Understanding Emotional Response Theory: The Role of Instructor Power and Justice Messages

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/232984061
Understanding Emotional Response Theory: The Role of

Instructor Power and Justice Messages
Article in Communication Quarterly · April 2012

DOI: 10.1080/01463373.2012.669323
CITATIONS READS
67 4,030
3 authors:
Sean M. Horan Matthew Martin

Fairfield University West Virginia University
59 PUBLICATIONS 1,132 CITATIONS 164 PUBLICATIONS 6,260 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Keith Weber
Chapman University
61 PUBLICATIONS 1,377 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Workplace Relationships View project
Gender and Consent to Organ Donation View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sean M. Horan on 10 June 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Communication Quarterly
Vol. 60, No. 2, April–June 2012, pp. 210–233
Understanding Emotional Response

Theory: The Role of Instructor Power
and Justice Messages
Sean M. Horan, Matthew M. Martin, & Keith Weber
Emotional Response Theory (Mottet, Frymier, & Beebe, 2006) predicts that instructor
communication stimulates student emotional responses that direct their approach–
avoidance behaviors. To test this theory, students reported their perceptions of instructor
communication (power and justice), student emotional responses (pleasure, arousal, and
dominance), and indicators of their approach–avoidance (cognitive learning, affective
learning, and state motivation). Emotional responses were superior predictors of cogni-
tive learning and state motivation compared to instructor communication. However,
instructor communication was a better predictor of affective learning compared to
emotional responses. To test the causal nature of this theory, path analyses were
employed. The models were not supported. Collectively, the theory was partially sup-
ported. Implications, limitations, future directions, and an assessment of the theory
are discussed.
Keywords: Emotional Response Theory; Instructional Theory; Justice; Learning;

Motivation; Power
Frustration over the state of instructional theory has plagued the discipline since our
earliest days. Lashbrook and Wheeless (1978), for example, concluded their review of
instructional communication and learning theory by admitting that much of what
they reviewed did not constitute theory. Later, Daly and Korinek (1980) called for
the creation of instructional theory, explaining that ‘‘reviewing the literature
Sean M. Horan (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2009) is an assistant professor in the College of Communi-
cation at DePaul University. Matthew M. Martin (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1992) is a professor and chair
in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University. Keith Weber (Ed.D., West Virginia
University, 1998) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia
University. Correspondence: Sean M. Horan, College of Communication, DePaul University, 14 E. Jackson Blvd.,
Ste. 1821, Chicago, IL 60604; E-mail: seanmhoran@gmail.com
ISSN 0146-3373 print/1746-4102 online # 2012 Eastern Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/01463373.2012.669323
Communication Quarterly 211
concerned with classroom talk provided us with an overwhelming sense of the

necessity for more integrative formulations of major relationships’’ (p. 527). About
20 years later, Waldeck, Kearney, and Plax (2001) indicated that instructional scho-
lars are beginning to conduct theory grounded work; yet, Nussbaum and Friedrich
(2005) noted that the majority of theories used were not from the Communication
discipline and none were developed by instructional researchers. Clearly, much more
work is necessary in the area of instructional communication theory.
In an effort to begin to fill this theoretical void, scholars have recently begun devel-
oping, examining, and testing unique instructional theories (Frymier, 2007; Mottet,
Frymier, & Beebe, 2006; Weber, Martin, & Myers, 2011). Of these efforts, Mottet et al.
(2006) provided the most complete description through their presentation of three
unique instructional communication theories (e.g., Emotional Response Theory,
Relational Power and Influence Theory, and Rhetorical and Relational Goals Theory).
Because each of their theories necessitates testing, this study examined one of their
theories—specifically, examining the basic arguments of Emotional Response Theory.
Emotional Response Theory

Although emotions are not widely examined in instructional communication
research, recent work indicates that both students and teachers experience emotions
in the classroom (Horan, Chory, & Goodboy, 2010; McPherson & Young, 2004;
Miller, 2002; Paulsel, 2005; Richardson, Alexander, & Castleberry, 2008; Tsetsura,
Bigam, Buford, & Chen, 2003; Zhang & Zhu, 2008). Speaking to the power of student
affect, Emotional Response Theory (Mottet et al., 2006) explicates the pivotal role
that students’ emotions play in the classroom. This theory has three components:
instructor behavior (communication), student emotional responses, and student
approach–avoidance behaviors. This theory argues that the relationships among
instructor communication and student behavior are mediated by the emotional
responses of students to instructor messages. Although this theory draws on the work
of Mehrabian (1971, 1980, 1981; Russell & Mehrabian, 1977), and emotional
responses have been examined in other communication contexts (e.g., Beebe &
Biggers, 1986; Christ & Biggers, 1984; Vinson & Biggers, 1993), Mottet et al. (2006)
argued it to be a unique comprehensive instructional communication theory.
Particularly, this theory argues that students experience one of three emotional
responses to teacher communication. They are considered to be core affect (Russell &
Barrett, 1999), and vary along a continuum: pleasure–displeasure, arousal–non-arousal,
and dominance–submissiveness. Pleasure describes how ‘‘well’’ one is feeling (Russell &
Barrett, 1999, p. 809). Descriptions of pleasure include comfortable–uncomfortable,
happy–unhappy, and joyful–miserable (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Arousal describes
one’s ‘‘mobilization or energy’’ level (Russell & Barrett, 1999, p. 809). Descriptions of
arousal include stimulated–relaxed, excited–calm, and frenzied–sluggish (Mehrabian
& Russell, 1974). Dominance describes one’s feeling of power, authority, and influence
(Mehrabian, 1981). Descriptions of dominance include submissive–dominant,
212 S. M. Horan et al.
decisive–indecisive, and bold–meek (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). These three
emotional responses are argued to be independent of one another (Mehrabian, 1981).
Student emotional responses are important because they are theoretically linked to
student behavior (Mottet et al., 2006)—that is, emotions influence whether students
approach or avoid. Thus, if instructor messages result in feelings of pleasure, arousal,
and dominance, a student should enact approach behaviors. However, if instructor
communication diminishes feelings of pleasure, arousal, and dominance, a student
should enact avoidance behaviors. Prior work supports the notion that emotions
influence behavior (e.g., Biggers & Rankis, 1983; Russell & Mehrabian, 1978). For
example, Biggers and Rankis (1983) contended that emotions account for about
40% of the variance in human behavior.
In the initial study of student emotional responses in the classroom, Mottet and
Beebe (2002) examined how nonverbal immediacy related to emotional responses
and indicators of students’ behavior. To provide support for the theory, student
emotional responses would have to be superior predictors of approach–avoidance
indicators compared to instructor nonverbal immediacy. As a representation of
approach–avoidance behaviors, they measured students’ cognitive and affective
learning. They argued that students who felt increased emotional responses were
more likely to feel empowered, motivated, attend class, and study—all approach
behaviors that should manifest themselves in increased cognitive and affective learn-
ing. Results of their study provide partial support for the theory. They found that
feelings of pleasure were more predictive of both cognitive and affective learning
than immediacy, which is theoretically consistent. However, immediacy remained
a better predictor of cognitive and affective learning compared to feelings of
arousal and dominance, failing to support the theory. It should be noted that
Mottet and Beebe recommend future research utilize path analysis, as failure to
find support for dominance and arousal may be a function of the emotions statisti-
cally moderating one another. Collectively, the work of Mottet (Mottet & Beebe,
2002; Mottet et al., 2006) suggests that more research is warranted to further under-
stand student emotional responses in the classroom. As such, this study examines
Emotional Response Theory in reference to two instructor messages: power and
justice.
Instructor Communication: Power and Justice

Some view that it is a teacher’s job to influence (Roach, Richmond, & Mottet, 2006),
indicating the key role power messages play in the classroom. Accordingly, McCroskey
and Richmond (1983) utilized French and Raven’s (1968) five bases of power to
understand how teachers communicate power in the classroom. Expert power is
granted when a student perceives the instructor to possess knowledge and abilities;
referent power is granted when a student perceives an instructor is likeable; legitimate
power is granted when a student perceives the position of instructor warrants power;
reward power is granted when a student perceives their instructor can administer
rewards or relieve punishments; and coercive power is granted when a student perceives
their instructor can administer punishments or remove rewards.
A related power message is justice (Horan & Myers, 2009; Paulsel, Chory-Assad, &
Dunleavy, 2005), which is a perception of how fair someone is in a position of power
(e.g., Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Although originally examined in
organizational settings (see Colquitt et al., 2001), Chory-Assad (2002) applied three
types of justice to the classroom and this typology was recently validated in the class-
room (Horan et al., 2010). How fair a student perceives the interpersonal communi-
cation of the instructor to be is termed interactional justice (Chory, 2007), the
perceived fairness of the outcomes=grades assigned to students is termed distributive
justice (Chory-Assad, 2002), and the perceived fairness of the process use to assign
outcomes=grades to students is termed procedural justice (Chory-Assad, 2002). Power
and justice are related, in that students’ perceptions of instructors’ expert, legitimate,
and referent power use are positively related, differentially, to perceptions of justice
whereas coercive power is negatively related to perceptions of interactional justice
(Paulsel et al., 2005). Similarly, instructors who reported being concerned with pro-
cedural and interactional justice also reported communicating more from referent
and expert power bases (Horan & Myers, 2009).
Power was selected as a teacher message in this theoretical model for three reasons.
First, power was the subject of our first, and one of the few, programs of instructional
research (Kearney, Plax, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1984, 1985; McCroskey &
Richmond, 1983; McCroskey, Richmond, Plax, & Kearney, 1985; Plax, Kearney,
McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Richmond & McCroskey, 1984; Richmond,
McCroskey, Kearney, & Plax, 1987). This has allowed for a rich understanding of
power in the classroom, and suggests that power is a classic and important variable
in our field. Second, in their presentation of the theory, Mottet et al. (2006) included
behavior alteration techniques (BATs; Kearney et al., 1984, 1985) as potential
messages that may impact emotional responses. BATs are power-related messages
that reflect an instructor’s power use, suggesting that power is important to study
in the context of this theory.
Third, Mottet et al. (2006) argued that explicit and implicit messages (Mehrabian,
1981) impact students’ emotional responses. Explicit messages are primarily verbal,
speaking to power’s rhetorical dimension (Roach et al., 2006). However, Mottet
et al. (2006) argued that implicit messages play the ‘‘central’’ role in student emo-
tional responses (p. 262). These messages are mostly communicated nonverbally
(Mehrabian, 1981; Mottet et al., 2006). Some may question the implicit nature of
power messages; however, recall that Roach et al. described power as containing a
relational dimension. This dimension encompasses both verbal and nonverbal mes-
sages, the latter representing the implicit message component. Past research supports
the notion that power messages have a nonverbal=implicit dimension through
power’s nonverbal manifestations (e.g., Burgoon & LePoire, 1999; Carney, Hall, &
LeBeau, 2005). In fact, many of the implicit message examples that Mottet et al.
(2006) described were also identified as nonverbal behaviors that those in higher
power exhibit (Carney et al., 2005).
A closely related construct to power, justice, was selected as the second teacher
behavior because perceptions of instructor power use and justice concerns are related
(Horan & Myers, 2009; Paulsel et al., 2005). This suggests that instructors may com-
municate power and justice messages in conjunction with one another or, at least,
that students’ make cognitive sense of these messages together, suggesting that justice
contains both explicit and implicit message dimensions.
More important, past research examining justice indicates that students exhibit
both behavioral and emotional reactions when they perceive their instructor to lack
concerns over fairness (Horan et al., 2010). Examples of these behavioral outcomes
directed toward the instructor include deception, resistance, revenge, and aggression
(Chory-Assad, 2002; Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004a, 2004b; Paulsel & Chory-Assad,
2005). Further, Horan et al.’s (2010) qualitative study of justice uncovered that stu-
dents report a wide range of emotional reactions to a lack of justice concerns, includ-
ing anger, frustration, and pain. Because students reported emotional reactions in
response to instructors’ messages, the fundamental theoretical argument that stu-
dents experience emotional responses to instructors’ communication is supported.
Based on these findings, the authors argued that, when faced with injustice, students
experience low pleasure (e.g., upset, cheated, or hurt), high arousal (e.g., anger,
embarrassment, or stress), or little feelings of dominance (e.g., powerless or violated).
Adding to our understanding of the relationships among justice and emotional
responses, Paulsel (2005) found that student perceptions of instructor justice pre-
dicted students’ emotional responses of pleasure, arousal, and dominance. She pro-
vided partial support for Emotional Response Theory, yet failed to test the
subsequent link to student behaviors.
Collectively, it is argued that instructor power and justice messages have both
explicit and implicit components. Equally, instructors’ use of power and justice
should elicit emotional responses (pleasure, arousal, and dominance) in students.
Thus, based on Emotional Response Theory, it is expected that student emotional
responses to instructor power and justice messages will be superior predictors of
indicators of student approach–avoidance behaviors compared to instructor com-
munication. We now turn our attention to the final component of this theory: stu-
dent approach–avoidance behaviors.
Student Approach–Avoidance Indicators: Learning and Motivation

To measure indicators of student approach–avoidance behaviors, three indicators
were selected: cognitive learning, affective learning, and motivation. A rationale for
why these indicators were selected follows a brief review of each variable. Cognitive
learning refers to students’ acquiring, using, and comprehending knowledge (Bloom,
1956; Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964). Past research indicates that students’ cog-
nitive learning is positively related to teacher immediacy (Burroughs, 2007; Chesebro
& McCroskey, 2001; Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, 2007; Gorham & Christophel,
1990; Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Kelley & Gorham, 1988; McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer,
Richmond, & Barraclough, 1996; Messman & Jones-Corely, 2001; Richmond,
Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987; Rodriguez, Plax, & Kearney, 1996; Witt & Wheeless,
2001), confirmation (Ellis, 2000; Goodboy & Myers, 2008), clarity (Chesebro,
2003; Comadena et al., 2007), humor (Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Wanzer &
Frymier, 1999), extroversion (McCroskey, Valencic, & Richmond, 2004), responsive-
ness (Robinson, 1993), caring (Teven & McCroskey, 1997), argumentativeness
(Myers, 2002), communication of organizational cues (Titsworth, 2001), and
students’ goals being met (Frymier, 2007).
Affective learning refers to students’ attitudes, beliefs, and values about a subject
matter or teacher (Krathwohl et al., 1964). Previous research indicates that students’
affective learning is positively related to teacher immediacy (Andersen, 1979;
Burroughs, 2007; Chesebro, 2003; Comadena et al., 2007; Frymier, 2007; Gorham &
Christophel, 1990; Gorham & Zakahi, 1990; Messman & Jones-Corely, 2001; Mottet
& Beebe, 2002; Mottet, Parker-Raley, Beebe, & Cunningham, 2007; Richmond,
McCroskey, Plax, & Kearney, 1986; Witt & Wheeless, 2001; Zhang, Oetzel, Gao,
Wilcox, & Takai, 2007), clarity (Chesebro, 2003; Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001;
Comadena et al., 2007), caring (Comadena et al., 2007; Teven, 2007; Teven &
McCroskey, 1997), confirmation (Ellis, 2000; Goodboy & Myers, 2008), humor use
(Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Wanzer & Frymier, 1999), self-disclosure (Mazer,
Murphy, & Simonds, 2007; Sorenson, 1989), extroversion (McCroskey et al., 2004),
argumentativeness (Myers, 2002; Myers & Knox, 2000), and students’ goals being
met (Frymier, 2007). Affective learning is negatively related to teacher neuroticism
(McCroskey et al., 2004), teacher misbehaviors (Wanzer & McCroskey, 1998), and
aggression (Myers, 2002; Myers & Knox, 2000).
Cognitive and affective learning were selected as approach–avoidance indicators
because of their relationships described in prior research and theory and to add
understanding to the initial study of student emotional responses by replicating
the measurement of learning (Mottet & Beebe, 2002). First, past work indicates that
learning, power, and justice are related. Referent power use is positively related to
cognitive and affective learning, whereas legitimate and coercive power use is nega-
tively related to learning (Richmond & McCroskey, 1984). Equally, affective learning
is positively related to perceptions of procedural and distributive justice
(Chory-Assad, 2002). Because positive relationships already exist among learning,
power, and justice, it is important to discover if, as the theory predicts, emotional
responses play a role in understanding student learning.
Based on Emotional Response Theory, learning should function as a manifestation
of approach–avoidance behaviors—that is, students who feel pleasure, arousal, and
dominance should be more engaged in coursework and, consequently, report higher
levels of cognitive and affective learning. In their initial test of students’ emotional
responses, Mottet and Beebe (2002) measured learning and offered a more specific
theoretical argument as to why learning is considered a manifestation of
approach–avoidance behaviors:
[S]tudents who experience pleasure, enjoy school and are probably more likely to
approach rather than avoid such school related activities such as attending class,
remaining on task in the classroom, and completing homework assignments.
Students who experience arousal, have a mental alertness and are ready to act. This
aroused mental state and readiness to act probably serve as a catalyst or motivator
in the classroom. The research suggests that the arousal response has a tendency to
exaggerate or intensify the pleasure response yielding optimal pleasure, which
ultimately enhances approach-like behavior. Finally, students who experience
dominance, feel empowered in the classroom. Rather than feeling submissive or
out of control, students who feel empowered in the classroom have confidence
in their ability to learn and accomplish various school related activities. (p. 80)
Thus, pleasure, arousal, and dominance should result in increased approach

behaviors, which can be reflected by cognitive and affective learning assessments.
Within their investigation, Mottet and Beebe (2002) found that pleasure was a
better predictor of learning compared to immediacy. Yet, immediacy remained a
superior predictor of learning compared to dominance and arousal. They argued that
future research should use more advanced statistical techniques to examine the paths
among instructor behavior, student emotions, and student behavior—a recommen-
dation this study adopted. Emotional Response Theory argues that students who feel
pleasure, arousal, and dominance should feel more inclined to approach. Learning
should reflect their approach behaviors, as they should attend class and study more,
subsequently enhancing perceptions of learning. Based on Emotional Response
Theory, the first hypothesis predicts the following:
H1a: Students’ emotional responses (pleasure, arousal, and dominance) will be

superior predictors of students’ learning (cognitive and affective) compared to
instructors’ power and justice messages.
H1b: Instructors’ power use and justice messages will stimulate emotional responses
(pleasure, arousal, and dominance) in students that will result in student
learning (cognitive and affective).
Brophy (1987) contended that ‘‘the state of motivation to learn exists when student
engagement in a particular activity is guided by the intention of acquiring the knowledge
of mastering the skill that the activity is designed to teach’’ (p. 40). He argued this
differed from trait motivation, which is a stable and consistent drive toward learning.
Students report being more motivated when they are interested=empowered (Weber,
Martin, & Cayanus, 2005; Weber & Patterson, 2000), are assertive, responsive, involved,
engage in out-of-class communication (Frymier, 2005), and when they have heard posi-
tive feedback about an instructor from other students (Edwards, Edwards, Qing, &
Wahl, 2007). Likewise, students report they are more motivated when they perceive their
instructor to communicate in a relevant manner (Frymier, 1994a; Frymier & Shulman,
1995), are confirming (Goodboy & Myers, 2008), communicate few verbally aggressive
messages (Myers, 2002; Myers & Rocca, 2000, 2001), use games=simulations when they
teach (Gerard, Hunt, Lippert, & Paynton, 1998), are argumentative (Myers, 2002; Myers
& Rocca, 2000), clear (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Comadena et al., 2007), funny
(Houser, Cowan, & West, 2007), use positive slang (Mazer & Hunt, 2008), communicate
affinity-seeking messages (Frymier, 1994b), are both assertive and responsive (Martin,
Chesebro, & Mottet, 1997), and immediate (e.g., Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006).
State motivation was selected as an indicator of approach=avoidance behaviors

because Mottet and Beebe (2002) argued that one of the emotional responses,
arousal, likely increases student motivation—that is, students who feel pleasure,
arousal, and dominance should experience an increase in state motivation. Further,
motivation was selected because it has been related to justice and power. Students
report being more motivated when they perceive their instructor to communicate
from prosocial power bases (Richmond, 1990) and maintain concerns over distribu-
tive and procedural justice (Chory-Assad, 2002). Thus, in the context of Emotional
Response Theory, it is important to discover, as the theory predicts, if student
emotional responses are superior predictors of motivation compared to power and
justice messages. Equally, it is important to examine if instructor behavior elicits
emotional responses that influence student behavior. Thus, the second hypothesis
predicts the following:
H2a: Students’ emotional responses (pleasure, arousal, and dominance) will be

superior predictors of students’ state motivation compared to instructors’ power
and justice messages.
H2b: Instructors’ power use and justice messages will stimulate emotional responses
(pleasure, arousal, and dominance) in students that will result in state
motivation.
Method
Participants and Procedure
After obtaining institutional review board approval, a convenience sample of 266
students was recruited from a large, mid-Atlantic university. Volunteers were recruited
from introductory communication courses, which were assigned at the discretion of the
researchers’ Department Research Coordinator. One hundred fifty-eight men and 104
women participated (4 declined to report their sex), and their average age was 19.98
(SD ¼ 2.11). Participants were asked to complete measures based on the teacher they
had prior to the course they were currently in. This method has been widely used to
obtain a large sample of perceptions of instructor communication, and was originally
used by Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, and Richmond (1986). Participants reported on
146 male and 118 female teachers (2 declined to report teacher sex), representing 46
subject areas. The most commonly reported-on subject was business (n ¼ 35). The aver-
age class size they reported on contained 30 students or less (35.2%; 27.3% had 31–100
students, 23.1% had 101–200 students, and 14.4% had 200þstudents).
Instrumentation
Teacher power use was measured using the Instructor Power Use measure (Schrodt,
Witt, & Turman, 2007). Respondents used a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(never) to 7 (always), to rate 30 instructor power messages representing the five bases
of power. This measure has performed reliably in past (expert, a ¼ .88; referent,
a ¼ .91; legitimate, a ¼ .77; coercive, a ¼ .87; and reward, a ¼ .81; Schrodt et al.,
2007) and present research (expert, a ¼ .84, M ¼ 31.73, SD ¼ 6.93; referent, a ¼ .79,
M ¼ 26.02, SD ¼ 8.07; legitimate, a ¼ .70, M ¼ 21.18, SD ¼ 6.63; coercive, a ¼ .79,
M ¼ 14.07, SD ¼ 6.34; and reward, a ¼ .81, M ¼ 22.31, SD ¼ 7.50). Sample items
include, ‘‘My teacher rewards the class for complying with his=her requests,’’ and
‘‘My teacher belittles or puts down students if they do not perform up to expectations.’’
Three measures were used to examine the different types of classroom justice.
Interactional justice was measured using Chory’s (2007) scale, whereas distributive
and procedural justices were measured using Chory-Assad and Paulsel’s (2004b)
measures. Seven items measured interactional justice (M ¼ 29.14, SD ¼ 5.83), 12
items measured distributive justice (M ¼ 46.97, SD ¼ 9.02), and 15 items measured
procedural justice (M ¼ 60.11, SD ¼ 10.41). Respondents rated the fairness of both
written (e.g., the syllabus) and oral communication on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (extremely unfair) to 5 (extremely fair). These scales have been reliable in past
(interactional justice, a ¼ .95; distributive justice, a ¼ .88; and procedural justice,
a ¼ .91; Chory, 2007) and present research (interactional justice, a ¼ .92; distributive
justice, a ¼ .91; and procedural justice, a ¼ .90). These three measures were recently
validated (Horan et al., 2010). Students rated perceived fairness on items such as,
‘‘the missed work make-up policies’’ and ‘‘the grade I will probably receive in this
course compared to my grade on the last exam.’’
Three scales were used to measure student emotional responses. A total of 18 items
were employed, with six items each measuring responses of pleasure, arousal, and
dominance. Respondents rated, using a seven-step semantic differential scale, how
they felt during their class. Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) items were used for plea-
sure and arousal. Mottet and Beebe (2002) modified the dominance items due to
problems in past research; thus, their items were adopted. These scales were reliable
in past (pleasure, a ¼ .92; arousal, a ¼ .83; and dominance, a ¼ .89; Mottet & Beebe,
2002) and present research (pleasure, M ¼ 29.37, SD ¼ 7.45, a ¼ .88; arousal,
M ¼ 21.90, SD ¼ 7.07, a ¼ .81; and dominance, M ¼ 25.43, SD ¼ 6.45, a ¼ .87).
Sample bipolar adjectives include happy=unhappy, joyful=miserable, and pleased=
annoyed.
To accurately compare these results to the original study of student emotional
responses, the same learning measures used by Mottet and Beebe (2002) were
adopted. Perceived cognitive learning was measured using a single item asking
students how much they think they learned in the class prior to the one they were
currently in, and responses ranged from 0 (nothing) to 9 (more than anything in
any other class taken) (M ¼ 6.27, SD ¼ 1.71). Three items were used to measure affect-
ive learning. The first item asked how often students attend class, with the following
bipolar adjective responses: always=never, infrequently=frequently, consistently=
inconsistently, and regularly=irregularly. The remaining two items asked about affect
for course (i.e., the likelihood of taking a course in the same subject area) and affect
for instructor (i.e., the likelihood of enrolling in a course with same instructor). The
following bipolar adjective responses were used: unlikely=likely, impossible=possible,
improbable=probable, and would=would not. These items have been used in past
research examining affective learning (McCroskey et al., 1985; Mottet & Richmond,
1998). Consistent with Mottet and Beebe, these items were summed into one scale
(M ¼ 65.70, SD ¼ 14.00; a ¼ .91).
State motivation was measured using Christophel’s (1990) motivation scale. This
12-item, seven-step, semantic differential scale uses bipolar adjectives to measure
students’ state motivation. Some adjective pairs include interested=uninterested,
involved=uninvolved, stimulated=not stimulated, challenged=unchallenged, and
invigorated=uninvigorated. This scale has been reliable in past work (i.e., Christophel,
1990), with this study obtaining an alpha of .93 (M ¼ 50.74, SD ¼ 14.81).
Results
Analyses
To examine the hypotheses, regression and path analyses were utilized. To test H1a
and H2a consistent with Mottet and Beebe (2002) and to further examine the rela-
tionships among instructor behaviors, student emotional responses, and approach–
avoidance behaviors, six regressions were performed. Because Emotional Response
Theory purports that student emotional responses are the most proximal influence
on student approach=avoidance behaviors (cognitive learning, affective learning,
and state motivation), hierarchical linear regressions were utilized. Thus, the six
hierarchal regressions included student emotions (Block 1: pleasure, arousal, and
dominance), instructor messages (Block 2: power or justice), and student approach
behaviors (cognitive learning, affective learning, or state motivation). Given the num-
ber of analyses conducted, concern over potential family-wise error and obtaining
significant findings when no significant relationships exist emerged; thus, we lowered
our p value from the traditional .05 level to a .01 level. To provide any support for the
theory, emotional responses would need to be superior predictors (based on beta
weights and changes in accounted variance) of learning and motivation compared
to the instructor messages (power and justice). To examine H1b and H2b, path analy-
ses were conducted. This is suggested in prior student emotional response research
(Mottet & Beebe, 2002), and functions as a direct test of the relationships proposed
by Emotional Response Theory. To gather support for the theory, the models would
need to be significant.
Hypotheses
The first hierarchical regression included the first block of student emotional
responses (pleasure, arousal, and dominance) and the second block of instructor
justice messages (procedural, distributive, and interactional) to discover their ability
to predict cognitive learning. The first block was significant, F(3, 256) ¼ 19.81,
p < .001, accounting for 17.9% of the variance in cognitive learning. Pleasure
(b ¼ .37, p < .001) was the only significant predictor in the model. When the second
block was added, the two blocks were able to account for 21%, F(6, 254) ¼ 29.45,
p < .001, of the variance in cognitive learning. The addition of the second block
resulted in a significant R2 change, F(3, 253) ¼ 4.34, p < .01. However, only pleasure
(b ¼ .25, p ¼ .009) and procedural justice (b ¼ .24, p ¼ .016) were significant
predictors.
The second hierarchal regression included the first block of student emotional
responses (pleasure, arousal, and dominance) and the second block of instructor jus-
tice messages (procedural, distributive, and interactional) to discover their ability to
predict affective learning. The first block was significant, F(3, 254) ¼ 43.42, p < .001,
accounting for 34% of the variance in affective learning. However, only arousal
(b ¼ .13, p ¼ .042) and pleasure (b ¼ .48, p < .001) were significant predictors. When
the second block was added, the model accounted for 44% of the variance in affective
learning, F(6, 250) ¼ 32.55, p < .001. The addition of the second block resulted in a
significant R2 change, F(3, 250) ¼ 14.66, p < .001. Arousal (b ¼ .13, p ¼ .034), plea-
sure (b ¼ .27, p ¼ .001), and interactional justice (b ¼ .32, p < .001) were significant
predictors.
The third hierarchal regression included the first block of student emotional
responses (pleasure, arousal, and dominance) and the second block of instructor jus-
tice messages (procedural, distributive, and interactional) to discover their ability to
predict state motivation. The first block was significant, F(3, 256) ¼ 97.49, p < .001,
accounting for 53% of the variance in state motivation. Arousal (b ¼ .27, p < .001),
dominance (b ¼ .20, p ¼ .003), and pleasure (b ¼ .37, p < .001) were all significant
predictors. When the second block was added, the model accounted for 54% of
the variance in state motivation, F(6, 253) ¼ 50.86, p < .001). Arousal (b ¼ .27,
p < .001), dominance (b ¼ .20, p ¼ .002), pleasure (b ¼ .29, p < .001), and interac-
tional justice (b ¼ .13, p ¼ .035) were all significant predictors. The addition of the
second block did not significantly add to the model’s ability to predict motivation,
F(3, 253) ¼ 2.50, p > .05, indicating that justice did not add any unique predictive
ability.
The fourth hierarchal regression included the first block of student emotional
power messages (legitimate, coercive, reward, referent, and expert) to discover their
ability to predict cognitive learning. The first block was significant, with emotional
responses accounting for 18% of the variance in cognitive learning, F(3, 255) ¼
19.41, p < .001. However, only pleasure was a significant predictor (b ¼ .37,
p < .001). When the second block was added, the model accounted for 20% of the
variance in cognitive learning, F(5, 250) ¼ 9.23, p < .001. Although the addition of
the second block produced a significant change in variance accounted for, F(5,
250) ¼ 2.78, p < .05, pleasure once again emerged as the only significant predictor
(b ¼ .30, p ¼ .001).
The fifth hierarchal regression included the first block of student emotional
ability to predict affective learning. The first block produced a significant model
accounting for 35% of the variance in affective learning, F(3, 252) ¼ 44.43,
p < .001. Only arousal (b ¼ .14, p ¼ .036) and pleasure (b ¼ .48, p < .001) emerged as
significant predictors. The addition of the second block produced a significant model
accounting for 46% of the variance, F(8, 247) ¼ 26.06, p < .001. Only arousal (b ¼ .12
p ¼ .049), pleasure (b ¼ .31, p < .001), and referent power (b ¼ .32, p < .001) were
significant predictors. The second block resulted in a significant difference in variance
accounted for, F(5, 247) ¼ 10.12, p < .001.
The final hierarchal regression included the first block of student emotional
ability to predict state motivation. The first block was able to account for 53% of the
variance in state motivation, F(3, 255) ¼ 96.04, p < .001. Arousal (b ¼ .27, p < .001),
dominance (b ¼ .20, p ¼ .004), and pleasure (b ¼ .37, p < .001) were all significant
predictors. The addition of the second block produced a model that accounted for
60% of the variance in motivation, F(8, 250) ¼ 46.71, p < .001. Arousal (b ¼ .27,
p < .001), pleasure (b ¼ .28, p < .001), referent power (b ¼ .16, p ¼ .014), and expert
power (b ¼ .17, p ¼ .003) were significant predictors. The addition of the second
block produced a significant change in variance accounted for, F(5, 250) ¼ 8.56,
p < .001.
Collectively, the preceding series of hierarchal regressions indicate that student
emotional responses are superior predictors of both cognitive learning and motivation
compared to power and justice messages. Yet, although arousal and pleasure remained
significant predictors of affective learning, the beta weights suggest that referent power
and interactional justice were better predictors of affective learning compared to
emotional responses. Recall that Emotional Response Theory predicts that instructor
communication stimulates student responses that subsequently result in approach or
avoidance behaviors. Regression analyses do not allow for a direct test of this predic-
tion. Correspondingly, Mottet and Beebe (2002) called for future emotional response
studies to employ path analyses. Thus, to test H1b and H2b, six path analyses were
conducted. The first-order variables in the paths were instructor messages (power
or justice), and the second-order variables were student emotional responses (arousal,
pleasure, and dominance), with an outcome of student approach–avoidance behaviors
(cognitive learning, affective learning, or motivation).
The first model testing the paths among power, emotional responses, and cognitive
learning was not a good fit, v2(8, N ¼ 251) ¼ 273.50, p < .001 (normed fit index
[NFI] ¼ .70, incremental fit index [IFI] ¼ .70, comparative fit index [CFI] ¼ .70, root
mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] ¼ .35); the second model testing the
paths among power, emotional responses, and affective learning was not a good fit,
v2(8, N ¼ 251) ¼ 307.70, p < .001 (NFI ¼ .69, IFI ¼ .70, CFI ¼ .68, RMSEA ¼ .38);
the third model testing the paths among power, emotional responses, and motivation
was not a good fit, v2(8, N ¼ 251) ¼ 295.36, p < .001 (NFI ¼ .72, IFI ¼ .73, CFI ¼ .72,
RMSEA ¼ .37); the fourth model testing the paths among justice, emotional
responses, and cognitive learning was not a good fit, v2(6, N ¼ 251) ¼ 291.23,
p < .001 (NFI ¼ .66, IFI ¼ .66, CFI ¼ .65, RMSEA ¼ .42); the fifth model testing the
paths among justice, emotional responses, and affective learning was not a good fit,
2
v (6, N ¼ 251) ¼ 320.31, p < .001 (NFI ¼ .66, IFI ¼ .66, CFI ¼ .65, RMSEA ¼ .44); and
the final model testing the paths among justice, emotional response, and motivation
was not a good fit, v2(6, N ¼ 251) ¼ 286.42, p < .001 (NFI ¼ .71, IFI ¼ .71, CFI ¼ .71,
RMSEA ¼ .42). Collectively, H1a and H1b were not supported.
Discussion
Mottet et al. (2006) presented three unique instructional theories in an effort to
stimulate theory testing and development. Because emotional responses are influen-
tial on behavior (Biggers & Rankis, 1983), Emotional Response Theory in the class-
room was tested. Particularly, instructor power and justice messages were examined
to discover their impact on student emotional responses (pleasure, arousal, and
dominance) and subsequent approach–avoidance behaviors (cognitive learning,
affective learning, and state motivation).
The obtained findings of this investigation provide some support for Emotional
Response Theory. Results of the obtained beta weights in the regressions mostly sup-
port the contention that emotional responses are better predictors of approach–
avoidance behaviors than teacher behavior for two student behavior indicators:
cognitive learning and state motivation. In both cases, student emotional responses
had larger beta weights than any instructor behavior that emerged. This lends sup-
port for the argument proposed by Emotional Response Theory specifically contend-
ing that instructor messages, student emotions, and approach–avoidance behaviors
are related processes. However, it is important to acknowledge that some beta weights
were close, and in three of the four regressions, the addition of instructor communi-
cation did result in a significant R2 change. Thus, both interactional and procedural
justice along with referent and expert power use appear to remain important predic-
tors of cognitive learning and state motivation. Viewing these results under the larger
study of student emotions, the regressions suggest that considering how students
feel while in the classroom is important when examining and understanding their
cognitive learning and state motivation.
Examination of the third indicator of student approach–avoidance behavior,
affective learning, paints a muddled theoretical picture. In the regression including
emotional responses and justice concerns, arousal, pleasure, and interactional justice
were all significant predictors of affective learning. Interactional justice had the lar-
gest beta weight, and the addition of the justice concerns resulted in a significant
change in the accounted variance. In the second affective learning regression includ-
ing emotional responses and power, arousal, pleasure, and referent power were
significant predictors of affective learning. Referent power emerged as the strongest
predictor, and the addition of power use resulted in a significant change in accounted
variance. Based on these analyses, it can be concluded that emotional responses are
important, and significant, in predicting affective learning, once again supporting
the proposed relationships among emotions, messages, and learning; however, how
the instructor communicates may be more important than emotional responses.
Note that interactional justice and referent power were the only instructor behaviors
found to be superior predictors. Both of these variables pertain to the fair treatment
of students, supporting the oft cited claim that the teacher-student relationship is an
interpersonal one (Frymier & Houser, 2000), yet challenges the proposition that
emotional responses supersede instructor behaviors.
Noticeably absent from the emotional equation were feelings of dominance. When
looking at the regressions with only the first block of emotional responses, dominance
only appeared as a significant predictor of motivation. With the addition of the
instructor behavior (justice and power), dominance only emerged as a predictor of
motivation in the justice model. Further, it had a smaller beta weight than both plea-
sure and arousal. Together, it appears that arousal and pleasure were more predictive
of student behavior than dominance. Mottet et al. (2006) described dominance as
‘‘increased permission to approach’’ (p. 261). However, these results suggest that feel-
ings of dominance are not necessarily a key factor in understanding student behavior.
At the very least, this study’s findings indicate that how pleased and aroused students
are in the classroom are better indicators of their behavior. Mottet and Beebe (2002)
noted similar problems with dominance, finding it was not a significant predictor of
cognitive and affective learning. Despite this, they encouraged future research to con-
tinue to examine dominance. They argued that dominance ‘‘makes intuitive sense. As
students experience more dominance or feel more empowered and confident, the
more likely they are to approach and complete successfully their various school related
activates’’ (Mottet & Beebe, 2002, p. 86). Future research should continue to explore
the role feelings of dominance play in the classroom, as well as any potential improve-
ments to the measurement of dominance that could enhance future studies.
Theoretical Assessment
The use of path analysis allowed for a direct test of whether instructor messages elicit
student emotional responses that result in their approach–avoidance behaviors.
Despite the theory’s predictions, the six models were not a good fit, subsequently fail-
ing to support the causal relationships proposed by the theory. Based on the preced-
ing discussion and regression analyses, it is clear that student emotional responses are
related to instructor messages; however, emotions may not be the key motivator of
their behavior. This is perplexing, as the theory makes intuitive sense, and prior stu-
dies would suggest causal relationships (Mottet & Beebe, 2002; Paulsel, 2005); thus, it
is necessary to address some possible explanations. Ultimately, the answer to this
puzzling finding may lay in Rhetorical and Relational Goals Theory (Frymier,
2007; Mottet et al., 2006). This theory argues that students enter the classroom with
both rhetorical and relational goals. Frymier (2007) explained: ‘‘Students’ goals
revolve around learning and obtaining a desired grade along with the need to be liked
and confirmed by their teachers and classmates’’ (p. 1). Learning and obtaining
grades describe rhetorical goals, whereas liking and confirmation describe relational
goals. When students enter college, graduation is assumed to be their ultimate goal.
To that end, they have smaller goals to complete each course and obtain credit. For
students to pass courses, they must study, suggesting they learn something cogni-
tively. Their ultimate goal of graduation may serve to increase their state motivation.
As a result, rhetorical goals may surpass one’s emotional responses.
An alternative explanation as to why the emotional response path models were not
supported pertains to the unique nature of the classroom. Research in other com-
munication contexts has found that emotional responses impact behavior. As just
one example, Christ and Biggers (1984) found that close to one-half of the variance
in television viewing preferences were attributable to emotional responses. However,
in the classroom, students may not have the luxury to base their behavior on their
emotions. Consider a situation where a student reacts to their instructors’ communi-
cation with feelings of displeasure, non-arousal, and submissiveness. Despite the fact
that the student may feel inclined to engage in avoidance behaviors, he=she may con-
tinue to approach out of survival. If the student were to engage in avoidance beha-
viors, such as less studying, class attendance, and note-taking, then, ultimately, the
student is the only one harmed. The student would face a number of potential prob-
lems, such as learning less, compromising his or her grade, face having to enroll and
pay for the course again, punishment from family, and potential loss of an academic
scholarship. Hence, the link between emotional responses and behavior may be more
pronounced in other contexts.
A final reason why the causal models may lack support could be a function of how
we operationalized the instructor behavior component of this model. Although we
stand by our rationales, grounded in prior studies, presented as to why we believe
power and justice should play a role in this theory, our results indicate that the tests
of the causal paths among power=justice, emotional responses, and approach–avoid-
ance behaviors were not supported (although the regressions do reveal these are
related processes). Thus, it would be erroneous to conclude that the causal relation-
ships proposed by Emotional Response Theory are entirely and completely false;
rather, based on these findings, the conclusion drawn should be that use of power
and justice (as presently measured) in this model failed to produce significant causal
paths (despite the strong rationales and arguments grounded in the power and justice
lines of research) to the indicators as presently measured. It is entirely likely that
students do experience emotional responses to instructor messages that dictate
approach–avoidance behaviors, and future studies should replicate this method using
different instructor messages and measures of learning and motivation, as well as
other more behavioral-based measures. Prior studies indicate students work to make
sense of instructors emotion-related messages. For example, McPherson and Young
(2004) studied students’ attributions of instructors’ anger expressions and found that
aggressive anger and internal attributions were positively related, whereas assertive
expressions and internal attributions were negatively related; thus, students do form
responses to and perceptions of emotional messages. Given that the work of
McPherson and Young examined an instructor’s emotional message, future
Emotional Response Theory studies should test the causal arguments using instruc-
tors’ expressions of emotions.
Collectively, it appears that the results of this study only serve to support one
argument proposed by Emotional Response Theory—namely, that instructor power
and justice messages, student emotional responses, and approach–avoidance beha-
viors are related factors; however, the causality of these paths garnered no support.
As this investigation was an initial theory test, it is necessary to assess how this theory
fairs. Chaffee and Berger (1987) presented a synthesized list of criteria to be used
when evaluating theories. Based on their criteria, it appears that the theory is falsifi-
able, parsimonious, and has explanatory power. However, the theory’s largest weak-
ness may be predictive power, as it appears to be lacking in the context of power and
justice messages. It is quite possible, however, that the theory’s predictive power
may be larger when examining other instructor behaviors, especially instructors’
emotional messages (e.g., anger, sadness, and emotional disclosure). Potentially then,
imposing specific boundary conditions as to what instructor messages drive emotion-
al responses and subsequent behaviors may enhance the theory’s predictive power.
Recently, scholars have advocated for the importance of non-significant findings in
communication research (Levine, Asada, & Carpenter, 2009). Levine et al. provided
compelling evidence for this argument, arguing a publication bias against nonsignifi-
cant findings exists based on their negative correlation between sample sizes and effect
sizes in meta-analytic studies. Specifically, they argued that non-significant findings
‘‘add to the larger literature’’ and that ‘‘better conclusion[s] can be drawn when more
information that is less biased information is available’’ (p. 297). Although the causal
models were not significant, these nonsignificant models, combined with significant
regressions, are important to consider as they begin to provide a more complete
picture of this under-researched theory and, ideally, help develop a platform for future
theoretical studies. Knowledge of these findings, albeit nonsignificant, provide
important information about the theory that should further guide future emotional
response, power, and justice research.
Future Research
As this is the first known study to fully examine the links among instructor behavior,
student emotional responses, and student behavior, there are numerous avenues for
future research. First, scholars should examine the complete implications of student
emotional responses. These path analyses provide little support for the claim that stu-
dent emotions are the key indicator of their learning and motivation when consider-
ing power and justice. However, emotions are influential on behavior (Biggers &
Rankis, 1983), and students do report experiencing emotional responses in the class-
room (Horan et al., 2010; Paulsel, 2005). Consequently, the question of what the true
implications of student emotions are remains. One implication may be in the context
of student resistance. Past research demonstrates that power and justice messages are
related to student resistance (Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004b; Kearney, Plax, Smith, &
Sorensen, 1988; Paulsel & Chory-Assad, 2005; Plax, Kearney, Downs, & Stewart,
1986). Potentially, students’ diminished emotional responses may explain why these
students resist. This is a question future research endeavors should explore.
A second implication of emotional responses may pertain to behaviors such as
deception and aggression. Perhaps students are more apt to engage in anti-social
behaviors directed toward the teacher when faced with feelings of non-arousal,
submissiveness, and displeasure. This was the case for students who perceived their
teacher was not concerned with justice (Chory-Assad, 2002; Chory-Assad & Paulsel,
2004a, 2004b; Paulsel & Chory-Assad, 2005). Possibly, emotional responses can
explain this relationship, therefore presenting a direction for future research.
Moreover, future studies should explore how both instructor communication and
communication from peers influences emotional responses and students’ behavior.
This study measured students’ perceptions of their instructors’ behaviors, perceptions
of students’ learning and motivation, and students’ emotional responses to a class.
Thus, emotional responses to a class are likely influenced by not only instructor com-
munication, but the communication of classroom peers. Consider Frisby and Martin
(2010), who found that both the behaviors of instructors and peers were important in
understanding classroom processes (however, it should be noted that instructor rap-
port, compared to student rapport, consistently predicted perceptions of learning and
participation). This issue likely manifests itself with justice concerns, as Horan et al.
(2010) found that some students reported perceptions of injustice based on the treat-
ment of their own peers. Thus, future emotional response and justice studies should
explore how both the communication from peers and instructors influences students’
emotions and communication. Recently, Weber et al. (2011) acknowledged the simi-
larities between Emotional Response Theory and a newer model—the Instructional
Beliefs Model (IBM)—but argued
That the IBM incorporates many, if not all, of the key components of each theory
[emotional response, relational power and influence, and rhetorical and relational
goals] within its framework . . . each support a part of the IBM. As a result it is poss-
ible to even assert that the IBM framework subsumes the frameworks provided by
these three other theories. (p. 67)
To examine if this claim is supported, future research is warranted to further under-

stand how Emotional Response Theory, Rhetorical and Relational Goals, and Rela-
tional Power Influence Theory perform under empirical testing in conjunction
with the IBM; equally, further testing is necessary to discover if any of these theories
have unique predictive abilities.
Finally, scholars should examine how instructor communication, student emo-
tions, and physiological responses interact—that is, how are students physiologically
impacted when they experience instructors that stimulate differing levels of emotional
response? Are students’ bodies more responsive when feeling increased levels of domi-
nance, pleasure, and arousal, resulting in them being more attentive, focused, and
learning more? Exploring students’ physiology in the classroom is important, as the
work of relational researchers elucidates the important impact communication has
on physiology and the relationships among communication, emotions, and physio-
logical functioning (e.g., Floyd, 2006). Understanding student physiological responses
would inform Emotional Response Theory and instructional communication.
Limitations
Results of this study should be understood with the following limitations in mind.
First, given that researchers have paid little empirical attention to Emotional
Response Theory in the classroom—namely, two known studies (Mottet & Beebe,
2002; Paulsel, 2005)—the decision was made to replicate and extend prior work.
Therefore, indicators of approach=avoidance behaviors, and not actual behaviors,
were measured. Future experimental classroom studies should measure students’
actual behaviors. Second, several moderating factors were not examined that
could impact student emotional responses. One example of potential moderators
is student major. It is probable that students experience increased emotional
responses in a major course compared to a general education requirement.
Future research should examine how student characteristics impact emotional
responses.
Third, this study was limited to a sample of college students. Thus, how this theory
functions in primary and secondary education is unknown. Because secondary
education is required, it is probable that more students who do not want to be in
attendance actually sit through classes where they experience diminished emotional
responses. In such an environment, the impact of emotional responses on student
behaviors may be more pronounced. Future research should examine this possibility.
Moreover, this study was not experimental in nature. Adopting an experimental
design would allow for a more precise test of the causal links among the theory’s
components.
Finally, there are two potential issues related to measurement. First, we measured
perceived cognitive learning. A number of scholars have pointed out the problems
associated with perceived and ‘‘actual’’ cognitive learning assessments, ranging from
the error associated with objective exams to problems related to students’ percep-
tions (see Richmond, Lane, & McCroskey, 2006). Thus, although not ideal, we
chose to measure cognitive learning in a way that paralleled Mottet and Beebe
(2002) so our results could be compared. Ultimately, our cognitive learning findings
are perceptual in nature, which limits our findings. Future studies should measure
similar behaviors indicative of approach–avoidance and learning. Second, when
measuring power, the legitimate power base reached an acceptable alpha of .70.
Given that this statistic is accepted in our field, this is not necessarily a limitation;
however, other studies have experienced reliability problems associated with mea-
suring antisocial power use. In a study of college instructors’ power use, the coercive
power base was unreliable (.59; Horan & Myers, 2009). This can be rationalized by
arguing that the instrument was modified to measure instructors’ perceptions,
rather than students’ perceptions; however, a recent study experienced similar issues
measuring students’ perceptions of legitimate power, reporting an alpha of .67
(Horan, Houser, Goodboy, & Frymier, 2011). Future research should continue to
explore the potential psychometric issues associated with measuring antisocial
power use. For further discussion of these issues, see Goodboy, Bolkan, Myers,
and Zhao (2011).
Conclusion
In concert, results of this study serve to support and challenge Emotional Response
Theory. It was found that emotions were better predictors of student cognitive learn-
ing and motivation compared to power use and justice messages. However, path
analyses testing the links among instructor behavior, student emotional responses,
and student approach–avoidance behaviors were not supported. Because the full
impact of student emotions in the classroom is yet to be known, future research
should continue to investigate the implications of students’ feelings of pleasure,
arousal, and dominance in the classroom.
References
Allen, M., Witt, P., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor
in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education,
55, 21–31. doi: 10.1080=03634520500343368
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo
(Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Beebe, S. A., & Biggers, T. (1986). Trait emotion and emotional response. Communication Research
Reports, 3, 47–52.
Biggers, T., & Rankis, O. F. (1983). Dominance–submissiveness as an effective response to
situations and as a predictor of approach–avoidance. Social Behavior and Personality, 11,
61–69. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1983.11.2.61
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York,
NY: McKay.
Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational
Leadership, 45, 40–49.
Burgoon, J. K., & LePoire, B. A. (1999). Nonverbal cues and interpersonal judgments: Participant
and observer perceptions of intimacy, dominance, composure, and formality. Communi-
cation Monographs, 66, 105–124. doi: 10.1080=03637759909376467
Burroughs, N. F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of instructor nonverbal immediacy
and student compliance–resistance with learning. Communication Education, 56, 453–475.
doi: 10.1080=03634520701530896
Carney, D. R., Hall, J. A., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social
power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 105–123. doi: 10.1007=s10919–005-2743-z
Chaffee, S. H., & Berger, C. R. (1987). What communication scientists do. In C. R. Berger &
S. H. Chafee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 99–122). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Chesebro, J. L. (2003). Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning,
receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education, 52, 135–147. doi: 10.1080=
03634520302471
Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy
with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication
Education, 50, 59–68. doi: 10.1080=03634520109379232
Chory, R. M. (2007). Enhancing student perceptions of fairness: The relationship between instruc-
tor credibility and classroom justice. Communication Education, 56, 89–105. doi: 10.1080=
03634520600994300
Chory-Assad, R. M. (2002). Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student
motivation, learning, and aggression. Communication Quarterly, 50, 58–77. doi: 10.1080=
01463370209385646
Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004a). Antisocial classroom communication: Instructor

influence and interactional justice as predictors of student aggression. Communication
Quarterly, 52, 98–114. doi: 10.1080=01463370409370184
Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004b). Classroom justice: Student aggression and resistance
as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education, 53, 253–273. doi: 10.1080=
0363452042000265189
Christ, W. G., & Biggers, T. (1984). An exploratory investigation into the relationship between
television program preference and emotion-eliciting qualities—A new theoretical
perspective. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 293–307. doi: 10.1080=
10570318409374163
Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation,
and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. doi: 10.1080=03634529009378813
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. doi: 10.1037=0021-9010.86.3.425
Comadena, M. E., Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal
immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective, and cognitive learning. Communi-
cation Research Reports, 24, 241–248. doi: 10.1080=08824090701446617
Daly, J. A., & Korinek, J. T. (1980). Instructional communication theory and research: An overview
of classroom interaction. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 4 (pp. 515–532).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Qing, Q., & Wahl, S. T. (2007). The influence of computer-mediated
word-of-mouth communication on student perceptions of instructors and attitudes
toward learning course content. Communication Education, 56, 255–277. doi: 10.1080=
03634520701236866
Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: The development and validation of an instrument
and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human Communi-
cation Research, 26, 264–291. doi: 10.1111=j.1468–2958.2000.tb00758.x
Floyd, K. (2006). Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1968). The bases for social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in
social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor–student and student–student rapport in the class-
room. Communication Education, 59, 146–164. doi: 10.1080=03634520903564362
Frymier, A. B. (1994a). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42,
133–144. doi: 10.1080=01463379409369922
Frymier, A. B. (1994b). The use of affinity-seeking in producing liking and learning in the
classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 87–105. doi: 10.1080=
00909889409365391
Frymier, A. B. (2005). Students’ classroom communication effectiveness. Communication Quarterly,
53, 197–212. doi: 10.1080=01463370500089896
Frymier, A. B. (2007, November). Instructors’ and students’ goals in the teaching–learning process. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The instructor–student relationship as an interpersonal
relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219. doi: 10.1080=03634520009379209
Frymier, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1995). ‘‘What’s in it for me?’’: Increasing content relevance
to enhance students’ motivation. Communication Education, 44, 40–50. doi: 10.1080=
03634529509378996
Gerard, D. L., Hunt, S. K., Lippert, L., & Paynton, S. T. (1998). Alternatives to traditional
instruction: Using games and simulations to increase student learning and motivation.
Communication Research Reports, 15, 36–44. doi: 10.1080=08824099809362095
Goodboy, A. K., Bolkan, S., Myers, S. A., & Zhao, X. (2011). Student use of relational and influence
messages in response to perceived instructor power use in American and Chinese college
classrooms. Communication Education, 60, 191–209.
Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The effect of teacher confirmation on student communi-
cation and learning outcomes. Communication Education, 57, 153–179. doi: 10.1080=
03634520701787777
Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the
classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39, 46–62.
doi: 10.1080=03634529009378786
Gorham, J., & Zakahi, W. R. (1990). A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of immedi-
acy and learning: Monitoring process and product. Communication Education, 39, 354–368.
doi: 10.1080=03634529009378815
Horan, S. M., Chory, R. M., & Goodboy, A. K. (2010). Understanding students’ classroom
justice experiences and responses. Communication Education, 59, 453–474. doi: 10.1080=
03634523.2010.487282
Horan, S. M., Houser, M. L., Goodboy, A. K., & Frymier, A. B. (2011). Students’ early impressions
of instructors: Understanding the role of relational skills and messages. Communication
Research Reports, 28, 74–85. doi: 10.1080=08824096.2011.541362
Horan, S. M., & Myers, S. A. (2009). An exploration of college instructors’ perceptions of classroom
justice, power, and behavior alteration techniques. Communication Education, 58, 483–496.
doi: 10.1080=03634520903055981
Houser, M. L., Cowan, R. L., & West, D. A. (2007). Investigating a new education frontier: Instructor
communication in CD-ROM texts—Do traditionally positive behaviors translate into this
new environment? Communication Quarterly, 55, 19–38. doi:10.1080=01463370600998319.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom IV:
Alternatives to discipline. In R. N. Bostrom & B. H. Westley (Eds.), Communication Yearbook
8 (pp. 724–746). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1985). Power in the classroom III:
Instructor communication techniques and messages. Communication Education, 34, 19–28.
doi: 10.1080=03634528509378579
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Smith, V. R., & Sorensen, G. (1988). Effects of teacher immediacy and
strategy type on college student resistance to on-task demands. Communication Education,
37, 54–67.
Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication
Education, 37, 198–208.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Hand-
book II: Affective domains. New York, NY: McKay.
Lashbrook, V. J., & Wheeless, L. R. (1978). Instructional communication theory and research:
An overview of the relationship between learning theory and instructional communication.
In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 2 (pp. 439–456). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Levine, T. R., Asada, K. J., & Carpenter, A. C. (2009). Sample sizes and effect sizes are negatively
correlated in meta-analyses: Evidence and implications of a publication bias against
nonsignificant findings. Communication Monographs, 76, 286–302. doi: 10.1080=
03637750903074685
Martin, M. M., Chesebro, J. L., & Mottet, T. P. (1997). Students’ perceptions of instructors’ socio-
communicative style and the influence of instructor credibility and situational motivation.
Communication Research Reports, 14, 431–440. doi: 10.1080=08824099709388686
Mazer, J. P., & Hunt, S. K. (2008). The effects of instructor use of positive and negative slang on
student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Research
Reports, 25, 44–55. doi: 10.1080=08824090701831792
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on ‘‘Facebook’’: The effects of
computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and
classroom climate. Communication Education, 56, 1–17. doi: 10.1080=03634520601009710
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1983). Power in the classroom I: Instructor and student
perceptions. Communication Education, 32, 175–184.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1985). Power in the classroom V:
Behavior alteration techniques, communication training and learning. Communication
Education, 34, 214–226. doi: 10.1080=03634528509378609
McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Non-
verbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication
Education, 45, 200–211. doi: 10.1080=03634529609379049
McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Toward a general model of
instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 197–210. doi: 10.1080=
01463370409370192
McPherson, M. B., & Young, S. L. (2004). What students think when teachers get upset: Fundamen-
tal attribution error and student-generated reasons for teacher anger. Communication
Quarterly, 52, 357–369. doi: 10.1080=01463370409370206
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mehrabian, A. (1980). A new theory of psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Messman, S. J., & Jones-Corely, J. (2001). Effects of communication environment, immediacy,
and communication apprehension on cognitive and affective learning. Communication
Monographs, 68, 184–200. doi: 10.1080=03637750128054
Miller, K. (2002). The experience of emotion in the workplace: Teaching in the midst of tragedy.
Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 571–601.
Mottet, T. P., & Richmond, V. P. (1998). Newer is not necessarily better: A reexamination of the
affective learning measurement. Communication Research Reports, 15, 370–378.
Mottet, T. P., & Beebe, S. A. (2002). Relationships between teacher nonverbal immediacy, student
emotional response, and perceived student learning. Communication Research Reports, 19,
77–88. doi: 10.1080=08824090209384834
Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Theorizing about instructional communication.
In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional
communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 255–282). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Mottet, T. P., Parker-Raley, J., Beebe, S. A., & Cunningham, C. (2007). Instructors who resist
‘‘college lite’’: The neutralizing effect of instructor immediacy on students’ course-workload
violations and perceptions of instructor credibility and affective learning. Communication
Education, 56, 145–167. doi: 10.1080=03634520601164259
Myers, S. A. (2002). Perceived aggressive instructor communication and student state motivation, learn-
ing, and satisfaction. Communication Reports, 15, 113–121. doi: 10.1080=08934210209367758
Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (2000). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressive-
ness and student outcomes. Communication Research Reports, 17, 299–309. doi: 10.1080=
08824090009388777
Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2000). The relationship between perceived instructor communicator
style, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness. Communication Research Reports, 17,
1–12. doi: 10.1080=08824090009388745
Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2001). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressive-
ness in the college classroom: Effect on students perceptions of climate, apprehension,
and state motivation. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 113–137. doi: 10.1080=
10570310109374696
Nussbaum, J. F., & Friedrich, G. (2005). Instructional=developmental communication: Current
theory, research, and future trends. Journal of Communication, 55, 578–593. doi: 10.1111=
j.1460-2466.2005.tb02686.x
Paulsel, M. L. (2005). Classroom justice as a predictor of students’ perceptions of empowerment
and emotional response. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV.
Paulsel, M. L., & Chory-Assad, R. M. (2005). Perceptions of instructor interactional justice as a pre-
dictor of student resistance. Communication Research Reports, 22, 283–291. doi: 10.1080=
000368105000317565
Paulsel, M. L., Chory-Assad, R. M., & Dunleavy, K. N. (2005). The relationship between student
perceptions of instructor power and classroom justice. Communication Research Reports,
22, 207–215. doi: 10.1080=00036810500207030
Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., Downs, T. M., & Stewart, R. A. (1986). College student resistance toward
instructors’ use of selective control strategies. Communication Research Reports, 3, 20–27.
Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI:
Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication
Education, 35, 43–55. doi: 10.1080=03634528609388318
Richardson, B. K., Alexander, A., & Castleberry, T. (2008). Examining teacher turnover in low
performing schools: Relationships among emotional labor, communication symmetry,
and intent to leave. Communication Research Reports, 25, 10–22. doi: 10.1080=
08824090701831743
Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication
Education, 39, 181–195. doi: 10.1080=03634529009378801
Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected
immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook 10 (pp. 574–590). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Richmond, V. P., Lane, D. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). Teacher immediacy and the teacher–
student relationship. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook
of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 167–193). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom II: Power and learning.
Communication Education, 33, 125–136. doi: 10.1080=03634528509378579
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1987). Power in the classroom VII:
Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education, 36,
1–12. doi: 10.1080=03634528709378636
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1986). Teacher nonverbal immediacy
training and student affect. World Communication, 15, 181–194.
Roach, K. D., Richmond, V. P., & Mottet, T. P. (2006). Teachers’ influence messages. In T. P. Mottet,
V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication:
Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 117–139). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Robinson, R. Y. (1993). The usefulness of the verbal receptivity construct in instructional
communication research. Communication Quarterly, 41, 292–298. doi: 10.1080=
01463379309369890
Rodriguez, J. L., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher
nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal
mediator. Communication Education, 45, 203–305.
Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other
things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76, 805–819.
Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal of
Research in Personality, 11, 273–294.
Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1978). Approach–avoidance and affiliations as functions of the
emotion-eliciting qualities of an environment. Environment and Behavior, 10, 355–387.
doi: 10.1177=0013916578103005
Schrodt, P., Witt, P., & Turman, P. (2007). Reconsidering the measurement of instructor power
use in the college classroom. Communication Education, 56, 308–332. doi: 10.1080=
03634520701256062
Sorenson, G. (1989). The relationship among teachers’ self-disclosive statements, students’
perceptions, and affective learning. Communication Education, 38, 259–276. doi: 10.1080=
03634528909378762
Teven, J. J. (2007). Teacher caring and classroom behavior: Relationships with student affect and
perceptions of teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 55,
433–450. doi: 10.1080=01463370701658077
Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student
learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 2–9.
Titsworth, S. B. (2001). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues,
and students’ notetaking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 283–297.
doi: 10.1080=03634520109379256
Tsetsura, K., Bigam, M., Buford, L., & Chen, X. (2003, May). E-motional interaction between teach-
ing assistants and students: Expressing emotions via WebCT. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
Vinson, L., & Biggers, T. (1993). Emotional responses as a predictor of compliance-gaining message
selection. Southern Communication Journal, 58, 192–206. doi: 10.1080=10417949309372901
Waldeck, J. H., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. (2001). Instructional and developmental communication
theory and research in the 90s: Extending the research agenda for the 21st century. In
W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 24 (pp. 207–230). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions of instructor
humor and students’ reports of learning. Communication Education, 48, 48–62. doi: 10.1080=
03634529909379152
Wanzer, M. B., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Teacher socio-communicative style as a correlate of
student affect toward teacher and course material. Communication Education, 47, 43–52.
doi: 10.1080=03634529809379109
Weber, K., Martin, M. M., & Cayanus, J. L. (2005). Student interest: A two-study re-examination of
the concept. Communication Quarterly, 53, 71–86. doi: 10.1080=01463370500055996
Weber, K., Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2011). The development and testing of the Instructional
Beliefs Model. Communication Education, 60, 51–74. doi: 10.1080=03634523.2010.491122
Weber, K., & Patterson, B. R. (2000). Student interest, empowerment, and motivation. Communi-
cation Research Reports, 17, 22–29. doi: 10.1080=08824090009388747
Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal
immediacy and students affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50,
327–342. doi: 10.1080=03634520109379259
Zhang, Q., Oetzel, J. G., Gao, X., Wilcox, R., & Takai, J. (2007). Teacher immediacy scales: Testing
for validity across cultures. Communication Education, 56, 228–248. doi: 10.1080=
03634520601089092
Zhang, Q., & Zhu, W. (2008). Exploring emotion in teaching: Emotional labor, burnout, and
satisfaction in Chinese higher education. Communication Education, 57, 105–122.
doi: 10.1080=03634520701586310
Copyright of Communication Quarterly is the property of Eastern Communication Association and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
View publication stats

Understanding Emotional Response Theory: The Role of Instructor Power and Justice Messages

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding Emotional Response Theory: The Role of Instructor Power and Justice Messages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Understanding Emotional Response Theory: The Role of

Article in Communication Quarterly · April 2012

Sean M. Horan Matthew Martin

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Workplace Relationships View project

Gender and Consent to Organ Donation View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Understanding Emotional Response

Keywords: Emotional Response Theory; Instructional Theory; Justice; Learning;

ISSN 0146-3373 print/1746-4102 online # 2012 Eastern Communication Association

concerned with classroom talk provided us with an overwhelming sense of the

Emotional Response Theory

Instructor Communication: Power and Justice

Student Approach–Avoidance Indicators: Learning and Motivation

Thus, pleasure, arousal, and dominance should result in increased approach

H1a: Students’ emotional responses (pleasure, arousal, and dominance) will be

State motivation was selected as an indicator of approach=avoidance behaviors

H2a: Students’ emotional responses (pleasure, arousal, and dominance) will be

To examine if this claim is supported, future research is warranted to further under-

Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004a). Antisocial classroom communication: Instructor

View publication stats

You might also like