de vries ea 2013 cr communication styles inventory

7/21/2019 De Vries Ea 2013 CR Communication Styles Inventory

1/40

De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Konings, F. E. & Schouten, B. (2013). The

Communication Styles Inventory (CSI): A six-dimensional behavioral model ofcommunication styles and its relation with personality. Communication Research, 40(4) , 506-

532.

DOI: 10.1177/0093650211413571

Reinout E. de Vries

VU University Amsterdam

Angelique Bakker-Pieper

VU University Amsterdam

Femke Konings

University of Amsterdam

Barbara Schouten

University of Amsterdam

C dd


2/40

C dd

The Communication Styles Inventory 2

The Communication Styles Inventory (CSI):A six-dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its relation with personality

Abstract

In this study, a six-dimensional model of communication styles is proposed and

operationalized using the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI). The CSI distinguishes

between six domain-level communicative behavior scales, Expressiveness, Preciseness,

Verbal Aggressiveness, Questioningness, Emotionality, and Impression Manipulativeness,

each consisting of four facet level scales. Based on factor and item analyses, the CSI is shown

to be an adequate instrument, with all reliabilities of the domain-level scales surpassing the

.80 level. Consistent with the behavioral view espoused in this study, the CSI scales showed

di hi h l l f lidi i h l i l i i k l d


3/40


The adequate measurement of the main communication styles may be considered

crucial because of the practical relevance of communication styles in all kinds of settings in

which transfer of personal and non-personal information, knowledge, ideas, opinions, and

feelings play a role. Communication styles not only play a role in personal relations, but also

in relations between teachers and pupils, doctors and patients, leaders and subordinates,

consultants and clients, politicians and the public, sales agents and customers, and - in and

outside court - among judges, lawyers, accusers, and defendants. Although there has been a

long-standing interest in the way people communicate (e.g., Burgoon & Hale, 1987;

Gudykunst et al., 1996; Norton, 1983; Rubin, Rubin, Graham, Perse, & Seibold, 2009), some

scholars have lamented the lack of an integrative framework to capture somebodys

communication style (Daly & Bippus, 1998; Beatty, 1998; McCroskey, Daly, Martin, &

Beatty, 1998). In this study, we introduce the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI), which

has its roots in a lexical study on communication styles (De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Alting


4/40


definition goes beyond the frequently employed definition of Norton (1983, pp. 19, 58),

which defines a communication style as the way one verbally, nonverbally, and paraverbally

interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood,

by also including the (a) identity and (b) interactional aspects of communicative behaviors.

For instance, somebody who exhibits conversational dominance, may not only convey that

somebody should take the message serious (i.e., (c)), but may also convey status information

(i.e., (a)) and how s/he wants the conversational partner to react (i.e., submissive - (b)). The

definition specificly excludes intrapersonal cognitions or feelings about communication, such

as ideas about ones own or other peoples communication styles or mindsets, which may be

precursors to - or results of - the communicative behaviors exhibited.

Several communication style instruments are available to measure contextual

communication styles such as for instance in doctor-patient communication (Buller & Buller,

1987), leader communication (Johnson & Bechler, 1998), partner communication (Noller &


5/40


signals (De Vries et al., 2009), and may thus fall outside the scope of communicative

behaviors as defined by the definition provided above.

In order to obtain an empirically-based model of communication styles, De Vries et al.

(2009) conducted a lexical study using adjectives and verbs that described the way people

communicate. The main assumption of a lexical study is that anything that can be said on

the way somebody communicates must become encoded in language and recorded in a

dictionary. Using a comprehensive list of 744 adjectives and 837 verbs, De Vries et al. (2009)

provided preliminary evidence for seven communication style dimensions. These lexical

communication dimensions were named Expressiveness, Preciseness, Niceness,

Supportiveness, Threateningness, Emotionality, and Reflectiveness. Examples of high loading

adjectives and verbs on these dimensions are: extroverted and eloquent versus to withdraw

into ones shell and to fall silent (Expressiveness), professional, expert, and precise versus to

waffle (Preciseness), nice and soft-hearted versus to put someone in the wrong and to keep


6/40


assumption was confirmed. While five of the CSS scales, Openness, Preciseness, Dramatic

Communication, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Indirect Communication, had a communality

of > .20 with the lexical marker scales, Inferring Meaning, Use of Feelings, and Positive

Perceptions of Silence had communalities of .20 with the lexical marker scales.

Consequently, Inferring Meaning, Use of Feelings, and Positive Perceptions of Silence do not

appear to align well with the communication style perspective proposed by De Vries et al.

(2009).

Personality and communication styles

Personality refers to a pattern of relatively permanent traits and unique characteristics

that give both consistency and individuality to a persons behavior (Feist & Feist, 2006, p.

4). Considered from a trait psychologists perspective and in agreement with the

communication style definition, a communication style is an expression of a persons

personality. Consequently, it is plausible to assume that the main communication style


7/40


Emotional Stability. Several lexical studies have offered support for the HEXACO model

(Ashton et al., 2004; Lee & Ashton, 2008) and have shown that the HEXACO model is better

than the Big Five model able to predict a number of important criteria, such as unethical

business decisions, sexual harassment, egoism, and psychopathy (Ashton & Lee, 2008; De

Vries, De Vries, De Hoogh, & Feij, 2009; De Vries & Van Kampen, 2010; Lee, Gizzarone, &

Ashton, 2003).

Although it is plausible that personality and communication styles are closely linked,

there has been a surprising lack of studies that have investigated this link. In an article by

Leung and Bond (2001),2 evidence was found of relations between two second-order factor

scales of the CSS and a number of personality traits. The CSS higher-order factor Verbal

Engagement, comprising Dramatic, Precise, and Open communication was strongly related

to the personality scales Extraversion and Openness to Experience and the CSS higher-order

factor Attentiveness to the Other, comprising Inferring Meaning and Interpersonal


8/40


On face value, the seven lexical communication dimensions described earlier also

appear to be related to the main personality dimensions. Most clearly, Expressiveness seems

to refer to the (non- and para-)verbal manifestation of extraversion. Although

conscientiousness is generally regarded as a non-interpersonal trait which refers to

somebodys interaction with time and the physical environment, Preciseness, with its focus on

the way somebody structures his her communication, is probably most closely related to

conscientiousness. Niceness, Supportiveness, and Threateningness appear to be associated

with different aspects of agreeableness, such as sympathy, forgiveness, patience, and lack of

anger. The communication style Emotionality contains elements that seem to most closely fit

Big Five neuroticism versus emotional stability. Finally, Reflectiveness most closely

resembles openness to experience. Although at first, HEXACO Honesty-Humility does not

seem to be represented in the lexical communication styles, De Vries et al. (2009) note that

some of the adjectives associated with deceptiveness are found in two of the lexical


9/40


communication style, which we named Impression Manipulativeness. Nonverbal and

paraverbal behaviors, such as pupil dilation, fleeting facial expressions, higher pitched tones,

and an increase or decrease in speech errors and hesitations, have been used to detect

deception (DePaulo et al., 2003; Frank & Ekman, 2004; Vrij & Mann, 2004). However, a

focus on non- and paraverbal leakage and deception cues offer only a marginal advantage in

the detection of lies and, when these cues are consciously used, may even lead to a decrease in

accuracy when confronted with honest statements (Levine, Serota, & Shulman, 2010). As a

consequence, Levine, Shaw, & Shulman (2010) advocate to focus on motives and the context

of deception instead of non- and paraverbal deception cues.

According to personality theory, motives associated with deception often involve

obtaining status and rewards at the expense of others. These motives are best exemplified in

the personality trait Honesty-Humility. Honesty-Humility has been found to be an important

predictor of a wide range of work and non-work related criteria, such as unethical decision


10/40


six communication style dimensions are believed to provide an integrative framework

covering the main communication styles. That is, according to this framework, 1) there are no

substantial other behavioral communication style dimensions that are unrelated to the six CSI

dimensions proposed in this study, and 2) non-behavioral conceptualizations of

communication styles will lie outside of this framework, being unrelated or not strongly

related to the six CSI dimensions proposed in this study.

The CSI is tested in two samples, a student sample and a community sample. The

psychometric properties of the CSI, its relations with lexical communication marker scales,

the CSS (Gudykunst et al., 1996), two other separate communication styles scales (Verbal

Aggressiveness and Argumentativeness; Infante and Wigley, 1986; Infante and Rancer, 1982)

and personality are tested in a community sample. Additionally, a student sample is used to

provide a cross-validation to find out whether the findings with respect to personality held in

a different (student) sample. We expected convergent correlations of the CSI domain-level


11/40


communication instead of to inter personal communication styles. Last of all, we expected

high positive correlations between CSI Verbal Aggressiveness and Infante and Wigleys

(1986) Verbal Aggressiveness and between CSI Questioningness and Infante and Rancers

(1982) Argumentativeness.

With respect to personality, we expected the following associations of the

communication styles with HEXACO personality scales: CSI Expressiveness with HEXACO

Extraversion, CSI Preciseness with HEXACO Conscientiousness, CSI Verbal Aggressiveness

with (reversed) HEXACO Agreeableness, CSI Questioningness with HEXACO Openness to

Experience, CSI Emotionality with HEXACO Emotionality, and CSI Impression

Manipulativeness with HEXACO Honesty-Humility. In the student sample, we also included

the NEO-PI-R from the Five Factor Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Because the NEO-PI-R

does not contain a domain-level construct resembling HEXACO Honesty-Humility, we

expected CSI Impression Manipulativeness to be unrelated to any of the NEO-PI-R domain-


12/40


fourth wave, which consisted of 815 participants, contained the Communication Styles

Inventory (CSI) and - after a break filled with another questionnaire - Gudykunst et al.s

(1996) CSS. The fifth wave ( N =744) contained the lexical communication marker scales and

the sixth wave ( N =716) contained Infante and Wigleys (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness scale

and Infante and Rancers (1982) Argumentativeness scale. The fourth wave ( N =815), which is

most relevant for the psychometric properties of the CSI, consisted of 52.8% ( N =430) women.

Age ranged between 19 and 88, with a mean of 50.1 (sd =14.4). Education levels were evenly

spread, with 28.7% of the respondents ( N =234) having completed lower levels of education

(e.g., primary education, lower-level secondary or tertiairy education), 40.2% ( N =328) having

completed medium levels of education (e.g., higher-level secondary or medium-level tertiary

education), and 31% ( N =253) having completed higher levels of education (e.g., college or

university degree).

Student sample . In return for feedback, a sample of 101 bachelor students (76.2%


13/40


(completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Cronbach reliabilities of the CSI domain-level

scales ranged from .82 to .88 in the community sample (Table 1) and from .83 to .87 in the

student sample.

Lexical marker scales . The thirty highest loading adjectives and verbs from the

communication style factors uncovered in the lexical study, Expressiveness, Preciseness,

Niceness, Supportiveness, Threateningness, Emotionality, and Reflectiveness, which can be

found in Table 2 (p. 190-191) of De Vries et al. (2009), were included in the fifth wave of

data collection in the community study. Adjectives and verbs were separately provided. The

108 adjectives were offered using the lead sentence: Compared to others, in a conversation I

have a tendency to be a(n) ... communicator, in which the dots were replaced by adjectives

such as eloquent (Expressiveness), concise (Preciseness), cheerful (Niceness), and

dejected (Emotionality). The 102 verbs with or without object were offered using the

lead sentence: Compared to others, in a conversation I tend to ..., in which the dots were


14/40


Cronbach reliabilities of the scales in the community study ranged between .66 for Indirect

Communication and .87 for Use of Feelings, with a mean of .78.

The 20 items of the Verbal Aggressiveness scale of Infante and Wigley (1986) and the

20 items of the Argumentativeness scale of Infante and Rancer (1982) were translated in

Dutch and backtranslated by two of the authors of this study. Differences in translation were

discussed and resolved among the translators. Both scales were included in the sixth wave of

the community study. Cronbach reliabilities were .81 for Verbal Aggressiveness and .88 for

Argumentativeness. Verbal Aggressiveness correlated .22 ( p


15/40


CSI Descriptives

In Table 1 the descriptives of the CSI factor and facet scales in the community sample

are presented. Apart from four facets (Tension, Inscrutableness, Concealingness, and

Inquisitiveness) all facets had Cronbach reliabilities .70 and all reliabilities of the domain-

level scales were .80. The means, which could theoretically fluctuate between 1 and 5, were

all within acceptable limits. For the domain-level scales they ranged between 2.5 and 3.5 and

for the facet scales they ranged between 2 and 4. On average, women scored significantly

higher on Emotionality and somewhat lower on Verbal Aggressiveness, Preciseness, and

Questioningness.

Table 1

CSI Factor Structure

A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted on the 16 facet scales of the

CSI (Table 2). Six principal components with eigenvalue > 1 were extracted, explaining


16/40


Inscrutableness for the remainder of the analyses. Descriptives of Impression

Manipulativeness in Table 1 and the correlations in the remainder of the tables are thus based

on the aggregated three facets of Impression Manipulativeness.

Table 2

Correlations among the domain-level scales of the CSI

In Table 3, the within-instrument correlations of the CSI are shown. On the whole,

these correlations provide evidence for the distinctiveness of the CSI scales. In the student

sample (above diagonal in Table 3), none of the absolute correlations between the CSI scales

was higher than .30. However, in the community sample, three of the 15 absolute correlations

were higher than .30, that is, between Expressiveness and Questioningness (.42), between

Verbal Aggressiveness and Impression Manipulativeness (.35), and between Preciseness and

Emotionality (-.33).

Table 3


17/40


On the whole, these expectations were confirmed. Apart from CSI Impression

Manipulativeness and lexical Supportiveness, medium to strong convergent correlations (

.40) were observed for the CSI scales. That is, CSI Expressiveness correlated very strongly

with lexical Expressiveness (r =.72, p


18/40


Questioningness and both CSS Preciseness (r =.46, p


19/40


and NEO Extraversion, Verbal Aggressiveness correlated most strongly (negatively) with

HEXACO and NEO Agreeableness, Questioningness correlated most strongly with HEXACO

and NEO Openness to Experience, CSI Emotionality correlated most strongly with HEXACO

Emotionality and NEO Neuroticism, and Impression Manipulativeness correlated most

strongly with HEXACO Honesty-Humility, but not with any of the NEO domain-level scales.

Preciseness was only moderately related to HEXACO Conscientiousness (r =.35, p


20/40


et al.s (2009) study and r =-.54 in this study), this was unsurprising for these two dimensions.

However, we had also been unable to construct facets that formed a separate Supportiveness

dimension. In the end, based on earlier results, we decided to include items related to

supportiveness as a nonsupportiveness facet in the Verbal Aggressiveness factor scale.

Given the fact that this facet showed the highest correlation with the lexical Supportiveness

marker scale, the CSI does seem to map on this dimension too. However, future research

might like to add facets related to supportiveness to more fully cover this domain.

Consistent with the definition of communication styles and the lexical study of De

Vries et al. (2009), the CSI aligned well with the communicative behavior scales of

Gudykunst et al. (1996), but not with their intrapersonal cognition scales, Positive Perception

of Silence, Use of Feelings, and Inferring Meaning. The only unexpected finding was with

respect to CSS Indirect Communication, which did not relate strongly to any of the CSI

domain-level scales. However, first of all, this scale had the lowest reliability (.66) of all CSS


21/40


22/40


Vries, Ashton, & Lee, 2009), Impression Manipulativeness shows almost no gender

differences. Although the non-verbal expression of dishonesty may thus be more prevalent

among men, the verbal expression may be more equally distributed.

The most interesting finding of this study is the relative independence of Preciseness

from the personality dimensions. Recall that CSI Preciseness shows strong convergent

correlations with lexical Preciseness and CSS Preciseness, providing evidence for its

construct validity. Although Conscientiousness appears to be most closely aligned with

Preciseness, there also appear to be substantial differences between the two. It may thus not

necessarily be the case that people who are more organized, diligent, perfectionistic, and

prudent in their dealings with time and the physical environment are also more structured,

thoughtful, substantive, and concise when communicating with others. Preciseness was found

to be the most important predictor of leadership performance in a study by De Vries, Bakker-

Pieper, and Oostenveld (2010). According to Hargie and Dickson (2004), well planned and


23/40


describe prototypical appropriate behaviors. Thus, as argued above, for a typical leadership

situation, high levels of preciseness are needed to be seen as a competent leader. More

research is needed to find out what other communicative dimensions are related to perceived

competency as a leader, but recent findings suggests that expressiveness is another important

candidate (Bakker-Pieper & De Vries, 2011).

Some of the most notable interpersonal communication theories focus on one of the

six dimensions as their core variable. For instance, the Interpersonal Deception Theory

(Buller & Burgoon, 1996; Burgoon et al., 1996) revolves around a sender knowingly

transmitting a false belief or conclusion to a receiver, which is akin to Impression

Manipulativeness. The dual-process theory of supportive message outcomes (Bodie et al.,

2011) focuses on supportive behaviors, which is covered by the (reversed) CSI

Nonsupportiveness facet of Verbal Aggressiveness. Infante and Rancers (1996) verbal

aggressiveness and argumentativeness theory focuses on the destructive and constructive


24/40


theory (Buller & Burgoon, 1996), impression manipulativeness may be more successful in

transmitting a false belief or conclusion when a person is able to communicate this belief or

conclusion with high levels of preciseness and expressiveness. There are many different

possible combinations of styles, which may potentially predict many different communication

outcomes. Consequently, not only may the six dimensions be instrumental in providing a

framework to integrate findings in the area of (interpersonal) communication research, it may

also help to formulate new hypotheses to build on - or expand - existing communication

theories.

To summarize, this study provides evidence of the reliability and validity of the

Communication Styles Inventory (CSI). The CSI appears to be an instrument that captures

most of the main lexical dimensions of communication styles and the behavioral

communication styles as conceptualized in other communication inventories. Additionally,

the association of the CSI with personality-based measures suggests that the communication


25/40


2 Leung & Bond (2001) also lamented the lack of integrative model linking

personality and communication styles, noting on p. 69: Unfortunately, there is no integrative

model to link the two (Daly & Bippus, 1998), and almost no data available outside the West.

Even in the West, data linking these two is sparse.

3 In-depth information about the different preliminary studies conducted can be

obtained from the first two authors.

4 Although the student sample was somewhat small and somewhat gender inbalanced,

please note that the CSI-HEXACO correlations in the (large) community sample, which

contained almost equal men to women, were highly similar to the CSI-HEXACO correlations

in the student sample. To test whether these correlations were similar, we first conducted a

profile correlation between the r -to- z transformed CSI-HEXACO correlations in the

community sample and the r -to- z transformed CSI-HEXACO correlations in the student

sample. This correlation was highly significant (r =.89, p


26/40


Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., & De

Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions

from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 86 , 356-366.

Bakker-Pieper, A. & De Vries, R. E. (2011). The incremental validity of communication styles

over personality traits for leader outcomes . Poster presented at the 15th EAWOP

Conference, May 25-28, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Beatty, M. J. (1998). Future directions in communication trait theory and research. In J.C.

McCroskey, J.A. Daly, M.M. Martin, & M.J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and

personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 309-319). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc..

Bodie, G. D., Burleson, B. R., Gill-Rosier, J., McCullough, J.D., Holmstrom, A. J., Rack, J.

J., Hanasono, L., & Mincy, J. (2011). Explaining the Impact of Attachment Style on

Evaluations of Supportive Messages: A Dual-Process Framework. Communication


27/40


Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory - Revised (NEO-PI-R) and

NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual . Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Daly, J. A. & Bippus, A. M. (1998). Personality and interpersonal communication: Issues and

directions. In J.C. McCroskey, J.A. Daly, M.M. Martin, & M.J. Beatty (Eds.),

Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 1-40). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton

Press Inc..

Eysenck, S. G. B., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985) A revised version of the psychoticism

scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6 , 21-29.

De Vries, A., De Vries, R. E., & Born, M. Ph. (in press). Broad versus narrow traits:Conscientiousness and Honesty-Humility as predictors of academic criteria. European

Journal of Personality .

De Vries, R. E., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). De zes belangrijkste

persoonlijkheidsdimensies en de HEXACO persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst [The six most


28/40


De Vries, R.E. & Van Kampen, D. (2010). The HEXACO and 5DPT Models of personality:

A comparison and their relationships with Psychopathy, Egoism, Pretentiousness,

Immorality, and Machiavellianism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24 , 244-257.

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.

(2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129 , 74-118.

Feist, J. & Feist, G. J. (2006). Theories of personality . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Frank, M. G. & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception

situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 , 486-495.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life . Garden City, NY:

Anchor/Doubleday.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor

structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 , 1216-1229.

Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S.


29/40


Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality

and interpersonal communication (pp. 157-192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Infante, D. A. & Wigley, C. J., III. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model

and measure. Communication Monographs, 53 , 61-69.

Infante, D.A. & Rancer, A.S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 46 , 72-80.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A

review of recent theory and research. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook

19 (pp. 319-351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, S. D. & Bechler, C. (1998). Examining the relationship between listening

effectiveness and leadership emergence: Perceptions, behaviors, and recall. Small

Group Research, 29 , 452-471.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality


30/40


Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., & Shulman, H. C. (2010). The impact of Lie to Me on viewers

actual ability to detect deception. Communication Research, 37 , 847-856.

Levine, T. R., Shaw, A., & Shulman, H. C. (2010). Assessing deception detection accuracy

with dichotomous truth-lie judgments and continuous scaling: Are people really more

accurate when honesty is scaled? Communication Research Reports, 27 , 112-122.

McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., Martin, M. M., & Beatty, M. J. (1998). Communication and

personality: Trait perspectives . Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc..

Noller, P. & White, A. (1990). The validity of the Communication Patterns Questionnaire.

Psychological Assessment, 2 , 478-482.

Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication

Research, 4 , 99-112.

Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator Style: Theory, applications, and measures . Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Publications.


31/40


Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America:

Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36 , 2-25.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Vrij, A. & Mann, S. (2004). Detecting deception: The benefit of looking at a combination of

behavioral, auditory and speech content related cues in a systematic manner. Group

Decision and Negotiation, 13 , 61-79.

Weaver, J. B. (2005). Mapping the links between personality and communicator style.

Individual Differences Research, 3 , 59-70.


32/40


Appendix: Items of the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI)

# R Facet ItemExpressiveness

1 Talkativeness I always have a lot to say.25 Talkativeness I have a hard time keeping myself silent when around other people.49 R Talkativeness I am never the one who breaks a silence by starting to talk.73 Talkativeness I like to talk a lot.7 Conversational Dominance I often take the lead in a conversation.31 R Conversational Dominance Most of the time, other people determine what the discussion is about, not me.55 Conversational Dominance I often determine which topics are talked about during a conversation.79 Conversational Dominance I often determine the direction of a conversation.13 Humor Because of my humor, I'm often the centre of attention among a group of people.37 R Humor I have a hard time being humorous in a group.61 Humor My jokes always draw a lot of attention.85 Humor I often manage to make others burst out laughing.19 R Informality I communicate with others in a distant manner.43 R Informality I behave somewhat formally when I meet someone.67 Informality I address others in a very casual way.91 R Informality I come across as somewhat stiff when dealing with people.Preciseness2 Structuredness When I tell a story, the different parts are always clearly related to each other.26 R Structuredness I sometimes find it hard to tell a story in an organized way.50 Structuredness I always express a clear chain of thoughts when I argue a point.74 Structuredness My stories always contain a logical structure.8 Thoughtfulness I think carefully before I say something.32 Thoughtfulness I weigh my answers carefully.56 R Thoughtfulness The statements I make are not always well thought out.80 Thoughtfulness I choose my words with care.14 Substantiveness Conversations with me always involve some important topic.38 Substantiveness You won't hear me jabbering about superficial or shallow matters.


33/40


62 R Substantiveness I am someone who can often talk about trivial things.86 Substantiveness I rarely if ever just chatter away about something.20 Conciseness I don't need a lot of words to get my message across.44 Conciseness Most of the time, I only need a few words to explain something.68 R Conciseness I am somewhat long-winded when I need to explain something.

92 Conciseness With a few words I can usually clarify my point to everybody.Verbal Aggressiveness3 Angriness If something displeases me, I sometimes explode with anger.27 R Angriness Even when I'm angry, I won't take it out on someone else.51 Angriness I tend to snap at people when I get annoyed.75 Angriness I can sometimes react somewhat irritably to people.9 R Authoritarianism I am not very likely to tell someone what they should do.33 Authoritarianism I sometimes insist that others do what I say.57 Authoritarianism I expect people to obey when I ask them to do something.81 Authoritarianism When I feel others should do something for me, I ask for it in a demanding tone of voice.15 R Derogatoriness I never make fun of anyone in a way that might hurt their feelings.

39 Derogatoriness I have at times made people look like fools.63 Derogatoriness I have been known to be able to laugh at people in their face.87 Derogatoriness I have humiliated someone in front of a crowd.21 R Nonsupportiveness I can listen well.45 R Nonsupportiveness I always show a lot of understanding for other people's problems.69 R Nonsupportiveness I always take time for someone if they want to talk to me.93 R Nonsupportiveness I always treat people with a lot of respect.Questioningness4 Unconventionality I sometimes toss bizarre ideas into a group discussion.28 Unconventionality I often say unexpected things.52 Unconventionality In discussions, I often put forward unusual points of view.76 Unconventionality In conversations, I often toy with some very wild ideas.10 R Philosophicalness I never enter into discussions about the future of the human race.34 Philosophicalness I like to talk with others about the deeper aspects of our existence.58 R Philosophicalness I never engage in so-called philosophical conversations.82 Philosophicalness I regularly have discussions with people about the meaning of life.


34/40


16 Inquisitiveness During a conversation, I always try to find out about the background of somebody's opinion.40 R Inquisitiveness I don't bother asking a lot of questions just to find out why people feel the way they do about something.64 Inquisitiveness I ask a lot of questions to uncover someone's motives.88 Inquisitiveness I always ask how people arrive at their conclusions.22 Argumentativeness To stimulate discussion, I sometimes express a view different from that of my conversation partner.

46 Argumentativeness I like to provoke others by making bold statements.70 Argumentativeness I try to find out what people think about a topic by getting them to debate with me about it.94 Argumentativeness By making controversial statements, I often force people to express a clear opinion.Emotionality5 Sentimentality When I see others cry, I have difficulty holding back my tears.29 R Sentimentality During a conversation, I am not easily overcome by emotions.53 Sentimentality When describing my memories, I sometimes get visibly emotional.77 Sentimentality People can tell that I am emotionally touched by some topics of conversation.11 Worrisomeness When I'm worried about something, I find it hard to talk about anything else.35 Worrisomeness I tend to talk about my concerns a lot.59 Worrisomeness People can tell when I feel anxious.

83 Worrisomeness When I worry, everybody notices.17 Tension Because of stress, I am sometimes unable to express myself properly.41 Tension I can be visibly tense during a conversation.65 R Tension I am able to address a large group of people very calmly.89 Tension I find it hard to talk in a relaxed manner when what I have to say is valued highly.23 Defensiveness The comments of others have a noticeable effect on me.47 R Defensiveness Nasty remarks from other people do not bother me too much.71 Defensiveness When people criticize me, I am visibly hurt.95 Defensiveness I am not always able to cope easily with critical remarks.Impression Manipulativeness6 Ingratiation I sometimes praise somebody at great length, without being really genuine, in order to make them like me.30 Ingratiation In discussions I sometimes express an opinion I do not support in order to make a good impression.54 Ingratiation Sometimes I use flattery to get someone in a favorable mood.78 Ingratiation To be considered likeable, I sometimes say things my conversation partner likes to hear.12 Charm I sometimes use my charm to get something done.36 Charm I sometimes flirt a little bit to win somebody over.


35/40


60 R Charm I would not use my appearance to make people do things for me.84 Charm I sometimes put on a very seductive voice when I want something.18 Inscrutableness I make sure that people cannot read it from my face when I don't appreciate them.42 Inscrutableness Even when people ask for my thoughts on something, I seldom speak my mind if those thoughts are

unacceptable for others.66 Inscrutableness I am able to hide negative feelings about other people well.90 R Inscrutableness Other people can easily tell when I think badly about them.24 Concealingness I sometimes conceal information to make me look better.48 Concealingness I sometimes 'forget' to tell something when this is more convenient for me.72 R Concealingness I tell people the whole story, even when this is probably not good for me.96 R Concealingness Even if I would benefit from withholding information from someone, I would find it hard to do so. Notes: # = questionnaire number; R = Recoded item (1=5, 2=4, 4=2, 5=1)


36/40


37/40


Table 2

Principal Component Analysis on the facets of the CSI (N=815)X P VA Q E IM h

Expressiveness (X)

Talkativeness .78 -.08 .15 .14 .17 -.08 .68Conversational Dominance .60 .22 .29 .30 -.14 .09 .61Humor .66 -.10 .13 .12 -.15 .17 .53Informality .78 .08 -.26 .06 -.05 -.18 .73

Preciseness (P)

Structuredness .27 .75 -.10 .08 -.16 -.12 .70Thoughtfulness -.26 .63 -.27 .20 -.18 .08 .62Substantiveness -.35 .62 -.08 .25 .03 -.23 .63Conciseness .07 .70 -.01 -.16 -.19 -.02 .56

Verbal Aggressiveness (VA)

Angriness .04 -.06 .63 -.01 .34 .04 .52Authoritarianism .11 .15 .64 .08 -.01 .32 .55Derogatoriness .08 -.16 .70 .01 -.17 .26 .62

Nonsupportiveness -.12 -.23 .65 -.22 -.15 .04 .56Questioningness (Q)


38/40


Table 3

Correlations of the domain-level scales of the CSI in the community sample

(below diagonal, N=815) and the student sample (above diagonal, N=101)

X P VA Q E IM

Expressiveness (X) -.22 .05 .21 -.13 .11

Preciseness (P) -.02 -.11 .14 -.19 -.12

Verbal Aggressiveness (VA) .13 -.29 .17 -.12 .29

Questioningness (Q) .42 .10 .21 -.22 -.08

Emotionality (E) -.17 -.33 .08 -.12 .14

Impression Manipulativeness (IM) .04 -.21 .35 .15 .21

Notes: p.08 in the community sample and at r >.24 in the student

sample


39/40


Table 4

Correlations of the CSI with lexical communication marker scales, CSS, and Infante and

colleagues scales

X P VA Q E IM

Lexical Marker Scales

Expressiveness .72** .14** .09* .29** -.35** -.11**

Preciseness .14** .61** -.15** .23** -.33** -.14**

Threateningness .00 -.24** .51** .06 .15** .28**

Niceness -.05 .15** -.59** -.27** .03 -.15**

Supportiveness .20** .02 -.36** .11** .20** -.05

Reflectiveness .28** .04 .01 .50** .11** .07

Emotionality -.23** -.31** .39** -.02 .40** .23**

CSS (Gudykunst et al.)

Openness .67** -.09* .07* .35** .05 .03

Preciseness .22** .49** .06 .46** -.21** -.06

Interpersonal Sensitivity -.20** .26** -.53** -.04 .14** -.03

Dramatic Communication .60** -.22** .34** .50** .10** .31**


40/40


Table 5

Correlations of the CSI with the HEXACO and NEO personality inventories

Expressiveness Preciseness

Verbal

Aggressiveness

Questioningness Emotionality

Impression

Manipulativeness

C S C S C S C S C S C S

HEXACO-PI-R

eXtraversion (X) .67** .50** .09* .03 -.01 -.19 .31** .11 -.32** -.41** -.00 -.05

Conscientiousness (C) .09* -.19 .35** .25 -.19** .06 .05 -.10 -.15** .21 -.13** -.12

Agreeableness (A) -.03 -.12 .15** .00 -.56** -.52** -.11** -.14 -.18** -.08 -.17** -.09

Openness to Experience (O) .20** .14 .10** .22 .02 -.25* .53** .68** -.11** .01 .05 .08Emotionality (E) -.08* -.02 -.25** -.28* -.09* -.11 -.13** -.28* .67** .74** .10** .08

Honesty-Humility (H) -.10** -.28* .06 .00 -.40** -.40** -.16** -.06 .01 .14 -.51** -.67**

NEO-PI-R

Extraversion .60** -.07 -.01 .22 -.33* .21

Conscientiousness -.20 .38* .08 -.19 .04 -.22

Agreeableness -.31* .11 -.61** -.29 .08 -.12

Openness to Experience .25 .17 -.22 .70**

-.18 -.10 Neuroticism .06 -.31* .13 -.10 .60** .23

Notes: C=community sample ( N =805); S=student sample ( N =61 for HEXACO-PI-R and N =42 for NEO-PI-R); * p

de vries ea 2013 cr communication styles inventory

Documents