Priest as Teacher III: Parishioners’ Responsiveness and Priests’ Vocational Qualities

Abstract

The study reported here is the third in a program of inquiry examining communication in the Catholic Church. Grounded in existing research underscoring the relationships among nonverbal responsiveness and organizational perceptions, the goal of this inquiry was to explore relationships among priests’ perceptions of parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness during homilies and priests’ reports of satisfaction, motivation, and burnout. Utilizing a sample of Catholic priests, results indicated that parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness during priests’ homilies was directly related to priests’ satisfaction and motivation and inversely related to two dimensions of burnout. Analyzing the three organizational perceptions together, motivation appears to be most consistent predictor of burnout. Implications are discussed.

Keywords:

• Burnout
• Catholic Church
• Motivation
• Priests
• Responsiveness
• Satisfaction

In 2013 there were 39,600 U.S. Catholic priests and 412,236 priests worldwide (CARA, 2013). Of all U.S. denominations, the Catholic Church is the single largest faith denomination; yet, communication researchers have repeatedly noted that this context is under-researched (e.g., Carrell, 2009; Horan, Raposo, & Carton, 2014). The lack of communication focus is curious, as “face-to-face public speaking is an obvious central and regular task of the professional life of the clergy” (Carrell, 2009, p. 15).

Within the Catholic Church, interaction between priests and parishioners is perhaps most common during Mass: 34% of Catholics aged 18–29 and 43% of Catholics 30 years of age and older attend Mass weekly (Pew Research Center, 2010). This regular attendance suggests communication between parishioners and priests is key in understanding parishioners’ perceptions of priests and messages (Horan & Raposo, 2013; Horan et al., 2014; Joseph & Thompson, 2004; Pargament & Silverman, 1982). Such reciprocal influence implicates the relational nature of priest-parishioner communication: namely, that priest-parishioner communication is content as well as relational driven (Horan & Raposo, 2013; Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967). Analogously, Frymier and Houser (2000) argued the teacher-student relationship was “relational as well as content driven” (p. 216). Utilizing such work, along with related studies and church teaching, Horan and colleagues (Horan & Raposo, 2013; Horan et al., 2014) argued that priests utilize instructional communication as part of their vocation. Consistent with that focus, this study further examined the priest-parishioner dynamic, exploring how priests’ perceptions of parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness during homilies related to priests’ organizational satisfaction, motivation, and burnout. Reviews and rationale follow.

Priests and Instructional Communication

Throughout religious teachings, priests are depicted in various instructional roles: priests are “teachers of sacred science” (Cf. Constitutiones Apostolorum II, 26, 7), they are “ … called by virtue of their ministry to celebrate, teach and serve the Gospel of hope” (John Paul II, 2003), and are “educators in the faith” (Paul VI, 1965). The Catholic Church purports that Jesus directed disciples: “Go ye and teach” (Matthew, 28:9). Thus, as religious educators who utilize communication, priests may be considered instructional communication practitioners (see Horan & Raposo, 2013).

Transitioning from religious teachings to instructional communication research, Carrell (2009) explored how training can impact and, ultimately, benefit sermon quality. Following Carrell's work, Horan and Raposo (2013) examined parishioners’ perceptions of their priests’ credibility, revealing that credible priests were perceived to be nonverbally immediate and responsive. Importantly, parishioners who perceived their priests to be credible and responsive also reported that they themselves were nonverbally responsive during Mass. Subsequently, Horan et al. (2014) aimed to identify priests’ communicative misbehaviors, or those “behaviors that irritate, demotivate, or substantially distract parishioners from Mass, faith, and/or worship” (p. 19). Parishioners’ perceptions of priests’ misbehaviors were communication based and descriptions depicted priests’ messages, interactions, and perceived technical violations. Importantly, parishioners reported a myriad of negative emotional responses to such misbehaviors.

Collectively, the above findings suggest that priests' and parishioners’ communication is reciprocal and mutually influential. Transitioning from a focus on parishioners, here the study focused on priests and their perceptions of parishioners’ responsiveness during homilies.

Parishioners’ Nonverbal Responsiveness

Although parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness is yet to be studied, classroom interaction studies document the importance of students’ responsiveness. Student nonverbal responsiveness includes “head nods, forward body leans, and eye contact” during class (Mottet, Beebe, & Fleuriet, 2006, p. 152); similarly, here those behaviors were studied during priests’ homilies. Immediacy and responsiveness are unique concepts, though Mottet (2000) argued, “Nonverbal responsive behaviors have been shown to be indicative of immediacy” (p. 148).

Mottet's program of research underscores the significance of students’ nonverbal responsiveness (Mottet, 2000; Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, & Medlock, 2004; Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, & Paulsel, 2004, 2005). His research revealed that instructors liked nonverbally responsive students more than less responsive students and were more likely to comply with their requests (Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, & Paulsel, 2004). His experimental work later revealed that nonverbally responsive students were granted more prosocial power that accounted for 11% of the variance in essay grades (Mottet et al., 2005). Relevant to the present inquiry focused on priests’ vocational perceptions, instructors with nonverbally responsive students reported higher levels of self-efficacy and job satisfaction (Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, & Medlock, 2004).

Recently, in a longitudinal study of classroom communication, students who reported initial positive predicted outcome value judgments (Sunnafrank, 1986) of instructors later reported being more nonverbally responsive during class (Horan & Houser, 2012). Malachowksi and Martin (2011) found that instructors who perceived their class to be nonverbally responsive reported they were nonverbally immediate during instruction, confirming, and caring.

The previously reviewed studies indicate that instructors’ perceptions of students’ nonverbal responsiveness are influential; a claim particularly significant given that some of Mottet's studies were experimental in nature. Given the relationships among instructors’ perceptions of students’ nonverbal responsiveness and instructors’ job satisfaction (Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, & Medlock, 2004), a similar idea was explored here: Do priests’ perceptions of parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness during their homilies relate to organizational satisfaction, motivation, and burnout?

Satisfaction and Motivation

Although job satisfaction and motivation have been studied generally in various organizations, instructional communication researchers utilize context-specific conceptualizations. Given the treatment here of priest as an instructional communication practitioner, such definitions were adopted. Accordingly, teacher job satisfaction is considered to be “the state of mind determined by the extent to which the individual perceives his/her job-related needs being met” (Evans, 1997, p. 833). Instructor motivation is one's “internal state of readiness to take action or achieve a goal” (Mottet, Richmond, & J. McCroskey, 2006, p. 301). These two organizational perceptions are directly related (Knapp, 2010).

Recent work reveals some telling findings pertaining to instructors’ satisfaction and motivation. From a personality perspective, reports of instructors’ satisfaction were directly related to extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness; motivation was similarly positively related to extraversion and agreeableness. In contrast, reports of satisfaction and motivation were inversely related to openness (motivation and satisfaction were unrelated to neuroticism [Teven, 2007]). Recently, Docan-Morgan's (2011) findings suggest that relational turning points with students can influence both instructors’ satisfaction and motivation.

Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, and Medlock (2004) argued that, “students are partially responsible for meeting the relational needs of their teachers,” and similar reasoning is adopted here in the priest-parishioner dynamic (p. 160). It is argued that parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness is one way in which parishioners meet, or fail to meet, priests’ needs, which, consequently, impacts priests’ satisfaction. Uniquely, Catholic priests report high levels of job satisfaction. In a study of 1,212 Catholic priests, “nearly 100%” reported agree or strongly agree in response to “Overall, I am satisfied with my life as a priest” (Feuerherd, 2002, p. 13). Across professions, religious clergy are among the most satisfied (National Catholic Reporter, 2007). Although the religious and altruistic nature of the priest vocation may suggest satisfaction levels of priests are high and stable, scholars have documented that satisfaction levels do vary based on a number of factors. Varying levels of satisfaction are important to understand, as priests who report higher levels of satisfaction also report stronger intentions to continue in their positions (Wittberg, 1993). Despite the high levels of satisfaction, such a career entails working long hours, with many priests working 60–80 hours a week (Feuerherd, 2002). This may explain why several priests expressed feeling that they did not have enough time address the needs of their parishioners. Studying factors relating to satisfaction is important, as 10% of priests surveyed reported that they “seriously considered leaving the priesthood in the past five years” (Feuerherd, 2002, p. 13). Given that satisfaction is linked to priests maintaining their religious role (Feuerherd, 2002,; Wittberg, 1993), it is important to understand factors that relate to priests’ satisfaction. Here one factor is studied by examining responsiveness; priests who have nonverbally responsive parishioners should report high levels of satisfaction. Formally:

H1: Priests’ perceptions of parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness during homilies will be directly related to priests’ reports of satisfaction.

Given the religious nature of the priest vocation, motivation may be thought to come solely from faith and religious sources; yet, organizational communication theory and research document that workplace motivation is a more complex process. Herzberg's (1966, 1974) Motivation-Hygiene Theory informs how priests’ motivation and parishioners’ communication may operate together. The theory argues that, in organizations, different factors motivate and demotivate employees. Applied to the Catholic Church, factors that motivate priests would be considered motivating factors, whereas those factors that potentially demotivate priests would be considered hygiene factors. Consistent with prior research applying this theory to religious worship settings (Katt & Trelstad, 2009), it is argued that parishioners’ communication can function as either a motivation or hygiene factor. In situations where priests’ view they have a very communicatively engaged congregation via high levels of nonverbal responsiveness, parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness would act as a motivating factor. In contrast, for those priests who consider their parishioners to be less responsive, parishioners’ communication would then function as a hygiene factor. Thus, Hypothesis 2:

H2: Priests’ perceptions of parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness during homilies will be directly related to priests’ reports of motivation.

Burnout

Burnout is “a response to chronic emotional stress” (Perlman & Hartman, 1982, p. 293) and is composed of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach, 1982, 2003; Maslach & Goldberg, 1998; Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996). Emotional exhaustion consists of feelings of emotional fatigue, typically resulting from overload and organizational conflict. Depersonalization reflects a disconnection from others, usually resulting from emotional exhaustion. Depersonalization initially functions as a defense mechanism in that the detachment does not allow for any additional emotional involvement and exhaustion. The third factor, reduced personal accomplishment, describes diminished feelings of accomplishment, ability, and productivity (Maslach 1982, 2003).

Burnout is linked with a number of negative outcomes, including decreased work performance (Wright & Bonnet, 1997), organizational exit (Drake & Yadama, 1996), and increased alcohol and drug use (Jackson & Maslach, 1982). Communicatively, various burnout dimensions have been related to self-defeating humor (Avtgis & Taber, 2006), organizational dissent (Avtgis, Thomas-Maddox, Taylor, & Patterson, 2007), and socially supportive messages (Hartman-Ellis & Miller, 1994).

Teachers higher in burnout report higher levels of verbal aggressiveness (Avtgis & Rancer, 2008), stress (Zhang & Zhu, 2007), workload demands (Starnaman & Miller, 1992), role conflict and ambiguity (Starnaman & Miller, 1992), and are perceived as less credible (Zhang & Sapp, 2009). Relevant here, satisfaction mediated the relationships between teacher burnout and intention to leave (Zhang & Zhang, 2012). Likewise, Teven's (2007) pattern of results suggests that teachers reporting higher levels of burnout are generally less satisfied and motivated.

Although religious clergy are considered to be a low risk group for burnout (Jacobson, Rothschild, Mirza, & Shapiro, 2013), studies reveal that depression, (Jacobson et al., 2013), years in congregation (Jacobson et al., 2013), excessive workload demands (Beebe, 2007), and life and vocational satisfaction (Bennett, 2011) are factors associated with burnout. From a personality perspective, extraverted Catholic priests reported lower levels of burnout whereas those reporting higher levels of neuroticism and psychoticism reported higher levels of burnout (Francis, Louden, & Rutledge, 2004).

Burnout is indeed a risk for Catholic priests. As the New York Times reported: “Members of the clergy now suffer from obesity, hypertension and depression at rates higher than most Americans. In the last decade, their use of antidepressants has risen, while their life expectancy has fallen. Many would change jobs if they could” (Vitello, 2010). Given the risks associated with burnout, it is important to better understand factors associated with clergy burnout in general, and here specifically, Catholic priests. Potentially, parishioners’ communication is one of many factors that explain burnout.

Beebe (2007) discussed the “double bind” clergy members may feel, leading to burnout: “a heartfelt desire to engage others at a deeply personal and spiritual level and yet often finding these same individuals to be the cause of vocational burnout because of parishioners’ expectations to fulfill a multitude of emotional demands” (p. 258). The “emotional demands” of any role implicate a focus on nonverbal messages. Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, and Medlock (2004) highlighted the connections among nonverbal messages and emotions: Nonverbal messages “tend to stimulate meaning on a relational level … and nonverbal messages have their primary impact on affective responses” (p. 152). Accordingly, the amount and nature of parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness creates meaning relationally and influences “affective responses” that could function as either a motivation or hygiene factor (Herzberg, 1966, 1975) either diminishing or enhancing burnout. Formally, Hypothesis 3 argues:

H3: Priests’ perceptions of parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness during homilies will be inversely related to priests’ reports of burnout.

Method

Participants

In order to obtain a sample, Catholic priests were directly contacted via mail in the Midwest from one of the largest U.S. dioceses. Contact information for priests was obtained through diocesan directories.

This male sample (N = 137) contained 76 pastors, 20 associate pastors, 10 residents, and 30 participants describing their role as other (1 declined to report). Ages of priests ranged from 32-86 years old (M = 59.40 SD = 11.99), and participants reported being priests for 1–61 years (M = 30.46, SD = 14.29). Participants largely described themselves as White/Caucasian (120, 7 Asian, 3 Hispanic/Latino, 2 Black/African American, 4 other, and 1 declined to report). In the interest of anonymity and the fact that instruments were asking potentially sensitive information about satisfaction, motivation, and burnout, no other demographic information was collected.

Instrumentation

Priests received a survey packet in the mail sent to their Church/rectory's address listed in the diocesan directory. The survey packet began with a cover letter detailing the purpose of the research study, highlighting their rights as human subjects, stressing the anonymous nature of this study, and provided contact information for the researchers and their University IRB's office. Before completing any survey items, priests were instructed to “base all responses off of the Mass you most recently said.” This methodological direction, consistent with a widely adopted instructional communication research directive originating with Plax, Kearney, J. McCroskey, and Richmond (1986), allowed priests to focus on their most recent experience.

Participants completed a scale rating perceptions of the nonverbal responsiveness of parishioners during priests’ homilies. Malachowski and Martin (2011) developed a self-report for teachers to rate how nonverbally responsive their students were during class. Their scale was based, largely, on Mottet (2000). Here the scale was modified to reflect the church, rather than the classroom, format. Priests were directed to rate the frequency with which the nonverbally responsive behaviors occurred during their homilies from their parishioners, capturing a general perception of responsiveness. Sample items included My parishioners look at me while I am preaching and My parishioners display positive facial expressions while I am preaching. Priests rated the frequency with which these behaviors occurred from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). The scale was reliable in previous research (Malachowski & Martin, 2011) as well as the current investigation (α = 0.79, M = 2.68, SD = 0.61).

Priests’ reports of satisfaction were obtained utilizing Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, and Medlock's (2004) teacher job satisfaction scale. Five 7-point semantic differential items comprise the scale with adjective pairings including unsatisfied/satisfied and not pleased/pleased. The scale was reliable in past work (Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, & Medlock) as well as the inquiry reported here (α = 0.76, M = 5.48, SD = 1.07).

Priests’ reports of motivation were based on Richmond's (1990) teacher motivation scale as modified by Teven (2007). Four 7-step semantic differential items compose the scale with adjective pairings including motivated/unmotivated and excited/bored. This scale was reliable in previous research (Teven, 2007) as well as the study reported here (α = 0.88, M = 5.69, SD = 1.12).

Priests’ reports of burnout were assessed by Maslach et al.'s (1996) three dimensional burnout inventory. Participants respond to 22 utilizing Likert-type responses with 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The three factors were reliable in previous research (Avtgis et al., 2007) as well as the investigation detailed here (emotional exhaustion α = 0.89, M = 2.03, SD = 0.82; reduced personal accomplishment α = 0.78, M = 2.13, SD = 0.53). Depersonalization was initially unreliable, but once an item (I feel parishioners blame me for some of their problems) was removed, the scale became reliable (α = 0.71, M = 1.64, SD = 0.67).

Results

Hypothesis 1 predicted that priests’ perceptions of parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness during homilies would be directly related to priests’ job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1 was supported (r = 0.36, p < 0.001).

Hypothesis 2 purported that priests’ perceptions of parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness during homilies would be directly related to priests’ motivation. Hypothesis 2 was supported (r = 0.22, p = 0.02).

Hypothesis 3 forecasted that priests’ perceptions of parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness during homilies would be negatively related to priests’ reports of burnout.

Priests perceptions of parishioners’ responsiveness were inversely related to depersonalization (r = −0.19, p = 0.041) and reduced personal accomplishment (r = −0.33, p < 0.001) but not exhaustion (r = −0.11, ns).

The study reported here examined a number of organizational perceptions and argued that communication would be key in understanding such perceptions. Given the number of problems associated with burnout and that Catholic priests are reported to be at increased risk for burnout, it was important to understand which of the factors studied here best predicted burnout. Thus, two regressions were conducted to better understand depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment; given the non-significant relationships between emotional exhaustion and nonverbal responsiveness, it was removed from any subsequent analyses.

The first regression examined the predictive abilities of nonverbal responsiveness, satisfaction, and motivation in understanding reduced personal accomplishment. A significant model was obtained (F [3, 111] = 11.06, p < 0.001) accounting for 23% (R² = 0.230) of the variance in reduced personal accomplishment. Responsiveness (β = −0.20, p = 0.028), satisfaction (β = −0.21, p = 0.035), and motivation (β = −0.23, p = 0.016) were all significant predictors of reduced personal accomplishment.

A similar regression was conducted for depersonalization. A significant model was obtained (F [3, 114] = 6.75, p < 0.001) accounting for 15% (R² = 0.151) of the variance in depersonalization. Motivation (β = −0.28, p = 0.005) was the only significant predictor (nonverbal responsiveness β = −0.09, p = 0.343; satisfaction β = −0.18, p = 0.252).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine how parishioners’ communication related to priests’ vocational satisfaction, motivation, and burnout. Findings revealed that priests who perceived their parishioners to be responsive during homilies reported being more satisfied and motivated, as well as experiencing lower levels of burnout (i.e., depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment). Consequently, findings reinforce previously presented arguments that priest-parishioner interactions contain both content and relational dimensions. Moreover, results here, along with Horan and Raposo (2013; Horan et al., 2014), document that communication in priest-parishioner interactions is mutually influential. Likewise, the pattern of findings here is consistent with Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, and Medlock's (2004) work, further emphasizing the importance of studying instructional communication processes in religious settings.

Mottet, Beebe et al. (2006) noted that teacher satisfaction is “sensitive to the relational dynamics involved in teaching” (p. 153). Findings here support their claim, with less satisfied priests perceiving their parishioners as less responsive during homilies. Mottet, Beebe et al. noted that most instructors are “intrinsically motivated” in their professions, and a similar statement can be made about Catholic priests. This may explain why social scientific studies of Catholic priests are rare, but studies of motivation appeared particularly rare when compared to satisfaction and burnout. Despite a baseline intrinsic level of motivation, priests’ motivation levels do vary—a finding documented in our data here. As a result, both researchers and practitioners cannot assume that priests share a consistent and unwavering level of motivation. Intrinsic levels of motivation may initially draw priests to their career, but religious organizations must be mindful of how to sustain motivation levels throughout a life-long vocation. As the literature review discussed, 10% of priests “seriously considered leaving the priesthood in the past five years” (Feuerherd, 2002, p. 13); hence understanding how communication relates to organizational perceptions is especially important. As proposed, nonverbal responsiveness can function as a motivation or hygiene factor, but there are certainly numerous other factors that should be examined in future empirical inquiries.

The results pertaining to burnout indicated that priests with nonverbally responsive parishioners reported diminished feelings of depersonalization and personal accomplishment. Interestingly, variables of interest here were unrelated to exhaustion. Regressions further informed these findings. Nonverbal responsiveness, satisfaction, and motivation were key predictors of reduced personal accomplishment, whereas motivation was the only significant predictor of depersonalization. Collectively, then, findings indicate that both parishioner communication and organizational perceptions are key in understanding burnout. The previous discussion argued for the importance of better understanding factors that account for priests’ motivation, and the burnout findings emphasize the importance of this call.

Implications

From an applied perspective, it is important to understand factors that influence priests’ organizational perceptions. Consider that much of the priesthood is older, approaching or enjoying retirement, and fewer young men are joining the seminary (Valley News Live, 2013). In fact, the number of priests is down one third since the 1960s (Valley News Live, 2013). This may help explain the growing number of Catholic churches that are forced to consolidate: As one example, three parishes in New York recently consolidated (Bonner, 2011). In order to sustain such a large world organization, it is important for the Catholic Church to keep their organizational members, in this case priests, satisfied and motivated. The question, then, becomes how does this organization work toward that goal?

One manner in which to sustain, or improve, priests’ organizational perceptions is through enhancing parishioners’ nonverbal responsiveness. Yet, the question becomes how priests can work to enhance the levels of their parishioners’ responsiveness? Results of this study, along with Horan and Raposo (2013), provide one direction. Recall that Horan and Raposo found that parishioners reported being nonverbally responsive during Mass when they perceived their priest to be both credible and responsive. Those results were obtained utilizing a sample of Catholic parishioners; here this study examined priests, finding that their reports of parishioners’ responsiveness during homilies related to organizational perceptions. Thus, this pattern of correlational findings suggests that, to enhance parishioners’ responsiveness, priests should work to convey perceptions of credibility and responsiveness. Conveying credibility entails managing perceptions of competence, goodwill, and trustworthiness (J. McCroskey & Teven, 1999). Perceptions of responsiveness are based on an assessment of how “helpful, sympathetic, compassionate, sincere, and friendly” (Thomas, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1990, p. 109) priests appear. Consistent with the theme of this study, credibility and responsiveness perceptions have large nonverbal components. Thus, priests wishing to modify parishioner behavior should attend to their own nonverbal messages.

When introducing this study, statistics about church attendance were reviewed: 43% of Catholics over 30 years old attend mass weekly, a statistic lower for Catholics aged 18–29 (34%, Pew Research Center, 2010). Such a statistic suggests about roughly 60–70% of organizational members are missing weekly. Further troubling, “In 2008 alone, Catholic membership declined by 400,000. More than 1,000 parishes have closed since 1995” (The Week, 2010). Clearly, such an issue warrants organizational and empirical attention. As initially argued by Horan and Raposo (2013), communication may be one factor that accounts for decreased church attendance. Research on those who actively attend church supports such a speculation, suggesting that the existing active membership may be in some jeopardy. Horan et al. (2014) found that parishioners were able to accurately recall priests’ communicative misbehaviors that resulted in negative emotional reactions. Thus, communication remains influential.

Based on the above discussions, it is imperative that (a) results of empirical research be shared with religious organizations and (b) training of Catholic priests includes communication content. Scholars have noted that priests’ training does not focus largely on communication expertise (Carrell, 2009; Horan et al., 2014), instead devoting time to content expertise. The emerging research, though, indicates that it is imperative for priests to receive communication education and training as the majority of their career entails human interaction. Priests do spend private time in prayer; still, much of their time is spent with parishioners during public speaking events (weddings, funerals, weekly services, etc.) and private counseling. Although content expertise is necessary for priests’ competence, failing to spend considerable time presenting communication research fails to prepare priests for their day-to-day vocational experiences.

Working with religious clergy to introduce communication research-based training answers calls from instructional communication researchers. Richmond and Frymier (2010), for example, stressed that it was a “requirement'” for researchers to ‘‘find ways to reach out to teachers and teacher education across disciplines'’ (p. 322). Sharing findings here, along with relevant work, is one way to “reach out” to priests. Further, consider Witt's Communication Education essay (2012), which argued that communication education, as both a field and a journal, should be receptive to studying instructional communication in “wider contexts” and rededicate itself to “developing individuals’ communication competence in a variety of educational and professional contexts” (p. 2). Such calls suggest, then, that sharing communication research with external, non-academic audiences may be a professional responsibility.

Future Research

Findings here provided a direct connection between parishioners’ communicative behavior and priests’ organizational perceptions. Future studies should examine how parishioners’ communication relates to other aspects of priests’ vocational perceptions. Moreover, scholars should work to truly understand the negative implications of a priest who reports low levels of satisfaction, motivation, and burnout. Intuitively, this would influence his communicative performance, which would then influence his parishioners’ perceptions of him. Consequently, a negative cycle would result. In addition, scholars should further study the negative implications of burnout. Are priests coping with these negative organizational perceptions constructively (e.g., humor, seeking support, exercise) or destructively (e.g., alcohol, poor work performance, etc.)?

Generally, communication remains under-researched in the Catholic Church. This is quite surprising given that this context offers rich areas of inquiry for communication researchers from varying perspective (e.g., interpersonal, organizational, nonverbal, instructional, health, etc.). The context offers both theoretical and applied implications and is one of the world's largest organizations. Thus, communication researchers would be wise to examine how messages function in this organization.

Avtgis and Taber (2006) noted that much of the burnout literature had “focused on healthcare … and mental health organizations … However, little research has been conducted focusing on other high stress professions” (p. 14). Although not typically thought of as a “high stress” profession, the research reviewed summarized some of the stressors associated with being a member of religious clergy. Future studies would be wise to examine other negative factors associated with this vocation. As one point of departure, studies should examine the role of humorous communication as its importance has been noted in other stressful careers (e.g., Avtgis & Taber, 2006; Horan, Bochantin, & Booth-Butterfield, 2012; Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butterfield, 2005).

The Catholic Church has a clearly defined power structure with explicit roles that likely exert considerable influence over communication. Future research should explore how these norms influence communication. As one example, studies of how priests negotiate power and/or communicate dissent would be intriguing. Such studies would complement Hoffman's (2002, 2007; Hoffman & Medlock-Klykuvoski, 2004) studies examining similar processes among Catholic nuns.

Limitations

Results are limited here to the design of the study such that it was cross-sectional in nature and utilized a convenience sample in one American region. Although our sample comes from the Midwest, this may be less of an issue as, “The Midwest most closely resembles the religious makeup of the overall population” (Pew Research Center, 2008, p. 8). Although the sample of priests comes from the Midwest, participants likely came from a variety of locations throughout the country/world and were simply Midwest based.

The sample of Catholic priests was established in their careers, reporting an average of 30 years’ experience. Still, there was considerable variance in this mean with a range of 1–61 years of experience reported. It is probable that new priests, mid-career priests, and priests approaching retirement would vary in their vocational views. Future studies would be wise to isolate and study these groups independently to better understand how vocational factors fluctuate throughout priests’ careers.

Two additional factors that were not measured would further inform findings. First, although an appropriately sized sample was used, additional surveys were sent to priests and not returned. It would be interesting to have findings from those priests as it would paint a more complete picture of this population. Second, the size of the congregation was not measured. It is unknown if/how congregation size plays a role in understanding the findings obtained here.

Findings here are limited to the Catholic Church, and it is unknown if they are applicable across religious dominations. Each denomination maintains its own contextual norms that dictate appropriate levels of nonverbal responsiveness. Consequently, what may be considered as normative levels of nonverbal responsiveness in one church may be considered minimal or excessive in another church. Future studies should apply instructional communication processes to a variety of religious denominations.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sean M. Horan

Sean M. Horan (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2009) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Texas State University.

Peter Jesus Cruz Raposo

Father Peter Jesus Cruz Raposo (M.A., Sikkim Manipal University and M.A., DePaul University, 2012) was a Catholic Priest of the Society of the Missionaries of St. Francis Xavier and Communication doctoral student at Ohio University. He died unexpectedly on March 13, 2015 at the age of 43.