Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcrr20

Download by: [West Virginia University] Date: 14 May 2016, At: 09:22

Communication Research Reports

ISSN: 0882-4096 (Print) 1746-4099 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

The relationship between student communicationmotives and perceived instructor communicatorstyle

Scott A. Myers , Timothy P. Mottet & Matthew M. Martin

To cite this article: Scott A. Myers , Timothy P. Mottet & Matthew M. Martin (2000) Therelationship between student communication motives and perceived instructor communicatorstyle, Communication Research Reports, 17:2, 161-170, DOI: 10.1080/08824090009388762

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090009388762

Published online: 06 Jun 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 88

View related articles

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

The Relationship Between Student Communication Motives andPerceived Instructor Communicator Style

Scott A. Myers Timothy P. MottetCreighton University Southwest Texas State University

Matthew M. MartinWest Virginia University

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship betweenstudent communication motives (i.e., relational, functional, participa-tory, excuse-making, sycophantic) and perceived instructor communi-cator style (i.e., friendly, impression leaving, relaxed, contentious, at-tentive, precise, animated, dramatic, open, dominant). Participants were228 undergraduate students enrolled in a variety of communicationcourses at a small Midwestern university. Results indicate that (a) theperceived instructor communicator style attributes of impression leav-ing, friendly, and contentious predict student use of the relational motive,(b) the attribute of friendly predicts student use of the functional mo-tive, (c) the attributes of animated, contentious, and friendly predictstudent use of the participatory motive, (d) the attributes of attentiveand contentious predict student use of the excuse-making motive, and(e) the attributes of contentious and friendly predict student use of thesycophantic motive.

According to the theory of interpersonal communication motives, individuals engage incommunication to fulfill a host of needs (Rubin & Martin, 1998). The theory rests on three

Scott A. Myers (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1995) is an Assistant Professor in the Department ofCommunication Studies, Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68178. Timothy P. Mottet (Ed.D., WestVirginia University, 1998) is an Assistant Professor, Department of Speech Communication, South-west Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666. Matthew M. Martin (Ph.D., Kent State Univer-sity, 1992) is an Associate Professor, Department of Communication Studies, West Virginia Univer-sity, Morgantown, WV 26506-6293. A version of this manuscript was presented at the annual meet-ing of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA, November 2000.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 17, Number 2, pages 161-170

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

22 1

4 M

ay 2

016

Page 162 - Communication Research Reports/Spring 2000

premises. First, communication is goal-directed (Rubin & Martin, 1998) in that individualsare motivated to engage in communication for a particular reason. Second, individuals gen-erally use six motives for communicating (Rubin, Perse, & Barbato, 1988). These motives arepleasure, affection, inclusion, escape, relaxation, and control. Pleasure reflects a need tocommunicate for fun, arousal, or entertainment. Affection is the need to express caring andappreciation. Inclusion reflects a need to share and be with others. Escape is used whencommunicating to fill time while avoiding other activities. Relaxation expresses the need tounwind, relax, or rest. Control reflects a need to gain compliance of others. Third, individu-als' motives for communicating influence why they talk to others, who they talk to, how theytalk, and what they talk about (Graham, Barbato, & Perse, 1993).

Across numerous studies, researchers have found that the communication context playsa role in how individuals are motivated to communicate. Researchers have examined theinfluence of communication motives within small groups (Anderson & Martin, 1995a), theorganization (Anderson & Martin, 1995b), the family (Anderson, Martin, & Zhong, 1998;Graham et al., 1993; Martin & Anderson, 1995), and romantic relationships (Myers, Zhong,& Mitchell, 1995). Collectively, the results of these studies suggest that (a) "depending on therelationship, people differ in their motives for communicating with others" (Rubin & Martin,1998, p. 297) and (b) motives usage may be context-specific (Myers et al., 1995; Rubin &Martin, 1998).

1 Given these conclusions, Martin, Myers, and Mottet (1998) extended the study of inter-personal communication motives into the instructional setting by asking college students toprovide reasons why they communicated with their instructors. In their initial study, threeclasses of communication students (N = 112) were asked to provide reasons why studentsinteract with their instructors. Fifty-four (N=54) reasons were identified. A second group ofstudents (N=302) was then asked to indicate, on a scale ranging from exactly like me (5) to notat all like me (1), whether each of the 54 reasons reflected their own reasons for talking withtheir instructors. A principal component factor analysis using varimax rotation revealedfive factors (with six items each), or motives, with subsequent research confirming these fivefactors (i.e., Martin, Mottet, & Myers, 1999a, 1999b). [For a more detailed explanation of thescale development, see Martin, Myers, and Mottet (1999).] These motives are relational, func-tional, participatory, excuse-making, and sycophantic (Martin et al., 1998; Martin et al.,1999b). Students who are motivated to communicate with their instructors for relationalreasons attempt to develop interpersonal relationships with their instructors. Students whocommunicate for functional reasons do so in an attempt to learn more about the course re-quirements, materials, and assignments. Students who wish to participate are motivated todemonstrate that they understand the course material. Students who offer an excuse aremotivated to communicate in order to explain why assignments are either incomplete or notdone at all. Students who communicate for sycophantic reasons are motivated by their need tomake a favorable impression on the instructor.

Research conducted on student communication motives has found that students' mo-tives are related to their own classroom behaviors. Martin et al. (1999b) found that studentswho are motivated to communicate with their instructors for relational, functional, andparticipatory reasons report higher amounts of both affective and cognitive learning. More-over, student motivation (Martin et al., 1998) and student satisfaction (Martin et al., 1999b)are positively correlated with the relational, functional, and participatory motives. Studentswho consider themselves as possessing a competent sodo-communicative orientation (i.e.,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

22 1

4 M

ay 2

016

Student Communiction Motives and Perceived Instructor Style - Page 163

high in assertiveness and responsiveness) are motivated to communicate in order to reachrelational, functional, and participatory goals as well as offer excuses more so than studentswho perceive themselves as varying in their degrees of assertiveness and responsiveness(Martin et al., 1999a). On the other hand, the motives of excuse-making and sycophancy arenot significantly related to student learning, motivation, and satisfaction (Martin et al., 1999a,1999b; Martin et al., 1998). Students who communicate for sycophantic reasons tend to havelower levels of locus of control (Martin et al., 1998); that is, students who feel their academicperformance is beyond their control engage in higher amounts of sycophantic behavior.

However, little is known about the relationship between student communication mo-tives and student perceptions of perceived instructor communication behaviors. Histori-cally, instructional communication researchers have examined the effect that instructorcommunication behaviors have on student outcomes (i.e., learning, satisfaction, motiva-tion), but have not explored the effects of perceived instructor communication behaviors onstudent motives behind communication with their instructors. To date, only two studieshave examined these effects. In one study, Martin et al. (1999a) found that with the exceptionof the functional motive, instructors' perceived socio-communicative style generally has noeffect on students' motivation to communicate with their instructors; in another study, Mar-tin, Heisel, and Valencic (2000) reported that student motives are associated with a numberof perceived instructor use of behavior alteration techniques. Thus, the purpose of this studyis to extend this line of research by examining the relationship between student communica-tion motives and perceived instructor communicator style.

Communicator style is defined as the way an individual "verbally, nonverbally, andparaverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, filtered, or under-stood" (Norton, 1978, p. 99) and can be comprised of any combination of ten communicativeattributes: friendly, impression leaving, relaxed, contentious, attentive, precise, animated,dramatic, open, and dominant (Norton, 1978,1983). Friendly people recognize others in apositive way and are generally considered to be kind and caring. Impression leaving commu-nicators have a memorable style, which depends on their affiliative expressiveness and useof information-seeking behaviors. Relaxed communicators are anxiety-free and remain calmand at ease when engaged in interactions with others. Contentious individuals are highlyargumentative and may get somewhat hostile, quarrelsome, or belligerent. Attentive commu-nicators are alert and listen with empathy. They appear as good listeners who are concernedwith understanding others. Precise communicators try to be strictly accurate, using well-defined arguments and specific proof or evidence to clarify their positions. Animated commu-nicators use eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, body movement, and posture to exag-gerate content. Dramatic communicators use stylistic devices (e.g., exaggerations, voice,rhythm, stories) to underscore content. Open communicators are extroverted, unreserved,and straightforward. They do not have problems directly communicating their thoughts oremotions. Dominant communicators "take charge" of the situation by talking louder, longer,and more frequently than others with fewer interruptions, less compliance, and more re-quests.

In the college classroom, instructor communicator style affects students perceptions oftheir instructors. Effective instructors are considered by their students to use the attentive,impression leaving, dramatic, and relaxed attributes (Norton, 1977; Norton & Nussbaum,1980; Nussbaum, 1981). "Better" instructors are rated as being more dramatic, relaxed, open,impression leaving, and friendly than "worse" instructors (Andersen, Norton, & Nussbaum,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

22 1

4 M

ay 2

016

Page 164 - Communication Research Reports/Spring 2000

1981; Schroeder & Leber, 1993). Students' perceptions of their affective, behavioral, andcognitive learning are influenced by instructor use of the friendly, relaxed, and impressionleaving attributes (Andersen et al., 1981; Norton & Nussbaum, 1980; Myers & Horvath,1997). Moreover, perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness are re-lated to various attributes of instructor communicator style (Myers & Rocca, in press).

Because instructor communicator style affects students' perceptions of how instructorspresent material, deliver lectures, and establish classroom climate (Norton, 1986), it is likelythat perceived instructor communicator style has an impact on why students choose tocommunicate with their instructors. As established by Martin et al. (1998), students aremotivated to communicate with their instructors for five reasons. Although these motivesmaybe dependent on what students hope to achieve in the classroom, it is also possible thatthese motives are dependent on the way in which instructors present themselves to thestudents. As noted by Potter and Emanuel (1990), instructor communicator style can beclassified into three categories: the human, the authority, and the actor. The human instruc-tor recognizes that students are individuals and uses the open, attentive, friendly, and re-laxed communicator style attributes. The authoritarian instructor is in charge and conductsclass efficiently by using the precise, dominant, and contentious communicator style at-tributes. The actor is a storyteller who uses the dramatic, animated, and impression leavingcommunicator style attributes. It stands to reason, then, that particular perceived instructorcommunicator style attributes may predict students' motives to communicate with theirinstructors. To investigate this notion, the following hypotheses are posited:

HI: Student motivation to communicate for relational, functional, and participatory rea-sons will be predicted by perceived instructor use of the open, attentive, friendly, relaxed,dramatic, animated, and impression leaving communicator style attributes.

H2: Student motivation to communicate for excuse-making and sycophantic reasonswill be predicted by perceived instructor use of the precise, dominant, and contentiouscommunicator style attributes.

METHODParticipants

Participants were 228 undergraduate students (125 male, 103 female) enrolled in a vari-ety of communication courses at a small Midwestern university. The age of the respondentsranged from 17 to 35 years (M = 19.33, SD = 3.50). One hundred and thirty-eight (n = 138)participants were freshmen, 56 participants were sophomores, 21 participants were juniors,10 participants were seniors, and three participants were post-undergraduate students.

Procedures and InstrumentationParticipants completed the Student Communication Motives scale (Martin et al., 1999a)

and the Communicator Style Measure (Norton, 1978). Using the procedure advocated byPlax, Kearney, McCroskey, and Richmond (1986), participants completed the instruments inreference to the instructor of the course they attended immediately prior to the researchsession. Data were collected during the twelfth week of the semester.

The Student Communication Motives scale is a 30-item instrument that asks students toreport their reasons (i.e., relational, functional, participatory, excuse-making, sycophantic)for talking with their instructors. Responses are solicited using a five-point scale rangingfrom exactly like me (5) to not at all like me (1). Previous reliability coefficients ranging from .86

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

22 1

4 M

ay 2

016

Student Commurdction Motives and Perceived Instructor Style - Page 165

to .90 have been reported for each of the five motives (Martin, Mottet et al., 1999a, 1999b;Martin, Myers et al., 1999). In this study, coefficient alphas for the five reasons ranged from.86 to .90 (relational: M = 16.34, SD = 4.88, a= .88; functional: M = 22.47, SD = 4.66, a =.87;participatory: M = 16.26, SD = 5.59, a= .87; excuse-making: M = 14.57, SD = 5.55, a= .86;sycophantic: M = 13.17, SD = 5.46, a= .90).

The Communicator Style Measure is a 51-item instrument that asks respondents to identifycharacteristics of communicator style. In this study, respondents were asked to rate thecommunication behaviors of their instructors across 10 attributes: friendly, impression leav-ing, relaxed, contentious, attentive, precise, animated, dramatic, open, and dominant. Eachattribute is represented by four items (six scale items are filler items; five scale items measurecommunicator image, which was not assessed in this study). Responses are solicited usinga five-point scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Previous reliabilitycoefficients ranging from .78 to .94 have been reported for the 10 attributes (Comadena,Semlak, & Escott, 1992; Holladay & Coombs, 1993,1994). In this study, coefficient alphas forthe 10 attributes ranged from .50 to .87 (friendly: M = 14.69, SD = 3.07, a= .78; impressionleaving: M = 14.97, SD = 3.11, a= .87; relaxed: M = 15.46, SD = 2.80, a- .69; contentious:M = 11.10, SD = 3.06, a= .75; attentive: M = 13.63, SD = 2.33, a- .71; precise: M = 13.97,SD = 2.80, a= .63; animated: M = 14.11, SD = 2.66, a- .63; dramatic: M = 13.70, SD = 3.03,a= .65; open: M = 13.65, SD = 2.94, a= .68; dominant: M = 12.32, SD = 2.58, a= .50).

RESULTSA series of stepwise multiple regression analyses was performed to address the hypoth-

eses. The first hypothesis posited that student motivation to communicate for relational,functional, and participatory reasons would be predicted by perceived instructor use of theopen, attentive, friendly, relaxed, dramatic, animated, and impression leaving communica-tor style attributes. This hypothesis was partially supported. Three communicator styleattributes contributed to student use of the relational motive, F (4,223) = 12.16, p < .001, andaccounted for 18% of the variance. These attributes were impression leaving (R2 = .11, jB= .15,p < .05), friendly (R2 change = .05, /?= .25, p < .001), and contentious (R2 change = .02, /?= .17,p < .05). One communicator style attribute contributed to student use of ihefunctional motive,F (1,226) = 22.35, p < .001, and accounted for 9% of the variance. This attribute was friendly,/#= .30, p < .001. Three communicator style attributes contributed to student use of theparticipatory motive, F (3,224) = 12.45, p < .001, and accounted for 14% of the variance. Theseattributes were animated (R2 = .07, fi= .16, p < .05), contentious (R2 change = .03, /?= .24,p < .01), and friendly (R2 change = M,fl= .13, p < .01).

The second hypothesis posited that student motivation to communicate for excuse-mak-ing and sycophantic reasons would be predicted by perceived instructor use of the precise,dominant, and contentious communicator style attributes. This hypothesis was partiallysupported. Two communicator style attributes contributed to student use of the excuse-mak-ing motive, F (2,225) = 5.23, p < .05, and accounted for 4% of the variance. These attributeswere attentive (R2 = .02, j8= .16, p < .05) and contentious (R2 change = .02, /?= .21, p < .05). Twocommunicator style attributes contributed to student use of the sycophantic motive, F (2,225) = 22.57, p < .001, and accounted for 17% of the variance. These attributes were conten-tious (R2 = .10, J3= .39, p < .001) and friendly (R2 change = .07, /?= .26, p < .001).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

22 1

4 M

ay 2

016

Page 166 - Communication Research Reports/Spring 2000

DISCUSSIONThe purpose of this investigation was to determine which perceived instructor commu-

nicator style attributes predicted student motives to communicate (i.e., relational, functional,participatory, excuse-making, sycophantic) with their instructors. Generally, it was foundthat five perceived instructor communicator style attributes affected student motivation tocommunicate with their instructors. These five attributes were friendly, contentious, impres-sion leaving, animated, and attentive. Specifically, it was found that the perceived communi-cator style attributes of impression leaving, friendly, and contentious predict student use ofthe relational motive; the friendly attribute predicts student use of the functional motive; theanimated, contentious, and friendly attributes predict student use of the participatory mo-tive; the attentive and contentious attributes predict student use of the excuse-making mo-tive; and the contentious and friendly attributes predict student use of the sycophanticmotive.

Interestingly, one of two instructor perceived communicator style attributes—friendlyand contentious (and in some cases, both)—was related to all five student motives. Perceivedinstructor use of the friendly communicator style attribute predicted students' motivation tocommunicate in order to fulfill relational, functional, participatory, and sycophantic goals.According to Norton (1986), friendly instructors express admiration for others, verballyacknowledge the contributions of others, and are encouraging. For many students, instruc-tor friendliness may be a foremost concern. As noted by several researchers, perceived in-structor friendliness is related to a host of instructor behaviors. Instructors who exhibit thefriendly communicator style are perceived as being more immediate (Andersen et al., 1981),enhancing perceived instructor-student solidarity (Nussbaum & Scott, 1980), being goodinstructors (Andersen et al., 1981), and lacking in verbal aggressiveness (Myers & Rocca, inpress). At the same time, friendly instructors also affect students' perceived affective, behav-ioral, and cognitive learning (Andersen et al., 1981; Myers & Horvath, 1997). Moreover,Potter and Emanuel (1990) reported that the friendly attribute is rated by students as beingamong the most desirable instructor communicator style attributes. As such, when instruc-tors are perceived as being friendly, these behaviors may implicitly encourage student par-ticipation, may promote a supportive classroom environment, and/or may facilitate studentinquiry into learning more about personal aspects of the instructor.

Perceived instructor use of the contentiousness communicator style attribute predictedstudents' motives to communicate in order to fulfill relational, participatory, and sycophan-tic goals as well as to engage in excuse-making. On the surface, this finding may appearsurprising given that contentious instructors verbally challenge their students and are con-sidered argumentative (Norton, 1986). However, perceived instructor contentiousness maybe an attribute that students desire since instructor use of such behaviors indicates that theinstructor is actively engaged in interaction with students. Instructors who engage in argu-mentative behaviors have been found to positively affect student state motivation (Myers &Knox, in press; Myers & Rocca, 2000) as well as their perceived affective learning (Myers &Knox, in press). Moreover, not only is perceived instructor argumentativeness positivelycorrelated with perceived instructor contentiousness, but perceived instructor verbal ag-gressiveness is also positively correlated with perceived instructor contentiousness (Myers& Rocca, in press). Thus, when instructors engage in either argumentative behaviors (behav-iors that focus on the issue, not the individual) or verbally aggressive behaviors (behaviorsthat attack a person's self-concept), they are viewed as contentious. By appearing conten-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

22 1

4 M

ay 2

016

Student Communiction Motives and Perceived Instructor Style - Page 167

tious, instructors in some way may motivate their students to communicate with them. Con-tentious instructors may invite discussion, encourage expression of ideas, or challenge stu-dents to voice their opinions. It may also be that students desire their instructors to exhibitsome control over the class, which can be illustrated through contentious behaviors. Instruc-tor contentiousness is considered an authoritarian behavior (Potter & Emanuel, 1990), andmay be an attribute that lends itself to the efficiency of classroom management.

Of the remaining eight communicator style attributes, only three attributes—impressionleaving, animated, and attentive—predicted student motivation to communicate. Perceivedinstructor use of the impression leaving attribute predicted student motivation to relate,perceived instructor use of the animated attribute predicted student motivation to partici-pate, and perceived instructor use of the attentive attribute predicted student motivation tooffer excuses. For some students, these specific attributes affect their motivation to communi-cate for a particular reason. Instructors who are impression leaving make a distinct imprinton others. These individuals usually are verbal, engage in affiliative expressiveness, activelyseek information about others, and are considered likable (Norton, 1978). When instructorsare perceived as possessing this attribute, it is no wonder that students pursue an interper-sonal relationship. Animated instructors use a variety of nonverbal behaviors such as eyegaze, gestures, and facial expressions (Norton, 1986). As noted by previous researchers,instructors' use of nonverbal immediacy behaviors affects students' perceptions of learning,motivation, and satisfaction (Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1993,1994); thus, animated in-structors may nonverbally elicit student participation. Attentive instructors listen very care-fully to others and present themselves to others as actively engaging in the listening process(Norton, 1986). When instructors are attentive, students may be more motivated to offerexcuses because they perceive that their instructors will be receptive to their needs, prob-lems, and/or concerns.

In addition, the other five communicator style attributes—relaxed, precise, dramatic,open, and dominant—were not found to be predictors of student motivation to communi-cate. Although these attributes are associated with instructor effectiveness (Andersen et al.,1981; Comadena et al., 1992; Norton, 1977; Norton & Nussbaum, 1980; Nussbaum, 1981;Schroeder & Leber, 1993), it may be that these attributes simply do not affect students' rea-sons for communicating with their instructors. An effective instructor may motivate stu-dents, clearly explain difficult course material, and offer interesting and stimulating assign-ments (Norton & Nussbaum, 1980), yet may not impact students' motives to engage in com-munication. And while these attributes (i.e., open, relaxed, dramatic) have also been found toinfluence student learning (Andersen et al., 1981; Myers & Horvath, 1997; Nussbaum &Scott, 1979), it is possible for students to learn without having to communicate directly (or bemotivated to do so) with their instructors.

Future researchers may consider examining how perceived instructor communicatorstyle affects students' motivation to communicate with their instructors outside of the class-room. It is also possible that student motivation tacommunicate with their instructors insidethe classroom might be influenced by classroom structural variables (i.e., type of course,number of enrolled students, format of course) as well as other student communicationbehaviors (i.e., communication apprehension, motivation) and instructor communicationbehaviors. Most recently, Jaasma and Koper (1999) found that perceived instructor verbaland nonverbal immediacy behaviors have an effect on whether students interact with theirinstructors outside of the class. It may very well be that students report different motives for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

22 1

4 M

ay 2

016

Page 168 - Communication Research Reports/Spring 2000

communicating with their instructors outside of class, or that other particular communica-tor style attributes predict instructor-student communication outside of class.

REFERENCESAndersen, J. F.; Norton, R. W., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Three investigations

exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors andstudent learning. Communication Education, 30, 377-392.

Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995a). The effects of communication mo-tives, interaction involvement, and loneliness on satisfaction. Small Group Re-search, 26, 118-138.

Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995b). Why employees speak to coworkersand bosses: Motives, gender, and organizational satisfaction. Journal of BusinessCommunication, 32, 249-265.

Anderson, C. M., Martin, M. M., & Zhong, M. (1998). Motives for communicat-ing with family and friends: A Chinese study. The Howard Journal of Communica-tions, 9, 109-123.

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behav-iors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.

Comadena, M. E., Semlak, W. D., & Escott, M. D. (1992). Communicator styleand teacher effectiveness: Adult learners versus traditional undergraduate stu-dents. Communication Research Reports, 9, 57-64.

Frymier, A. B. (1993). The impact of teacher immediacy on students' motiva-tion: Is it the same for all students? Communication Quarterly, 41, 454-464.

Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. CommunicationQuarterly, 42, 133-144.

Graham, E. E., Barbato, C. A., & Perse, E. M. (1993). The interpersonal commu-nication motives model. Communication Quarterly, 41, 172-186.

Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1993). Communicating visions: An explora-tion of the role of delivery in the creation of leader charisma. Management Commu-nication Quarterly, 6, 405-427.

Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions beingspoken: An exploration of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions ofleader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 165-189.

Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motiva-tion. Communication Education, 48, 41-47.

Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1995). The father-young adult relationship:Interpersonal motives, self-disclosure, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly,43, 119-130.

Martin, M. M., Heisel, A. D., & Valencic, K. M. (2000, April). Students' motives forcommunicating with their instructors IV: Considering instructors' use of behavior alter-ation techniques. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communi-cation Association, Pittsburgh, PA.

Martin, M. M., Mottet, T. P., & Myers, S. A. (1999a, November). Students' mo-tives for communicating with their instructors III: Considering socio-communicativestyle and sex differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalCommunication Association, Chicago, IL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

22 1

4 M

ay 2

016

Student Communiction Motives and Perceived Instructor Style - Page 169

Martin, M. M., Mottet, T. P., & Myers, S. A. (1999b, April). The relationshipsbetween students' motives for communicating with their instructors and affective learn-ing, cognitive learning, and satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe Eastern Communication Association, Charleston, WV.

Martin, M. M., Myers, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (1998, November). Students' motivesfor communicating with their instructors. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe National Communication Association, New York City.

Martin, M. M., Myers, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (1999). Students' motives for com-municating with their instructors. Communication Education, 48, 155-164.

Myers, S. A., & Horvath, C. W. (1997). A further examination of teacher com-municator style and college student learning. Journal of the Illinois Speech and The-atre Association, 38, 37-48.

Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (in press). Perceived instructor argumentativenessand verbal aggressiveness, and student outcomes. Communication Research Re-ports.

Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2000). Perceived instructor argumentativeness andverbal aggressiveness in the college classroom: Effects on student perceptions of class-room climate, classroom apprehension, and state motivation. Manuscript submitted forpublication.

Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (in press). The relationship between perceivedinstructor communicator style, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness.Communication Research Reports.

Myers, S. A., Zhong, M., & Mitchell, W. (1995). The use of interpersonal com-munication motives in conflict resolution among romantic partners. Ohio SpeechJournal, 33, 1-20.

Norton, R. (1977). Teacher effectiveness as a function of communicator style. InB. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 1, (pp. 525-542). New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction.

Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. HumanCommunication Research, 4, 99-112.

Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Norton, R. W. (1986). Communicator style in teaching: Giving form to content.In J. Civikly (Ed.), Communicating in college classrooms (pp. 33-40). San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Norton, R., & Nussbaum, J. (1980). Dramatic behaviors of the effective teacher.In D. Nimms (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 4, (pp. 565-582). New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction.

Nussbaum, J. (1981). Effective teaching: A communication nonrecursive causalmodel. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 5, (pp. 737-752). NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Nussbaum, J., & Scott, M. (1979). Student learning as a relational outcome ofteacher-student interaction. Communication yearbook, 3, 561-584.

Nussbaum, J., & Scott, M. (1980). Student learning as a relational outcome ofteacher-student interaction. In D. Nimms (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 4, (pp.553-564). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

22 1

4 M

ay 2

016

Page 170 - Communication Research Reports/Spring 2000

Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. P., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power inthe classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy, and affectivelearning. Communication Education, 35, 43-55.

Potter, W. J., & Emanuel, R. (1990). Students' preference for communicationstyles and their relationship to achievement. Communication Education, 39, 234-249.

Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1998). Interpersonal communication motives. InJ. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Bearry (Eds.), Communication andpersonality: Trait perspectives (pp. 287-306). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and mea-surement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Re-search, 14, 602-628.

Schroeder, A. B., & Leber, R. L. (1993). Communicator style perceptions of"best" and "worst" teachers. Forensic of Pi Kappa Delta, 78, 11-15.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

22 1

4 M

ay 2

016