Although research at the crossroads of communication and social cognition recognizes the importance of thought to the message reception process, none to date has systematically tested how “thinking for listening” might influence the listening process. One reason for this lacuna is the lack of a valid scale capable of measuring the many conceptualizations people have about listening. Consequently, this article sets out to develop and provide validity evidence for a measure to assess individual conceptualizations of listening. In Studies 1 through 3, evidence is gathered for the construct and nomological validity of the Revised Listening Concepts Inventory (LCI-R), whereas Study 4 provides evidence that listening conceptualizations vary across four listening situations. The general discussion argues for the importance of studying message reception processes as they occur in interaction and the role the LCI-R can play in helping to advance the theory building and practice of listening.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlujaA.GarciaO.GarciaL. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire short scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 449–460.
2.
BarkerL. L.WatsonK. W. (2000). Listen up. New York: St. Martin's Press.
3.
BensonJ. M.HocevarD. (1983, April). Measuring scale invaraince between and within subjects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.
4.
BergerC. R. (1975). Proactive and retroactive attribution processes in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 2, 33–50.
5.
BergerC. R. (1998). Big questions and communication theory: Finding the cure for communication. In TrentJ. S. (Ed.), Communication: Views from the 21st century (pp. 13–17). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
6.
BergerC. R. (2005a). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal of Communication, 55, 415–447.
7.
BergerC. R. (2005b). Slippery slopes to apprehension: Rationality and graphical depictions of increasingly threatening trends. Communication Research, 32, 3–28.
8.
BergerC. R. (2007). A tale of two communication modes: When rational and experiential processing systems encounter statistical and anecdotal depictions of threat. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 215–233.
BodieG. D. (2009). Evaluating listening theory: Development and illustration of five criteria. International Journal of Listening, 23, 81–103.
11.
BodieG. D. (2010). Treating listening ethically. International Journal of Listening, 24, 185–188.
12.
BodieG. D. (2011). The understudied nature of listening in interpersonal communication: Introduction to a special issue. International Journal of Listening, 25, 1–25.
13.
BodieG. D. (in press). The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and validity evidence. Communication Quarterly.
14.
BodieG. D.Fitch-HauserM. (2010). Quantitative research in listening: Explication and overview. In WolvinA. D. (Ed.), Listening and human communication in the 21st century (pp. 46–93). Oxford: Blackwell.
15.
BodieG. D.WorthingtonD. L. (2010). Revisiting the Listening Styles Profile (LSP-16): A confirmatory factor analytic approach to scale validation and reliability estimation. International Journal of Listening, 24, 69–88.
16.
BodieG. D.WorthingtonD. L.GearhartC. G.DenhamJ. P. (2010). The Revised Listening Styles Profile (LSP-R): Development and validation. Unpublished manuscript submitted for publication.
17.
BodieG. D.WorthingtonD. L.ImhofM.CooperL. (2008). What would a unified field of listening look like? A proposal linking past perspectives and future endeavors. International Journal of Listening, 22, 103–122.
18.
BurlesonB. R. (1986). Attributional schemes and causal inference in natural conversations. In EllisD. G.DonohueW. A. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes (pp. 63–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
BurlesonB. R. (2007). Constructivism: A general theory of communication skill. In WhaleyB. B.SamterW. (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 105–128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
ByrneB. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
22.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.FeinsteinJ. A.JarvisW. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.
23.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.KaoC. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of “need for cognition.”Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.
24.
EisenbergN. (2000). Empathy and sympathy. In LewisM.Haviland-JonesJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (2nd ed., pp. 677–692). New York: Guilford.
25.
EpsteinS. (1991). Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory: An integrative theory of personality. In CurtisR. C. (Ed.), The relational self: Theoretical convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology (pp. 111–137). New York: Guilford.
26.
EpsteinS. (2003). Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory of Personality. In MillonT.LernerM. J. (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Volume 5: Personality and social psychology (pp. 159–184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
27.
EpsteinS.PaciniR.Denes-RajV.HeierH. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytic-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405.
28.
EysenckH. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In PervinL. A. (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 244–276). New York: Guilford.
29.
EysenckS. B. G.EysenckH. J.BarrettP. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21–29.
30.
FengB.LeeK. J. (2010). The influence of thinking styles on responses to supportive messages. Communication Studies, 61, 224–238.
31.
Fitch-HauserM. (1984). Message structure, inference making, and recall. In BostromR. N. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook8 (pp. 378–392). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
Fitch-HauserM.HughesM. A. (1988). Defining the cognitive process of listening: A dream or reality?Journal of the International Listening Association, 2, 75–88.
33.
FordW. S. Z.WolvinA. D. (1993). The differential impact of a basic communication course on perceived communication competencies in class, work, and social contexts. Communication Education, 42, 215–223.
34.
FordW. S. Z.WolvinA. D.ChungS. (2000). Students' self-perceived listening competencies in the basic speech communication course. International Journal of Listening, 14, 1–13.
35.
GerbingD. W.AndersonJ. C. (1984). On the meaning of within-factor correlated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 572–580.
36.
GossB. (1982a). Listening as information processing. Communication Quarterly, 30, 304–307.
GossB. (1996). Intrapersonal communication. In SalwenM. B.StacksD. W. (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 335–344). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
GreeneJ. O.GravesA. R. (2007). Cognitive models of message production. In Roskos-EwoldsenB.MonahanJ. L. (Eds.), Communication and social cognition (pp. 17–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
GreeneJ. O.HerbersL. E. (2011). Rapport and transcendence: Receptivity and connection in social interaction. International Journal of Listening, 25, in press.
41.
HoneycuttJ. M.CantrillJ. G. (2001). Cognition, communication, and romantic relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
HoyleR. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. In TinsleyH. E. A.BrownS. D. (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 465–497). San Diego: Academic Press.
43.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
44.
ImhofM. (2004). Who are we as we listen? Individual listening profiles in varying contexts. International Journal of Listening, 18, 36–46.
45.
ImhofM. (2010). The cognitive psychology of listening. In WolvinA. D. (Ed.), Listening and human communication in the 21st century (pp. 97–126). Boston, MA: Blackwell.
46.
ImhofM.JanusikL. (2006). Development and validation of the Imhof-Janusik Listening Concepts Inventory to measure listening conceptualization differences between cultures. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 79–98.
47.
JanusikL. (2005). Conversational listening span: A proposed measure of conversational listening. International Journal of Listening, 19, 12–28.
48.
JanusikL. (2007). Building listening theory: The validation of the Conversational Listening Span. Communication Studies, 58, 139–156.
49.
JarvisW. B. G.PettyR. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 172–194.
50.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
51.
KoernerA. F. (2007). Social cognition in family communication. In Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.MonahanJ. L. (Eds.), Communication and social cognition: Theories and methods (pp. 197–216). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52.
LittleT. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analysis of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76.
53.
MishimaN.KubotaS.NagataS. (2000). The development of a questionnaire to assess the attitude of active listening. Journal of Occupational Health, 42, 111–118.
54.
MunizJ.Garcia-CuetoE.LozanoL. M. (2005). Item format and the psychometric properties of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 61–69.
55.
PaciniR.EpsteinS. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972–987.
56.
PetersenS. E.FoxP. T.PosnerM. I.MintumM. A.RaichleM. E. (2004). Positron emission tomographic studies of the cortical anatomy of single-word processing. In BalotaD. A.MarshE. J. (Eds.), Key readings in cognition: Cognitive psychology (pp. 109–115). New York: Psychology Press.
57.
RaykovT. (2001). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 54, 315–323.
58.
RaykovT. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35, 299–331.
59.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
60.
RoloffM. E.Van SwolL. M. (2007). Shared cognition and communication within group decision making and negotiation. In Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.MonahanJ. L. (Eds.), Communication and social cognition: Theories and methods (pp. 171–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
61.
Roskos-EwoldsenD. R. (2010). Message processing. In BergerC. R.RoloffM. E.Roskos-EwoldsenD. R. (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp. 129–144). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
62.
Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.MonahanJ. L. (Eds.). (2007). Communication and social cognition: Theories and methods (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
63.
SatoT. (2005). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire brief version: Factor structure and reliability. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 139, 545–552.
64.
StiffJ. B.DillardJ. P.SomeraL.KimH.SleightC. (1988). Empathy, communication, and prosocial behavior. Communication Monographs, 55, 198–213.
65.
SuedfeldP. (2000). Cognitive styles: Personality. In KazdinA. E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 166–169). Washington, DC and New York: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press.
66.
SuedfeldP.TetlockP. E. (2003). Individual differences in information processing. In TesserA.SchwarzN. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intra-individual processes (pp. 284–304). Oxford: Blackwell.
67.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
68.
TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2001). On-line versus memory based processing: The role of ‘need to evaluate’ in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 1599–1612.
69.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.
70.
VillaumeW. A.BodieG. D. (2007). Discovering the listener within us: The impact of trait-like personality variables and communicator styles on preferences for listening style. International Journal of Listening, 21, 102–123.
71.
WatsonK. W.BarkerL. L.WeaverJ. B. (1995). The listening styles profile (LSP-16): Development and validation of an instrument to assess four listening styles. International Journal of Listening, 9, 1–13.
72.
WeaverJ. B.III (1998). Personality and self-perceptions about communication. In McCroskeyJ. C.DalyJ. A.MartinM.BeattyM. J. (Eds.), Communication and personality (pp. 95–117). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
73.
WeaverJ. B.IIIWatsonK. W.BarkerL. L. (1996). Individual differences in listening style: Do you hear what I hear?Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 381–387.
74.
WolvinA. D. (Ed.). (2010). Listening and human communication: 21st century perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.
75.
WolvinA. D.CoakleyC. G. (1993). A listening taxonomy. In WolvinA. D.CoakleyC. G. (Eds.), Perspectives on listening (pp. 15–22). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
76.
WolvinA. D.CoakleyC. G. (1994). Listening competency. Journal of the International Listening Association, 8, 148–160.
77.
WyerR. S.AdavalR. (2003). Message reception skills in social communication. In GreeneJ. O.BurlesonB. R. (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 291–355). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
