Content uploaded by Graham D Bodie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Graham D Bodie on Mar 31, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Graham D. Bodie]
On: 11 February 2013, At: 12:16
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication Quarterly
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20
The Listening Styles Profile-Revised
(LSP-R): A Scale Revision and Evidence
for Validity
Graham D. Bodie a , Debra L. Worthington b & Christopher C.
Gearhart a
a Communication Studies, Louisiana State University
b Department of Communication & Journalism, Auburn University
Version of record first published: 11 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Graham D. Bodie , Debra L. Worthington & Christopher C. Gearhart (2013): The
Listening Styles Profile-Revised (LSP-R): A Scale Revision and Evidence for Validity, Communication
Quarterly, 61:1, 72-90
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.720343
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The Listening Styles Profile-Revised
(LSP-R): A Scale Revision and
Evidence for Validity
Graham D. Bodie, Debra L. Worthington, &
Christopher C. Gearhart
The Listening Styles Profile (LSP-16) is the most widely used self-report listening instru-
ment in the communication discipline. Unfortunately, researchers have utilized the
instrument despite its uncharacteristically low reliability estimates and unvalidated fac-
tor structure. The following manuscript presents results from two studies designed to
address these limitations. Study 1 proposes a revised measure (Listening Styles Profile-
Revised; LSP-R) based on four factors: relational, analytical, task-oriented, and critical
listening. Study 2 was designed to further refine and provide validity evidence for the
revised scale. Internal consistency estimates and latent variable test–retest correlations
showed the LSP-R to be consistent over repeated administrations; the factors were related
to number of listening, information processing, empathy, communication trait, and
personality variables. Beyond identifying orientations toward attending to others, the
instrument developed here possesses heuristic potential for investigating the role and posi-
tive potential of listening within a variety of specific research agendas and theoretical
perspectives.
Keywords: Construct Validity; Information Processing; Listening Styles; Message
Reception; Scale Development
Understanding the ways individuals attend to people and information in social
settings can appreciably enhance our understanding of human communication and
Graham D. Bodie (Ph.D., Purdue University, 2008) is an Assistant Professor in Communication Studies at
Louisiana State University. Debra L. Worthington (Ph.D., University of Kansas, 1994) is an Associate Professor
in the Department of Communication & Journalism at Auburn University. Christopher C. Gearhart
(Ph.D., Louisiana State University, 2012) is an Instructor in Communication Studies at Louisiana State
University. Correspondence: Graham D. Bodie, Communication Studies, Louisiana State University, 136 Coates
Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; E-mail: gbodie@lsu.edu
Communication Quarterly
Vol. 61, No. 1, January–March 2013, pp. 72–90
ISSN 0146-3373 print/1746-4102 online #2013 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/01463373.2012.720343
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
related phenomena. Listening to others affects how information is remembered and
used, and the ways we listen to others powerfully affects individual and relational
health and well-being, upward organizational mobility, and how we are seen by
others (for review, see Bodie, 2012). Although the goal-directed nature of speaking
and listening have long been recognized within the communication discipline, the
latter has been afforded much less research attention (Bodie, 2011b). Watson, Barker,
and Weaver (1995) proposed the construct of listening style—characteristic or habit-
ual ways of listening—as an individual difference thought to explain variability in
how people attend to and process information, especially in conversational settings.
To date, the Listening Styles Profile (LSP-16) remains the most widely used
self-report measure in the communication discipline to assess listening-related goals
(Rubin, 2009), despite convincing reasons to question the scale’s construct validity
(Bodie & Worthington, 2010). Given the importance of listening styles to a range
of outcomes, the concept and its measurement deserve attention. Accordingly, this
manuscript briefly reviews the concept of listening styles and summarizes the princi-
pal critiques of its primary operationalization. Two studies then introduce and
provide validity evidence for a revised scale.
Listening Styles Revisited
Watson et al. (1995) defined listening styles as ‘‘attitudes, beliefs, and predispositions
about the how, where, when, who, and what of the information reception and encod-
ing process’’ (p. 2). In particular, they identified four listening orientations—people,
action, content, and time—that individuals habitually orient toward, especially in
novel situations (Imhof, 2004). People-oriented listeners were described as primarily
concerned about the ‘‘emotional states’’ of others (Watson et al., 1995, p. 5), and
research has appropriately found this style associated with a relationally oriented
communication style (Bodie & Villaume, 2003), the Myers–Briggs feeling construct
(Worthington, 2003), empathic tendencies (Weaver & Kirtley, 1995), conversational
sensitivity (Chesebro, 1999), and verbal benevolence (VB) (Villaume & Bodie, 2007;
Worthington, 2005). The focus of an action-oriented listener is on errors and incon-
sistencies as opposed to emotions and is often described as task-oriented, reflecting
the association between this style and the Myers–Briggs thinking, sensing, and judg-
ing constructs (Worthington, 2003). Content-oriented listeners are described as sys-
tematic information processors and score higher on measures of need for cognition
(NFC) (Worthington, 2008) and conversational sensitivity (Chesebro, 1999). Finally,
time-oriented listeners tend to verbalize the limited amount of time they are willing
or able to devote to listening and are likely to interrupt others and openly signal
disinterest (Watson et al., 1995).
The primary measure of these four styles is the LSP-16, which asks participants to
report how well each of 16 statements (4 for each style) applies to them on a 4-point
scale (never–always) (Watson et al., 1995). The LSP-16 is described as the ‘‘research
version’’ of the original 24-item listening preference profile, a measure that was
refined from an original pool of 30 items using principle components analysis (PCA).
Communication Quarterly 73
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
Limitations of the LSP-16
Studies utilizing the LSP-16 consistently report reliability estimates in the range of .50
to .60 for most of the subscales (for review, see Bodie & Worthington, 2010), calling
into question the results of past research and signaling scale-related problems.
Although low internal consistency is problematic, the primary limitation of the
LSP-16 is that scholars have administered and reported results assuming an estab-
lished factor structure. The only statistical technique used to generate the scale was
PCA, a method that produces an empirical summary of a data set as opposed to a
‘‘theoretical solution uncontaminated by unique and error variability’’ (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2007, p. 635); thus, subsequent reports utilizing the scale have been blindly
reporting on a questionable instrument (for further discussion of PCA and confirma-
tory factor analysis [CFA], see Park, Dailey, & Lemus, 2002).
Problems with the LSP-16 were recently confirmed by Bodie and Worthington
(2010) who reported data inconsistent with the predicted measurement model.
The poor model fit in their study was primarily the result of substantial measurement
error associated with most of the scale items and high standardized residual covar-
iances; this latter result is in line with exploratory analyses finding only about half
of the variance in the 16 items explained with four components. In addition to these
statistical critiques, data bearing on convergent, discriminant, predictive, and nomo-
logical network validity are sparse (Rubin, 2009). Based on these criticisms and the
importance of a viable scale to assess the goal-directed nature of listening, the studies
reported in this article attempt to develop and provide initial validity evidence for an
updated measure of listening styles: the Listening Styles Profile-Revised (LSP-R).
Doing so, we are committed to the assumption that individual differences in prefer-
ences for receiving information exist and have important implications for social and
communicative behavior, an assumption shared across the academic landscape (e.g.,
Berger, 1989; Cutler & Clifton, 1999), though the work of generating adequate
measurement for these individual differences is less common. In Study 1, we sought
to identify initial scale factors using a pool of items. Study 2 then added similarly
worded items, tested the LSP-R measurement model over time with independent
data, and tested the concurrent validity of the LSP-R by assessing the relationships
among the various styles and other theoretically related constructs.
Study 1: Scale Construction and Preliminary Factor Structure
An initial pool of 57 items included (a) the original LSP-16, (b) items from an
additional published and available listening styles scale (Listening Styles Inventory
[LSI]; Pearce, Johnson, & Barker, 2003), and (c) new items written to reflect demon-
strated relationships among listening styles and related variables. Although originally
developed in the business environment, the ten items constituting the LSI are all
quite general; indeed, there is nothing in the items making them unique to managers
or unrelated to other populations. For instance, one item reads ‘‘I like to hear the
complete message before making judgments about what the speaker has said,’’ which
74 G. D. Bodie et al.
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
is operationally similar to items contained in the content-orientation subscale of the
LSP-16. Likewise, another item reads similarly to items on the LSP-16’s action-orien-
tation scale: ‘‘I ask questions when I don’t fully understand a speaker’s message.’’
Owing to results from Bodie and Worthington’s (2010) study that found substantial
measurement error associated with most LSP-16 items and past work finding consist-
ently low internal consistencies for scores generated from the LSP-16 subscales, we
also wrote 31 additional items in line with conceptual definitions for the 4 LSP-16
styles provided in Barker and Watson (2000). For instance, we wrote the item ‘‘When
listening to others, it is important to understand the feelings of the speaker’’ to reflect
the relationally oriented style of people listeners and the item ‘‘I enjoy listening
to detailed explanations of things’’ to reflect the value for technical information pur-
ported for content-oriented listeners.
1
Method
Participants
Undergraduates (N¼409; 246 female, 162 male, 1 missing) enrolled in communi-
cation studies courses at Louisiana State University reported an average age of
20.39 (SD ¼2.68) and were primarily Caucasian (n¼334). A small amount of course
credit (1.5%) was awarded for participation.
Procedures
After providing informed consent, students were asked to complete, in a random
order, the 57 items (never ¼1, always ¼4). Demographic items followed.
Results and Discussion
Inspection of individual items suggested each was unimodal. The dataset contained a
small amount of missing data (<1%), thus values were imputed with the mean of
similar items (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). As a test of the underlying factor structure,
items were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principle axis
extraction. Parallel analysis (Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004) suggested a five-factor
solution. Review of various matrices produced from different rotation strategies (see
Johnson & Wichern, 2002) revealed that the fifth factor had no substantial item load-
ings (i.e., all loadings <.50). Thus, a four-factor solution was retained (41.84%of item
variance). The pattern and structure matrices from an orthogonal rotation were used
to retain items and label factors (see Table 1 for estimates of internal consistency).
The first factor, relational listening (RL), contained six items that focused on the
degree to which an individual listens to understand emotions and connect with
others (e.g., ‘‘When listening to others, it is important to understand the feelings
of the speaker’’). This factor appears to align with the LSP-16’s people-oriented style.
The second factor, task-oriented listening (TOL), included three items indicative of
seeing listening as a simple transaction (e.g., ‘‘When listening to others I tend to
Communication Quarterly 75
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
concentrate on the task at hand’’). Becoming impatient with seemingly unorganized
others was a key characteristic of the action-oriented style; TOL seems to maintain
this focus on the task as opposed to the person. The third factor, critical listening
(CL), contained three items that revealed a natural tendency to focus on inconsisten-
cies and errors while others speak (e.g., ‘‘I often catch errors in others’ logic’’). This
factor seems to cross action- and content-oriented listening from the LSP-16, provid-
ing some validity to prior work finding much similarity in these orientations. The
final factor, analytical listening (AL), contained four items that describe a tendency
to withhold judgment about another’s ideas and consider all sides of an issue before
responding (e.g., ‘‘I tend to withhold judgment about another’s ideas until I have
heard everything they have to say’’). Being non-judgmental was a defining feature
of the people-oriented style, and attempting to look at all sides of an issue a defining
feature of the content-oriented style. Although these 16 items appear to maintain the
integrity of the conceptual makeup of the LSP-16, only 2 of the original items were
retained: ‘‘I am impatient with people who ramble on during conversations’’ and
‘‘When listening to others I focus on any inconsistencies and=or errors in what’s
being said.’’
The correlations in Table 1 provide some support for the speculations regarding
the relations among the new and old style structures. In particular, correlations reveal
RL is highly associated with the original people-orientation, AL is moderately corre-
lated with both the people- and content-orientations, CL is highly correlated with the
action subscale and moderately correlated with the content subscale, and TOL is
highly correlated with the action subscale and moderately with the time subscale.
Thus, the LSP-R seems to retain one factor oriented toward relationship building
and listening for emotions. The remaining three subscales appear to blend various
features of the original styles, which is consistent with past research finding that
the action-, content-, and time-orientations are often correlated with other variables
Table 1 Internal Consistency Estimates and Bivariate Correlations Between LSP-16 and
LSP-R, Study 1
Original LSP-16 Revised LSP
1234 5 678
1. People .63
2. Action .04 .53
3. Content .24 .29 .51
4. Time .00 .32 .09 .68
5. Relational .71 .05 .19 .04 .80
6. Analytic .32 .01 .30 .03 .39 .79
7. Critical .11.57 .41 .06 .01 .13 .76
8. Task oriented .05 .65 .09 .35 .13 .04 .29 .67
Note. Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) are presented along the diagonal.
p<.05, p<.01.
76 G. D. Bodie et al.
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
in similar ways (e.g., Bodie & Villaume, 2003). In general, the blending of the action-,
content-, and time-orientations of the LSP-16 seems to highlight the inconsistencies
and problems associated with an unestablished factor structure.
Study 2: Temporal Stability of and Validity Evidence for the LSP-R
Study 2 was designed with three goals in mind. First, we sought to further refine our
scale. As might be expected in an item generation study, not all of the new scales pro-
duced desirable levels of internal consistency in Study 1. Using the Spearman–Brown
Prophecy Formula, reliabilities of .86 and .80 for the CL and TOL scales are expected
by doubling their size to six items each; two items also were added to the AL scale for
consistency. In addition, in order to mitigate possible range restriction, we changed
the response choices to a 7-point Likert scale.
Our second goal was to empirically validate the factor structure of the LSP-R over
time. Toward this goal, the 24-item LSP-R was administered at two time points to a
sample of U.S. undergraduate students. To empirically demonstrate stability (or lack
thereof), we utilized multigroup confirmatory factor analytic procedures and tested
for two primary types of invariance (see Byrne, 2010; Little, 1997). First, weak
measurement invariance deals with the psychometric properties of the scale and
includes configural invariance (same factor structure holds across time), metric
invariance (factor loadings are equal across time), scalar invariance (loadings and
intercepts are equal across time), and strict measurement invariance (loadings, inter-
cepts, and item error variances are equal across time). Second, strong measurement
invariance addresses between-group differences in latent means, variances, and cov-
ariances. Estimating latent correlations as opposed to more traditional approaches
helps control for measurement error and mitigates concerns about Type I and II
errors (Sharma, Durvasula, & Ployhart, 2012). For tests of single measurement mod-
els, we examine the comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Kline,
2005). To test measurement invariance, we examine change in these indices using
a cutoff criterion of .01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).
The final goal of Study 2 was to provide initial validity evidence for the LSP-R. To
do so, we included (a) a measure assessing individual conceptualizations of listening
and (b) a self-report instrument assessing five dimensions of listening competence;
both were included to demonstrate divergent validity. In addition, we included a var-
iety of individual difference measures to explore concurrent validity. Each validity
measure can be grouped as a measure of (c) information processing (normative
message processing [NMP], need for cognitive, need to evaluate [NTE]), (d) empathy
(empathic concern [EC], perspective taking [PT], emotional contagion [ECG], com-
munication response), (e) a communication disposition (verbal aggressiveness [VA],
VB), or (f) personality (extraversion, psychotocism, neuroticism). Although the styles
assessed with the LSP-R are not isomorphic to those measured with the LSP-16, the
predictions outlined in Table 2 represent expectations that are in line with past
Communication Quarterly 77
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
research (for review, see Bodie & Fitch-Hauser, 2010) and the empirical similarities
among the styles discovered in Study 1.
Method
Participants and Procedures
Data were collected at two time periods in the same facilities as Study 1; no Study 1
participants were allowed to participate in Study 2. Participants who signed up for
and completed the Time 1 survey were invited to take the second between 14 and
45 days after (M¼18.93 days; SD ¼5.55). The first survey was completed by 267
participants, and 228 completed the second. In the full dataset, there were 150 female
and 77 male (one person did not report biological sex) participants reporting an
Table 2 Predictions and Results for Bivariate Relationships Between Individual
Listening Styles and Validity Variables, Study 2
Predictions Results
RL AL TOL CL RL AL TOL CL
LCI-relational þ .15.08 .07 .15
LCI-critical þ.18 .06 .08 .13
LCI-information acquisition þ.15.13.06 .08
LCI-learning þ.25 .08 .10 .04
Discriminative ability þþ þ .42 .25 .06 .26
Comprehension ability þþ þ .53 .41 .08 .24
Therapeutic ability þ .65 .47 .22 .03
Critical ability þþ .41 .40 .10 .39
Listening appreciation þþ .63 .38 .16.01
Systematic-analytic processing þ .37 .51 .01 .17
Intuitive processing þ .25 .13.04 .07
NFC þþ .09 .15.08 .30
NTE þþ .09 .05 .09 .27
VA þ.28 .22 .30 .09
VB þ .41 .34 .19 .02
EC þ.48 .20 .16 .04
PT þþ þ .38 .56 .20 .09
ECG þ.13.17.00 .19
CR þ .43 .31 .20 .10
Extraversion þ.32 .27 .07 .11
Neuroticism .08 .08 .05 .07
Psychotocism þ .38 .10 .04 .03
Note. LCI ¼Listening Concepts Inventory.
p<.05, p<.01.
78 G. D. Bodie et al.
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
average age of 20.43 (SD ¼2.51) and primarily Caucasian ethnicity (n¼179).
Though participants were recruited through Communication Studies courses, 12
(out of a possible 17) academic programs were represented.
LSP-R
The 16 items retained from Study 1 along with eight new items were employed as the
LSP-R. Participants indicated their level of agreement to each statement on 7-point
Likert scales. Example items are presented in Table 3.
2
Individual conceptualizations of listening
Imhof and Janusik (2006) proposed that individuals define listening as (a) relation-
ship building, (b) organizing information, (c) learning and integrating information,
or (d) a critical endeavor. A revised version of their original scale assesses these
conceptualizations with 15 items on 5-point scales (Bodie, 2010). The scale was
administered at both time points and exhibited weak and strong measurement
invariance.
3
The average score for each scale is used when computing correlations.
Listening competencies
The self-perceived listening competence (SPLC) scale (Ford, Wolvin, & Chung, 2000)
was administered at each time point to assess individual ratings of their proficiency at
discriminative (e.g., ‘‘I can interpret correctly persons’ facial expressions’’), compre-
hensive (e.g., ‘‘I correctly recall information a few minutes after I hear it’’), thera-
peutic (e.g., ‘‘I listen patiently to persons who are upset’’), appreciative (e.g., ‘‘I
enjoy listening to others’’), and critical (e.g., ‘‘I carefully assess information as it is
being shared with me’’) listening. Each subscale has four items assessed on a 5-point
Likert scale. After removing two items with low (k<.50) standardized regression
weights, the data conformed to the model at both times.
4
Five subscales were
subsequently computed; higher scores mean a higher perceived level of a given
competency.
Table 3 Example Items for the LSP-R, Study 2
RL When listening to others, it is important to understand the feelings of the speaker.
I listen primarily to build and maintain relationships with others.
AL I wait until all the facts are presented before forming judgments and opinions.
When listening to others, I consider all sides of the issue before responding.
TOL I am impatient with people who ramble on during conversations.
I prefer speakers who quickly get to the point.
CL I often catch errors in other speakers’ logic.
When listening to others, I notice contradictions in what they say.
Communication Quarterly 79
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
NMP
The NMP scale (NMPS), which assesses tendencies to engage in selective, analytical
message processing (SAP) and unselective, intuitive message processing (UIP) (Aune
& Reynolds, 1994) using 24-items, was administered at Time 1. Due to low item load-
ings and several high standardized residual values, only half of the scale could be
retained (eight SAP items, a¼.84; four UIP items, a¼.66), v
2
(53) ¼148.58, p<
.001, CFI ¼.90, SRMR ¼.07, RMSEA ¼.05 (CI 90%¼.06, .10); r¼.35, p<.001.
NFC
NFC was assessed at Time 1 using the 18-item scale developed by Cacioppo, Petty,
and Kao (1984), v
2
(135) ¼241.26, p<.001, CFI ¼.90, SRMR ¼.05, RMSEA ¼.05
(.04, .06). The 18 items were averaged with higher scores indicating higher NFC.
NTE
The 16-item NTE scale developed by Jarvis and Petty (1996) was administered at
Time 1. After removing five items with low standardized regression weights (k<.50),
the final model was deemed acceptable, v
2
(44) ¼123.97, p<.001, CFI ¼.90,
SRMR ¼.10, RMSEA ¼.08 (.07, .10). The 11 items were averaged with higher scores
indicating higher NTE.
VA and VB
The 20-item VA scale (VAS) was administered at Time 1. The ten negatively worded
items (e.g., ‘‘When individuals are very stubborn, I use insults to soften their stub-
bornness’’) tap a person’s general propensity for VA, whereas the ten positively
worded items (‘‘I try to make people feel good about themselves even when their
ideas are stupid’’) tap intentional attempts to support others during disagreement
(i.e., VB) (Levine, Beatty, Limon, Hamilton, Buck, & Chory-Asada, 2004). After
removing two items from the VA scale and one from the VB scale (ks<.40), the
two-factor model fit the data, v
2
(118) ¼197.33, p<.001, CFI ¼.92, SRMR ¼.04,
RMSEA ¼.04 (.03, .05). Although the two factors were highly correlated, r¼.59,
p<.001, the one-factor model was statistically inferior, 4v
2
(1) ¼249.57, p<.001.
Empathy
Four dimensions of empathy—EC, PT, ECG, and communicative responsiveness
(CR)—were assessed at Time 2 using items developed by Stiff, Dillard, Somera,
Kim, and Sleight (1988). After removing one EC item and two each from the PT,
ECG, and CR scales, the model was adequate, v
2
(113) ¼201.59, p<.001, CFI ¼.90,
SRMR ¼.05, RMSEA ¼.056 (.043, .068). Scales were created by averaging items with
higher values indicating higher EC (a¼.75), PT (a¼.74), ECG (a¼.66), and CR
(a¼.70). Most scales were moderately correlated (.21 <r<.47); PT and ECG were
not (r¼.02).
80 G. D. Bodie et al.
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
Personality
Subscales for extraversion, psychoticism, and neuroticism were drawn from the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Short Form (EPQ-R) (Eysenck, Eysenck, &
Barrett, 1985) and administered at Time 2. Five-point scaling bounded by not-at-
all and always was used. Consistent with past work (e.g., Sato, 2005), the measure-
ment model produced poor fit, v
2
(591) ¼1,354.04, p<.001, CFI ¼.72, SRMR ¼.10,
.10, RMSEA ¼.08 (.07, .08), which was localized to the P-scale. Given the extensive
use of the scale, individuals were given a score on each of the three dimensions by
averaging responses to items on each scale; higher numbers mean higher levels of
a construct (alphas:E¼.90, N¼.89, P¼.66).
Results
LSP-R model fit
Inspection of LSP-R items suggested that each was normally distributed and
unimodal. Histograms provided visual evidence that items were less skewed than data
from Study 1 suggesting a strongly agree–strongly disagree response option is preferred
over the always–never option (average skewness value ¼.56; SE
ave
¼.16). The data-
set contained a small amount of missing data (<3%), which were imputed using the
same procedures as used in Study 1.
To test the underlying factor structure of the LSP-R, items were subjected to
confirmatory factor analyses:
Time 1: v
2
(246) ¼494.85, p<.001, CFI ¼.92, SRMR ¼.06, RMSEA ¼.06 (.05, .07);
Time 2: v
2
(246) ¼509.20, p<.001, CFI ¼.92, SRMR ¼.07, RMSEA ¼.06 (.05, .07).
This four-factor model was compared to a one-factor and multiple two- and
three-factor models, all of which produced significantly poor fit at both time points.
3
As seen in Table 4, the multiple groups analysis revealed an adequate baseline
(unconstrained) model, which was invariant at the measurement weights (4v
2
Table 4 Model Fit Statistics for Measurement Invariance Analysis, Study 2
Configural
Weak invariance:
measurement
weights
Structural
covariances
Strong invariance:
structured means
model
Strict invariance:
measurement
residuals
v
2
(492) ¼
1,004.04
v
2
(512) ¼
1,035.22
v
2
(522) ¼
1,041.86
v
2
(536) ¼
1,063.98
v
2
(546) ¼
1,121.28
p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 p<.001
CFI ¼.92 CFI ¼.92 CFI ¼.92 CFI ¼.92 CFI ¼.92
SRMR ¼.07 SRMR ¼.07 SRMR ¼.07 SRMR ¼.07 SRMR ¼.07
RMSEA ¼.045 RMSEA ¼.045 RMSEA ¼.045 RMSEA ¼.044 RMSEA ¼.046
(CI 90%¼
.04, .05)
(CI 90%¼
.04, .05)
(CI 90%¼
.04, .05)
(CI 90%¼
.04, .05)
(CI 90%¼
.042, .049)
Communication Quarterly 81
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
(20) ¼31.18, p¼.053) and structural covariances (4v
2
(10) ¼6.64, p¼.76). Strong
measurement invariance was evaluated by adding a mean structure and constraining
indicator intercepts to equality. No fit statistics indicated a decline in model fit (4v
2
(14) ¼22.12, p¼.08; see Table 4). Factor loadings were all above .50 and averaged .72
at Time 1 and .74 at Time 2. The reliability estimates for each subscale were as fol-
lows: RL, a
T1
¼.82, a
T2
¼.86; AL, a
T1
¼.91, a
T2
¼.91; TOL, a
T1
¼.88, a
T2
¼.89; and
CL, a
T1
¼.86, a
T2
¼.85. To test the temporal stability of the LSP-R, Time 1 latent
means were constrained to zero and Time 2 latent means freely estimated (Byrne,
2010). All latent means were invariant across time (RL: Z¼1.20, p¼.23; AL:
Z¼.41, p¼.68; CL: Z¼1.08, p¼.28; TOL: Z¼.62, p¼.54). In addition, latent
means of each style were highly correlated across survey administrations: relational,
r¼.77; analytic, r¼.71; critical, r¼.80; task oriented, r¼.81.
Scales were created by averaging items for each scale. Four one-sample
Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests indicated that scale distributions did not deviate
significantly from normality (Zs <1.15, ps >.14); inspection of skewness (M¼j.38j)
and kurtosis (M¼j.38j) values confirmed these tests. Responses for the RL index
ranged from 2.50 to 7.00 (M¼5.30, SD ¼.79); a similar range was exhibited by
the AL index (2.33 to 7.00; M¼4.77, SD ¼.99). Responses for the TOL index ranged
from 1.00 to 7.00 (M¼5.08, SD ¼1.15); the CL index was similar (1.25 to 7.00;
M¼4.98, SD ¼.93). Compared to a normal distribution whereby approximately
68%of the sample scores within 1SD of the mean, the following percentages were
found for each index: RL, 73.7%(þ12.4%,13.9%); AL, 64%(þ17.6%,18.4%);
TOL, 64%(þ18%,18%); and CL, 64.8%(þ18.6%,16.6%).
Validity evidence
Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations between each listening style and each vari-
able used to construct a case for validity. Of the 88 potential correlations, 51 (60%)
were statistically significant. Of the 45 predictions outlined in Table 2, 33 (73.3%) were
confirmed, leaving 18 unpredicted but statistically significant correlations; no corre-
lation was opposite its prediction. Importantly for discriminant validity, the correla-
tions between LSP-R and the other listening constructs did not suggest isomorphism.
To ascertain the degree to which each listening style is uniquely related to a set of
the validity constructs, each style was regressed onto the set of validity measures, and
a relative importance analysis was employed to estimate the contribution of each
variable as a percentage of R-square (see Johnson & LeBreton, 2004). As seen in
Table 5, the two primary contributors to variability in RL scores are perceived
competence in appreciative and therapeutic listening. EC and self-perceived compre-
hensive competence also contributed to RL scores. These results provide validity to
the description of RL as an orientation toward attending to and comprehending
others’ emotions. Evidence of validity for the AL scale primarily tapping an orien-
tation toward close scrutiny of multiple sides of an issue is seen by the contribution
of both PT and selective-analytical processing to its variability. As might be expected,
CL was primarily explained by perceived competence in CL as measured by the SPLC
82 G. D. Bodie et al.
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
scale; variability in CL was also strongly explained by NFC, suggesting that the CL scale
also taps a tendency to enjoy deep thinking. Finally, the variable sharing the most vari-
ance with TOL was VA, suggesting that this orientation taps what prior researchers
have labeled ‘‘socially callous’’ listening (Weaver, 1998). Consistent with this
interpretation, TOL was negatively related to listening appreciation and communicat-
ive (empathic) responsiveness but positively related to self-perceived ability in CL.
General Discussion
This project sought to develop a more valid, reliable, and empirically derived measure
of orientations toward listening. We were primarily motivated by the fact that the
Table 5 Relative Importance of Listening, Information Processing, Empathy, Commu-
nication Dispositions, and Personality and Contribution to Listening Style Responses,
Study 2
IV
RL AL TOL CL
%
R
2
Total %
of RL
%
R
2
Total %
of AL
%
R
2
Total %
of TOL
%
R
2
Total %
of CL
LCI-relational 2.70 1.67 0.30 0.17 7.80 1.79 1.30 0.42
LCI-critical 0.80 0.50 1.60 0.91 3.10 0.71 0.60 0.19
LCI-information acquisition 0.50 0.37 0.50 0.29 2.60 0.60 3.00 0.96
LCI-learning 0.70 0.43 0.60 0.34 5.80 1.33 1.90 0.61
Discriminative ability 5.40 3.35 1.90 1.08 4.50 1.04 7.60 2.43
Comprehension ability 7.30 4.53 4.30 2.45 3.20 0.74 7.00 2.24
Therapeutic ability 15.00 9.30 5.70 3.25 3.80 0.87 2.50 0.80
Critical ability 4.60 2.85 7.30 4.16 8.80 2.02 28.00 8.96
Listening appreciation 19.30 11.97 9.60 5.47 9.10 2.09 4.80 1.54
Systematic-analytic processing 4.60 2.85 18.10 10.32 1.60 0.37 2.00 0.64
Intuitive processing 4.70 2.91 1.60 0.91 1.20 0.28 1.80 0.58
NFC 0.30 0.19 0.70 0.40 1.80 0.41 16.90 5.41
NTE 0.30 0.19 0.30 0.17 2.60 0.60 7.90 2.53
VA 2.90 1.80 1.80 1.03 20.00 4.60 1.30 0.42
VB 5.70 3.53 5.90 3.36 3.70 0.85 0.50 0.16
EC 8.00 4.96 1.70 0.97 2.30 0.53 0.70 0.22
PT 4.20 2.60 24.40 13.91 4.90 1.13 1.70 0.54
ECG 0.70 0.43 3.70 2.11 0.30 0.07 6.60 2.11
CR 5.20 3.22 2.40 1.37 8.30 1.91 1.10 0.35
Extraversion 2.70 1.67 4.10 2.34 1.50 0.35 1.30 0.42
Neuroticism 0.50 0.37 0.70 0.40 1.40 0.32 0.90 0.29
Psychotocism 3.90 2.42 2.80 1.60 1.50 0.35 0.50 0.16
Total R
2
.62 .57 .23 .32
Note. All regression models were statistically significant, p<.001.
Communication Quarterly 83
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
listening orientations purportedly measured by the LSP-16 are quite widespread,
appearing in nearly every undergraduate interpersonal communication text and
being the focus of several research investigations that presuppose the validity of
the scale. In particular, this study aimed to answer the call put forth by Bodie and
Worthington (2010) to develop a more psychometrically viable measure of
listening-related goals. In doing so, Study 1 provides an improved framework for
conceptualizing preferences for listening, whereas Study 2 offers evidence that these
preferences remain stable over time, that their measurement is reliably related to the-
oretically relevant constructs, and that the scale does not merely duplicate existing
measures. Together, these studies suggest a fruitful program of research investigating
the antecedents and consequences of various listening styles. Overall, the project met
its goals by establishing the instrument’s dimensionality via exploratory and con-
firmatory factor analyses, demonstrating internal consistency of the factor structure
over time, and examining discriminant and concurrent validity. We hope that our
studies present a ‘‘theoretically interesting’’ story (Abelson, 1995) that eventually
changes what educators and scholars think about listening styles and how each goes
about teaching, training, and investigating them. In the following, we discuss findings
associated with each of the LSP-R dimensions followed by implications for future
theoretical development.
Development of the LSP-R
Among the dimensions of the LSP-R, RL demonstrates the closest alignment, both
statistically and conceptually, with one of the original LSP-16 dimensions: people-
oriented listening. Specifically, people-oriented listeners were originally described
as concerned and aware of others’ feelings and emotions and as highly responsive
to others; RL incorporates this same conceptualization with items that meet psycho-
metric standards. Clearly, a fundamental goal of listening involves connecting with
others emotionally and attempting to understand how they feel. This goal is reflected
by RL’s strong relationship to enjoyment of listening and high self-perceived ability
to attend to others’ during times of stress. These findings are highly consistent with
research finding similar relationships between people-oriented listening and a variety
of empathy (Weaver & Kirtley, 1995; Worthington, 2001), communication (Bodie &
Villaume, 2003), and personality (Sargent, Fitch-Hauser, & Weaver, 1997; Villaume
& Bodie, 2007; Weaver, 1998; Worthington, 2003) constructs but add to this litera-
ture by generating a more focused and concise measure of this important
listening-related goal.
More generally, the tendency to focus on the emotions and feelings of others is
consistently used in conceptualizations of listening, particularly as it is defined in
close relationships (Bodie, 2011a; Halone & Pecchioni, 2001). For instance, Affection
Exchange Theory highlights listening as one type of affectionate communication that
fosters intimate interaction by enhancing feelings of being understood (Floyd, in
press). When we feel ‘‘listened to,’’ we are more satisfied with our relationships
84 G. D. Bodie et al.
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
and with life in general; this increased well-being can also have a profound effect on
physical health (Bodie, 2012). Not only does listening in a relationally oriented way
influence the recipient, but the listener can also garner positive outcomes (Notarius &
Herrick, 1988); of course, there are also potential negative consequences of this
devotion that should be recognized (Lewis & Manusov, 2009; Perrine, 1993). Given
that listening is vital to close relationships, a fruitful area for future research would be
documenting the specific roles listening plays in this process and, for instance,
whether RL as described by the LSP-R helps to validly distinguish those who are good
from those who might benefit from skills training in this capacity.
The second style, AL, can be seen as reflecting a goal toward attending to the full
message of a speaker before coming to judgment. Although AL is correlated with the
original content-oriented listening style proposed by the LSP-16, AL seems to more
accurately capture a tendency to engage in systematic thinking as opposed to mere
enjoyment of complex information. A preference for systematic listening is clearly
evident, given that AL is most strongly related to the information processing con-
structs PT and systematic-analytic processing. Items on this scale, such as ‘‘I fully lis-
ten to what a person has to say before forming any opinions,’’ recognize a listener’s
desire for gathering all available information with the intention of truly understand-
ing all available perspectives. While the original conceptualization of this style in the
LSP-16, the content-oriented style, suggested enjoyment of receiving complex and
challenging information, the newly proposed AL style demonstrates little in the
way of similarity to this implication. Thus, future research might benefit from inves-
tigating whether enjoyment of complex information constitutes an important
listening-related goal or whether scales such as NFC and NTE adequately capture this
construct, thereby negating the need for duplication.
Like time-oriented listeners, task-oriented listeners dislike listening to speakers
that take too long to get their point across. The revised conceptualization of listeners
of this type reflects concern with the amount of time spent in an interaction, but
more so now represents a desire by the listener for a speaker to stay focused and
on topic. These two facets of TOL are neatly evidenced through the two relationships
with both the action- and the time-oriented styles of the LSP-16 from Study 1 (see
Table 1), which clearly indicates the refined focus away from time and toward speaker
diversion (action oriented). Thus, people who report high levels of TOL are those
who want a speaker to remain on task and ‘‘get to the point’’ without wasting time.
Results from Study 2 show that this preference is highly related to a tendency toward
VA, a lack of enjoyment for listening, and an inability to respond empathically. Thus,
TOL seems to map conceptually to what past research calls a socially callous listening
style (Villaume & Bodie, 2007; Weaver, 1998), though the outcomes of any of these
orientations is only speculative at this point.
Finally, CL is a combination of the action- and content-oriented styles of the
LSP-16. CL refers to a tendency to focus attention on the accuracy and consistency
of a speaker’s message. Attention to errors and inconsistencies in the utterances of
others is represented by CL being highly associated with the CL competency subscale
of the SPLC scale. This subscale taps a tendency to evaluate and critically assess
Communication Quarterly 85
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
messages, a key component of CL. Consistent with this assessment, CL was strongly
associated with NFC and moderately with NTE.
Implications
While proposing categorical ‘‘styles’’ of listening allows us to easily characterize and
label specific groups of people in hopes of improving understanding and facilitating
communication, it remains questionable whether the validity of classifying people as
such is completely accurate. Although future research might benefit from ‘‘identify-
ing the relative percentages of people who tend to rely on each style predominately’’
(Chesebro, 1999, p. 237), we suggest that our scale most adequately taps various goals
that listeners have when engaged in situations that call them to be a particular kind of
listener. This perspective certainly calls into question whether listening styles truly are
habitual, trait-like conditions or if they vary depending upon the nature of the situ-
ation (Bodie, 2010; Bodie, Gearhart, Denham, & Vickery, in press; Imhof, 2003).
Future research should continue to explore this question and might approach it by
utilizing experimental procedures that present participants with various situations
in which certain styles would be preferred over others. The extent to which listeners
who might prefer a particular style in general are able to adapt to the needs of the
conversation would suggest that listening styles are largely orientations triggered by
certain situational cues. If styles are found to change dependent upon the character-
istics of the situation, it would be important to understand how people (1) identify
the salient features of the situation that help a listener determine which style to use,
(2) understand which groups of people are better able to ‘‘match’’ the proper style to
their own listening needs, and (3) investigate how listeners cope with situations that
require a style in which they are not proficient, to name a few possible research
questions.
Additionally, the notion that listeners approach messages from varying perspec-
tives might also suggest the possibility of different interpretations of messages
between the categories (or possibly within categories). It may be the case, for
instance, that individuals exhibiting a relationally oriented listening goal extend their
focus to understanding the feelings of the speaker that are embedded in the back-
ground of a given message or interaction. At the same time, although some research
suggests a relational orientation toward listening creates more awareness of interlocu-
tor emotions and feelings, TOL and CL may afford listeners greater focus on message
content. Indeed, it appears that the four styles proposed by the LSP-R closely mirror a
focus on two aspects of messages originally described in a fundamental axiom of
human communication (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967), that any given mess-
age has both a content and relational component. RL and AL each reflect appraisal
functions of message processing that closely align with the ‘‘relational’’ level of mes-
sages or how messages are to be taken, whereas CL and TOL seem to reflect ways in
which listeners attune to the ‘‘content’’ level of messages or a focus on the correctness
of a message (Edwards, 2011). Thus, perhaps situations that call for more relationally
oriented listening styles (i.e., RL and AL) cause individuals to more closely attend to
86 G. D. Bodie et al.
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
the nonverbal cues of an utterance, while situations that call for more task-=content-
focused listening styles (i.e., TOL and CL) cause individuals to maintain a strict focus
on message content.
Limitations and Conclusions
Although not agreeing with all of his conclusions, Sears (1986) noted the possibility
of bias in using college student samples and noted that claims to external validity are
problematic when using college student samples (cf., Shapiro, 2002). Indeed, Ford
et al. (2000) reported data suggesting college students may overestimate their own
listening abilities, and the use of self-report measures for the study of listening is
further problematic insofar as participants in our study may have attempted to
present themselves in the best possible light, thus potentially distorting the true
relationship between the LSP-R and individual difference measures. In addition,
our particular student samples were imbalanced for biological sex (246 females versus
162 males in Study 1, 150 females versus 77 males in Study 2) and contained a dis-
proportionate number of Caucasian participants. Future research should explore the
potential variability in listening styles across these and other potentially consequential
individual differences.
Despite these and other limitations, the LSP-R was developed in response to con-
cerns regarding the LSP-16’s psychometric properties, particularly issues associated
with its reliability coefficients and the lack of support for its factor structure. Results
from these two studies suggest that researchers should consider the LSP-R as an alter-
nate measure of individual listening style and primarily as a measure of extant
listening-related goals. Of course, as a new measure, further validity evidence for
the LSP-R should be gathered, and we suggest a variety of ways in which research
might go about this testing. Regardless of the direction that this research takes, how-
ever, simply affording attention to the nature of how individuals attend to people and
information in social settings will be a step in the right direction.
Notes
[1] All 57 items are available upon request. Since we utilized the original items from the LSP-16,
we were able to analyze model fit of the original scale to examine whether the Bodie and
Worthington (2010) results could be replicated. In line with their findings, the LSP-16 model
generated poor fit statistics (v
2
(98) ¼257.05, p<.001, CFI ¼.78, SRMR ¼.10), though
approximation error was within acceptable standards (RMSEA ¼.06 (.05, .07)). In addition,
22 standardized residual covariance values were above 2 in absolute value, 14 of the 16 stan-
dardized regression weights were below .60, and reliability estimates were well below accept-
able standards. Inspection of scale distributions also indicated that each LSP-16 subscale
deviated significantly from normality with the people-oriented scale negatively and the other
three scales positively skewed and each scale leptokurtic.
[2] Please contact the first author at gbodie@gmail.com for a copy of the instrument.
[3] Analyses available upon request.
[4] Analyses available upon request.
Communication Quarterly 87
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
References
Abelson, R. P. (1995). Statistics as principled argument. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Aune, R. K., & Reynolds, R. A. (1994). The empirical development of the normative message
processing scale. Communication Monographs,61, 135–160.
Barker, L. L., & Watson, K. W. (2000). Listen up. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Berger, C. R. (1989). Goals, plans, and discourse comprehension. In J. J. Bradac (Ed.), Message
effects in communication science (pp. 75–101). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bodie, G. D. (2010). The Revised Listening Concepts Inventory (LCI-R): Assessing individual and
situational differences in the conceptualization of listening. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality,30, 301–339. doi: 10.2190/IC.30.3.f
Bodie, G. D. (2011a). The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and evidence
of validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication Quarterly,59, 277–295. doi:
10.1080/01463373.2011.583495
Bodie, G. D. (2011b). The understudied nature of listening in interpersonal communication:
Introduction to a special issue. International Journal of Listening,25, 1–9. doi: 10.1080/
10904018.2011.536462
Bodie, G. D. (2012). Listening as positive communication. In T. Socha & M. Pitts (Eds.), The
positive side of interpersonal communication (pp. 109–125). New York: Peter Lang.
Bodie, G. D., & Fitch-Hauser, M. (2010). Quantitative research in listening: Explication and
overview. In A. D. Wolvin (Ed.), Listening and human communication in the 21st century
(pp. 46–93). Oxford: Blackwell.
Bodie, G. D., Gearhart, C. C., Denham, J. P., & Vickery, A. J. (in press). The temporal stability and
situational contingency of active-empathic listening. Western Journal of Communication.
Bodie, G. D., & Villaume, W. A. (2003). Aspects of receiving information: The relationship between
listening preferences, communication apprehension, receiver apprehension, and communi-
cator style. International Journal of Listening,17, 47–67.
Bodie, G. D., & Worthington, D. L. (2010). Revisiting the Listening Styles Profile (LSP-16): A con-
firmatory factor analytic approach to scale validation and reliability estimation. International
Journal of Listening,24, 69–88. doi: 10.1080/10904011003744516
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of ‘‘need for cognition.’’
Journal of Personality Assessment,48, 306–307.
Chesebro, J. L. (1999). The relationship between listening styles and conversational sensitivity.
Communication Research Reports,16, 233–238. doi: 10.1080/08824099909388722
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement
invariance. Structural Equation Modeling,9, 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cutler, A., & Clifton, C. (1999). Comprehending spoken language: A blueprint of the listener. In C.
M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 123–166). London:
Oxford University Press.
Edwards, R. (2011). Listening and message interpretation. International Journal of Listening,25,
47–65. doi: 10.1080/10904018.2011.536471
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale.
Personality and Individual Differences,6, 21–29. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(85)90026-1
Floyd, K. (in press). Empathic listening as an expression of interpersonal affection. International
Journal of Listening.
Ford, W. S. Z., Wolvin, A. D., & Chung, S. (2000). Students’ self-perceived listening competencies
in the basic speech communication course. International Journal of Listening,14, 1–13.
Halone, K. K., & Pecchioni, L. L. (2001). Relational listening: A grounded theoretical model.
Communication Reports,14, 59–71. doi: 10.1080/08934210109367737
88 G. D. Bodie et al.
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor
analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods,7, 191–205. doi:
10.1177/1094428104263675
Imhof, M. (2003). The social construction of the listener: Listening behavior across situations,
perceived listener status, and cultures. Communication Research Reports,20, 357–366. doi:
10.1080/08824090309388835
Imhof, M. (2004). Who are we as we listen? Individual listening profiles in varying contexts.
International Journal of Listening,18, 36–46.
Imhof, M., & Janusik, L. A. (2006). Development and validation of the Imhof-Janusik Listening
Concepts Inventory to measure listening conceptualization differences between cultures.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,35, 79–98. doi: 10.1080/17475750600909246
Jarvis, W. B. G., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,70, 172–194.
Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organiza-
tional research. Organizational Research Methods,7, 238–257. doi: 10.1177/1094428104266510
Johnson, R. A. J., & Wichern, D. W. (2002). Applied multivariate statistical analysis (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford.
Levine, T. R., Beatty, M. J., Limon, S., Hamilton, M. A., Buck, R., & Chory-Asada, R. M. (2004).
The dimensionality of the verbal aggressiveness scale. Communication Monographs,71,
245–268. doi: 10.1080/0363452042000299911
Lewis, T., & Manusov, V. L. (2009). Listening to another’s distress in interpersonal relationships.
Communication Quarterly,57, 282–301. doi: 10.1080/01463370903107279
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analysis of cross-cultural data:
Practical and theoretiacl issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research,32, 53–76. doi: 10.1207/
s15327906mbr3201_3
Notarius, C. I., & Herrick, L. R. (1988). Listener response strategies to a distrressed other. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships,5, 97–108. doi: 10.1177/0265407588051006
Park, H. S., Dailey, R., & Lemus, D. (2002). The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal
components analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research,27,
562–577. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00824.x
Pearce, C. G., Johnson, I. W., & Barker, R. T. (2003). Assessment of the Listening Styles Inventory:
Progress in establishing reliability and validity. Journal of Business and Technical Communi-
cation,17, 84–113. doi: 10.1177/1050651902238546
Perrine, R. M. (1993). On being supportive: The emotional consequences of listening to another’s
distress. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,10, 371–384. doi: 10.1177/
0265407593103005
Rubin, R. B. (2009). Listening Styles Profile-16. In R. B. Rubin, A. M. Rubin, E. E. Graham, E. M.
Perse & D. R. Seibold (Eds.), Communication research measures II: A sourcebook (pp. 192–
195). New York: Routledge.
Sargent, S. L., Fitch-Hauser, M., & Weaver III, J. B. (1997). A listening styles profile of the Type-A
personality. International Journal of Listening,11, 1–14. doi: 10.1207/s1932586xijl1101_1
Sato, T. (2005). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire brief version: Factor structure and
reliability. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,139, 545–552. doi:
10.3200/JRLP.139.6.545-552
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on psy-
chology’s view of human nature. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,51, 515–530.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515
Shapiro, M. A. (2002). Generalizability in communication research. Human Communication
Research,28, 491–500. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00819.x
Communication Quarterly 89
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
Sharma, S., Durvasula, S., & Ployhart, R. E. (2012). The analysis of mean differences using mean
and covariance structure analysis: Effect size estimation and error rates. Organizational
Research Methods,15, 75–102. doi: 10.1177/1094428111403154
Stiff, J. B., Dillard, J. P., Somera, L., Kim, H., & Sleight, C. (1988). Empathy, communication, and pro-
social behavior. Communication Monographs,55, 198–213. doi: 10.1080/03637758809376166
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education.
Villaume, W. A., & Bodie, G. D. (2007). Discovering the listener within us: The impact of trait-like
personality variables and communicator styles on preferences for listening style. International
Journal of Listening,21, 102–123. doi: 10.1080/10904010701302006
Watson, K. W., Barker, L. L., & Weaver III, J. B. (1995). The listening styles profile (LSP-16): Devel-
opment and validation of an instrument to assess four listening styles. International Journal
of Listening,9, 1–13.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. . New York:
Norton.
Weaver III, J. B. (1998). Personality and self-perceptions about communication. In J. C.
McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. Martin & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and Personality
(pp. 95–117). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Weaver III, J. B., & Kirtley, M. D. (1995). Listening styles and empathy. Southern Journal of Speech
Communication,60, 131–140. doi: 10.1080/10417949509372970
Worthington, D. L. (2001). Exploring juror listening processes: The effect of listening style
preference on juror decision making. International Journal of Listening,15, 20–35.
Worthington, D. L. (2003). Exploring the relationship between listening style preference and
personality. International Journal of Listening,17, 68–87.
Worthington, D. L. (2005). Exploring the relationship between listening style preference and verbal
aggressiveness. International Journal of Listening,19, 3–11.
Worthington, D. L. (2008). Exploring the relationship between listening style and need for
cognition. International Journal of Listening,22, 46–58. doi: 10.1080/10904010701802154
90 G. D. Bodie et al.
Downloaded by [Graham D. Bodie] at 12:16 11 February 2013
