Bivariate and Multivariate Associations between Trait Listening Goals and Trait Communicator Preferences

REFERENCES

• Berger, C. R. (1989). Goals, plans, and discourse comprehension. In J. J. Bradac ( Ed.), Message effects in communication science (pp. 75–101). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bodie, G. D. (2012). Listening as positive communication. In T. Socha & M. Pitts ( Eds.), The positive side of interpersonal communication (pp. 109–125). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Bodie, G. D. (in press). The role of thinking in the comforting process: An empirical test of a dual-process framework. Communication Research.
   Google Scholar
• Bodie, G. D., Vickery, A. J., & Gearhart, C. C. (2013). The nature of supportive listening I: Exploring the relation between supportive listeners and supportive people. International Journal of Listening, 27, 39–49. doi:10.1080/10904018.2013.732408
   Google Scholar
• Bodie, G. D., & Villaume, W. A. (2003). Aspects of receiving information: The relationship between listening preferences, communication apprehension, receiver apprehension, and communicator style. International Journal of Listening, 17, 47–67. doi:10.1080/10904018.2003.10499055
   Google Scholar
• Bodie, G. D., & Worthington, D. 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. doi:10.1080/10904011003744516
   Google Scholar
• Bodie, G. D., Worthington, D. L., & Gearhart, C. C. (2013). The Revised Listening Styles Profile (LSP-R): Development and validation. Communication Quarterly, 61, 72–90. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.720343
   Google Scholar
• Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. J. (1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero ( Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 245–280). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS ( 2nd ed.). Ottawa, Canada: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dillard, J. P., Anderson, J. W., & Knobloch, L. (2001). Interpersonal influence. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly ( Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 425–474). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gearhart, C. C., Denham, J., & Bodie, G. D. (2013). Listening as a goal-directed activity. Paper presented at the National Communication Association, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Halone, K. K., & Pecchioni, L. L. (2001). Relational listening: A grounded theoretical model. Communication Reports, 14, 59–71. doi:10.1080/08934210109367737
   Google Scholar
• Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. In H. E. Tinsley & S. D. Brown ( Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imhof, M. (2004). Who are we as we listen? Individual listening profiles in varying contexts. International Journal of Listening, 18, 36–45. doi:10.1080/10904018.2004.10499061
   Google Scholar
• Jones, S. M., & Wirtz, J. (2006). How does the comforting process work?: An empirical test of an appraisal-based model of comforting. Human Communication Research, 32, 217–243. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00274.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keaton, S. A., & Bodie, G. D. (2012). An empirical assessment of the communication components inventory. The Family Journal, 20, 58–62. doi:10.1177/1066480711430487
   Google Scholar
• Keteyian, R. V. (2011). Understanding individual communication styles in counseling. The Family Journal, 19, 90–95. doi:10.1177/106648071038872
   Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling ( 2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Kluger, A. N., & Zaidel, K. (2013). Are listeners perceived as leaders? International Journal of Listening, 27, 73–84. doi:10.1080/10904018.2013.754283
   Google Scholar
• MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Burleson, B. R. (2011). Supportive communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly ( Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication ( 4th ed., pp. 317–354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Nils, F., & Rimé, B. (2012). Beyond the myth of venting: Social sharing modes determine the benefits of emotional disclosure. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 672–681. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1880
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs, 55, 80–103. doi:10.1080/03637758809376159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pecchioni, L. L., & Halone, K. K. (2000). Relational listening II: Form & variation across social and personal relationships. International Journal of Listening, 14, 69–93. doi: 10.1080/1090418.2000.10499036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling ( 2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, S. C. (1993). Listening: A relational process. In A. D. Wolvin & C. G. Coakley ( Eds.), Perspectives on listening (pp. 217–240). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Sargent, S. L., Fitch-Hauser, M., & Weaver, J. B., III. (1997). A listening styles profile of the Type-A personality. International Journal of Listening, 11, 1–14. doi:10.1207/s1932586xijl1101_1
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics ( 5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. ( Ed.). (1993). Gender and conversational interaction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Theiss, J. A., & Solomon, D. (2008). Parsing the mechanisms that increase relational uncertainty: The effects of uncertainty amount, open communication about uncertainty, and the reduction of uncertainty. Human Communication Research, 34, 625–654. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00335.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villaume, W. A., & Bodie, G. 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. doi:10.1080/10904010701302006
   Google Scholar
• Watson, K. W., Barker, L. L., & Weaver, J. B., III. (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. doi:10.1080/10904018.1995.10499138
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, J. B., III. (1998). Personality and self-perceptions about communication. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, & M. J. Beatty ( Eds.), Communication and personality (pp. 95–117). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, J. B., III, & Kirtley, M. D. (1995). Listening styles and empathy. Southern Journal of Communication, 60, 131–140. doi:10.1080/10417949509372970
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, S. R. (2010). Seeking and resisting compliance. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen ( Eds.), The handbook of communication science ( 2nd ed., pp. 219–235). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Worthington, D. L. (2001). Exploring juror’s listening processes: The effect of listening style preference on juror decision making. International Journal of Listening, 15, 20–37. doi:10.1080/10904018.2001.10499043
   Google Scholar