I leave a definite impression on
people. -.162 .119 .623
What I say usually leaves an impression
on people. .057 .092 .505
The way I say something usually leaves
an impression on people. -.053 .156 .493
I readily reveal personal things about
myself. .921# -.079 .760
Usually I do not tell people much about
myself until I get to know them well. -.823# .104 .704
As a rule, I openly express my feelings
and emotions. .745# -.026 .682
I like to be strictly accurate when I
communicate. .195 .664# .570
Very often I insist that other people
document or present some kind of
proof for what they are arguing for. -.179 .653# .487
In arguments I insist upon very precise
definitions. .023 .648# .508
I am a very precise communicator. -.105 .493# .500
My eyes reflect exactly what I am
feeling when I communicate. .190 -.383 .391
I can always repeat back to a person
exactly what was meant. -.211 .333 .238
Coefficient alpha reliability .82 .62
Note: Dram = Dramatic; Img = Communicator Image; Cont = Contentious;
Rlxd = Relaxed; Attv =Attentive; ImprLv = Impression Leaving; Accrt
= Accurate. Italicized variables define each factor; nonitalicized
variables did not achieve meaningful loadings on any factor.
Note: Italicized variables define each factor indicated with #.
Table 3
Factor Analysis of Social Style and Communicator Style Scales
(Promax Rotation--Pattern Matrix Loadings)
Scale Assertive Emotive Relaxed
Contentious .897# -.017 -.158
Assertive .834# .104 .023
Impression Leaving .508# .253# .338
Emotive .101 .780# -.081
Dramatic .248 .773# -.086
Open -.170 .647# .197
Relaxed -.077 -.024 .974
Accurate .238 -.360 .056
Attentive -.293 .381 -.110
Alpha .88 .83 .80
No. of items 14 16 4
Scale Accurate Communalities
Contentious -.049 .760
Assertive .020 .722
Impression Leaving .137 .610
Emotive .094 .627
Dramatic -.133 .621
Open -.086 .503
Relaxed -.032 .900
Accurate .769# .745
Attentive .705# .753
Alpha .68
No. of items 6
Note: Scales defining each factor are in italics.
Note: Scales defining each factor are in italics indicated with #.
Table 4
Factor Correlations
Factor Assertive Emotive Relaxed Accurate
Assertive 1.00 .01 .24 .08
Emotive .01 1.00 .18 .14
Relaxed .24 .18 1.00 .18
Accurate .08 .14 .18 1.00
Table 5
Stepwise Regression Model Summary
Model Factors Factors R [R.sup.2] [R.sup.2] Sig. F
Entered Removed change change
1 Emotive .553 .305 .305 .000
2 Emotive
Assertive .589 .347 .042 .000
3 Emotive
Assertive
Relaxed .597 .356 .009 .001
Note: No factors were removed.
Table 6
ANOVA
Model SS df ms F p
1 Regression 169.0 1 169. 365.2 .000
Residual 384.5 831 .463
Total 553.4 832 0
2 Regression 192.1 2 96.0 220.6 .000
Residual 361.1 830 .435
Total 553.4 832
3 Regression 197.0 3 66.6 152.6 .000
Residual 356.5 829 .430
Total 553.4 832
Table 7
Regression Coefficients
Coefficients
Model B SE Standardized Beta t p
1 Constant 3.177 .024 134.8 .000
Emotive 0.451 .024 .553 19.1 .000
2 Constant 3.177 .023 139.0 .000
Emotive 0.449 .023 .551 19.6 .000
Assertive 0.167 .023 .204 7.3 .000
3 Constant 3.177 .023 139.8 .000
Emotive 0.435 .023 .533 18.8 .000
Assertive 0.147 .023 .181 6.3 .000
Relaxed 0.00 .024 .098 3.4 .001
Figure 2
Transactional Style Model
Emotive Nonemotive
Assertive Nonassertive Assertive Nonassertive
Relaxed Tense Relaxed Tense Relaxed Tense Relaxed Tense
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
In addition, make sure to read these articles:
- Private eye 101: master the fine points of conducting investigatory interviews; First in...
- Apollo Group, Inc.'s Special Committee Reports Final Factual Findings of Stock Option...
- SEC fines Banc of America securities $10 million.
- The TRACOM Group.
- Communication Behavior of Virtual Workforces: A Reporton Effective Communication.
- Training and development.
- Overcoming destructive management communication behavior
- Tomorrow's computers
- How to Get to the Point and Stay There
- Teaching, coaching, mentoring, facilitating, motivating, directing...What is a teacher to...
- The effect of compliance-gaining strategy choice and communicator style on sales success.
Email
Digg It
del.icio.us
Related Resources
Business Resources
Sponsored Links
Site Map | Contact Us | FAQs | About Us | Media Kit | Reprints | RSS Directory | Sign Up for Free Newsletters | Disclosure Policy
Copyright © 1999 - 2008 AllBusiness.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this content or the data or information included therein may be reproduced,
republished or redistributed without the prior written consent of AllBusiness.com.
Use of this site is governed by our Copyright and Intellectual Property Policy, Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.
© COPYRIGHT 2008 Baker College System - Center for Graduate Studies
You may not repost, republish, reproduce, package and/or redistribute the content of this page,
in whole or in part, without the written permission of the copyright holder.
Online Business Database | Online Business Information | Sales and Marketing Solutions | Business Mailing Lists
AllBusiness.com, its parent company D&B, and its affiliates.
