The relationships among instructors' antisocial behavior alteration techniques and...

This study examined the relationships between instructors' use of antisocial behavior alteration techniques (BATs) and students' use of teacher-owned resistance strategies. College students (N = 190) completed questionnaires assessing their perceptions of their instructor's communication and

their own behaviors in the classroom. Results of a canonical correlation suggest that a combination of higher levels of instructor use of the punishment from teacher, punishment from others, guilt, negative relationship, legitimate teacher authority, and debt BATs corresponds with a combination of higher levels of student resistance through teacher advice, teacher blame, appeal to powerful others, and modeling teacher's affect.

**********

Instructors' communication behaviors and students' reactions to them can impact students' learning (Gorham & Millette, 1997). Although teacher behaviors appear to be critical factors affecting student outcomes, many instructors have no formal training in classroom management (Golish, 1999; Richmond & McCroskey, 1992; Roach, 1991). Consequently, some instructors may lack the skills required to effectively manage their students' classroom behavior (McCroskey, Richmond, Plax, & Kearney, 1985; Plax, Kearney, & Tucker, 1986). This lack of skills may result in instructors behaving in ways that may actually disrupt or impede classroom management. One such behavior that may disrupt the classroom by evoking troublesome student reactions is the use of specific antisocial compliance-gaining strategies.

The present study investigates teacher use of behavior alteration techniques (BATs) and the potentially disruptive student behavior of resistance associated with it. This research extends Plax, Kearney, Downs, and Stewart's (1986) work that examined the frequency with which students resist the individual BATs by examining the particular resistance strategies that may be more closely associated with different instructor BATs. Specifically, the current study examines the relationship between instructors' use of antisocial BATs and students' use of teacher-owned resistance strategies. This study focuses on antisocial BATs because research indicates that students are most likely to resist these BATs (Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorenson, 1988; Lee, Levine, & Cambra, 1997; Plax, Kearney, Downs, et al., 1986). This study concentrates on teacher-owned resistance strategies, which Kearney, Plax, and Burroughs (1991) define as strategies used when students consider the teacher to be the cause of the resistance, because students likely perceive instructors who use antisocial BATs as responsible for their resistance.

Behavior Alteration Techniques

Behavior alteration techniques (BATs) refer to the power resources that teachers may use in attempting to influence students (Kearney, 1994a). BATs are compliance-gaining strategies that may be prosocial or antisocial (Kearney, Plax, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1984). Students perceive prosocial BATs as potentially rewarding (e.g., "You always do such a good job") and antisocial BATs as potentially punishing (e.g., "I will give you an 'F' if you don't do your work") (Kearney, Plax, Sorensen, & Smith, 1988).

Instructors report that they use prosocial BATs most of the time and in response to passive student misbehaviors, but use more antisocial BATS in response to more active student misbehaviors (Kearney, et al., 1984; Kearney, Plax, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1985; Kearney & Plax, 1987; Kearney, Plax, Sorenson, et al., 1988). In contrast, students perceive that their instructors use more antisocial BATS associated with coercive and legitimate power (Kearney et al., 1985). Students also perceive bad instructors as using antisocial BATs and good instructors as using prosocial BATs (Richmond, McCroskey, Kearney, & Plax, 1987). In terms of student outcomes, antisocial BATs are associated with more student resistance (Kearney, Plax, Smith, et al., 1988; Plax, Kearney, Downs, et al., 1986) and less affective (McCroskey et al., 1985; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Roach, 1991, 1994) and cognitive learning (Richmond, et al., 1987; Roach, 1991). BATs also play an important role in students' motivation and learning (Richmond, 1990; Richmond, et al., 1987).

Student Resistance

Student resistance is constructive or destructive oppositional behavior (Burroughs, Kearney, & Plax, 1989) in which students engage to resist their teachers' persuasive messages and to reciprocally influence their instructors (Kearney, 1994b). Students may resist through teacher-owned or studentowned strategies. Students who use teacher-owned resistance strategies consider the instructor to be the cause of the resistance, while students who use student-owned resistance strategies take the blame for their resistance (Kearney et al., 1991).

Students report that they are more likely to resist instructors who are not immediate (Burroughs, et al., 1989; Kearney, et al., 1991; Kearney, Plax, Smith, et al., 1988) and who use antisocial versus prosocial BATs (Kearney, Plax, Smith, et al., 1988; Lee et al., 1997; Plax, Kearney, Downs, et al., 1986). Students are less likely to resist instructors they like (Lee et al., 1997), those who use a conversational language style (Alpert, 1991), and those whom they perceive as fair (Chory-Assad & Paulsel, in press-a; Paulsel & Chory-Assad, 2004).

Plax, Kearney, Downs et al.'s (1986) research indicated that students were most likely to resist the BATs of punishment from others, teacher/ student relationship: negative, and legitimate teacher authority. These three BATs were later identified as antisocial BATs, along with debt, legitimate higher authority, punishment from teacher, and guilt (Kearney, Plax, Sorenson, et al., 1988), which students reported moderate resistance to (Plax, Kearney, Downs, et al., 1986). While Plax and his colleagues identified the frequency with which students reported they would resist the various BATs, they did not examine the individual strategies that may be more closely associated with different instructor BATs. The present study addresses this issue.

Sprague (1992) states that power in the classroom research views power as a tool teachers use to facilitate instructional goals and to manage the classroom. According to Sprague, critical theorists have challenged this definition, citing compliance-gaining and resisting as constructs that fail to consider the sociological, social, and political complexities of classroom power. Sprague suggests that a combination of these external forces and the interpersonal interactions occurring in the classroom would yield a better understanding of student misbehaviors.

While examining the interaction between external and internal classroom forces would likely provide a more complete picture of power in the classroom, the present study focuses on issues of immediate, practical concern--namely, the relationships between teachers' communication and students' potentially dangerous responses. Although such a focus is decidedly more narrow than that advocated by Sprague (1992), the results of such research are nonetheless likely to be useful and important to teachers interested in managing student misbehaviors (Rodriguez & Cai, 1994). Furthermore, as Sprague (1994) and others (e.g., Chory-Assad & Paulsel, in press-a) recognize, many teachers are concerned with physical safety in the classroom. Therefore, a perhaps relatively narrow approach to studying compliance-gaining and resistance can be beneficial in understanding how to prevent troublesome student reactions.

Finally, by examining instructor and student communication in tandem with each other, the interdependent, relational nature of the student-teacher relationship is emphasized. As Frymier and Houser (2000) note, the teacher-student relationship is an interpersonal one that involves teachers and students negotiating with one another and resolving conflict in order to achieve their individual goals. Instructor compliance-gaining and student resistance is one context in which this negotiation is likely to occur. Based on this rationale, the following research question was posed:

RQ: What, if any, are the associations among instructors' use of antisocial BATs and students' use of teacher-owned resistance strategies?

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 190 undergraduates (56.8% male) in communication courses at a mid-Atlantic university during the fifteenth week of the Spring 2003 semester. Approximately 85.7% of the participants reported their race as White, 7.9% were African-American/Black, 1.1% were Asian 1.1% was Latino/Hispanic, and 4.2% indicated they were of another race. The majority of the participants (63.2%) were 18 to 20 years old, 33.7% were 21 to 23 years, and 3.2% were 24 or older. Participants received minimal extra credit for their voluntary participation, which took place during regular class time. Using a method developed by Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, et al. (1986), participants completed the measures based on the class instructor and course they were taking that met immediately before the course in which data collection occurred.

Behavior Alteration Techniques Measure

Kearney et al.'s (1984) BATs typology, which refers to the power resources available for instructors' use in trying to influence students (Kearney, 1994a), was used to assess instructors' compliance-gaining. The BATs typology is composed of 22 separate categories representing 22 different BATs. Each of the 22 categories is usually described using approximately five statements, referred to as Behavior Alteration Messages (BAMs). Respondents are typically instructed to read all BAMs representing each BAT category and then to provide one overall rating per BAT. In the present study, participants indicated how likely their instructor was to use each of the BAMs representing seven BATs identified by previous research as antisocial (Kearney, Plax, Sorensen, et al., 1988) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = extremely unlikely, 5 = extremely likely). Thus, participants assessed each antisocial BAT through a number of ratings, rather than just one. Typical reliability estimates for the antisocial BATs range from .81 to .88 (Kearney, Plax, Sorensen, et al., 1988). The typology's content, construct, and concurrent validity have also been demonstrated (see Kearney, 1994a).

The antisocial BATs assessed in the present study include punishment from teacher (instructor threatens to impose some negative outcome on the student for noncompliance), punishment from others (instructor states that friends, parents, and classmates will impose some negative outcome on the student for noncompliance), guilt (instructor claims that student noncompliance will lead to others being hurt, punished, feeling bad, or being unhappy), negative teacher-student relationship (instructor states that he/she will dislike, lose respect for, think less of, be disappointed in, and not be proud of the student if he/she does not comply), legitimate teacher authority (instructor refers to his/her formal position as the superior in the relationship to gain student compliance), debt (instructor references student promises, obligations, and debts to gain student compliance), and legitimate higher authority (instructor states that the request stems from his/her superior, rules, and policies to gain student compliance).

In order to improve the reliabilities of the BATs factors, the item, "If you don't do it now, it will be homework tonight," was eliminated from the punishment from teacher factor, "I will dislike you if you don't" was eliminated from the negative teacher-student relationship factor, "I'm in charge, not you" was eliminated from the legitimate teacher authority factor, and "Pay your debt" was eliminated from the debt factor. The statistics of the BATs scales follow: punishment from teacher ([alpha] = .69, M = 5.04, SD = 2.28), punishment from others ([alpha] = .87, M = 5.90, SD = 2.54), guilt ([alpha] = .84, M = 6.69, SD = 2.96), negative teacher-student relationship ([alpha] = .84, M = 6.93, SD = 3.28), legitimate teacher authority ([alpha] = .88, M = 11.83, SD = 5.16), debt ([alpha] = .83, M = 7.32, SD = 3.39), and legitimate higher authority ([alpha] = .77, M = 7.44, SD = 3.06).

Student Resistance Measure

Student resistance was measured by items adapted from Burroughs et al.'s (1989) student resistance typology. This typology features resources or strategies that students may use in trying to reciprocally influence their instructors. Similar to the BATs typology, the student resistance typology contains 19 categories that are represented by multiple messages. Respondents are usually instructed to read all of the items representing each category and then to provide one overall rating per category. The present study focused on five strategies identified by previous research as teacher-owned (student messages that blame teachers for student resistance) (Kearney et al., 1991) and assessed student resistance by having participants respond to four items for each strategy. Each item was prefaced by the phrase, "If the instructor for the class I am taking that meets immediately before the class I am in now asked me to do something I did not want to do ..." Participants indicated their endorsement of items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = extremely unlikely, 5 = extremely likely). Thus, participants assessed each resistance strategy through a number of ratings, rather than just one. Typical reliability estimates for the teacher-owned strategies range from .88 to .93 (Kearney et al., 1991). The typology's content and construct validity have also been demonstrated (Burroughs et al., 1989; Kearney et al., 1991).

The student resistance strategies assessed in the present study include teacher advice (student tells instructor how to be a better teacher), teacher blame (student holds instructor responsible for his/her learning and for course problems), appeal to powerful others (student would speak to his/her advisor or the instructor's superiors), modeling teacher's behavior (student would imitate the instructor's perceived lack of effort, enthusiasm, and enjoyment), and modeling teacher's affect (student would imitate the instructor's perceived lack of caring).

To improve the reliabilities of the resistance factors, the item "I would tell the instructor that (s)he does not seem to be prepared," was eliminated from the teacher blame factor, and the items, "I'd tell the instructor that I would participate more if (s)he was more enthusiastic about teaching" and "I'd ask the instructor, 'you aren't enjoying class, so how can I'?" were eliminated from the modeling teacher's behavior factor. The statistics of the resistance scales follow: teacher advice ([alpha] = .82, M = 2.26, SD = .81), teacher blame ([alpha] = .82, M = 2.96, SD = 1.03), appeal to powerful others ([alpha] = .80, M = 2.06, SD = .79), modeling teacher's behavior ([alpha] = .66, M = 2.67, SD = .96), and modeling teacher's affect ([alpha] = .77, M = 2.42, SD = .81).

RESULTS

The research question inquired about the relationship between teacher use of antisocial BATs and student use of teacher-owned resistance strategies. A canonical correlation was performed to assess the global association between these two variables. Results indicate only one statistically significant canonical correlation, [R.sub.c], - .46, [R.sup.2.sub.c] = .21, Wilks's A = .68, F(35, 739) = 2.04, p < .001. The set of antisocial BATs was related to the set of students resistance strategies. Table 1 provides the structure coefficients for this first root.

Examination of the structure coefficients indicates that with the exception of legitimate higher authority, all BATs were related to the antisocial BATs variate. Similarly, all resistance strategies but modeling teacher's behavior were related to the student resistance variate.

DISCUSSION

The results of the canonical correlation suggest that a combination of higher levels of the punishment from teacher, punishment from others, guilt, negative relationship, legitimate teacher authority, and debt BATs corresponds with a combination of higher levels of student resistance through teacher advice, teacher blame, appeal to powerful others, and modeling teacher's affect. More specifically, the BATs set appears to be defined by the punishment from teacher and negative relationship BATs and the resistance set appears to be defined by the appeal to powerful others strategy. This particular resistance strategy may be problematic for instructors, especially for graduate student and untenured instructors, as students complaining to the instructor's superiors could result in loss of funding, future job opportunities, or tenure and promotion. Furthermore, in today's educational environment, which is increasingly being dominated by the "student as consumer" metaphor (McMillan & Cheney, 1996), appealing to powerful others may lead to increased administrative interference in classrooms and to professors engaging in self-promotion and following the entertainment model of learning (McMillan & Cheney, 1996).

The relationship observed between BATs and student resistance may be explained by students' perceptions of teacher power use and control. Students may perceive instructors' use of antisocial BATs as synonymous with instructors using coercive and legitimate power (McCroskey, et al., 1985; Richmond, 1990). For example, the messages associated with the punishment from teacher BAT are clearly punitive and coercive. Likewise, the legitimate teacher authority messages are based on the power afforded the teacher by his/her formal position. It may be that students are not resisting the BATs, but the teacher's use of coercive and legitimate power. Similarly, students may resist teachers whom they perceive exercise more control over classroom processes. For example, instructor use of the punishment from teacher or legitimate teacher authority BATs may meet with student resistance because these BATs appear to be based in the instructor's ability to control student outcomes or class processes (i.e., students resist the teacher because they think (s)he has the power to change or withdraw requests). On the other hand, instructors who use the legitimate higher authority BAT may be viewed as having little or no control over classroom policies or procedures, therefore, students tend not to resist them (i.e., students do not waste their time resisting a teacher who does not have the power to change or withdraw requests).

Results of the present study also support the notion that the student-teacher relationship is an interpersonal one (Frymier & Houser, 2000). As in other interpersonal relationships, students and teachers bargain or work with one another in attempting to reach their individual goals. Students do not simply comply with instructors' requests, but appear to negotiate action through resistance. Furthermore, the results of the present study are consistent with those of Frymier and Houser in that students seemed to be sensitive to teachers' communication skills. Frymier and Houser's results indicated that students perceived the ego support skill (meeting students' emotional needs and motivating them to succeed) to be important to effective teaching. The present study's findings suggest that the inconsiderate, harmful nature of the antisocial BATs is noticed and disliked by students, leading to students' resistance of them.

As Sprague (1992) suggested and the present study supports, instructors do not simply transmit information to students. Rather, instructors and students appear to influence the teacher-student relationship through their persuasive attempts (e.g., Golish, 1999). An important implication of this study is that instructors should recognize the reciprocal nature of compliance-gaining attempts in the classroom. While some forms of student resistance are destructive, other forms of resistance are constructive (Kearney & Plax, 1992). For example, a student might give an instructor advice to improve the quality of teaching. Such constructive resistance should be recognized as an important part of the teaching and learning processes.

The present study extended research conducted by Plax et al. (1986) to examine the association between students' perceptions of their instructors' BAT use and students' reports of the strategies they use to resist these instructors. As this study focused only on the use of teacher-owned student resistance strategies and antisocial BATs, future research may want to examine the relationships between both antisocial and prosocial BATs and both teacher- and student-owned resistance strategies. Although the present study was based on the premise that antisocial BAT use leads to student resistance, it involved cross sectional data that does not allow for this assumption to be tested. Future research should address this issue by examining the causal relationships between BATs and student resistance. Finally, the use of the phrase "if the instructor asked me to do something I did not want to do" to frame participants' responses to the resistance items may have influenced the results. This phrasing could have motivated respondents to reference a number of possible requests (e.g., not talking to a classmate to sexual harassment). Future research may want to frame these instructions in terms of normal instructor requests in a classroom setting in order to better control for the effects that these interpretations may have.

By examining students' perceptions of their instructors' antisocial communication and their own potentially disruptive communication responses, the present study revisits an informative line of research and reframes it in terms of the interdependent, interpersonal teacher-student relationship. Continued study and re-examination of the compliance-gaining, student resistance, and power in the classroom research from this perspective is likely to yield new" insight into contemporary instructional communication issues such as student and instructor aggressive communication, classroom justice, and out-of-class communication (e.g., Chory-Assad, 2002; Chory-Assad & Paulsel, in press-a; in press-b; Fusani, 1994; Myers, 2002; Paulsel & Chory-Assad, 2004; Schrodt, 2003).

TABLE 1
Canonical Correlation between Instructor Use of Antisocial BATs
and Student Use of Teacher-Owned Resistance Strategies

                                                 Root 1
                                          Structure Coefficient
Set 1: Antisocial BATs
  Punishment from Teacher                          .92
  Punishment from Others                           .75
  Guilt                                            .75
  Negative Relationship                            .88
  Legitimate Higher Authority                      .30
  Legitimate Teacher Authority                     .52
  Debt                                             .54
Set 2: Teacher-owned Student Resistance
    Strategies
  Teacher Advice                                   .53
  Teacher Blame                                    .51
  Appeal to Powerful Others                        .86
  Modeling Teachers Behavior                       .28
  Modeling Teacher's Affect                        .73

REFERENCES

Alpert, B. (1991). Students' resistance in the classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22, 350-366.

Burroughs, N. F., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1989). Compliance-resistance in the college classroom. Communication Education, 38, 214-229.

Chory-Assad, R. M. (2002). Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation, learning, and aggression. Communication Quarterly, 50, 58-77.

Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (in press-a). Classroom justice: Student aggression and resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education.

Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (in press-b). Antisocial classroom communication: Instructor influence and interactional justice as predictors of student aggression. Communication Quarterly.

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219.

Fusani, D. S. (1994). "Extra-class" communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and satisfaction in student-faculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 232-255.

Golish, T. D. (1999). Students' use of compliance gaining strategies with graduate teaching assistants: Examining the other end of the power spectrum. Communication Quarterly, 47, 12-32.

Gorham, J., & Millette, D. M. (1997). A comparative analysis of teacher and student perceptions of sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 46, 245-261.

Kearney, P. (1994a). Behavior alteration techniques. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. W. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 103-108). New York: The Guilford Press.

Kearney. P. (1994b). Student resistance strategies. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. W. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 347-351). New York: The Guilford Press.

Kearney, P., & Plax. T. G. (1987). Situational and individual determinates of teachers' reported use of behavior alteration techniques. Human Communication Research, 14. 145-166.

Kearney, P., & Plax. T. G. (1992). Student resistance to control. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the classroom (pp. 85-100). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Burroughs, N. F. (1991). An attributional analysis of college students' resistance decisions. Communication Education, 40, 325-342.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom IV: Alternatives to discipline. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 8 (pp. 724-746). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1985). Power in the classroom III: Teacher communication techniques and messages. Communication Education, 34, 19-28.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Smith, V. R., & Sorensen, G. (1988). Effects of teacher immediacy and student strategy type on college student resistance to on-task demands. Communication Education, 37, 54-67.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Sorensen, G.. & Smith, V. R. (1988). Experienced and prospective teachers' selections of compliance-gaining messages for "common" student misbehaviors. Communication Education, 37, 150-164.

Lee, C. R., Levine, T. R., & Cambra, R. (1997). Resisting compliance in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 46, 29-43.

McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Plax, T. G., Kearney, P. (1985). Power in the classroom V: Behavior alteration techniques, communication training, and learning. Communication Education, 34, 214-226.

McMillan, J. J., & Cheney, G. (1996). The student as consumer: The implications and limitations of a metaphor. Communication Education, 45, 1-15.

Myers, S. A. (2002). Perceived aggressive instructor communication and student state motivation, learning, and satisfaction. Communication Reports, 15, 113-121.

Paulsel, M. L., & Chory-Assad, R. M. (2004). Classroom justice: Perceptions of interactional justice as a predictor of student resistance. Paper presented to the Communication Education Interest Group of the Central States Communication Association at its annual meeting, Cleveland, OH.

Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., Downs, T. M., & Stewart, R. A. (1986). College student resistance toward teachers' use of selective control strategies. Communication Research Reports, 3, 20-27.

Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55.

Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., & Tucker, L. K. (1986). Prospective teachers' use of behavior alteration techniques on common student misbehaviors. Communication Education, 35. 32-42.

Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39 181-195.

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1987). Power in the classroom VII: Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education, 36, 1-12.

Roach, K. D. (1991). Graduate teaching assistants' use of behavior alteration techniques in the university classroom. Communication Quarterly, 39, 178-188.

Roach, K. D. (1994). Temporal patterns and effects of perceived instructor compliance-gaining use. Communication Education, 43, 236-245.

Rodriguez, J. I., & Cai. D. A. (1994). When your epistemology gets in the way: A response to Sprague. Communication Education, 43, 263-272.

Schrodt, P. (2003). Students' appraisals of instructors as a function of students' perceptions of instructors' aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52, 106-121.

Sprague, J. (1992). Expanding the research agenda for instructional communication: Raising some unasked questions. Communication Education, 41, 1-25.

Sprague, J. (1994). Ontology, politics, and instructional communication research: Why we can't just "agree to disagree" about power. Communication Education, 43, 273-290.

Michelle L. Paulsel (M.A., Southwest Texas State University, 2002) is a doctoral student at West Virginia University. Rebecca M. Chory-Assad (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 2000) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented to the Instructional Practices Interest Group of the Eastern Communication Association at its annual meeting, Boston, MA, April 22-25, 2004.