Communicator Style

JON F. NUSSBAUM
Pennsylvania State University

Communicator style has been conceptualized by Robert Norton (1978, 99) “to mean
the way one verbally and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be
taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood.” Norton was influenced by well over 2,000
years of scholarly writings concentrating upon speech, linguistic, and writing styles, by
the soft magic skills of magicians (Norton 1981), and by such prominent social scientists
as Leary (1957), Schutz (1958), Bales (1970), and Sandell (1977), all of whom mentioned
or alluded to communication styles within their theoretical writings. Perhaps he was
most influenced by the work of Bateson (1972) and those scholars and therapists who
belonged or were in some way connected to the “interactional view of human behavior”
(Wilder & Weakland 1981).
On this basis Norton (1983) viewed communication style as a complex concept that
consisted of two interdependent perspectives. First, communication style “is seen as
a function that gives form to content” (1983, 19). The way we communicate provides
information as to how the interactants are to understand the messages being delivered.
“Style messages are signals about how to process content. Style adds to the color, tone,
rhythm, and distinct ‘signature’ of one’s communication” (Norton & Brenders 1996, 75).
The second sense of communication style “is seen as a function of consistently recurring
communicative associations” (Norton 1983, 19). In this second sense, patterns of com-
munication style can be observed by others and these others can associate certain styles
of communicating across various contexts and time to an individual. Thus, individuals
can, over time, become associated with certain styles of communicating.
As individuals attempt to make sense out of any message that is being sent, they must
simultaneously interpret both the content of the message and the style with which the
message is sent. This process of interpreting the content message and the style message is
referred to as the Law of Gestalt Formation (Norton & Brenders 1996). The style compo-
nent of the whole message is always powerful because communication style can change
the primary message. “The form giving style can negate, contradict, exaggerate, dilute,
disconfirm, play down, make nonsensical, obscure, intensify, or weaken the primary
message” (Norton & Brenders 1996, 78). It is important to note that nonverbal infor-
mation (→ Facial Expressions) is not only a significant part of the selected information
a sender uses to trigger meaning, but also a very powerful component of communica-
tion style when the nonverbal behaviors are interpreted as significantly reinforcing the
message.
Norton (1978) operationally defined communicator style in terms of nine inde-
pendent variables: dominant, dramatic, contentious, animated, impression leaving,
relaxed, attentive, open, and friendly. The dependent variable within communicator

The International Encyclopedia of Communication, First Edition. Edited by Wolfgang Donsbach.

© 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2008 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecc104
2 CO M M U N I C AT O R ST Y L E

style was named communicator image and represented an evaluative consequent: “I

am a good communicator.” Each style or a combination of styles can be viewed as
adding to an overall sense of what constitutes being a good communicator. On the
basis of his conceptualization of communication style, Norton developed a 51-item
Communicator Style Measure utilizing smallest space analysis (→ Research Methods;
Scales and Indices). Each of the nine independent variables (styles) was measured
using a five-item scale. Communicator image, the dependent variable, was measured
utilizing a six-item scale.
Several of the communication style sub-constructs have received additional atten-
tion within the literature. In some instances, this additional research attention resulted
in the development of expanded measuring instruments for specific style domains.
Norton (1983) reviewed numerous investigations concerning the open, dramatic,
and attentive styles of communicating. In each instance, these particular styles are
associated with competencies in accomplishing certain interpersonal and relational
outcomes. For instance, the open communication style is linked to self-disclosure
(→ Disclosure in Health Communication). However, while openness can be a very
successful strategy with which to accelerate the development of an intimate relationship
by revealing information previously not known, and can signal that the individual
desires to move the relationship beyond the current state by his or her willingness
to share previously unknown information, at times openness can also be rather
intimidating and inappropriate. An individual who is too open at the beginning of
a relational encounter can damage or at least slow down the process of relationship
development. In addition, different communicative situations require different levels
of openness. Norton (1983, 128) writes “the open communicator allows the possibility
of either rejection or disconfirmation, but, at the same time, invites affirmation.”
The dramatic communicator “vividly, emotionally, or strikingly signals that literal
meaning is being highlighted or emphasized” (Norton 1983, 130). An individual who
has the ability to utilize a dramatic style of communicating is able to signal that the con-
tent that is being shared is important. Tension can be created or elevated with the use
of the dramatic style. A great deal of research has investigated the use of the dramatic
style by teachers within classroom settings (→ Teacher Communication Style; Teacher
Socio-Communicative Style). Positive student and teacher outcomes have been asso-
ciated with the appropriate use of a dramatic communication style by instructors, and
several studies have attempted not only to provide a causal link between a teacher’s dra-
matic style and effective teaching but also to improve teaching by changing the behavior
of ineffective teachers.
The attentive style of communication “signals an ongoing willingness to provide feed-
back that the person’s messages are being processed in an alert and/or understanding
manner” (Norton 1983, 154). Attentiveness within any communicative encounter pro-
vides positive reinforcement to the sender of a message, signaling that the receiver
is actively listening to the message, actively processing the message, and prepared to
 CO M M U N I C AT O R ST Y L E 3

engage the sender in the conversation. Attentiveness has been strongly linked to compe-
tent communication skills. A good communicator is an individual who has an attentive
style (→ Interpersonal Communication Competence and Social Skills).
Although Norton’s Communicator Style Measure has not been frequently utilized
by communication scholars to capture style within interactions, the conceptualiza-
tion of the style component of a communication encounter has been investigated
within such diverse contexts as the patient–physician interactions (→ Health Com-
munication; Patient–Provider Communication), management-worker interactions
(→ Organizational Communication), and various family relationships such as
parent–child, sibling, grandparent–grandchild, marital interaction, and therapeutic
interactions (→ Family Communication Patterns; Intergenerational Communication;
Marital Communication). In each of these relational contexts, the way one verbally
and paraverbally interacts has been shown to be a significant predictor of successful
interaction.

SEE ALSO: → Communication Skills across the Life-Span → Disclosure in

Health Communication → Doctor–Patient Talk → Facial Expressions →
Family Communication Patterns → Health Communication → Intergenera-
tional Communication → Interpersonal Communication Competence and Social
Skills → Marital Communication → Message Production → Nonverbal
Communication and Culture → Nonverbal Signals, Effects of → Organiza-
tional Communication → Patient–Provider Communication → Relational
Maintenance → Research Methods → Scales and Indices → Social Support
in Interpersonal Communication → Teacher Communication Style → Teacher
Socio-Communicative Style

References and Suggested Readings

Bales, R. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald.
Norton, R. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication
Research, 4, 99–112.
Norton, R. (1981). Soft magic. In C. Wilder & J. H. Weakland (eds.), Rigor and imagination:
Essays from the legacy of Gregory Bateson. New York: Praeger, pp. 299–320.
Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Norton, R., & Brenders, D. (1996). Communication and consequences: Laws of interaction. Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sandell, R. (1977). Linguistic style and persuasion. New York: Academic Press.
Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Watzlawick, P., & Weakland, J. H. (1977). The interactional view: Studies at the Mental Research
Institute Paolo Alto, 1965–1974. New York: W. W. Norton.
Wilder, C., & Weakland, J. H. (1981). Rigor and imagination: Essays from the legacy of Gregory
Bateson. New York: Praeger.