This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 22 November 2014, At: 18:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20

An inductive analysis ofverbal immediacy: Alternativeconceptualization of relational verbalapproach/avoidance strategiesTimothy P. Mottet a & Virginia P. Richmond ba Assistant Professor in Communication Arts , Austin College ,Sherman, TX, 75092b Professor and Coordinator of Extended Learning inCommunication Studies , West Virginia University , Morgantown,WV, 26506–6293Published online: 21 May 2009.

To cite this article: Timothy P. Mottet & Virginia P. Richmond (1998) An inductive analysis of verbalimmediacy: Alternative conceptualization of relational verbal approach/avoidance strategies,Communication Quarterly, 46:1, 25-40, DOI: 10.1080/01463379809370082

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463379809370082

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

An Inductive Analysis of VerbalImmediacy: Alternative Conceptualizationof Relational Verbal Approach/Avoidance Strategies

Timothy P. Mottet & Virginia P. Richmond

This research explored whether verbal immediacy is an autonomous and distinctlinguistic verbal code that people use to approach and avoid relationship formation,or part of a much larger repertoire of verbal relational strategies that are situatedin everyday conversation. Two studies yielded verbal strategies rather than averbally immediate linguistic code people employ to approach or avoid relation-shipformation. The data suggest that when people want a relationship to develop, theyengage in approach verbal strategies. However, when they want to keep arelationship from forming, instead of using avoidance strategies, they decrease theirlevel of approach strategies. An argument is presented as to why these verbalapproach and avoidance strategies do not comprise verbal immediacy and insteadcomprise a measure of relational approach and avoidance.

KEY CONCEPTS Verbal immediacy, approach/avoidance verbal strategies,nonverbal immediacy, linguistic code.

Timothy P. Mottet (Ed.D, West Virginia University, 1998) is an AssistantProfessor in Communication Arts, Austin College, Sherman, TX 75092.Virginia P. Richmond (Ph.D., University of Nebraska, 1977) is Professor andCoordinator of Extended Learning in Communication Studies, West VirginiaUniversity, Morgantown, WV, 26506-6293. An earlier version of this paperwas presented at the 1997 annual conference of the Eastern CommunicationAssociation conference in Baltimore, MD. The authors would like to thankJames C. McCroskey for his assistance with this article.

Nonverbal immediacy has received much attention in the past two decadesespecially in the instructional context. It has been found to have a positiveimpact on students. Specifically, nonverbal immediacy has been associated

with increases in affective learning (Andersen, 1979), perceived cognitive learning(Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987), recall of information (Kelly & Gorham,1988), and motivation (Christophel, 1990). Receiving less attention has been theconstruct of verbal immediacy. In fact there has been some speculation that verbalimmediacy is only a linguistic code that has limited utility in the study of humancommunication (Robinson & Richmond, 1995). The purpose of the following two

Communication Quarterly, Vol. 46, No 1, Winter 1998, Pages 25-40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

studies was to explore inductively Mehrabian's (1971) construct of verbal immediacyvia an examination of the various verbal strategies people use to approach and avoidrelationship formation.

Immediacy. Immediacy was conceptualized by Mehrabian (1971) as behavior thatcommunicates approachability and closeness between interactants. His researchsuggests that reducing perceived distance—physical and/or psychological—in acommunication exchange increases affect for the source of the communication.Immediacy is based on the conceptual framework of approach-avoidance principles.In other words, "people are drawn toward persons and things they like, evaluatehighly, and prefer, and they avoid or move away from things they dislike, evaluatenegatively, or do not prefer" (Mehrabian, 1971, p. 1).

Verbal immediacy. The immediacy construct has yielded two strains of research—nonverbal and verbal. Since nonverbal immediacy has been shown to be a potentpredictor of student learning, it has been suggested that the verbal dimension ofcommunication may have some of the same predictive power. Mottet and Patterson(1996) addressed some of the possible theoretical differences between the twodimensions of immediacy, however their research remains preliminary.

Mehrabian refers to verbal immediacy as the "degree of directness and intensityof interaction between communicator and referent in a communicator's linguisticmessage" (Mehrabian, 1966, p. 28). An example of an immediate linguistic messagemight include a statement where the demonstrative pronoun reflects distance-nearrather than distance-far. "These people need help" is an example of the former and"Those people need help" is an example of the latter. Studies have shown that negativeexperiences are referenced with greater nonimmediate linguistic messages than morepositive experiences (Conville, 1974). Similarly, Bradac, Bowers, and Courtright(1979) concluded, after reviewing much of the social psychological literature thatexamined verbal immediacy from a linguistic perspective rather than from acommunication research perspective, that positive verbal immediacy is associatedwith positive perceptions of the intended receiver, that receivers perceive verbalimmediacy as a sign of high affect, and that verbal immediacy is directly related toreceiver judgments of source competence and character.

Gorham (1988) examined verbal immediacy in the instructional communicationcontext Her measure of verbal immediacy contained behaviors that were studentgenerated. Some of the items included: uses personal examples or talks aboutexperiences she/he has had outside of class, uses humor in class, addresses students byname, asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions, etc. Gorham's measure wasfound to produce results similar to those involving nonverbal immediacy, however thevalidity of the measure was challenged by Robinson and Richmond (1995). Theircriticism centered around the items that comprised the scale. Students were asked togenerate specific behaviors which characterized some of the best teachers they hadbeen exposed to during their years in school. According to Robinson and Richmond,"[t]he product of this item-generation process was items representing verballyeffective teacher behaviors, not necessarily verbally immediate behaviors. The facevalidity of the scale, therefore, is for a scale measuring teacher effectiveness, not a scalemeasuring teacher immediacy" (p. 81). The authors further recommended that thescale not be used until a stronger case for its validity could be established. As it stands,a reconceptualization of the verbal immediacy construct and its measurement isneeded.

26 Mottet and Richmond

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

This questioning of the verbal immediacy construct also raises the question as towhether verbal immediacy is a construct that can be detected and identified byparticipants in an interpersonal communication context Weiner and Mehrabian(1968) studied verbal immediacy from a linguistic rather than a communicationperspective and, unlike nonverbal immediacy where the variables were low inferenceand easier to identify (i.e., bodily movements, facial expression), verbal immediacyinvolved high inference variables (i.e., use of pronouns and verb tenses) that wereharder to detect.

Weiner and Mehrabian (1968) developed a procedure for analyzing linguisticimmediacy which involved dividing language samples into clauses and scoring thembased on the presence of any of nine classes of nonimmediacy features. Verbalimmediacy was operationalized through a category scoring system which took intoaccount distance, time, order, duration, activity/passivity, probability, and part/classof the communicator/object of communication. When subjects were offered identicalpairs of statements, the more immediate statement of the pair was judged asexpressing a greater degree of liking, positive evaluation, or preference towards theobject of communication (Mehrabian, 1967, p. 416). Non-immediate verbalizationshave been found to correspond to more negative communicator attitudes thanimmediate ones (Mehrabian, 1966). Gorham (1988) found this verbal-linguisticmethodology problematic. Her subjects found it easy to identify the low inferencenonverbal immediate behaviors, but found it extremely difficult to monitor the higherinference verbal immediate behaviors.

Unlike nonverbal immediacy which has been shown to have utility acrosscommunication contexts, verbal immediacy's utility appears to be limited to alinguistic-situated context such as therapeutic or clinical environments wheretherapists are trained to listen to patients' use of language. Verbal immediacy wasoriginally studied as a way for therapists and psychologists to assess clients' hiddenattitudes. Verbal immediacy was a way for therapists to decode the linguistic messageof a patient in order to allow them to uncover patients' "real" attitudes, beliefs, andvalues (Mehrabian, 1967). In the interpersonal communication context, perhapsverbal immediacy is nothing more than another typology of relational maintenancestrategies, much like those developed by Cody (1982), Ayres (1983), and Canary,Stafford, Hause, & Wallace (1993). Instead of the source linguistically selecting theappropriate words that will generate perceptions of closeness, the source relies onscripted verbal strategies that are encapsulated in everyday talk. According to Duck(1996), talk is the essence of relational maintenance. "Talk maintains relationship bypresenting symbolic evidence to the partners that the two of them share anappreciation of the relationship and that they also happen to approach importantexperiences in similar ways" (p. 163).

Purpose of research. This exploratory research was designed to examine the verbalimmediacy construct in interpersonal contexts. Specifically, this research exploredwhether verbal immediacy is an autonomous and distinct linguistic verbal code thatpeople use to approach and avoid relationship formation or part of a much largerrepertoire of verbal relational strategies that are situated in everyday conversation.Some of the questions undergirding this research include: What is it that people say ineveryday conversations that communicates approachability and avoidance?According to Mehrabian's (1966) definition of verbal immediacy, are these verbalmessages considered "immediate" or "nonimmediate?" If so, do people use these

Verbal Immediacy 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

verbal "immediate" and "nonimmediate" behaviors to accelerate and retardrelationship formation? And can people use verbal immediacy as a relationalmaintenance strategy?

STUDY ONEThe first study was designed to examine inductively the verbal immediacy

construct from a relational perspective. How do people approach and avoidrelationship formation? Specifically, the first study in this investigation exploredverbal immediacy as a possible relational maintenance strategy. The first researchquestion asked the following:

RQ1: What are the various verbal strategies one employs whenapproaching or avoiding relationship development?

METHODData Collection

In order to answer the first research question, an inductive methodology wasemployed. The sample consisted of 355 undergraduate students (172 males, 183females) enrolled in large, introductory communication studies lecture classes at aMid-Atlantic university. Participants represented all majors with the majority ofstudents taking the class as an elective. The participants were provided with one of twogeneral instruction sheets that introduced verbal immediacy and approach/avoidance verbal strategies. These instruction sheets contained the followingintroductions:

1. (Approach) This exercise deals with a communication concept calledVerbal Immediacy. Verbally immediate behaviors are those communica-tion behaviors that reduce psychological distance between people. Inother words, it is the verbal communication that causes us to feel "close"to another person.

2. (Avoidance) This exercise deals with a communication concept calledVerbal Immediacy. Verbally immediate behaviors are those communica-tion behaviors that reduce psychological distance between people. Inother words, it is the verbal communication that causes us to feel "close"to another person. On the flip side, verbally non-immediate behaviors arethose communication behaviors that increase psychological distancebetween people. This type of verbal communication causes us to feel"distant" and "removed" from the communicator.

Three versions of each of the approach/avoidance general introductions werewritten in order to tap into the various verbal messages employed by differentcommunication sources including self, teacher, and peer/friend. One of the followingspecific instructions were added to each of the two aforementioned general intro-ductions respective of the approach/avoidance condition: (1) What would you saythat probably makes others feel "closer" to you? (2) What do your teachers say thatmake you feel "closer" to them? (3) What do your friends/peers say that make you feel"closer" to them? (4) What do you say that probably makes others feel more "distant"or "removed" from you? (5) What do your teachers say that make you feel "distant"

28 Mottet and Richmond

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

or "removed" from them? or (6) What do your friends/peers say that make you feel"distant" or "removed" from them? Another reason for the various instructions wasto see if participants could not only identify what they might say to make others feelclose (or distant), but also to see if participants could detect in others' messages, wordsthat stimulated close/distant meanings.

Following both the general introductions and the specific instructions describingeither the approach or avoidance condition with either self, teacher, or peer/friend asmessage source, participants were asked to reflect on the question and then respondin the blank space provided.

Data AnalysisResearch participants generated a total of 360 verbal strategies/messages. These

responses included 185 approach verbal statements and 175 avoidance verbalstatements. Independent of each other, the authors reviewed each of the 360 verbalstatements and developed a classification typology for the approach/avoidanceverbal strategies/messages. This classification process included developing a series ofdescriptive categorical labels and placing within each of these categories arepresentation of the verbal strategies/messages that were generated by researchparticipants. Individually, the authors developed almost identical typologies,however different categorical labels were used to describe the various verbalstrategies/messages. Collectively, the authors collapsed their individual typologiesinto 12 approach verbal categories comprising 122 representative verbal strategies/messages and seven avoidance categories comprising 81 representative strategies/messages. All identical or near identical messages were combined at this stage in theanalysis as a way to simplify the coding process. The approach condition contained 63duplicate messages and the avoidance condition contained 94 duplicate messages. Aneutral third person not affiliated with the research study was then asked to classifythe verbal statements into the 19 verbal categories. Over 90% (90.1) of the overall 203verbal strategies/messages were properly classified into the various approach/avoidance verbal categories.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONAnalysis of the data provided by the respondents yielded a typology (see Figure 1)

of approach/avoidance verbal strategies. This typology of verbal strategies andmessages suggests that what was generated in Study One were not examples of verbalimmediacy. Instead, this typology reflects approach and avoidance verbal "strategies"and not text-based verbal messages that people use to approach and avoid relationshipformation. An example of the former might be "I would find a way to ignore him,"which illustrates an avoidance strategy. An example of the latter might be "I do notwant to see you again," which consists of the actual verbal text/content. There are twopossible reasons to support this conclusion. The first reason centers on Mehrabian'soriginal conception of verbal immediacy as a diagnostic tool that was used in thetherapeutic context to uncover latent attitudes, values, and beliefs. He conceptualizedverbal immediacy from the receiver's perspective and not as an intentional source-generated communication strategy that communicates psychological closenessamong interactants. The three different instruction sheets that were administered toall research participants were designed in order to assess both source and othergenerated messages. The data that were generated from these alternating instructions

Verbal Immediacy 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

FIGURE 1Verbal Approach/Avoidance Categories and Strategies/Messages

Approach Category Verbal Strategies/Messages

1. Personal Recognition (#=21) Use direct references and personal recognition whencommunicating by remembering something from aprior conver-sation and referring to it, by remembering something uniqueabout him/her,or by saying suchthings as "I wishyoucouldhavebeen there..." and "I thought about you when..."

2. Humor (#=12) Use humor by joking and kidding around and giving him/her ahard time. Use of inside jokes.

3. Ritualistic (#=5) Use ritualistic statements by saying such things as "Hey, what'sup?" "Hi, how are you doing?" "Hope to see you soon." "Take

care.

4. Closeness/Inclusiveness (#=14) Use communication that includes him/her by talking about thingswe have in common or talking about things we have donetogether or by saying such things as "Do you want to go withus," and "We should go out sometime." Dominant use of "we"and "us" pronouns throughout the conversation.

5. Self-Disclosure (#=22) Use self-disclosive statements such as telling him/her somethingI wouldn't tell others, revealing personal stories about my life,and telling him/her my thoughts, worries, and problems.

6. Character (#=13) Use statements that address his/her character by saying suchthings as "I trust you," "I respect you," "You're dependable,""What do you think?" and "How do you feel about...?"

7. Willingness to Communicate (N=9) Use communication in a way that reveals that I am willing tocommunicate and that I want to continue communicating bysaying such things as "I will call you tonight," and "When will Ihear from you again?"

8. Language Appropriateness ( # = 17) Use language that he/she understands—language that does notsound superior, over his/her head, or language that is not con-descending or "talking down" to him/her. Use of more informalconversational language.

9. Honesty ( # = 5 ) Use communication that is honest by saying such things in a"straight forward manner" or by telling the truth when he/sheasks me a question.

30 Mottet and Richmond

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

FIGURE 1 (cont.)Verbal Approach/Avoidance Categories and Strategies/Messages

Approach Category

10. Complimentary (N= 23)

11. Responsiveness (N= 15)

12. Caring/Appreciation (iV= 29)

Verbal Strategies/Messages

Use praise, complimentary, and encouraging statements such as"You look nice today," "You have a good sense of humor," "Ihave fan with you," and "You do good work, keep it up."

Use responsive statements such as "I understand howyou feel,""Go on, please continue," and "Tell me more, I want to listen."

Express caring and appreciation by saving such things as "I'mhere for you," "I care about you," "I'm glad we're friends," and"I value our friendship."

Avoidance Category Verbal Strategies/Messages

1. Nonpersonal Recognition (N= 14)

2. Abrupt (N= 20)

3. Task (#=12)

4. Distant/Exclusive (N=3 8)

5. Offensive (#=22)

6. Condescension (AT =34)

7. Unresponsive (#=35)

Use references that fail to recognize person by not using his/hername/nickname, by mispronouncing his/her name/nickname, orby referring to him/her as "you."

Use abrupt communication by interrupting and changing subject,and by answering his/her questions with simple, short, and curt"yes/no" answers.

Use only task-oriented communication by keeping all commun-ication "strictly business" and never engaging in "small talk.""Let's skip the small talk and get right to business."

Use exclusionary communication by discussing things he/shecan't relate to and things he/she finds uninteresting, by usingslang, jargon, that he/she doesn't understand, or by talking aboutpeople that he/she hasn't met or places he/she hasn't visited.

Use offensive communication by making ugly jokes and derog-atory comments about his/her ethnicity/religion/race/sex. Useinappropriate profanity.

Use condescending communication by saying such things as"You don't know what you're talking about," "Your ideas arestupid," "Why are you acting like that?" "You wouldn'tunderstand," "You boys," and "You girls."

Use communication that is unresponsive by saying such thingsas "I don't have time now,""I'm tired," "Canyou call me back,""Another time, OK?"

Verbal Immediacy 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

clearly did not yield any differences among the self or other generated approach/avoidance strategies and messages. Based on Mehrabian's conception of verbalimmediacy, it can be argued that research participants should have been able toproduce, from the receiver's perspective, actual text-based verbal messages thatstimulate psychological closeness and distance, and that these messages may differfrom the source perspective. Instead, almost identical verbal strategies were generatedwith few text-based messages being produced.

The second reason why this typology of verbal strategies and messages is notrepresentative of verbal immediacy may be that language is contextually situated.Research participants were asked to respond to either an approach or avoidancequestion: "What would you say to make others feel close (or distant) to you?" or "Whatdo others say that makes you feel close (or distant) to them?" It appears that many ofthe participants found these questions difficult to answer. Instead of responding in alinguistic manner with the actual text of their conversations, many participantsinstead responded with verbal strategies. To increase closeness, some of theparticipants indicated that they would try to remember something from a priorconversation and then refer to it in the current conversation. It appears thatparticipants operationalized closeness both as a sender and a receiver in terms ofcontent rather than linguistic nuances. In fact it could be argued that humans do nothave a linguistic schema for closeness and instead take verbal cues from the contextto construct verbal strategies that cultivate closeness/distance.

It should be noted that a few research participants did generate verbal messagesthat incorporated the inclusive pronouns "we" and "us" and exclusive pronoun"you." Missing from the typology, however, was any evidence that researchparticipants were aware of the other linguistic nuances such as time, order, duration,activity/ passivity, probability, part/class identified by Weiner and Mehrabian(1968). Additional evidence that suggests that Mehrabian's linguistic nuances ofverbal immediacy are undetectable to an untrained ear was reported in Mottet andPatterson (1996), where subjects failed to identify the linguistic features of pairedcombinations of statements in which pronouns had been altered to reflect approachand avoidance situations.

It is also important to distinguish the typology of approach and avoidance verbalstrategies yielded in this study from Bell and Daly's (1984) typology of affinity-seekingbehaviors. Bell and Daly's typology contains a broad sampling of both verbal andnonverbal communication behaviors. Three of the items that comprise this typologyinclude nonverbal affinity-seeking strategies such as nonverbal immediacy, listening,and physical attractiveness. Many of the other items seem to center on impressionmanagement such as assume control (the affinity-seeker presents himself as a personwho has control over whatever is going on), dynamism (the affinity-seeker presentshimself as an active, enthusiastic person), and comfortable self (the affinity-seekerignores annoying environmental distractions seeking to convey a "nothing bothersme" impression). The verbal approach/avoidance strategies that were yielded in thecurrent study reflect only verbal communication behaviors that people use and detectothers using to stimulate psychological closeness and distance.

The results from Study One served as a springboard to Study Two, which examinedfurther the verbal immediacy construct in terms of the relational approach andavoidance verbal strategies and messages inductively generated from this study.

32 Mottet and Richmond

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

STUDY TWOThe second study was designed to test further the items comprising the typology

for frequency of use. The following research question was posited:

RQ2: Which verbal relational strategies are employed most often inapproach and avoidance situations?

METHODData Collection

The data collected from S tudy O n e were integrated into a survey ins t rumentcontaining 19 verbal approach /avo idance categories (see Figure 2).

FIGURE 2Verbal Approach/Avoidance Survey Items

I. Use ritualistic statements by saying such things as "Hey, what's up?" "Hi, how are you doing?" "Takecare," "Be careful," "I'll call and talk to you soon," and "Hope to see you soon."

2.* Use references that fail to recognize the individual person by not using his/her name/nickname, bymispronouncing his/her name/nickname, or by referring to him/her as "you."

3. Use self-disclosive statements such as telling him/her something I wouldn't tell others, revealingpersonal stories about my life, and telling him/her my thoughts, worries, and problems.

4." Use discourteous and abrupt communication by interrupting and changing the subject, usinginappropriate profanity, and by answering his/her questions with simple, short "YES/NO" answers.

5. Express caring and appreciation by saying such things as "I'm here foryou,""! care about you," "I'mglad we're friends," and "I value our friendship."

6. * Use only task-oriented communication by keeping all communication "strictly business" and neverengaging in small talk or self-disclosive communication.

7. Use statements that address his/her character by saying such things as "I trust you," "I respect you,""You're dependable," "What do you think?" and "How do you feel about... ?"

8. * Use exclusionary communication by discussing things he/she can't relate to and things he/she findsuninteresting, by using slangjargon, tech-talk (shop-talk) that he/she doesn't understand, or by talk-ing about people that he/she hasn't met or places he/she hasn't visited.

9. Use responsive statements such as "I understand how you feel," "Go on, please continue," "Tell memore, I want to listen."

10." Useoffensivecommunicationbymakinguglyjokesand derogatory comments about his/her ethnicity/religion/race/sex.

II. Use direct references and personal recognition when communicating by remembering somethingfrom a prior conversation and referring to it, by remembering something unique about him/her, or bysaying such things as "I wish you could have been there..." and "I thought about you when..."

Verbal Immediacy 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

FIGURE 2 (cont.)Verbal Approach/Avoidance Survey Items

12.* Use condescending communication by saying such things as "You don't know what you're talkingabout," "Your ideas are stupid," "Why are you acting like that," "You wouldn't understand," "Youboys," and "You girls."

13. Use humor by joking and kidding around and giving him/her a hard time.

14." Use communication that is unresponsive by saying such things as "I don'thave time now,""Fm tired,""Can you call me back," "Another time, OK?"

15. Use praise, complimentary, and encouraging statements such as "You look nice today," "You havea good sense of humor," "I have a lot of fun with you," and "You do good work, keep it up."

16. Use communication that includes him/her by talking about things we have in common or talking aboutthings we have done together or by saying suchthings as "Doyou want to go with us," and "Weshouldgo out sometime."

17. Use communication that is honest by saying things in a straight forward manner or by telling the truthwhen he/she asks me a question.

18. Use language that he/she understands—language that does not sound superior, over his/her head, orlanguage that is not condescending or "talking down" to him/her.

19. Use communication in a way that reveals that I am willing to communicate and that I want to continuecommunicating by saying such things as "I will call you tonight," and "When will I hear from youagain?"

Note: "Avoidance item scores were reflected for analyses.

Each category was represented with a descriptive statement explaining the verbalcategory along with verbal messages that represented the verbal category. The twelveapproach verbal categories included: Ritualistic, Self-Disclosure, Caring/Apprecia-tion, Character, Responsiveness, Personal Recognition, Humor, Complimentary,Closeness/Inclusiveness, Honesty, Willingness to Communicate, and LanguageAppropriateness. The seven avoidance verbal categories included: NonpersonalRecognition, Abrupt, Task, Distant/Exclusive, Unresponsive, Offensive, andCondescension. The respondents were asked to indicate (0=Never, l=Rarely,2=Occasionally, 3=Often, 4=Very Often) how frequently they used each of the verbalapproach/avoidance strategies. Two survey instruments were designed. The surveyitems remained identical, however the instructions were altered to reflect an approachor avoidance condition. The surveys contained the following instructions:

1. (Approach) You recently met someone who you find very interesting. Youdecided that you would like to pursue some type of a relationship with thisperson. Which of the following verbal behaviors are you more likely to usein order to develop this potential new relationship.

2. (Avoidance) You recently met someone who finds you very interesting.Unfortunately, your feelings are not mutual. This person decides that h e /

34 Mortet and Richmond

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

she would like to pursue some type of relationship with you. Which of thefollowing verbal behaviors are your more likely to use in order to keep thisrelationship from forming.

The survey instrument also included various demographic questions includingage and sex. This package was administered to another 448 students in communicationstudies courses at the same Mid-Atlantic university as in Study One, but in asubsequent semester. Survey participants were enrolled in large, introductorycommunication studies lecture classes with the majority of students taking the class asan elective. Completing the survey in the approach condition were 225 respondents(102 males, 122 females) and completing the survey in the avoidance condition were223 respondents (99 males, 120 females). Five respondents failed to indicate their sex.The mean age was 20.

Data AnalysisThe second research question was answered by computing the mean scores for the

19 approach/avoidance items. In order to examine the question of whether verbalimmediacy is a linguistic construct with limited utility in the field of communication,and also a construct that is non-detectable in interpersonal communication, threepost-hoc analyses were conducted to examine further the approach/avoidance verbalstrategies. The first post-hoc analysis included a multivariate analysis of variance.This analysis was conducted to determine how much variance among the collective 19items was attributable to group membership (determined by the approach oravoidance condition presented in the survey instructions.)

The second post-hoc analysis included a series of individual analyses of varianceamong the 19 items to assess how much variance in each item was attributable to groupmembership. This type of analysis allowed for a better assessment among theapproach/ avoidance items as to their strength in terms of being used in an approachor avoidance situation. If the individual item accounted for minimal variance, then theitem could possibly be discredited as neither an approach or avoidance verbal strategy.

The third post-hoc analysis included subjecting the 19 items to a factor analysis todetermine if the items formed a single factor that could be labeled verbal immediacy.A liberal criterion of an eigenvalue of 1.0 was set for termination of factor extraction.Both orthogonal and oblique rotational analyses were examined. In addition, theunrotated analysis was examined. A minimum loading of .50 was set for consideringan item loaded on a factor.

A discriminant function analysis was performed as a manipulation check. Basedon the set of instructions the research respondents received, they were to complete thesurvey items from either an approach or avoidance situational context Over 96%(n=216) of the approach situation participants were properly placed in the approachgroup and over 93% (n=205) of the avoidance situation participants were properlyplaced in the avoidance group. The data from this analysis demonstrated that theresearch respondents properly interpreted and followed the survey instructions.

RESULTSThe second research question asked which verbal relational strategies were

employed most often in approach and avoidance situations. The approach strategythat was employed most often in the approach condition was the use of ritualistic

Verbal Immediacy 35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

statements (M = 3.17, SD = .73) and the least often cited approach strategy was the useof self-disclosive communication (M = 1.84, SD = .91). The most often cited avoidancestrategy in the avoidance condition was task-only communication (M = 2.49, SD = .92)and the avoidance strategy used least often was offensive communication (M = .63, SD= .90). The means and standard deviations for all 19 items are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1Mean Use, F-Value, and Variance of Verbal Approach/Avoidance Strategies/Messages

Items

LAP2.AV3.AP4.AV5.AP6.AV7. AP8. AV9. AP10. AV11. AP12. AV13. AP14. AV15. AP16. AP17. AP18. AP19. AP

Approach ConditionM

3.171.121.84.75

2.361.072.74.81

2.72.25

2.80.60

2.31.85

3.023.163.103.053.12

SD

.73

.80

.91

.79

.05

.73

.91

.74

.92

.60

.86

.751.04.74.83.73.62.89.75

Avoidance ConditionM

2.011.52.69

1.78.97

2.491.251.991.14.63.98

1.152.002.441.06.86

2.822.321.00

SD

1.061.01.84

1.141.02.92.95

1.02.95.90.88

1.041.07.97.96.91.81

1.02.94

F

179.4521.29

190.43122.51197.43323.61280.59196.48313.7328.58

477.6340.4710.08

376.56526.58854.47

17.1765.57

692.75

R1

.29

.05

.30

.22

.31

.42

.39

.31

.42

.06

.52

.08

.02.46.54.66.04.13.61

Note: All F-values were significant at the .0001 level except for item 13\vhichwassignificantatthe.001 level.Scale: 0=Never, l=Rarely, 2=Occasionally, 3=Often, 4=Very Often

When the 19 items were subjected to a multivariate analysis of variance withgroup membership serving as the independent variable and the 19 items serving asdependent variables, the analysis yielded a significant Wilks' Lambda of .26 [F(19,422)= 61.8, p < .0001] where 74% of the variance among the collective 19 items wasattributable to group membership.

The variance for each item was computed to determine the amount of variancethat was attributable to group membership or condition. The F-values along withindividual item variance are also displayed in Table 1. This analysis identified fiveitems (2,10,12,13,17) with minimal (< .10) variance associated with group to whichparticipants were assigned (approach or avoidance).

When the 19 items were factor analyzed, the unrotated factor pattern yielded asingle factor with the exception of five items. Two of these items (2,17) failed to loadon either of the two factors generated and three of the items (10,12,13) loaded on thesecond factor. However, these three items like the preceding two were earlieridentified in the analysis of variance as having minimal variance associated with

36 Mottet and Richmond

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

either the approach or avoidance condition. These five items were deleted from theanalysis and the remaining 14 items were again factor analyzed. This analysisgenerated an unrotated single factor pattern where all 14 items had their highestloading on the first factor with 61% of the variance being accounted for. Factorloadings can be seen in Table 2.

TABLE 2Unrotated Factor Loadings of Final 14 Approach/Avoidance Items

Item Factor_ _

3 .684 -.625 .806 -.827 .858 -.659 .8711 .8814 -.7315 .9016 .9018 .5119 .90

The total mean scores for those respondents instructed to complete the survey inan approach condition and those instructed to complete in an avoidance condition arepresented in Table 3. These totals were computed using reflected scores (see Figure 2for reflected items), where a high total score indicates a greater use of approachstrategies and a lesser use of avoidance strategies. Similarly, a low total score indicatesa minimal use of approach strategies and a higher use of avoidance strategies.

Condition

Approach ConditionAvoidance Condition

M

40.4819.63

TABLE 3Reflected 14-Item Totals

SD

6.218.99

Mia

22.02.0

Max.

54.050.0

Range

0-560-56

In order to assess the reliability of the remaining 14 items, three Cronbach alphaswere computed. Again, believing that not all of the items were necessarily of equalvalue, the items were weighted before the reliability assessments were computed. Thefirst reliability assessment was computed using items that had been weighted using theamount of variance for each item that was attributed to the approach/avoidancecondition. The analysis yielded an alpha of .74. The second reliability was computedusing items that had been weighted using the individual factor loadings resulting in an

Verbal Immediacy 37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

alpha of .75. Additionally, the unweighted raw variable reliability was computed andthis analysis generated an alpha of .95. From this three-part reliability assessment, itappears that the 14 items are of equal value and the unweighted scoring was superiorfor the verbal approach and avoidance items. It is recommended that future researchusing these items as a measure of approach/avoidance in relationship developmentuse the unweighted items when computing the scores.

DISCUSSIONThe individual mean scores in Table 1 and summed mean scores in Table 3 suggest

that when people want a relationship to develop, they engage in one or several of theapproach verbal strategies inductively yielded from the first study. Of the tenapproach items, all but one (self-disclosure) yielded mean scores above the mediansplit in regards to frequency of use, and five of these items were used "often." The dataalso suggest that when people want to keep a relationship from forming, instead ofusing the avoidance strategies, they primarily decrease their level of approachcommunication strategies. In other words, instead of using a negative avoidancestrategy, people just refrain from communicating with the other person.

Although two of the remaining four avoidance strategies (task-only andunresponsive) yielded mean scores above the median split, both items were actuallypassive ways to avoid communication. The task-only item reflects the absence of smalltalk. Similarly, the unresponsive item is a gentle, verbal request to avoid commun-ication. The remaining two more active avoidance strategies, on the surface, appearedoffensive (abrupt and exclusionary). One possible explanation for the somewhatlimited use of these active avoidance strategies in an avoidance situation may be theresult of social desirability. Another explanation for the overall limited use ofavoidance strategies may be that "people are drawn toward persons and things theylike, evaluate highly, and prefer, and they avoid or move away from things they dislike,evaluate negatively, or do not prefer" (Mehrabian, 1971, p. 1). Being "drawn toward"requires communication, avoidance may not

Interesting to the on-going verbal immediacy debate are the five items thatindividually contributed minimal variance in regards to the approach or avoidancegroup membership, and subsequently failed to load in the factor analysis. The fiveitems that appeared to be neither an approach nor avoidance verbal strategy andfailed to load on the theorized "verbal immediacy" factor were personal recognition,humor, offensive, condescension, and honesty. One of the verbal immediacy items thathas served as a benchmark in the communication literature has been personallyrecognizing someone by appropriately using his or her name (Gorham, 1988). Humorhas also been cited as a teacher verbal immediacy behavior that enhances psycho-logical closeness between interactants (Gorham, 1988; Gorham & Christophel, 1990;Mottet & Patterson, 1996). What is called into question here is the "theorized" verbalimmediacy unidimensional factor that was yielded in the factor analysis. If what wasbeing factor analyzed was verbal immediacy, then a priori research suggests that thesetwo items theoretically should have loaded. Since both of these items were consideredneither an approach nor avoidance verbal strategy based on the amount of variancethat was attributable to group membership, and since they failed to load onto thefactor, the results suggest that what was being measured was simply approach andavoidance verbal strategies and not necessarily verbal immediacy.

Another possible explanation for why the personal recognition item failed to load

38 Mottet and Richmond

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

on the theorized "verbal immediacy" factor may be because, unlike Gorham's (1988)item which was positively worded (addresses students by name), the inductivelyyielded item was an avoidance strategy where the source fails to recognize theindividual person by "using references that fail to recognize the individual person bynot using his/her name or by mispronouncing his/her name." The remaining threeitems (offensive, condescension, honesty) that failed to load or had their heaviestloading on the second factor were clearly an "offensiveness" factor which was oftenoverlooked as a possible avoidance strategy.

SUMMARY OF STUDIESThe data from these studies suggest another way of conceptualizing the verbal

immediacy construct It has been theorized that people use a text-based linguistic codein their communication to reduce psychological distance between interactants(Mehrabian, 1971). The data from these studies support the notion that people use avariety of approach verbal strategies, which are not a linguistic code, when they wantto pursue a relationship. What is more interesting perhaps is that instead of usingavoidance verbal strategies to retard relationship formation, people primarily justreduce using approach verbal strategies. Although embedded in some of these verbalstrategies and messages were linguistic nuances such as "we" versus "I", most of whatwas yielded in these studies were verbal strategies rather than actual scripted, text-based messages that people employ to approach or avoid relationship formation.While some aspects of immediacy may be recognized by clinical experts in people'sverbal communication, there does not appear to be any substantial volitional use ofsuch communication. These studies failed to generate a specific approach and avoidancelinguistic code. In fact it appears that most respondents employ a non-verbal linguisticcode of silence when they want to avoid relationship formation. If verbal immediacyexists linguistically, it does not appear to be consciously employed. We do not deny thepotential value of linguistic analysis in clinical psychology, we do, however, suggest sucha "verbal immediacy" approach to the study of communication is of minimal utility.

Working with a communication-situated approach/avoidance verbal variable,rather than the linguistic-situated verbal immediacy variable, offers new avenues forcommunication research. The unidimensional 14-item factor comprising the verbalapproach and avoidance strategies, with its reliability assessment of .95, may serve asa foundation for a new verbal communication measure. Although the measure couldbe used as a self-report, we suggest that it may have more utility as an other-report inthe interpersonal, organizational, and instructional arenas. It can be argued that if themeasure yields a high score, then there is relationship potential. Similarly, it can beargued that if the measure yields a low score, then the possibility of a relationshipdeveloping remains minimal. This score reflects what has often been attributed tointuition—that a relationship is out of the question.

In the organizational setting where group and dyadic communication arebecoming more important, the measure may be employed as a tool to gauge howemployees are relating. Early detection of relational problems may cue the need toinitiate some form of intervention. Another application for this potential new measuremay be in the instructional setting. The nonverbal immediacy construct has beenexamined extensively in this context and has been shown to be a potent predictor ofstudent learning. Teachers' use of verbal approach and avoidance strategies may havesome of the same predictive power as nonverbal immediacy, or they may influence

Verbal Immediacy 39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

learning outcomes indirectly by "optimizing" the immediacy effect

REFERENCESAndersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo

(Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (p. 543-559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Ayres, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and perceived usage.

Communication Quarterly, 31, 62-67.Bell, R. A., & Daly, J. A. (1984). The affinity-seeking function of communication. Communication

Monographs, 51, 91-115.Bradac, J. J., Bowers, J. W., & Courtright, J. A. (1979). Three language variables in communica-

tion research: Intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communication Research, 5, 257-269.Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analysis of rela-

tional maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives, friends, and others. Com-munication Research Reports, 10 (1), 5-14.

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student moti-vation, and learning. Communication Education, 37, 323-340.

Cody, M. (1982). A typology of disengagement strategies and an examination of the role intimacyreactions to inequity and relational problems play in strategy selection. Communication Mono-graphs, 49, 148-170.

Conville, R. L. (1974). Linguistic nonimmediacy and communicators' anxiety. Psychological Re-ports, 35, 1107-1114.

Duck, S. (1996). The essential nature of talk. In K. M. Galvin & P. Cooper (Eds.), Making connec-tions: Readings in relational communication (pp. 162-167). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury PublishingCompany.

Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and studentlearning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.

Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers' use of humor in the class-room to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39, 46-62.

Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. CommunicationEducation, 37, 198-207.

McCroskey, J. C, & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey andJ. A. Daly, Personality and interpersonal communication, pp. 129-156. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mehrabian, A. (1966). Immediacy: Aindicator of attitudes in linguistic communication. Journal ofPersonality, 34, 26-34.

Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from neutral verbal communication. Journal of Consult-ing Psychology, 31 (4), 414-417.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.Mottet, T. P., & Patterson, B. R. (1996, November). A conceptualization and measure of teacher

verbal effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech CommunicationAssociation, San Diego, CA.

Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selectedimmediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Communication Yearbook, 10, 574-590.

Richmond, V. P,. & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Reliability and separation of factors on the assertiveness-responsiveness measure. Psychological Reports, 67, 449-450.

Robinson, R. Y, & Richmond, V. P. (1995). Validity of the Verbal Immediacy Scale. Communica-tion Research Reports, 12 (1), 80-84.

Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbalcommunication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

40 Mottet and Richmond

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14