Content uploaded by Margaret M. Quinlan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Margaret M. Quinlan on Jul 27, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcrr20
Communication Research Reports
ISSN: 0882-4096 (Print) 1746-4099 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20
Effects of Instructor Speech Rate on Student
Affective Learning, Recall, and Perceptions of
Nonverbal Immediacy, Credibility, and Clarity
Brent K. Simonds , Kevin R. Meyer , Margaret M. Quinlan & Stephen K. Hunt
To cite this article: Brent K. Simonds , Kevin R. Meyer , Margaret M. Quinlan & Stephen K. Hunt
(2006) Effects of Instructor Speech Rate on Student Affective Learning, Recall, and Perceptions of
Nonverbal Immediacy, Credibility, and Clarity, Communication Research Reports, 23:3, 187-197,
DOI: 10.1080/08824090600796401
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090600796401
Published online: 03 Feb 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 359
View related articles
Citing articles: 10 View citing articles
Effects of Instructor Speech Rate on
Student Affective Learning, Recall,
and Perceptions of Nonverbal
Immediacy, Credibility, and Clarity
Brent K. Simonds, Kevin R. Meyer,
Margaret M. Quinlan, & Stephen K. Hunt
Although research indicates that speech rate affects perceptions of speaker credibility as
well as persuasiveness and information recall, research has failed to address how instruc-
tor speech rate affects student perceptions and learning. This study randomly assigned
basic communication course students to one of three speech rate conditions (slow, mod-
erate, fast), using a videotaped lesson by an instructor. Findings revealed significant
differences for credibility, affective leaning, and nonverbal immediacy, but did not reveal
significant differences for recall or clarity. Implications for instructional practice and
suggestions for future research are discussed.
Keywords: Affective Learning; Clarity; Credibility; Immediacy; Instructional
Communication; Recall; Speech Rate
The vocal qualities and dynamism displayed by instructors have long been a focus of
research for instructional communication scholars. For example, research in areas such
as nonverbal immediacy indicate that the communication characteristics of instructors
Brent K. Simonds (EdD) is an assistant professor in the School of Communication at Illinios State University.
Kevin R. Meyer (MS, Illinois State University) is a doctoral student in the School of Communication at Illinois
State University. Margaret M. Quinlan (MS, Illinois State University) is a doctoral student in the School of
Communication at Ohio University. Stephen K. Hunt (PhD) is an associate professor in the School of
Communication at Illinois State University. Correspondence to Brent K. Simonds, EdD, School of Communi-
cation, Illinois State University, Campus Box 4480, Normal, IL 61790-4480, USA (Tel.: þ1-309-438-3532;
E-mail: bksimon@ilstu.edu).
A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2005 Central States Communication Association Conven-
tion, Kansas City, Missouri.
Communication Research Reports
Vol. 23, No. 3, November 2006, pp. 187–197
ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) #2006 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/08824090600796401
are linked to important student outcomes such as affective and cognitive learning and
student motivation (McCroskey, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2002). In short, research
suggests that students are likely to be more motivated to learn if their instructors are
dynamic speakers (Cooper & Simonds, 2003). The rate at which instructors speak
influences students’ perceptions of instructor dynamism. Yet, instructional communi-
cation scholars have not looked specifically at the effects of instructor speech rate on
student perceptions and outcomes. This topic warrants additional consideration, given
that non-content vocal characteristics like speech rate have been shown to be a signifi-
cant source of information in judgments receivers make about the source (Ray, 1986).
Given the pervasive influence of non-content vocal characteristics on student percep-
tions, it is likely that instructors’ rate of speech will influence student assessments of such
specific variables as credibility, immediacy, clarity, and learning.
Instructor Credibility
Researchers agree that teacher credibility is an attitude or subjective perception
(Cooper & Simonds, 2003; Teven & McCroskey, 1997). Perceived instructor credi-
bility is often associated with perceived teaching effectiveness (Myers, 2004) as
well as student perceptions of cognitive learning, affective learning, and motivation
(Johnson & Miller, 2002; Russ, Simonds, & Hunt, 2002; Teven & McCroskey, 1997).
Although scholars have not explored the effects of speech rate on perceptions of
credibility in the instructional context, such research does exist in other contexts. For
example, previous studies have examined the link between the speech rate and listener
perceptions of speaker credibility and persuasion. Research has generally found that
moderate and fast speakers are perceived as more intelligent, competent, confident,
credible, socially attractive, and effective than slow speakers (Buller, LePoire, Aune, &
Eloy, 1992,Perloff, 2003; Putnam & Street, 1984; Skinner, Robinson, Robinson, Sterling,
& Goodman, 1999). Street and Brady (1982) found that competence judgments by
listeners were linearly related to both actual and perceived faster speech rates.
Specifically, one reason that fast speakers are perceived to be more credible than
slow speakers is that they better capture the attention of the listeners (Perloff,
2003). A further explanation for why listeners prefer faster rates of speech is that lis-
teners’ impressions of competence and social attractiveness are more favorable for
moderate through fast speech than for slow speech (Street & Brady, 1982). Addition-
ally, faster speakers are rated by listeners as slightly more knowledgeable than mod-
erate speakers (MacLachlan, 1982). A final reason why slow speech is rated as less
credible is that speech rate similarity has been linked with greater intimacy, sociabi-
lity=character interpretations, and compliance (Buller & Aune, 1992). For instance,
speech rate similarity has been found to lead to higher ratings of competence and
social attractiveness (Feldstein, Dohm, & Crown, 2001). Based upon this research,
the following hypothesis was advanced:
H1: Students will perceive an instructor who speaks at a moderate or fast rate to be
more credible than an instructor who speaks at a slow rate.
188 B. K. Simonds et al.
Instructor Nonverbal Immediacy
Immediacy is the perception of physical and psychological closeness, generated by
teacher behaviors including eye contact, gestures, and vocal variety (Gorham,
1988). Conversely, non-immediate instructors tend to use monotone delivery, few
gestures, little humor, and abstract examples. Immediacy consistently has been
related to positive affect for both the subject matter and teachers, and state motiv-
ation to learn (Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1994; Gorham, 1988). Students are likely
to perceive instructors who speak at faster rates as more nonverbally immediate pre-
cisely because nonverbal behaviors (e.g., gesturing, body position, vocal dynamism)
normally accompany a rapid speaking rate. For instance, previous studies have found
that faster speakers are rated by listeners as more energetic and enthusiastic than
moderate speakers (MacLachlan, 1982). In contrast, overly slow speakers are likely
to be perceived as dull, monotone, and static. As previous research has discovered
that faster speakers exhibit greater vocal dynamism (MacLachlan, 1982), it is likely
that differences in the perceptions of other nonverbal behaviors exist as well. There-
fore, the following hypothesis was posited:
H2: Students will perceive an instructor who speaks at a moderate or fast rate to be
more nonverbally immediate than an instructor who speaks at a slow rate.
Instructor Clarity
Instructor clarity represents the process by which an instructor is able to effectively
stimulate the desired meaning of the course content from the perspective of students
through structured verbal and nonverbal messages (Chesebro, 1998). Research
demonstrates that clear teaching is associated with higher student perceptions of
teaching effectiveness and achievement (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001). Characteris-
tics of instruction that indicate a lack of clear teaching have been linked to student
comments such as ‘‘material doesn’t make sense,’’ ‘‘lacks clarity,’’ and ‘‘rate too
fast=slow’’ (Wheeless, Preiss, & Gayle, 1997, p. 157). For example, messages may
be lost if the rate of speech is too fast for the listener; conversely, messages that
are too slow may also be lost because the listener may lose interest or become
distracted with other thoughts. Given that research has found students’ perceptions
of clarity decrease when the instructor’s rate is too fast or too slow, the following
hypothesis was advanced:
H3: Students will perceive an instructor who speaks at a moderate rate to be clearer
than an instructor who speaks at a fast or slow rate.
Student Affective Learning
Affect toward instruction is a state of psychological and emotional arousal toward the
teacher, subject matter, instructional approach, and overall climate of a class (Bloom,
Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). Students who have higher levels of affect
generally exhibit approach behaviors toward the source of arousal and, as a result, are
Effects of Instructor Speech Rate 189
more engaged (Titsworth, 2001). Additionally, affect is positively associated with
students’ motivation and learning (Rodriguez, Plax, & Kearney, 1996). Given the
positive relationships between speech rate and perceptions of credibility and affect
(i.e., that rapid speech is associated with more positive evaluations of the source),
it is likely that instructors who speak at faster rates will generate more affective learn-
ing than instructors who speak at slow rates. Therefore, the following hypothesis was
posited:
H4: Students will perceive higher levels of affective learning for an instructor who
speaks at a moderate or fast rate than an instructor who speaks at a slow rate.
Student Recall
The average rate of human speech is 125 to 150 words per minute (wpm), while the
average rate of cognitive speed for comprehending classroom lectures is 250 to 300
wpm (Fulford, 1992). As learners have twice the cognitive capacity of the normal
speaking rate of instructors, Fulford (2001) argues that interested learners must
stimulate their own involvement while uninterested learners may only pay sporadic
attention. Listening at normal rates of speech (150 wpm) is an inefficient method of
learning; however, there is a limit at which the rate of speech begins to limit compre-
hension. For example, Paul (1992) found that listeners were better able to answer
recall questions at 225 wpm compared to 300 and 375 wpm. Based upon this litera-
ture, the following hypothesis was advanced:
H5: Students will recall more information with an instructor who speaks at a mod-
erate rate than an instructor who speaks at a slow or fast rate.
Method
Participants
The participants consisted of 110 female and 71 male students (N¼181) enrolled in
a basic communication course at a large midwestern university. The average age of
participants was 18.73 (SD ¼.89), and the average self-reported GPA was 3.07
(SD ¼.63). Participants were mostly first-year students (93.90%), followed by
sophomores (2.80%), juniors (1.70%), and seniors (1.70%). Participants were
mostly Caucasian (87.30%), followed by African American (6.10%), Latino=Latina
(2.80%), Native American (1.10%), bi-racial or mixed (.60%), other (.60%), and
no response (1.70%). Students were randomly assigned to one of three speech rate
conditions: slow (n¼64), moderate (n¼55), and fast (n¼62).
Procedures
The basic course lesson that served as the stimulus material for this study was video-
taped, with the instructor framed from the chest up. The instructor in the video
spoke at a constant rate of 116 wpm for the slow condition, 172 wpm for the
moderate condition, and 213 wpm for the fast condition. Manipulation checks were
190 B. K. Simonds et al.
employed to carefully monitor that the instructor was on pace for each minute of
speaking time. Additionally, three experienced graduate teaching assistants viewed
the videotapes to verify that each was consistent across conditions. These confeder-
ates agreed that the instructor in the video appeared the same across all of the mani-
pulations in terms of dress, pitch, volume, and facial expressions.
Measures
Instructor credibility
The credibility measure, adapted from Teven and McCroskey (1997), consisted of 18
items and included subscales for the three dimensions of expertise, trustworthiness,
and goodwill, arranged on a seven-point Likert-type semantic differential scale. Alpha
reliability estimates for expertise, trustworthiness, and goodwill subscales were .75,
.78, and .77, respectively. The total credibility measure produced an internal
reliability estimate of .88.
Instructor nonverbal immediacy
The nonverbal immediacy measure, adapted from McCroskey, Fayer, Richmond,
Sallinen, and Barraclough (1996), consisted of 10 items arranged on a five-point
Likert-type scale and asked participants to respond from 0 (never occurs)to4(very
often occurs). Four of the items were eliminated because they were not germane to
the present study. The alpha reliability estimate for the nonverbal immediacy
measure was .79.
Instructor clarity
The clarity measure, adapted from Chesebro and McCroskey (1998), consisted of six
items arranged on a five-point Likert-type scale and asked participants to respond
from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree). The alpha reliability estimate for
the clarity measure was .82.
Student affective learning
To operationalize affective learning, participants were asked to complete a modified
version of Andersen’s (1979) measure of affective learning. Participants were asked to
respond to three statements by completing a series of seven-point semantic differen-
tial scales. The first two statements read:
My attitude toward the content of this lecture is .
My attitude toward the instructor in this video is .
The three semantic differential response scales for these statements were good=
bad, worthless=valuable, and positive=negative (Cronbach’s alpha ¼.81 and .85,
respectively). The third statement read as follows:
The likelihood of my taking another course with the instructor in this video, if I had a
choice, is .
Effects of Instructor Speech Rate 191
Participants responded to this statement by completing the following four seman-
tic differential scales: likely=unlikely, impossible=possible, probable=improbable, and
would=would not (Cronbach’s alpha ¼.90). This total affective learning measure
produced an internal reliability estimate of .91.
Student recall
The recall measure consisted of five questions, arranged in true-false format, inquir-
ing about the content of the videotaped lesson. Correct answers were scored one
point, and incorrect answers zero. The KR-21 reliability estimate for the recall mea-
sure was .26.
Results
Hypothesis One: Instructor Credibility
H1 posited that students would perceive an instructor who speaks at a moderate or
fast rate to be more credible than an instructor who speaks at a slow rate. The results
provide partial support for H1. Specifically, the ANOVA revealed significant differ-
ences between the groups on the credibility measure, F(2, 175) ¼3.28, p¼.04. How-
ever, cell comparisons using Tukey follow-up procedures revealed that while the
moderate condition (M¼29.90, SD ¼3.99) produced significantly higher ratings
of instructor credibility compared to the slow condition (M¼28.18, SD ¼3.94),
there was no difference between the slow and fast (M¼28.39, SD ¼3.76) con-
ditions. The descriptive statistics for all dependent variables can be found in Table 1.
Hypothesis Two: Instructor Nonverbal Immediacy
H2 posited that students would perceive an instructor who speaks at a moderate or
fast rate to be more nonverbally immediate than an instructor who speaks at a slow
rate. The results provide support for H2. Specifically, the ANOVA revealed significant
differences between groups on the nonverbal immediacy measure, F(2, 177) ¼19.44,
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variables
Slow Moderate Fast
M SDn M SDn M SDn
Credibility 28.18
a
3.94 62 29.90
a
3.99 54 28.39 3.76 62
Recall 3.97 1.11 64 4.11 .94 55 3.85 .97 62
Clarity 22.63 3.90 64 22.74 4.59 54 22.74 2.90 61
Affective learning 15.53
bc
3.77 64 18.64
b
3.93 54 18.37
c
3.73 61
Nonverbal immediacy 9.67
de
5.02 64 13.83
d
4.51 54 14.52
e
4.51 62
Note: Means with the same subscripts are significantly different.
192 B. K. Simonds et al.
p¼.00. Cell comparisons using Tukey follow-up procedures revealed that both the
fast (M¼14.52, SD ¼4.51) and moderate (M¼13.83, SD ¼4.51) conditions
produced significantly higher ratings of instructor nonverbal immediacy than the
slow condition (M¼9.67, SD ¼5.02).
Hypothesis Three: Instructor Clarity
H3 posited that students would perceive an instructor who speaks at a moderate rate
to be clearer than an instructor who speaks at a slow or fast rate. The results do not
provide support for H3. Specifically, the ANOVA did not reveal significant differ-
ences between groups for the clarity measure, F(2, 176) ¼.02, p¼.98.
Hypothesis Four: Student Affective Learning
H4 posited that students would perceive higher levels of affective learning for an
instructor who speaks at a moderate or fast rate than an instructor who speaks at
a slow rate. The ANOVA revealed significant differences between groups on the
affective learning measure, F(2, 176) ¼12.59, p¼.00. Cell comparisons using Tukey
follow-up procedures revealed that both the moderate (M¼18.64, SD ¼3.93) and
fast (M¼18.37, SD ¼3.73) conditions produced significantly higher ratings of
instructor nonverbal immediacy than the slow condition (M¼15.53, SD ¼3.77).
Hypothesis Five: Student Recall
H5 posited that students would recall more information from an instructor who
speaks at a moderate rate than an instructor who speaks at a slow or fast rate. The
ANOVA did not reveal significant differences between groups for the recall measure,
F(2, 178) ¼.92, p¼.40.
Discussion
In this study, the slow speech rate condition produced statistically significant lower
mean scores than the moderate and fast conditions for affective learning and nonver-
bal immediacy. Students also rated the slow speech rate significantly lower on the
credibility measure compared to the moderate speech rate. It appears that a slow
speech rate negatively affected students’ perceptions of teacher credibility and
nonverbal immediacy and, at the same time, lowered their affect for the content.
None of the three speech rate conditions had any significant effect on recall or clarity.
Interestingly, the moderate and fast conditions did not differ significantly from each
other on any of the five dependent variables. Initially, these results seem to indicate
that if instructors are too slow in their vocal delivery, they risk damaging their
credibility, lowering perceptions of their immediacy, and hampering student affective
learning.
Effects of Instructor Speech Rate 193
The present study was marked by a few limitations that suggest areas for future
research. Although gestures were not visible during the majority of the videotaping,
the instructor’s hands came slightly into the camera shot a few times during the fast
condition. It may be the case that the present study conflated nonverbal immediacy
and speech rate (gestures accompanied faster rates of speech). Future research should
seek to control for and then compare rate and nonverbal immediacy behaviors. None
of the speech rate conditions yielded significant differences for the recall measure.
However, reliability analysis demonstrated that the recall items were too easy, so
significant differences may be found in future studies with an adjustment of the
measure. Also, future studies could address other variables, such as instructional cues,
by permitting students to take notes during the videotape. In addition, the alpha
reliability estimates for the credibility and nonverbal immediacy measures were
slightly lower than those obtained in previous research. Although analyses of the
measures did not reveal specific problematic items, these lower reliabilities should
temper any interpretation of the results.
Another useful area to consider in future research on instructor speech rate is
audience characteristics. Street and Brady (1982) found that listeners tended to rate
speakers who had similar speech rates to their own more positively. Thus, a compari-
son of students from urban or rural areas might yield interesting results, as well as a
comparison of speech rates from different geographical regions. Also, Lee and Boster
(1992) found that the effect of speech rate on listener perceptions of credibility
depended on the cultural background of the listener and the speaker’s gender. Per-
haps the findings of the present study would not hold true if native and non-native
listeners were compared or both female and male speakers were employed. (The
instructor in the present study was a Caucasian male.)
Similarly, scholars should explore the specific conditions that call for instructors to
use a slower or faster rate of speech. For example, research suggests that such
variables as student familiarity with the topic (Street & Brady, 1982), ability level
(Owen, 1996), and cognitive speed (Fulford, 1992) should influence the rate of
speech utilized by instructors. If one could parse out specific instructional topics
and=or audience characteristics that call for a particular rate of speech, it would go
a long way toward improving the learning climate for students.
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) also offers a theoretical lens for inter-
preting these results and crafting new hypotheses. For example, these students may
not have been highly involved with the topic and thus processed the message using
a ‘‘faster equals more knowledgeable’’ heuristic—that could be why they rated the
faster speech more favorably. (See Petty & Cacioppo, 1986a, 1986b for a more
detailed explanation of the ELM.) Future research could examine students’ involve-
ment with the topic and ability to process information in relation to instructor
speech rate.
This study found that moderate or fast speech rates are preferable to students in
terms of affective learning, nonverbal immediacy, and teacher credibility. However,
while speech rate may act as a credibility cue, the effects are dependent on the
context, and speed can even reduce persuasiveness if it interferes with the message
194 B. K. Simonds et al.
or annoys the audience (Perloff, 2003). Smith and Shaffer (1995) found that rapid
speech reduced the listeners’ ability to distinguish weak from strong arguments, so
student preference should be tempered with this caveat. Furthermore, this study mea-
sured a single speech event. In a study by Zabava Ford, Wolvin, and Chung (2000),
using a pre-test=post-test design, students tended to have inflated perceptions of lis-
tening skills upon entering the basic communication course but rated their listening
behaviors lower by the end of the semester. While instruction in listening raises
students’ awareness of their listening inadequacies, leading to more realistic apprai-
sals of their listening skills, the effect of a single listening unit is limited (Zabava Ford
et al., 2000). Listening is an integral component of the educational communication
process (Paul, 1992). Future research should make use of a pre-test=post-test design
to control for the effects of listening instruction.
This study fills a gap in the literature by examining speech rate and its effect on
students’ perceptions of instructor dynamism and learning. Specifically, this study
revealed that a slow speech rate negatively influenced students’ perceptions regarding
their affective learning as well as the instructor’s nonverbal immediacy and credi-
bility. Additional research should address the limitations of this study, so that
instructional communication scholars may better understand the relationship and
impact of speech rate on other instructor variables.
References
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives—the classification of educational goals, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York:
McKay.
Buller, D. B. & Aune, R. K. (1992). The effects of speech rate similarity on compliance: Application
of communication accommodation theory. Western Journal of Communication,56, 37–53.
Buller, D. B., LePoire, B. A., Aune, R. K., & Eloy, S. V. (1992). Social perceptions as mediators of the
effect of speech rate similarity on compliance. Human Communication Research,19, 286–311.
Chesebro, J. L. (1998). Teacher clarity: A definition, review and a profile of the clear teacher. Unpub-
lished manuscript.
Chesebro, J. L. & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The development of the teacher clarity short inventory
(TCSI) to measure clear teaching in the classroom. Communication Research Reports,15,
262–266.
Chesebro, J. L. & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with
student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Edu-
cation,50, 59–68.
Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motiv-
ation, and learning. Communication Education,39, 323–340.
Cooper, P. J. & Simonds, C. J. (2003).Communication for the classroom teacher (7th ed.), Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Feldstein, S., Dohm, F. A., & Crown, C. A. (2001). Gender and speech rate in the perception of
competence and social attractiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology,141, 785–806.
Frymier, A. B. (1994). The use of affinity-seeking in producing liking and learning in the classroom.
Journal of Applied Communication Research,22, 87–105.
Effects of Instructor Speech Rate 195
Fulford, C. P. (1992, February). Systematically designed text enhanced with compressed speech audio.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications
and Technology, Washington, D.C.
Fulford, C. P. (2001). A model of cognitive speed. International Journal of Instructional Media,28,
31–42.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student
learning. Communication Education,37, 40–53.
Johnson, S. D. & Miller, A. N. (2002). A cross-cultural study of immediacy, credibility, and learning
in the U.S. and Kenya. Communication Education,51, 280–292.
Lee, H. O. & Boster, F. J. (1992). Collectivism-individualism in perceptions of speech rate: A cross-
cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,23, 377–388.
MacLachlan, J. (1982). Listener perception of time-compressed spokesperson for radio commer-
cials. Journal of Advertising Research,22, 47–51.
McCroskey, J. C., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). A multi-
cultural examination of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and affective learn-
ing. Communication Quarterly,44, 297–307.
McCroskey, L. L., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and
learning: Contributions from the discipline of communication. Communication Education,
51, 383–391.
Myers, S. A. (2004). The relationship between perceived instructor credibility and college student
in-class and out-of-class communication. Communication Reports,17, 129–137.
Owen, D. (1996). Do teachers modify their speech according to the proficiency of their students?
ELTED,2, 31–51.
Paul, S. (1992). Pictorial redundancy, processing time, number of propositions, and comprehen-
sion of compressed speech. International Journal of Instructional Media,19, 71–78.
Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New
York: Academic Press.
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes
to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Putnam, W. B. & Street, R. L., Jr. (1984). The conception and perception of noncontent speech
performance: Implications for speech-accomodation theory. International Journal of Social
Language,46, 97–114.
Ray, G. B. (1986). Vocally cued personality prototypes: An implicit personality theory approach.
Communication Monographs,53, 266–276.
Rodriguez, J., Plax, T., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal
immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediatior.
Communication Education,45, 293–305.
Russ, T. L., Simonds, C. J., & Hunt, S. K. (2002). Coming out in the classroom ...an occupational
hazard: The influence of sexual orientation on teacher credibility and perceive student learn-
ing. Communication Education,51, 311–324.
Skinner, C. H., Robinson, D. H., Robinson, S. L., Sterling, H. E., & Goodman, M. A. (1999). Effects
of advertisement speech rates on feature recognition, and product and speaker ratings. Inter-
national Journal of Listening,13, 97–110.
Smith, S. M. & Shaffer, D. R. (1995). Speed of speech and persuasion: Evidence for multiple effects.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,21, 1051–1060.
Street, R. L., Jr. & Brady, R. M. (1982). Speech rate acceptance ranges as a function of evaluation
domain, listener speech rate, and communication context. Communication Monographs,49,
290–308.
196 B. K. Simonds et al.
Teven, J. J. & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring wit student
learning and evaluation. Communication Education,46, 1–9.
Titsworth, B. S. (2001). Immediate and delayed effects of interest cues and engagement cues on
students’ affective learning. Communication Studies,52, 169–179.
Wheeless, L. R., Preiss, R. W., & Gayle, B. M. (1997). Receiver apprehension, informational recep-
tivity, and cognitive processing. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D. M.
Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension
(pp. 151–187). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Zabava Ford, W. S., Wolvin, A. D., & Chung, S. (2000). Students’ self-perceived listening com-
petencies in the basic speech communication course. International Journal of Listening,14,
1–13.
Effects of Instructor Speech Rate 197
