Assessing Gibb's Supportive and Defensive Communication Climate: An Examination of Measurement and Construct Validity

Abstract

This project investigated the utility of Gibb's (1961) theory of supportive and defensive communication as operationalized by Costigan and Schmeidler (1984) in their survey instrument. As part of a larger project, 202 randomly selected faculty members completed a survey assessing the supportive and defensive communication behaviors of their current department chair. These data were then examined to determine the internal reliability and consistency of the instrument, as well as underlying dimensional stability. The results of this analysis indicate the presence of significant multicollinearity and a 4-factor, rather than a 12-factor, solution as originally hypothesized by Gibb. The article concludes with suggestions for reconceptualizing and interpreting the communication climate construct as a function of two underlying dimensions, including one supportive and one defensive behavior focused on task and one supportive and one defensive behavior focused on interpersonal relationships.

Keywords:

• Communication Climate
• Defensive Communication
• Measurement
• Supportive Communication
• Validity

The dataset utilized in this project was part of Kathleen Czech's dissertation. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented to the Group Communication Division at the National Communication Association Convention, November 22, 2008, San Diego, CA.

Notes

Note. DES = description; PRB = problem orientation; PRV = provisionalism; EMP = empathy; EQU = equality; SPO = spontaneity; EVL = evaluation; SUP = superiority; CER = certainty; NUE = neutrality; CON = control; STR = strategy.

Note. DES = description; PRB = problem orientation; PRV = provisionalism; EMP = empathy; EQU = equality; SPO = spontaneity; EVL = evaluation; SUP = superiority; CER = certainty; NUE = neutrality; CON = control; STR = strategy.

Note. N = 202. All correlations are statistically significant at p < .01. The italicized values on the diagonal are the Cronbach's alphas' for each subscale.

Note. Values in bold font represent primary factor loadings. DES = description; PRB = problem orientation; PRV = provisionalism; EMP = empathy; EQU = equality; SPO = spontaneity; EVL = evaluation; SUP = superiority; CER = certainty; NUE = neutrality; CON = control; STR = strategy.

Educational researchers have suggested that private and public universities may differ in significant ways due to governmental oversight and funding (Forward, Czech, & Allen, 2007). To control for this potentially confounding variable, we limited our sample to faculty at private, 4-year universities comprising the 544 member institutions belonging to the Council of Independent Colleges.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

G. L. Forward

G. L. Forward (PhD, The Ohio State University, 1994) is a professor in the Department of Communication and Theatre at Point Loma Nazarene University.

Kathleen Czech

Kathleen Czech (EdD, University of San Diego, 2007) is a professor in the Department of Communication and Theatre at Point Loma Nazarene University.

Carmen M. Lee

Carmen M. Lee (PhD, University of California–Santa Barbara, 2007) is an assistant professor in the School of Communication at San Diego State University.