FOUNDATION OF A COMMUNICATOR STYLE CONSTRUCT

ROBERT W . NORTON
Purdue University

The foundation of a communicator style construct is presented in this paper. The

construct is stipulated to include communication variables which reflect the “way one
verbally and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken,
interpreted, filtered, or understood.” Nine independent variables (dominant, dramatic,
animated, open, contentious, relaxed, friendly, attentive, and impression leaving) and
one dependent variable (communicator image) operationally define the construct.
Two independent samples, the first with 80 subjects and 102 items and the second
with 1,086 subjects and 5 1 items, are analyzed in terms of (I.) how the variables cluster,
(2) what dimensionality is embedded in the structure of intercorrelations, and (3) which
variables best predict communicator image. Potentially, the construct provides a context
for other communication variables, relates to perceptual processes, and explains inter-
personal consequents.

The researcher who wants to establish an inter-
personal theory of communication must deal not
only with what is communicated, but with the way it
is communicated. These two parts are necessary
elements of a complex, holistic, interpersonal
theory. This article deals with the way one com-
municates. As such, it introduces a foundation for
one of the essential parts of an interpersonal theory;
it presents a foundation for a communicator style
construct.
DEFINITION OF COMMUNICATOR STYLE
“Communicator style” is broadly conceived to
mean “the way one verbally and paraverbally
interacts to signal how literal meaning should be
taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood.”
“Communicator style” is operationally defined in
terms of nine independent variables and one depen-
dent variable. The independent variables (sub-
constructs) are dominant, dramatic, contentious,
animated, impression leaving, relaxed, attentive,
open, and friendly. The dependent variable-also a
subconstruct-is communicator image which rep-
resents an evaluative consequent, e.g., “I am a
good communicator. ”
DOMAIN OF COMMUNICATOR STYLE
CONSTRUCT
The dominant communicator tends to take charge
of social interactions. As a style variable, it per-
vades the literature (Bales, 1970; Leary, 1957;
Mann, Gibbard, & Hartman, 1967; Schutz, 1958;
Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, 1973) and encompas-
ses a wide range of semantic and operational
meanings. The literature tends to focus upon physi-
cal manifestations of dominance (Schereer, Lon-
don, & Wolf, 1973), nonverbal and psychological
correlates of dominance (Fromme & Beam, 1974),
and dominance as a predictor of behaviors, at-
titudes, or perceptions (Smith, 1975; Fensterheim
& Baer, 1975).

Robert W. Norton (Ph.D.. Universitv of Wisconsin-Madison. Dramaric

1972) is assistant professor of Interptkonal Communication at
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906. This study The dramatic communicator exag-
accepted for publication May 2, 1977. gerations, fantasies, stories, mataphors, rhythm,
100 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH I VOL. 4, NO. 2, WINTER 1978
voice, and other stylistic devices to highlight or
understate content. Dramatizing, which is probably
the most visible style component, serves a pro-
found, complex, often unconscious, often inten-
tional, interactive, communicative function.
As a style variable, dramatizing covaries with
important communicative phenomena. It relates to
coping with anxiety (Coser, 1959), positive self-
image (Goodchilds & Smith, 1964), status (Lund-
berg, 1969; Traylor, 1973), popularity (O’Connel,
1969), ambiguity tolerance (Norton, 1975), and
critical group functions (Bormann, 1975).
ContentiouJ
The contentious communicator is argumentative.
No psychological literature specifically addresses
itself to the domain encompassed by this variable.
The variable emerged as a covariate of dominant in
earlier pilot studies by the author. It tends to entail
negative components. It was included in this study
as a dependent variable because it could provide a
greater understanding of the dominant style vari-
able.
Animated
Physical, nonverbal cues define the domain of the
animated subconstruct. The literature is replete with
this research. An animated communicator provides
frequent and sustained eye contact, uses many facial
expressions, and gestures often.
Generalizing from recent literature, animated eye
contact, with some exceptions, characterizes the
powerful (Exline, 1971), the attractive (Thayer &
Schiff, 1975; Kleinke, Staneski, & Berger, 1975),
and the truth teller (Knapp, Hart, &Dennis, 1974).
There is a relatively long history of identifying
emotions associated with facial expressions (Dar-
win, 1872; Wundt, 1877; Piderit, 1925; Huber,
1931; Lorenz, 1935). In 1975, Ekman concurred
with Darwin’s 1875 postulation that some facial
expressions connected to nonvoluntary actions are
due to the constitution of the nervous system.
Finally, an animated communicator actively uses
gestures, postures, and body movements (Saines-
bury, 1955; Dittmann, 1962; Goffman, 1961;
Rosenfeld, 1966; Schelflen, 1965) to exaggerate or
understate the content.
Impression Leaving
Impression leaving, as a style variable, is rela-
tively unresearched. The concept centers around
whether the person is remembered because of the
communicative stimuli which are projected. Im-
pression leaving is related to perceptions and
thought processes (Ware & Harvey, 1967), initial
encounters (Lalljee & Cook, 1973), and total
interactions in dyads (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). A
person who leaves an impression should manifest a
visible or memorable style of communicating.
Relaxed
Relaxed, as a style variable, opens the door to
rich and complex analyses. Sullivan (1953) who
defined psychiatry as the study of interpersonal
relations points to the anxious-not anxious,
relaxed-not relaxed, tense-not tense dimensions as
a key to personality. He provocatively and unequiv-
ocally relates anxiety to experiencing and energy
transformations in explaining interpersonal dynam-
ics (Sullivan, 1953).
Influenced by Sullivan, Ruesch (1957, 1961)
includes a relaxed-tense dimension as part of the
interpersonal process. It is also found in Bales’
(1970) IPA system in the shows tension category
and Mann’s (1967) system in theanxiety category.
Attentive
There is not much empirical research describing
attentiveness per se as a style variable. As a broader
concept, it is frequently embedded in interpersonal
and therapeutic literature under the label “em-
pathy” or “listening” (Iannotti, 1975; Jamison &
Johnson, 1975; O’Connor & Alderson, 1974; Ro-
gers, 1975). In general, the attentive communicator
makes sure that the other person knows that he is
being listened to.
Rogers (195 1) with his client-centered therapy
introduced listening as an active communicative
component. Since then, many researchers (Kelly,
1975; Wells, 1975; Shantz, 1975; Hogan, 1975)
have addressed themselves to listening, attentive-
ness, and empathy as therapeutic tools. Under the
heading of “attentiveness,” nonverbal covariates
are usually researched (Duncan, 1972; Naiman &
Breed, 1974).
 Norton 101

Open her communicative ability. It is assumed that a

person who has a “good” communicator image
Behavior associated with the open subconstruct finds it easy to interact with others whether they are
includes communicative activity which is charac- intimates, friends, acquaintances, or strangers.
terized by being conversational, expansive, affable,
convivial, gregarious, unreserved, unsecretive, EXPECTED RELATIONSHIPS AMONG
somewhat frank, possibly outspoken, definitely VARIABLES
extroverted, and obviously approachable. Stylisti-
cally, the open communicator readily reveals per- Some a priori relationships can be anticipated
sonal information about the self in communicative given the themes of the variables. Three types of
interactions. The counterpart of this notion is analyses will be presented: (1) clustering of vari-
manifested in the poker-faced individual who is ables within a smallest space configuration, (2) de-
hard to read. termining dimensionality within the structural solu-
Research about openness is abundant. The open tion, and ( 3 ) locating the “best” predictors of
communicator tends to be perceived as attractive communicator image.
(Kogan & Wallach, 1961) and trustworthy (Giffen,
1967). The literature suggests that an openness Clustering
threshold is determined by the nature of the target
person (Pedersen & Higbee, 1969), the verbal and In light of the literature, two large clusters should
nonverbal behavior of the target person (Jourard & occur in the smallest space configuration. It is ex-
Jaffee, 1970), the type of information disclosed pected that dominant, dramatic, animated, conten-
(Taylor & Altman, 1966), and the strategies used to tious, and impression leaving will group together.
elicit disclosure by the other (Norton, Mulligan, & These subconstructs entail “active” communica-
Petronio, 1975). tive behaviors which emphasize doing, sending
Openness is a pertinent style variable to examine messages, and being talkative. Also, openness may
in the communicative process because it relates to fall into the grouping. In the second cluster, atten-
trust (McAllister & Kiesler, 1975), reciprocity (Ru- tive, friendly, and relaxed are expected to group
bin, 1975; Becker & Munz, 1975), paraverbal cues together. These subconstructs tend to be more pas-
(Fischer & Apostal, 1975), and liking (Cash & sive, receiver oriented, and other oriented. Because
Soloway, 1975; Kohen, 1975). Openness makes the openness engenders trust, it may fall into the second
private self more public. grouping also.

Friendly Dimensionality

Friendly, as a style variable, ranges in meaning If the clustering expectations hold as suggested,
from simply being unhostile to deep intimacy. then there will be at least one underlying dimension
Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) analyzed in the structure pointing to the following broad
it in terms of confirmation which they claim “is hypothesis: If a person communicates in a style that
probably the greatest single factor ensuring mental is dramatic, dominant, animated, contentious, and
development and stability that has so far emerged impression leaving, then that person tends not to
from our study of communication.” The transac- communicate in a style that is attentive, friendly,
tionalists (Steiner, 1974) treat friendliness simi- and relaxed. Of course, the hypothesis is simplistic
larly; namely, as a stroking function. and speculative, but reflects the heuristic import of
locating dimensions.
Communicator Image
Predictors of Communicator Image
The communicator image subconstruct repre-
sents the dependent variable in this research. The In this study, dominant and impression leaving
items which define it tap the person’s image of his or are expected to be strongly associated with com-
102 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / VOL. 4, NO. 2, WINTER 1978
municator image. Impression leaving seems to tap
behaviors similar to the dependent variable. It dif-
fers from communicator image in a distinct way,
however. The communicator image variable only
loads in affirmative categories if the person per-
ceives himself to be a good communicator. The
impression leaving variable loads in the affirmative
category as long as the person perceives himself as
creating a memorable or visible image which can be
positive or negative, good or bad.
The single most reported predictor of com-
municator image is dominant in one form or
another. The premise is that the dominant com-
municator has proficient abilities to interactively
control conversations. But the assumption may not
be warranted if dominance contains interactive ef-
fects caused by components like status, authority,
or wealth. Nevertheless, this study treats dominant
as though it is a unidimensional variable.
STUDY 1
The first study served two purposes. First, strong
items for each subconstruct were identified so that
they could be used for the measure in Study 2.
Second, analysis of the intercorrelations among the
10 variables provided the first empirical estimators
concerning the structure of the data set in terms of
clustering, dimensionality, and predictors.
Method
Subjects. Subjects were obtained from introduc-
tory communication classes at the University of
Michigan. Eighty volunteers were administered the
communicator style measure.
Measure. The CSM-102 (Communicator Style
Measure-102 items) has a seven-point scale ranging
from ‘‘very strong agreement” to “very strong dis-
agreement” with the statement. Nine independent
variables and one dependent variable are embedded
in the CSM- 102. Ten items define each independent
variable. Twelve items define the communicator
image variable. All items are randomly distributed
in the test.
Procedure. The subjects who volunteered
anonymously filled out the CSM-102 in class. The
respondents who wanted feedback about their test
wrote their name on the questionnaire. The test took
about 15 minutes to complete.
Statistical analyses. Three analyses were done on
items with a subconstruct: (1) McQuitty’s (1957)
elementary linkage technique was done to see how
the items clustered with each other. The decision
rule was that an item would be allowed into the
correlagram if it was as strong as r = .45. (2) A
stepwise regression (Draper & Smith, 1966) was
used to predict which item best explained the most
representative item of the subconstruct. The most
representative item was stipulated as that item
which straightforwardly reflected the variable. For
example, “I am an open communicator” directly
states the essence of the openness style component.
(3) The distribution of the item was examined. The
item was considered good if it approached normal
distribution. In general, an item was retained for the
second study if it clustered strongly, predicted the
most representative item, and was distributed nor-
mally.
The subconstructs were examined using smallest
space analysis (Lingoes, 1973). This techniques
was chosen because it is a multivariate method
which outputs geometric relationships that are eas-
ily comprehensible.
Results
Using the three-part criteria, five of the original
10 items were retained for the measure used in the
second study. A sixth item was retained for the
dependent variable, communicator image. Table 1
reports the items. Table 2 reports the intercorrela-
tions among the subconstructs. The results of the
three dimensional smallest space analysis yield a
coefficient of alienation, K, which indicates the
extent of “goodness-of-fit,” of .04. In general, a
solution is considered “good” if K is equal to or
less than .15. The coefficient is a function of the
difference between the distances calculated from
the coordinate system and the same distances per-
muted to maintain the rank order of the original
 Norton 103

TABLE 1
Items Chosen for the Communicator Style Measure Used in Study 2

Dominant 16. Under p r e s s w e I ~ D m e a c m s s as a r e l a x e d speaker.

5. In m5t s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s I g e n e r a l l y speak very f r e q u e n t l y . +17. The r h y t h m o r f l m o f my speech i s a f f e c t e d by my n e r v o u ~ n e r s .

7. I n mOIt s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s I t e n d t o cme on s t r o n g . 36. I am a v e r y r e l a x e d Communicator.

9. I have a tendency t o dominate i n f o r m a l C o n v e r i d t l o n s w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e . A t t e n t i Ye

20. I t r y t o t a k e charge o f t h i n g s when I am w i t h people. 15. 1 can a l * a y r r e p e a t back t o a person eidCtly what said.

04. I am dominant i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . 23. I alwdys show t h a t I am v e r y e n p a t h e t i c w i t h people.

Dramatic 27. I am an extremely attentive cmunicator.

22. My speech t e n d i t o be v e r y p i c t u r e s q u e . 29. I r e a l l y l i k e t o l i s t e n v e q c a r e f u l l y t o people.

28. I m frequentlr v e r b a l l y exaggerate t o emphasize a p o i n t . 45. I d e l i b e r a t e l y r e a c t i n such a way t h a t p e o p l e k n m t h a t I am

30. Often I p h y s i c a l l y and v o c a l l y a c t o u t what I want t o communicate. l i s t e n i n g t o them.

32. Regularly I t e l l j o k e s , anecdotes. and s t o r i e s when I c o m u n i c a t e . Qe

J

39. I d r a m a t i z e a l o t . 1. I r e a d i l y reveal p e r s o n a l t h i n g 6 about myself.

Can t e n t i ous 25. 1 am an extremely open c o m u n i c i t o r .

2. m e I g e t wound up i n a heated d i r c u s r l o n I have d hard time stopping ‘26. U s u a l l y I do n o t t e l l people v e r y much about myself u n t i l I g e t t o

myself. know them guite w e l l

10. Very Often 1 i n r i s t t h a t o t h e r p e o p l e document or p r e s e n t some k i n d o f 33. As a rule. I e x p r e s s my f e e l i n g s o r emotions.

p m o f f o r what t h e y are arguing. 38. I would r a t h e r be open and honest w i t h a p e r r o n r a t h e r than c l o s e d

1 3 . I n argunents I i n r i r t upon v e r y p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n s . and d i s h o n e s t . even i f i t i 5 p a i n f u l f o r t h a t person.

37. Uhen I d i s a g r e e w i t h somebody I an v e r y q u i c k t o c h a l l e n g e them. Friendly

41. I am v e r y argumentative. 3 . I always p i e f e r t o be t a c t f u l .
Mimated 19. M o r t o f t h e t i m e I t e n d t o b e %encouraging t o people.
6. I a c t i v e l y use f a c r a l eXPre651on16 when I cmrnunicate. 35. Often I express a h n i r a t i o n t o a person even if I do n o t s t r m g l y f e e l
21. I am% e x p r e s s i v e n o n v e r b d l l y i n social s i t u a t i o n s . it.
2 4 . I t e n d t o C o n s t a n t l y g e s t u r e when I C o m u n i c a t e . 8. I MI an e i t r e m e l y f r i e n d l y communicator.

34. People g e n e r a l l y know my e m t i o n a l S t a t e . even i f I do n o t say a n y t h i n g . 43. I h a b i t u a l l y acknowledge v e r b a l l y o t h e r ’ s c o n t r i b u t i o n s .

42. My eyes t e n d t o r e f l e c t t o 1 Very g r e a t degree e x a c t l y what I am f e e l i n g Comnunicator

when I romnunlcate. 46. The= I Ccmmunicate i n f l u e n c e s my l i f e e p o i i t i v e l y dramatically.

Impression LedYing 47. I am a v e r y good c o m u n i c a t o r .

II. I ray u s u a l l y leaves an i n p r e s s i o n on p e o p l e . 48. I find i t 9 t o c m u n i c a t e on a one-to-one basis w i t h Strangers.
14. I leave p e o p l e w i t h an i q r e r r i o n of me which t h e y t e n d t o remenbe?. 49. l n a small group of r t r a n q e r r I am a %& c m u n i c a t o r .
18. The i n p r e s s i o n I make on p e o p l e causes them t o r e a c t t o 14. 50. I f i n d i t e x t r e m e l y easy t o m a i n t a i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h a mder of
31. The 31 say r m t h i n g m u a l l y l e a v e s an i n p r e s s i o n on people. t h e e p p o s i t e sex whom I have j u s t met.
40. I leave a d e f i n i t e i n p r e s s i o n an p e o p l e . 5 1 . Out of I randa group of f i v e people. i n c l u d i n g myself, I would p r o b d l y
have a b e t t e r t m u n i c a t o r s t y l e t h a n I , 2, 3, or I of them.
* 4. I am conscious o f nervous mannerisms i n my speech. ~~

12. As a r u l e , I an v e r y c a l m and c o l l e c t e d when I t a l k .

‘Reverse the acoring Of thie i t e m

coefficients. Kruskal’s (1964) stress coefficient for friendly, and open; Cluster ZV-dominant and con-
the same solution is .02. Both coefficients are re- tentious; Cluster V-relaxed.
ported becaus.e there is a controversey over which
one is better. More often than not, both coefficients Dimensionality. There are two indications of the
are close to one another. dimensionality embedded in the smallest space so-
lution: (1) the coefficient of alienation points to the
Clusters. The variables which are closest to each number of dimensions needed for a “good” solu-
other in the space have the strongest relationship. tion, and (2) the identification of simplexes shows
Although there are several ways to group the vari- specific dimensions.
ables, in light of the suggested associations in the Although a three-dimensional solution might
literature and the original and derived coefficients, show more clearly how the variables are organized
five clusters were formed: Cluster I-impression in a space, a two-dimensional solution is acceptable
leaving and comniunicator image; Cluster ZZ- for this data set. The coefficient of alienation for the
dramatic and animated; Cluster ZZZ-attentive, two dimensional solution is .10 with semistrong
104 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / VOL. 4, NO. 2, WINTER 1978

TABLE 2
Correlations and Derived Coefficients Among
Communicator Style Subconstructs

( 1 ) Dominant *** 101 85 159 98 137 156 117 125 87

( 2 ) Dramatic .43 *** 103 83 57 153 105 126 102 86

( 3 ) Contentious .45 .29 *** 151 141 212 185 159 160 147
( 4 ) Animated .05 -46 .07 *** 107 184 73 116 85 123
( 5 ) Imp. L e a v i n g .44 .54 .16 .34 *** 97 85 106 81 39
( 6 ) Relaxed .16 .10 -.17 -.16 .43 *** 125 119 115 71
(7) A t t e n t i v e .01 .34 -.06 .51 .46 .19 *** 82 42 86

( 8 ) open .27 .25 .05 .26 .37 .29 .5D *** 41 80

(9) Friendly .23 .34 .03 .47 .45 .28 .72 .57 *** 68

(10) Com. Image .46 .48 .09 .18 .65 .54 .45 .46 .55 ***
~~ ~

Note.--The lower t r i a n g u l a r m a t r i x represents t h e o r i g i n a l

c o e f f i c i e n t s ( c o r r e l a t i o n s ) f o r t h e s m a l l e s t space a n a l y s i s . The upper

t r i a n g u l a r m a t r i x r e p r e s e n t s t h e d e r i v e d c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e s m a l l e s t space

a n a l y s i s f o r a t h r e e dimensional solution with semi-strong m o n o t o n i c i t y .

A g r a p h i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n c o u l d be reproduced u s i n g t h i s m a t r i x .

Note.--N equals 80.

monotonicity; Kruskal’s stress is .07. In short, it
takes at least two dimensions, but not more than
three to understand the configuration.
A second way to locate dimensions in a config-
uration is recommended by Guttman (1968). It in-
volves identifying a “simplex.” If all variables
within a set can be projected without any intrans-
itivities onto a line which does not bend back on
itself, then they determine a simplex. An easy way
to discern a simplex pattern is to arrange the vari-
ables in the correlation table such that all the values
in both the rows and columns monotonicly decrease
away from the diagonal. The same pattern should be
seen in the table of derived coefficients.
There are 252 distinct combinations which could
define a five-variable simplex. In the variable set,
only four simplexes with five variables are present.
Table 3 reports the simplexes. Obviously, the di-
mensions (simplexes) must be interpreted cauti-
ously at this point. Two tentative conclusions are
warranted. First, the communicator style construct
is best understood as a multidimensional variable
set. Second, the dimensions which are embedded in
the variable set, as evidenced by the simplexes,
generally range from communicative activity to in-
activity.
Predictors. The biggest problem with the correla-
tions in Study 1 is that they are based on a small
sample and may be unreliable. The initial expecta-
 Norton 105

TABLE 3
Simplexes in the Variable Set

Dimension I Dimension

Simplex I Simplex I 1 Simplex I11 Simplex I V

Relaxed Re 1axed Relaxed Relaxed

I Communicator
Image

Impression
Leaving
Communicator
Image

Open
Comnunicator
Image

Friendly
Commun ic a t o r
Image

Impression
Leaving
Attentive Attentive
A t t e n t ive Dramatic
An i m a t e d Animated
Animated Contentious

Note.--The simplexes are f o u n d i n t h e t h r e e dimensional

s o l u t i o n which can be reproduced f r o m t h e d e r i v e d d i s t a n c e s i n

t a b l e 2.

tion was that impression leaving would be closely
associated with communicator image. This proved
to be the case; it correlates with the dependent
variable strongly (r = .65).
The second expectation was that dominant would
be a strong predictor of communicator image. It
turned out that it correlates moderately strong with
the dependent variable (r = .46), but so do three
other variables, dramatic, open, and attentive with
respective correlations of .48, .46, and .45. Fur-
thermore, two other variables-friendly and
relaxed-correlate even stronger with com-
municator image with respective correlations of .55
and .54.
Summary
The a priori premises were partially confirmed,
but richer and more complex patterns emerged,
Two large clusters reflecting communicative activ-
ity versus inactivity did not neatly fall together.
Instead, two clusters ended up with active style
components; namely, Cluster I1 and IV which fell
into the same region. The union of these two clus-
ters would be close to one of the large clusters
initially expected.
Clusters reflecting style components with less
activity fell into unanticipated regions in the smal-
lest space analysis. Cluster 111 (attentive, friendly,
and open) grouped together such that it reflected the
second large cluster initially posited. However, the
relaxed variable constituted a cluster by itself in a
separate region.
Supplementing the clustering patterns was the
dimensionality analysis. At least two dimensions,
not one as conservatively hypothesized initially,
appear to be part of the infrastructure of the variable
set. The simplexes characterize the dimensions.
Both dimensions are anchored at one end by the
relaxed variable. At the other ends, two distinct
communicative behavior sets are suggested. At the
other ends, two distinct communicative behavior
sets are suggested. For Dimension 1, a kind of
active listening seems to be the defining component;
106 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / VOL. 4, NO. 2, WINTER 1978
for Dimension 2 , an active sending of messages
seems to be the defining component.
Finally, no clear set of best predictors emerged.
Seven of the nine independent variables might be
strong predictors of communicator image.
STUDY 2
Study 2 provides substantial reasons to place in-
creasing confidence in the structural analysis of the
communicator style data set regarding clusters, di-
mensionality, and predictors. First, the broad find-
ings from Study 1 were replicated. Second, the
correlation matrix contains very reliable correla-
tions because of the large sample. Third, a definite
set of predictors emerged.
Method
Subjects. Subjects were obtained from introduc-
tory communication classes at the University of
Michigan and Western Michigan University. In to-
tal, 1,086 CSMs were completely filled out by vol-
unteers. Feedback about the CSM was given if the
subject put a name on the test.
Measure. Two changes were made in the CSM.
Instead of 10 items for each subconstruct, five items
were used. Instead of a seven-point scale, a four-
point scale was used. The changes were made in
light of the findings in Study 1.
The commitment to the smaller scale range and a
reduction in the number of items for each sub-
construct represents a loss of information. Finer
discriminations are disallowed. The smaller scale
size and the reduced number of items commits one
to the following conservative, but functionally
pragmatic, decision: An effect will be considered
trivial or too weak to be interesting unless it can be
detected by five items per subconstruct using a
four-point scale.
Reliability. There are several ways to think about
reliability in establishing a multivariate construct.
First, if the structure of the domain remains stable
across samples, situations, and contexts, regardless
of the magnitude of the relationships (correlations,
in this case), then the construct is reliable. Second,
if the subconstructs are internally consistent, then
the researcher can have confidence in classifying
persons for either experimental or correlational
studies.
In laying the foundation of a construct, structural
reliability is critical. This means that if the variables
of the domain are plotted into a space, using any
technique that allows graphical interpretation
(elementary linkage analysis, factor analysis, clus-
tering, or smallest space analysis), the same struc-
ture emerges across random samples.
The communicator style construct is structurally
reliable. The structure that emerged in Study 1 is the
same as the structure that emerged in Study 2 . A
subroutine in smallest space analysis based upon the
Schoenemann-Carroll (1970) algorithm which op-
timally fits the two configurations by rotating, re-
flecting, and stretching verified that the two struc-
tures were the same. Also, the structure of the
domain has remained stable over a variety of studies
(Norton & Pettegrew, 1976; Norton & Warnick,
1976; Norton, 1977; Pettegrew, 1977).
Internal reliability is a function of the number of
items in a test and the range of the scale. Ideally, the
researcher would like to have one item using a
dichotomous scale to classify persons. In Study 2 ,
only five items with a four-point scale per sub-
construct were used. The internal reliabilities, using
500 cases out of the 1,086 to check the coefficients,
areffiendly (.37), animated (.56), attentive (.57),
contentious (.65), dramatic (.68), impression leav-
ing (.69), open (.69), relaxed (,71), communicator
image (.72), and dominant (.82). Except for the
friendly subconstruct, the reliabilities are good
given the small number of items and short scale
range.
The reliability of the friendly subconstruct can be
increased by improving the wording of the items
and by adding 15 “parallel” items. The latter move
would increase reliability to about .70 according to
the Spearman-Brown formula (Lord & Novick,
1968). Similarly, by adding five items in the ani-
mated and attentive subconstructs, the reliability
would approach .70.
Procedure. The tests were administered by faculty
members and teaching assistants in their respective
classes at the beginning of the semester. The short-
 Norton 107

TABLE 4
Correlations and Derived Coefficients Among
Communicator Style Subconstructs

( 1 ) Dominant *** 60 102 107 88 142 178 76 156 72

( 2 ) Dramatic .51 *** 97 65 100 194 175 94 148 106

( 3 ) Contentious .48 .41 *** 143 102 193 187 166 190 140

( 4 ) Animated .39 .54 .32 *** 106 211 142 92 101 111

( 5 ) Imp. Leaving .48 .45 .41 .42 *** 129 99 106 101 58

( 6 ) Relaxed .36 .26 .19 .22 .37 *** 180 147 184 101

(7) Attentive .24 .31 .29 .37 .38 .28 *** 160 59 124

( 8 ) Open .48 .38 -32 .42 .40 .31 .33 *** 118 61

(9) Friendly .35 .35 .25 .40 .39 .25 .50 .37 *** 105

( 1 0 ) Corn. Image -59 .41 .36 .37 .54 .48 .38 .53 .42 ***

Note.--The lower t r i a n g u l a r m a t r i x r e p r e s e n t s t h e o r i g i n a l

c o e f f i c i e n t s ( c o r r e l a t i o n s ) f o r t h e s m a l l e s t space a n a l y s i s . The upper t r i a n g u l a r

m a t r i x r e p r e s e n t s t h e d e r i v e d c o e f f i c e n t s f o r a t h r e e dimensional s m a l l e s t space

s o l u t i o n w i t h semi-strong monotonicity. T h i s m a t r i x c o u l d be used t o reproduce

a t h r e e dimensional, g r a p h i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , although l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n i s l o s t

w i t h a two dimensional r e p r e s e n t a t i o n (figure 1 ) .

Note.--N equals 1086.

ened version of the CSM took about eight minutes to Results

complete. The instructions can be obtained from the
author.
Statistical analyses. Two kinds of statistical
analyses were done on the second data set. First, the
underlying structure using smallest space analysis
(Guttman, 1968; Lingoes, 1973) as the major tech-
nique was examined. Second, the best predictors for
communicator image were determined using re-
gression techniques. An additional check was an
examination of the variables which ended up closest
neighbors of the dependent variable.
Internal structure. Two analyses are reported to
identify the internal structure of the CSM-51. First,
all 5 1 items are examined using smallest space anal-
ysis. Second, the items are standardized and sum-
med for the respective subconstructs. The sub-
constructs, in turn, are analyzed using smallest
space analysis.
Smallest space analysis of 51 Items. A three-
dimensional solution for the 51 items showed that
the variables in each subconstruct grouped in the
108 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / VOL. 4, NO. 2, WINTER 1978

FIGURE 1
Two Dimensional Smallest Space Solution

-100 4 7 -3 3 0 33 67 I
100- 100
I I I I

0
ATTENTIVE
AN I MATED
67 0 FRIENDLY 67

DRAMATIC
33 - 33
C0MMUNICATS)R IMPRESSION
IMAGE 0 LEAVING
CONTENTIOU!
0 0

DOMiN ANT
-33 -
0
03
OPEN

-67- 67

RELAXED
-1 0 . I I I I ,700
-100 -67 -3 3 0 33 67 100

appropriate regions. The coefficient of alienation
for the three-dimensional solution with semistrong
monotonicity is .07; Kruskal’s stress coefficient for
the same solution is .08.
The subconstructs are defined very well even in
light of the large number of items, representing
1,275 distances. Six of the subconstructs ended up
with all the original items located in approximately
the same region. The impression leaving sub-
construct Iost item 18 resulting in a four-item clus-
ter. Also, the open subconstruct ended up with four
of the original items, loosing item 38. The friendly
subconstruct ended up with three of the original
items, loosing items 3 and 35. Finally, the conten-
tious subconstruct ended up with three items, loos-
ing items 10 and 13 which formed a separate cluster.
Smallest space analysis of the 10 subconstructs.
Table 4 shows the original (correlations) and de-
rived distances for the subconstructs. As before, the
items for each subconstruct were standardized and
summed. The three-dimensional solution for the 10
subconstructs has a coefficient of alienation of .07
(semistrong monotonicity). The two dimensional
solution for the subconstructs has a coefficient of
alienation of .16; Kruskal’s stress is .13. Figure 1
shows the two-dimensional solution. As in Study 1,
clustering, dimensionality, and best predictors are
examined.
Clustering of the 10 subconstructs. The clustering
of the subconstructs, as in the previous analysis, is
not always immediately apparent and multiple in-
 Norton 109

TABLE 5 nondirective communicative activity to directive

Simplexes in the Variable Set communicative activity. The second dimension
~ ~
seems to be anchored by communicative activity,
Dimension I Dimension I 1
dramatic and animated, which requires energy ex-
--
penditure and allows tension release at one end, and
Simplex I Simplex I 1 Simplex 111
by communicative activity, relaxed, which con-
Relaxed I Attentive A t t e n t ive
serves energy and reflects a state of already released
tension. Of course, it is too early to definitely iden-
Communicator
Image

Dominant
I Friendly

An imate d

Dramatic
Friendly

Animated
Dramatic
Domi n an t Domi n ant
Animated
Note.--The simplexes are found i n t h e t h r e e
dimensional s o l u t i o n .
terpretations are legitimate. Six clusters are sug-
gested in light ofapriori, conceptual considerations
and the post hoc configuration: Cluster
I-impression leaving and communicator image;
Cluster II-dramatic and animated; Cluster III-
attentive and friendly; Cluster IV-dominant and
contentious; Cluster V-relaxed; Cluster VI-
open. The major shift is in the open subconstruct. It
is realigned, moving from the attentive and friendly
region to the dominant and communicator image
region. The other subconstructs remained in rela-
tively the same positions as found in the first study.
Dimensionality. Three indications of the number
and character of dimensions are available. First,
dimensionality is shown by the smallest space solu-
tion. With the more stable correlations, stress has
increased compared to the solutions in Study 1. The
conclusion, however, is the same: It takes at least
two, but preferably three dimensions for a “good”
solution.
Second, a broad, intuitive understanding of the
character of the dimensionality can be had by noting
the respective positions of the subconstructs in the
smallest space solution. In general, two dimensions
are suggested. The first dimensions anchored by Best predictors: Regression analyses. Two regres-
attentive and friendly style components at one end sion analyses are reported: (1) simple regression and
and dominant and contentious style components at ( 2 ) stepwise regression which identifies the first
the other end points to a continuum ranging from best predictor, then the second, and so on. For each
tify the exact nature of the continua at this point in
the development of the communicator style con-
struct.
Finally, simplexes help to analyze the character
of the underlying dimensions. In this data set, only 3
five-variable simplexes-out of 252 combina-
tions-are present. Table 5 reports them. Two kinds
of simplexes are in the configuration. Simplex I
reflects a continuum similar to the one identified in
terms of energy expenditure above. The relaxed
subconstruct anchors one end; dramatic and ani-
mated subconstructs anchor the other end. Sim-
plexes I1 and 111 parallel the directive/nondirective
continuum above. Attentive, friendly, and ani-
mated define one end of the continuum for both
simplexes; dominant defines the other end. The
difference between the simplexes is whether open or
dominant is included.
Best predictors suggested by the smallest space
solution. The most likely predictors of communica-
tor image are the closest neighbors in the configura-
tion. Three subconstructs are relatively close to
communicator image. Impression leaving is the
closest variable in the three-dimensional solution
with a derived coefficient of d = 58. The original
coefficient is r = .54. Open is the second closest
neighbor with d = 61 and the original distance r =
.53. Dominant is the third closest variable with d =
7 2 . Dominant is the closest to communicator image
in terms of the original distance, r = .59. In short,
the three best candidates for strong predictors of the
dependent variable are impression leaving, open,
and dominant.
110 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH I VOL. 4, NO. 2, WINTER 1978

TABLE 6
Regression Analyses on Communicator Style Data Set
r
S i mp l e Regress ion Stepwise Regression

Variable p t-statistic R‘ t - s t a t i s ti c

Dominant .25 9.7 .34 23.8

Impress ion
Leaving .18 6.6 .43 12.6

Re1axed .20 8.8 .48 10.2

Open .19 7.5 .51 9.0

F r i e n d 1y .10 3.4 .52 4.9

Attentive .08 3.0 .53 3.0

~~

Note.--Animated, contentious, and dramatic d i d n o t make i t i n t o the

equations w i t h p = .05. For the simple regression, the v a r i a b l e s which

entered the regression equation were s i g n i f i c a n t f(9, 1076) = 134.1, p <

.001. For the stepwise regression, forward s e l e c t i o n , t h e v a r i a b l e s

which entered t h e regression equation were s i g n i f i c a n t r ( 6 , 1079) = 201.6

P < .001.

analysis the variables were standardized and aver-
aged for the respective subconstructs. Table 6 re-
ports the results. Again, dominant turns out to be the
best predictor of communcator image. In the step-
wise analysis, dominant by itself explains 34% of
the variance. Only three variables do not make it
into the regression analyses: animated, contentious,
and dramatic. The other six variables account for
53% of the explained variance.
SUMMARY
Essentially, the findings in Study 1 were con-
firmed. First, the subconstructs cluster approxi-
mately the same way in both studies. Second, the
same kind of dimensionality is present in both data
sets. Third, the “best predictors” were similar.
More importantly, there is a correspondence be-
tween a definitional system for a universe of obser-
vations and an aspect of the empirical structure of
those observations, together with a rational for such
a relationship. The task at hand is twofold: (1)
expand the universe of observation relating to
communicator style, and ( 2 ) strengthen the
rationale associated with the tentative theory.
DISCUSSION
Like any other psychometric construct, com-
municator style is contingent upon context, situa-
tion, and time. The context refers to the interactive
stage and its setting, including props, rituals, and
expectations. The situation refers to the people and
their purpose within the context. Finally, time is a
complex operant which can impinge across differ-
ent hours in the day or across broader demarcations
ranging from youth to old age. The tacit hypothesis
is that these three components to some extent sub-
stantially influence styles of communicating. Exp-
loration of these components is one way to expand
the universe of observation relating to the com-
municator style construct.
A second way to expand the universe of observa-
tion is to carefully examine the data set for voids.
One advantage of smallest space analysis is that it
geometrically represents the variable set. The con-
 Norton
figurations in both studies suggest that there may be
some “holes” in the construct.
The stickiest problem the researcher faces in es-
tablishing a construct is showing validity. This re-
search is not complete in this regard. Two of the
three kinds of validity were focused upon: construct
and content validity. The procedures for specifying
the domain of communicator style have been multi-
ple. In general, two arguments have been made: (1)
the content which has been sampled is important to
the notion of communicator style, and ( 2 ) the con-
tent has been adequately cast in the form of self-
report test items.
The stickiest problem the researcher faces in es-
tablishing a construct is showing validity. This re-
search is not complete in this regard. The following
caveats are in order: First, because validity depends
upon reliability, the researcher should be careful in
using some of the subconstructs, such as the
friendly subconstruct. The expanded version of the
friendly subconstruct (available from the author)
should be used to assure adequate reliability. Sec-
ond, the payoff for the communicator style con-
struct comes when the self-report measure can be
used to predict communicative behaviors and con-
sequents which can be observed by others. Miller’s
work (1976) on communicator style and perception
in dyads is an exemplary study along these lines.
In summary, two of the three kinds of validity
were focused upon: construct and content validity.
The procedures for specifying the domain of com-
municator style have been multiple. In general, two
arguments have been made: (1) the content which
has been sampled is important to the notion of
communicator style, and ( 2 ) the content has been
adequately cast in the form of self-report test items.
REFERENCES
BALES, R. Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York:
Holt, Rinehart &Winston, Inc., 1970.
BECKER, J., & MUNZ, D. Extraversion and reciprocation of
interview disclosures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1975, 43, 593.
BERGER, C . , & CALABRESE, R. Some explorations in initial
interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of
interpersonal communication. Human Communication Re-
search, 1975, 1, 99-112.
BORMA”, E. Discussion and group methods: Theory and
practice. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1975.
CASH, D., & SOLOWAY, D. Self-disclosure correlates of
111
physical attractiveness: An exploratory study. Psychology
Reports, 1975, 36, 579-586.
COSER, R. Some social functions of laughter. Human Rela-
tions, 1959, 12, 171-182.
DARWIN, C. The expression of emotions in man and animals.
London: Murray, 1872.
DITTMANN, A. The relationship between body movements and
moods in interviews. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1962, 26, 480.
DRAPER, N., & SMITH, H. Applied regression analysis. New
York: John Wiley, 1966.
DUNCAN, S . Some signals and rules for taking turns in conver-
sations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1972,
23, 283-292.
EKMAN, P., & FRIESEN, W. Unmasking the face: A guide to
recognizing emotions from facial expressions. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975.
EXLINE, R. The glances of power and preference. In J. Cole,
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 19. Lincoln, Neb-
raska: University of Nebraska Press, 1971.
FENSTERHEIM, H., & BAER, J. Don’t say yes when you want
to say no! How assertiveness training can change your life.
New York: David McKay, 1975.
FISHER, M., & APOSTAL, R. Selected vocal cues and coun-
selor’s perceptions of genuineness, self-disclosure, and anx-
iety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1975, 2 2 , 92-96.
FROMME, D., & BEAM, D. Dominance and sex differences in
nonverbal responses to differential eye contact. Journal of
Research in Personality, 1974, 8, 76-87.
GIFFEN, K. The contribution of studies of source credibility to a
theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process.
Psychological Bulletin, 1967, 68, 102-120.
GOFFMAN, E. Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of
interaction. Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill, 1961.
GOODCHILDS, J., & SMITH, E. The wit and his group.
Human Relations, 1964, 17, 23-3 1.
GUTTMAN, L. A general nonmetric technique for finding the
smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points.
Psychometrika, 1968, 33, 469-506.
HOGAN, R. Empathy: A conceptual and psychometric analysis.
Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 5 , 14- 18.
HUBER, E. Evolution of facial musculature and facial expres-
sion. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1931.
IANNOTTI, R. The nature and measurement of empathy in
children. Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 5 , 21-25.
JAMISON, R., &JOHNSON, J. Empathy and therapeutic orien-
tation in paid and volunteer crisis phone workers, profes-
sional therapists, and undergraduate college students. Jour-
nal of Community Psychology, 1975, 3, 269-274.
JOURARD, S . , & JAFFE, P. Influence of an interviewer’s
disclosure on the self-disclosing behavior of interviewers.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17, 252-257.
KELLY, B . Concerned confrontation: The art of counseling.
Southern Journal of Educational Research, 1975, 9, 110-
122.
KLEINKE, C., STANESKI, R., & BERGER, D. Evaluation of
an interviewer as a function of interviewer gaze, reinforce-
ment of subject gaze, and interviewer attractiveness. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 115-122.
KNAPP, M., HART, R., & DENNIS, H. An exploration of
deception as a communication constmct. Human Communi-
cation Research, 1974, 1, 15-29.
KOGAN, N., & WALLACH, A. Risk-taking as afunctionofthe
situation, the person, and the group. New Directions in
112 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / VOL. 4, NO. 2, WINTER 1978
Psychology 111. In G. Mandler, P. Mussen, N. Kogan, and
M. Wallach (Eds.), New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
Inc., 1961.
KOHEN, J. The development of reciprocal self-disclosure in
opposite sex interaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1975, 22, 404-410.
KRUSKAL, J. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing good-
ness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 1964,
29, 1-27.
LALLJEE, M., & COOK, M. Uncertainty in first encounters.
Journal of Personalitj and Social Psychology, 1973, 26,
137-141.
LEARY, T. Interpersonal diagnosis ofpersonality: A functional
theory of methodology for personalitj evaluation. New
York: The Ronald Press Company, 1957.
LIEBERMAN, M., YALOM, I., & MILES, M. Encounter
groups: Firstfacts. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
LINGOES, J . The Guttman-Lingoes nonmetric program series.
Ann Arbor, Michigan: Mathesis Press, 1973.
LORD, F., & NOVICK, M. Statistical theories of mental test
scores. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publish-
ing Company, 1968.
LORENZE, K. Der Kumpan inder Umwelt des Vogels. Journal
of Ornithology, 1935, 83, 137-215, 289-413.
LUNDBERG, C. Person-focused joking: Pattern and function.
Human Organization, 1969, 28, 22-28.
MANN, R., GIBBARD, G., & HARTMAN, J. Interpersonal
stylesandgroupdevelopment. New York: John Wiley, 1967.
McALLISTER, A., & KIESLER, D. Intervieweedisclosure as a
function of interpersonal trust, task modeling, and inter-
viewer self-disclosure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1975, 43, 428.
McQUITTY, L. Elementary linkage analysis for isolating ortho-
gonal and oblique types and typal relevancies. Educutional
and Psychological Measurement, 1957, 17. 207-229.
MILLER, L. Dyadic perception of communicator style: Replica-
tion and confirmation. Communication Research, 1977, 4,
87-112.
NAIMAN, T . , & BREED, G. Gaze duration as a cue for judging
conversational tone. Representative Research in Social
Psychology, 1974, 5 , 115-122.
NORTON, R. Communicator style: Theory and applications.
Paper presented at the annual Speech Communication Asso-
ciation convention, Chicago, Illinois, 1974.
NORTON, R., MULLIGAN, M., & PETRONIO, S. Strategies
to elicit self-disclosure. Paper presented at the annual Inter-
national Communication Association convention, Chicago,
Illinois, 1975.
NORTON, R. Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 1975, 39, 607-613.
NORTON, R., & PETTEGREW, L. Communicator style as an
effect determinant of attraction. Paper delivered at the annual
International Communication Association convention, Port-
land, Oregon, 1976.
NORTON, R., & WARNICK, B. Assertiveness as a communi-
cation construct. Human Communication Research, 1976, I ,
62-66.
NORTON, R. Teacher effectiveness as a function of com-
municator style. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication year-
book I . New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, Inc., 1977.
O’BRIEN, M. Communications and relationships in nursing.
St. Louis: Mosby, 1974.
O’CONNEL, W. Creativity in humor. Journal of Social
Psychology, 1969, 78, 237-241.
O’CONNOR, G., & ALDERSON, J. Human relations groups
for human services practitioners. Small Group Behavior,
1974, 5 , 495-505.
PEDERSEN, D . , & HIGBEE, K . Personality correlates of self-
disclosure. Journal of Social Psychology, 1969, 78, 81-89.
PETTEGREW, L. An investigation of therapeutic com-
municator style. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication year-
book 1 . New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, Inc., 1977.
PIDERIT, T. Mimik und Physiognomik. Detmold, 1925 (origi-
nally published in 1867).
ROGERS, C . Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1951.
ROGERS, C . Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. Coun-
seling Psychologist, 1975, 5 , 2-10.
ROSENFELD, H. Instrumental affiliative functions of facial and
gestural expressions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1966, 4, 65-12.
RUBIN, Z. Disclosing oneself to a stranger: Reciprocity and its
limits. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1975,
1 I , 233-260.
RUESCH, J . Disturbedcommunication. New York: W.W. Nor-
ton & Company, Inc., 1957.
RUESCH, J . Therapeutic communication. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, Inc., 1961.
SAINESBURY, P. Gestural movement during psychiatric inter-
views. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1955, 17, 458-469.
SCHEFLEN, A. Quasi-courtship behavior in psychotherapy.
psychiatry, 1965, 28, 245-257.
SCHEREER, K., LONDON, H., & WOLF, J . The voice of
confidence: Paralinguistic cues and audience evaluation.
Journal of Research in Personality, 1973, 7, 3 1-44,
SCHUTZ, W. FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interper-
sonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.,
1958.
SHANTZ, C. Empathy in relation to social cognitive develop-
ment. Counseling Psychologists, 1975, 5 , 18-21.
SMITH, M. When I say no I feel guilty. New York: Bantam
Book, 1975.
STEINER, C. Scripts people live: Transactional analysis of life
scripts. New York: Grove Press, 1974.
SULLIVAN, H. The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1953.
SULLIVAN, H. Personalpsychopathy. New York: W.W. Nor-
ton, 1972.
TAYLOR, D., & ALTMAN, I. Intimacy-scaled stimuli for use
in studies of interpersonal relations. Psychological Reports,
1966, 19, 729-730.
THAYER, S . , & SCHIFF, W. Eye-contact, facial expression,
and the experience of time. Journal of Social Psychology,
1975, 95, 117-124.
TRAYLOR, G. Joking in a bush camp. Human Relations, 1973,
26, 479-486.
WARE, R., & HARVEY, 0. Acognitivedeterminant of impre-
ssion formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 1967, 5 , 38-44.
WATZLAWICK, P., BEAVIN, J., &JACKSON, D. Pragma-
tics of human communication: A study of interactional pat-
terns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W .W, Nor-
ton & Company, 1967.
WELLS, R. Training in facilitative skills. Social Work, 1975,
20, 242-243.
WUNDT, W. Deutsche Rundschau, 1877, 3, 120. Cited by A.
Peiper, Cerebral function in infancy and childhood. New
York: Consultants Bureau, 1963.