Communication Satisfaction

State of the Art

MEASURES OF COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION

MICHAEL L. HECHT California State University, Northridge

Satisfying communication is an important determinant of psychological adjustment, and dissatisfying communication is taken as a symptom of pathological states. As Rossiter and Pearce (1975, p. 3) note, “Satisfying relationships with other people are established through communication, and our ability to communicate well is important.” Ac- cordingly, communication has been ascribed a central role in the development and maintenance of mental health. Participation in therapeutic communication may be the most important aspect of attain- ing mental health (e.g., Rogers, 1961; Sieburg & Larson, 1971). Numerous writers have stressed the role of communication in the healthy attainment of openness to experience (Rogers, 1961; Bochner & Kelly, 1974), transparency (Jourard, 197I), con- gruence (Rogers, 1961), and validation or confir- mation (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967; Rossiter & Pearce, 1975). A person whose life is relatively devoid of satisfying communication is likely to experience difficulty adjusting.

When dealing with relationships and mental health constructs, then, one emotion is repeatedly discussed: satisfaction. Satisfaction is typically conceived of as the affective response to the fulfillment of expectation-type standards (Hecht, in press, a) and symbolizes an enjoyable, fulfilling experience. The investigation of this outcome would add to our understanding of communication expectations and emotional responses to the communication we send and receive.

Michael L . Hecht is assistant professor in the Department of Interpersonal Communication. University of Montana. This art- cle is based on his Ph.D. dissertation (University of Illinois, 1976).

An understanding of communication outcomes such as satisfaction is a prerequisite to an integrative explanation of communication behavior. Not only are such outcomes influential in determining future communication behavior, they also provide a theoretical framework for grouping and assessing the importance of various process elements. Satis- faction, for example, provides a criterion for inves- tigating the variance accounted for by various communication variables as well as indicating in- teracting variables. Despite repeated calls for research (e.g., Redding, 1966, p. 78), only a few attempts have been made to develop this area (Nilsen, 1953; Level, 1959; Sieburg 8c Larson, 1971; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974; Downs, Medley, Hazen, & Quigley, 1974; Hecht, in press a, b).

Measurement forms the basis for theoretical in- ference and thus is crucial to theory building. Ac- cordingly, this paper will review various approaches to the measurement of communication satisfaction. As an organizational framework, measures of communication satisfaction will be considered separately in the interpersonal, small group, and organizational areas. Satisfaction relates conceptually to expectations which differ in various contexts and this organizational framework suggests the beginnings of a contextual approach to communication satisfaction. Further, this framework reflects the actual divisions among researchers (there has been little interchange among satisfaction researchers in these areas). Finally, since communication satisfaction has been a neglected empirical variable, more general approaches to measuring satisfaction with small groups, organizations, and life in general can provide insight into measurement problems as well as

Hecht 35 1

models and theoretical orientations for overcoming these obstacles.

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION

The discussion of satisfaction measurement within the interpersonal setting will consider the conceptual definitions of the variable and will examine item construction procedures and reliability and validity testing. The development of a conceptual foundation is an important step in measure construction. One’s theory directs the type of measure constructed, orients the search for items or categories, and provides the rationale for validation strategies. Since interpersonal communication satisfaction has received little theoretical and empirical attention, various investigations of communication competence will be examined under the assumption that communicators will generally be satisfied with effective interactions.

The Corn-Sat Inventories

The only existing measures of interpersonal communication satisfaction were constructed by Hecht (1976; in press, b). Hecht adopted a be- havioral perspective, conceptualizing satisfaction as the affect associated with the reinforcement of behavior emitted in the presence of discriminative stimuli (Hecht, in press, a). Seven-step Likert items were generated from two types of questionnaires, interviews, and a review of related literature. Con- sistent with Hecht’s conceptualization, these items were written to reflect responses to discriminative stimuli and the attendant environmental reinforcement or punishment. Item analyses were conducted to identify the most salient of such experiences. Respondents used the items to rate ideal notions of satisfying and dissatisfying conversations. Items which did not discriminate were eliminated. The remaining items were used by a different sample to rate recalled and actual conversations with friends, acquaintances, and strangers. Items were required to discriminate between the most and least satisfied respondents within each of these five categories. The remaining items were subjected to factor anal-

ysis. These procedures produced five specialized inventories for use in measuring communication satisfaction with immediate or recalled conversations, and when the other is perceived to be a friend, acquaintance, or stranger (Hecht, 1976). In addition, a general communication satisfaction inventory was constructed from those items which discriminated satisfied and dissatisfied respondents within all five categories (Hecht, in press b). Split- half reliabilities with Spearman-Brown correction factors were calculated. Internal consistency is the most appropriate model of reliability because perceptions of satisfaction with a conversation can be expected to change over time. Unidimensionality was concluded from the factor analyses and indicated the use of one internal consistency coefficient rather than separate coefficients for each dimension.

The reliabilities of the specialized measures ranged from .94 to .97. The general inventory was tested within the same five categories and exhibited reliabilities between .90 and .97.

Validity was established for the general measure by correlating it with a nonverbal measuring technique, and the Faces Scale (Kunin, 1955). These validity coefficients ranged from .64 to .87. Test- retest reliabilities of .60 and .73 have been reported for the Faces Scale when used to measure organizational communication satisfaction (Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). As the maximum concurrent validity is a function of the product of the reliabilities, the validity coefficients are exceptionally high.

Items for the com-sat inventory were generated from respondents’ perceptions as well as previous empirical and theoretical work. By constructing the items to reflect optimal conditions, Hecht avoided the assumption common to semantic differential- type scales that extreme responses represent the ideal choice. Credibility research, for example, has indicated that moderate degrees of a trait may be preferred to either extreme (Burgoon, 1976). Semantic differential-type scales score one extreme or the other as the highest possible value. The Likert scaling technique adopted by Hecht resulted in items which reflected an optimal condition, and degrees of agreement were used to indicate the respondent’s perception of a conversation.

352 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / VOL. 4, NO. 4, SUMMER 1978

The com-sat inventories exhibit a number of other strengths. Multiple data collection techniques were utilized to obtain respondent perceptions, thereby incorporating a triangularization methodology. The items were tested to insure their applicability to ideal notions of satisfaction, recalled and immediate measurement, as well as three levels of relationship intimacy. Further, the inventories exhibited high reliability and validity. All these factors contribute to face and content validity claims.

Additional implications for satisfaction measurement can be derived from the secondary analyses. In examining the factor structures, content analyses and statistical analyses of the items within each category, differences were noted between recalled and immediate measurement, and among the three levels of relationship. These differences are concluded based on the items observed to load on the various factors and content analyses of the items included in each inventory. In further analysis, mean ratings of each item for highly satisfied respondents were correlated across the two levels of immediacy of measurement and among the three levels of relationship intimacy. Similar correlations were computed for the highly dissatisfied respondents. These correlations corroborated the differences noted above and led to the conclusion that satisfaction measures must be matched with the conditions or context of measurement, specifically immediacy of measurement and relationship intimacy. These differences were found to be most extreme among the least satisfied respondents.

Limitations

A number of limitations must also be noted. First, a single-item measure of relationship intimacy was utilized. Although reliability information is not available, this suggests relatively unreliable measurement. Second, the com-sat inventory was limited by choice to social situations. Measures are certainly needed for more formal communication situations. Third, the measure was developed on Caucasian, midwestern college students. Use with other samples will require revalidation. Finally, the unidimensionality indicated by the factor structures

and the high internal consistency coefficients con- tradicts much of the work in organizational satisfaction. This may be due to the respondents sample, the particular methodologies used, and/or the nature of the interpersonal context.

Trait Approaches to Communication Competence

Trait approaches to the measurement of communication competence were taken by Bienvenu (1971); Sieburg and Larson (1971); and Hart, Eadie, and Carlson (1975). Each investigation sought to isolate and measure the traits of effective communicators. This orientation may be empiri- cally and theoretically counterproductive. Traits which are isolated in one sample are not likely to describe effective communication in other contexts. After reviewing empirical investigations of super- visor behavior, Redding (1966) concluded that consistent traits of good and bad communicators could not be isolated. Instead of being an isolated trait, effective communication was found to be situation-bound. The futile search for leadership traits further attests to the problems inherent in this position, and recent investigations of persuasive strategies (Miller, Boster, Roloff, & Siebold, 1977) and impression formation (Rubin, 1977) stress the contextual nature of communication processes.

Beyond the empirical viability of the trait approach, there are the theoretical implications of this orientation. The transactional approach to communication implies that the meanings ascribed to mes- sages are a function of mutual and simultaneous reality of the interactants. As Steinfatt notes, there are major differences in the way in which we look at the effects of communication when we separate relationships from perceptions and publicly observ- able events (1977, p. 7). While Steinfatt assigns the transactional perspective to one of three levels of analysis, Wilmot argues that interpersonal communication is inherently a transaction in which meanings are ascribed between participants in a context (1975, pp. 8-9). The participants themselves are defined in terms of the relationship. The transactional and contextual nature of communication are inconsistent with the trait approach.

Hecht 353

Sieburg and Larson. Of the trait approaches to communication competence, Sieburg and Larson (197 1) developed the measure most closely related to interpersonal communication satisfaction. Traits of most and least enjoyable communicators were used to construct a category-based observation system which operationalized communication competence. Their measure considers only the behavior of the other. A literature review and observation of live dyadic and small group interactions led to the iden- tification of 24 categories to describe the clarity and relevancy of an individual’s confirming or discon- firming response to another’s communication. Ninety-five experts rated the degree to which each category was typical of a person with whom they most enjoyed conversing and another person with whom they least enjoyed conversing. Data were submitted to separate factor analyses for enjoyable and unenjoyable targets. An orthogonal solution was derived, although no justification was provided for expecting independent dimensions. After correlating loadings on the factors for the enjoyable targets with loadings on the factors for the unenjoyable targets, both first factors were called “disconfirm- ing response” and both second factors were called “confirming response.”

Limitations. A number of Sieburg and Larson’s (1971) techniques merit attention. Their initial item selection procedures were very complete. Since satisfaction is an internal behavior, the addition of self-report data may have proven useful. One must question, however, their decision to limit the scope to the “other’s” behavior. If communication is truly a transaction, then the behavior of the communicators cannot reasonably be separated. Other criticisms can be directed at the examination of only extreme examples (most and least enjoyable) and the use of experts as representatives of everyday interactants. Exclusion of the middle ranges of satisfaction assumes that communication behavior is linearly related to satisfaction. No evidence is offered in support of that conclusion. The use of experts implies that their satisfaction is related to the same type of communication behaviors as “naive’ ’ interactants. Again, no evidence is offered in support of this assumption. Finally, intercoder reliabil-

ity and validity evidence are not provided. Due to the scope of the initial literature review and the observational analyses, Sieburg and Larson’s categories provide a useful, but limited, starting point in the measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction.

Bienvenu. Another trait approach was taken by Bienvenu (1971) in the construction of the Interper- sonal Communication Inventory for measuring communication effectiveness. The inventory measures patterns, characteristics, and styles of communication, but not content. Fifty-four items were developed from a literature review and the author’s experiences. Face validity was established by having experts review the items for relevance to interpersonal communication. Undergraduate and grad- uate students reviewed the items to insure they were understandable and word changes were made where necessary. The items reflect an attitude or orientation toward communication but not dimensions of actual communication behavior. In other words, the items are not used in conjunction with a specific conversation, but were seen as reflective of communication style. The items were administered to 3 16 respondents. Chi-square tests of differences between the top and bottom quartiles revealed that 50 of 54 items discriminated significantly (p< .Ol ) . A content analysis revealed four dimensions: self- concept, listening, clarity of expression, and the ability to cope with angry feelings. Bienvenu selected the 20 items with the highest discrimina- tory power.

Limitations. Bienvenu chose to separate communication content from communication style. This dis- tinction is not productive. The choice of a particular style is dependent upon the content presented. Con- versely, content is commonly adapted to the style of delivery. The appropriateness of content and style are not separate issues.

One may also question Bienvenu’s item construction procedures. While the range of the literature review is adequate, Bienvenu’s failure to incorporate systematic observation or respondent perceptions in his design detracts from content validity claims. Further, by choosing an ordinal scaling


style the range of statistical techniques is limited. Finally, Wanous and Lawler’s (1972) findings indicate that scales consisting of items which describe the environment are more valid satisfaction measures than those consisting of items measuring desires or expectations.

The empirical evidence provided in support of Bienvenu’s Interpersonal Communication Inven- tory is not adequate. While the items were found to discriminate between the top and bottom quartiles, no reliability or validity information is provided. As an enduring trait, stability as well as internal consistency models of reliability are required. Since Bien- venu constructed the items to fit a priori notions of communication competence, the content analysis reveals nothing more than the item construction procedures. Further, while the items were found to discriminate, they were tested for neither internal consistency nor construct validity and therefore one can only guess what is actually being measured. In conclusion, then, the Interpersonal Communication Inventory appears to be a measure which is of inter- est to those constructing similar scales, but one without value as a measuring instrument without substantial testing.

Hart, Eadie, and Carlson. Hart, Eadie, and Carlson’s Rhetsen Scales (1975) are the only measure of communication competence linked to a theoretical approach. Based on Hart and Burks’s (1972) definition of the rhetorically sensitive individual, the authors independently generated items operationalizing the five theoretical dimensions of rhetorical sensitivity. These dimensions are not clearly conceptually distinguished, but emphasize the value of flexibility and appropriateness. From these initial items, 75 were selected based on coverage, elimination of duplication, and readability. The 75 items were presented to 262 respondents. Two forms of the item pool were administered to minimize the effects of fatigue and repetition. Items were selected which correlated at least .20 with the total score and differentiated at the .05 level of significance between the top and bottom 27 percent of the distribution of scores.

The remaining 37 items were submitted to princi-

pal components factor analysis and varimax rotation. Items were selected which loaded a minimum of .40 on one of the factors while loading less than half their maximum weight on any one of the remaining factors. Five items were later dropped: two were overly ambiguous and three did not differentiate on subsequent administrations of the scale.

The items were presented in modified Likert style (no neutral point), but were scored dichotomously. It was felt that Likert-type scoring might disguise attitudes by equating subjects who were neutral with others who selected the “keyed answers” for half the items and the opposite extreme for the remain- der. Further, a forced choice situation was desired to prevent respondents from disguising their true attitude. The appearance of Likert-style choices was employed to alleviate respondents’ suspicions of forced choices on debatable issues. Test-retest reliability for these items was .83.

Limitations. The methodologies utilized in the development of the Rhetsen scale raise a number of important questions. As noted above, descriptions of the environment have proven to be more valid measures of satisfaction than items of this type (Wanous & Lawler, 1972). In addition, the authors created items to fit a priori notions of communication effectiveness. Lacking a criterion, such a process is of questionable value. The resulting measure should represent communication which is effective when dealing with the three item selectors. It may not include other elements which are important when dealing with different people or groups. To the extent the authors identified the elements repre- sentative of the general population, the items reflect general communication effectiveness. But the probability of this is small. The notion of flexibility which lies at the core of the authors’ philosophy argues that three people cannot possess the full repertoire or flexibility necessary for effective communication in all contexts. Further, the items will only represent those elements of communication of which the authors were consciously aware. As a consequent, content validity argued from the factor analysis of the instrument is weakened since the factors merely reflect the dimensionality built

Hecht 355

into the instrument in the construction stage. Fi- nally, the orthogonal solution is inconsistent with the theoretical position which postulates an underlying trait of sensitivity which is characterized by five related dimensions.

The scaling technique also raises some questions. First, while it is true that for Likert-type scoring neutral respondents may be confused with respondents utilizing the extremes equally, the precision gained by this style is substantial when compared to dichotomous scoring. In addition, such balanced extremes are unlikely for all but deliberate error cases. Second, eliminating the neutral point not only ignores information but fails to reflect the full range of individual reactions. A neutral response may accurately reflect a respondent’s attitude. While there are grounds for concern that neutral responses mask true feelings, this masking process will be exaggerated rather than eliminated by re- moving the neutral point. Assuming that truly neutral respondents will exist for some of the items, one must ask what response they will be likely to exhibit with Hart, Eadie, and Carlson’s scoring. When no neutral response is permitted the respondent may exhibit a consistent bias in the direction of the so- cially desirable response. The resulting compliant or “good” subject typically provides a less accurate reflection of the true range of scores than would result from a neutral response which masks the true attitude.

Hart, Eadie, and Carlson (1975) claim that extreme agreement does not differ significantly from agreement. This claim seems questionable when viewed in concert with their expressed concern for flexibility or adaptation, principles which reflect an awareness of degrees. While it is true that Likert scaling primarily reflects the direction of response and not its extremity, extremity can be tapped by initial item construction. The added number of steps in the Likert style of scoring contributes to highly reliable scales of this type consisting of relatively few items. While the test-retest reliability of the 17-item Rhetsen instrument was adequate (.83), Likert scales of similar length commonly produce higher reliabilities (Edwards & Kenney, 1967, pp. 252-253). Since subjects responded along an

agree-disagree continuum, Hart, Eadie, and Carlson should have presented correlational evidence that their scaling technique did not detract from the scale’s reliability.

Hart, Eadie, and Carlson declare that they are not interested in responses to the component parts of the inventory (1975, p. 9). This claim is not only inconsistent with their orthogonal solution which sepa- rates components into independent dimensions, but requires internal consistency evidence as well as the stability evidence provided. Further, the orthogonal solution suggests that each factor should be tested for internal consistency reliability to be consistent with stated scale construction intentions. While test-retest reliability indicates measurement stability, the rationale behind the orthogonal rotation indicates that one must also establish that the items within a dimension constitute a measure of some consistent construct.

While important questions have been raised re- garding the a priori decisions made in the construction of the Rhetsen instrument, a number of strengths may be commented on as well. The use of item analyses and factor analysis provide some basis for content validity claims. In addition, the Rhetsen scale was developed from a conceptualization of communication competence. This theoretical link provides the rationale for item construction and validation techniques. The instrument has exhibited a hypothesized positive correlation with con- servative political philosophy and has distinguished groups which were differentiated along sensitivity lines by other techniques. Further, the instrument has confirmed predicted negative correlations with a number of other personality traits. As Hart, Eadie, and Carlson note, this evidence indicates that ‘‘a certain something. . . correlated well with the scores on the Rhetsen test” (1975, p. 22). The theoretical rationale underlying the scale development should provide the basis for specifying that “certain something” by predicting variables which do not correlate highly with the Rhetsen instrument (discriminant validity), and by establishing internal consistency within the dimensions and high positive correlations with other related traits (convergent validity).


Satisfying and Dissatisfying Contexts

A more general approach to satisfaction was taken by Shelly and his colleagues (1972) who sought to analyze the contexts of satisfying interactions. Shelly adopted a classical conditioning conceptualization of satisfaction, defining it as an affect associated with the difference between the amount of reinforcement and the amount of punishment over a short period of time. The analysis is broadly based, examining the physical environment, prior and post-interaction attitudes, prior relationships, and the range of available and performed behaviors. While Shelly did not focus on communication, his approach to measurement and his findings are relevant to the contexts of interpersonal communication satisfaction.

Shelly utilized three methods. The first involved observing and describing the public places where people characteristically meet to interact. Satisfac- tion sites were defined as places where one or more persons gathered for a “considerable length of time” or where many people gathered together for at least a short period of time (Shelly, 1972, p. 222). This technique is based on the questionable assumption that people will continue to meet in the places at which they have been satisfied in the past. They took as indicants of satisfaction the persistence of the behavior or the number of people involved. Observations based on Shelly’s operational definition are likely to confound unpleasant and pleasant situations. People remain in an environment andor among other people for many reasons, some of which may contribute to dissatisfaction. Some people might have been performing unpleasant job- related tasks; others may have been constrained by social norms from leaving dissatisfying sites.

The second technique utilized open-ended questionnaires which asked respondents to recall their reactions to four types of situations. These situations operationalized a pleasant-unpleasant dimension and differentiated evening from daytime ar- ousal.

The third technique utilized the information gathered from the observations and the open-ended questionnaires to construct a scale which measured

satisfaction-related perceptions of the environment. The respondents were asked to recall a pleasant situation in one location and an unpleasant situation in a second location, and respond to six questions about the environment, 12 questions about the behaviors they engaged in, and six questions about their emotions before, during, and after. The questions took the form of descriptions to which the subjects responded “yes” or “no” to indicate whether or not the statement described the pleasant and unpleasant situations. For each question per- centages were compiled which indicated the number of times the item was perceived to describe the pleasant situations and unpleasant situations.

Limitations. Shelly’s technique provides data relevant to the contexts in which communication occurs. The emphasis on field techniques is to be applauded. Too often investigations of communication variables have been restricted to a laboratory milieu. As argued previously, communication is contextual. Consequently, the rules or relationships discovered in the laboratory may not be congruent with those operating in a different type of environment.

As a satisfaction measure, Shelly’s work is only tangentially related to communication satisfaction. The combination of observational and self-report techniques has much to offer communication researchers, and the dimensions of measurement (the environment, behaviors engaged in, emotions) provide data relevant to the contexts in which communication occurs. The emphasis on the environment is derived from a classical conditioning conceptualization of satisfaction which many will take issue with, and the observational technique requires greater specification to insure that the observed en- vironments do provide an analysis of satisfying contexts.

Conclusion

The preceding discussion reflects the neglect of the interpersonal communication satisfaction construct. While one set of contextual-based measures of communication satisfaction currently exists

Heeht 357

(Hecht, 1976, in press), they require further testing. Elaboration of the construct to contexts other than informal social settings is needed. Previous research has isolated the immediacy of measurement and relationship intimacy as important contextual variables. Future research should examine other variables such as sex, the degree of relationship stability, length of relationship, negative relationships, dominance, and task-oriented communication.

A second issue focuses on the trait approach to communication variables. The position taken in this paper has been that such approaches are inconsistent with the transactional perspective. Whether or not such criticisms are theoretically justifiable, those adopting trait approaches incur the responsibility of establishing both internal consistency and stability reliability.

Validity assessment in the interpersonal communication area has not advanced very far, with the possible exception of the Rhetsen instrument. Strat- egies for convergent and discriminant validity should evolve from a conceptual definition of satisfaction as well as a general theoretical orientation.

Related to the validity question is the issue of item generation. Since satisfaction is an internal behavior, subject self-reports are necessary. How- ever, people are not always aware of the causes of their satisfaction, so self-reports should be supple- mented by observation studies in both field and laboratory settings. Content validity is weakened by the failure to incorporate a wide range of initial item generation sources. Further, these items will prove more reliable if they are descriptive of the environment rather than reflective of desires or expectations.

The basis for the study of interpersonal communication satisfaction has been established. In spite of the criticisms of previous measures, they do provide an item pool which should prove useful for future investigations. While empirical investigations of communication effectiveness were presented as an input to satisfaction measurement, ul- timately communication satisfaction measures will provide an important criterion for assessing communication behaviors.

GROUP SATISFACTION

At present, there are no measures of group communication satisfaction. Considerable empirical attention has been focused on satisfaction with various group processes. As these processes form the context of group communication, group communication satisfaction research should share many of the same methodological considerations.

The measurement of group satisfaction suffers from numerous methodological deficiencies. To avoid a long recitation of the most basic methodological considerations, criticisms will be selec- tively sampled in order to reflect the general tenor of group satisfaction measurement. More systematic measurement projects will be reviewed at the end of this section.

Theoretical Limitations

Ambiguity has plagued the group satisfaction field as researchers have attempted to move from conceptualization to measurement. Often it is un- clear how the measure utilized was developed from the researcher’s conceptualization of satisfaction. Trow (1957), for example, conceived of satisfaction as need fulfillment and yet asked respondents, “Considering it as a whole, how much did you like your job?” Mulder conceptualized satisfaction as a social comparison process and yet stated, “We pre- fer the job-liking scale as a satisfaction measure” (1959, p. 181).

Satisfaction and liking have frequently been equated in the group satisfaction literature. In addition to Trow (1957) and Mulder (1959), Cohen, Bennis, and Wolken (1961) also presented them as synonymous. However, these investigators provide no theoretical or empirical justification for equating satisfaction with any other emotion. Satisfaction is commonly conceived of as the affect experienced when expectation-type standards are fulfilled. The positive or negative emotion experienced when people are satisfied or dissatisfied is associated with the link between an internal state and the perceived environment. Other emotions (e.g., liking and attraction) are commonly conceptualized as the pair-


ing of some positive or negative state with another person (e.g., Byrne & Krivonos, 1976). While satisfaction is associated with the “success” or “goodness” of some internal behavior in dealing with the environment, other emotions are associated with the positive feelings provided by another and become associated with that other. Still other emotions (e.g., cohesion, solidarity) represent more global groupings of specific affects such as satisfaction and attraction. Cohesion, for example, is commonly conceptualized as all of the forces operating to keep a member as a part of the group. Satisfaction should be one of those forces. Similarly, solidarity has been defined as the feeling of “togetherness,”

oneness,” or “closeness” which one person feels toward another (Wheeless, 1976). Solidarity was conceived to be a grouping of interpersonal affective outcomes, of which satisfaction, credibility, and attraction may be dimensions.

What is at issue, then, is the precision lost by equating satisfaction with a conceptually distinct affect without empirical or theoretical justification. A comprehensive validation strategy for measures of any one of these affects would incorporate an investigation of its interrelationship with these other specific and global emotions. Lacking such evidence, the assumed congruity between liking and satisfaction should be avoided.

Another question involving scaling procedures is limited to the dissonance view of the expectation conceptualization (e.g., Aronson & Carlsmith, 1962). This position maintains that satisfaction occurs at the expectation fulfillment level and de- creases at outcome levels above or below. The maximum return, however, is never specified. The position also maintains that we become dissatisfied with deviations from expectations. Is dissatisfaction the same as zero satisfaction? If not, does zero satisfaction represent another point on the continuum or rather a special class of experiences? While numerous researchers have operated from the dissonance perspective, these problems have not been fully addressed.

“

Item Construction Criticisms

The imprecise nature of the relationship between

conceptualization and measurement dominates group satisfaction measure construction. Generally short group satisfaction measures were constructed by the researcher for one particular study and then discarded. In some studies attitude scales were created by the author for the particular study without pretesting or any indication of systematic construction (e.g., Shaw, 1954,1955, 1958,1959; Hoffman & Maier, 1961; Vannoy & Morrissette, 1969; Bos- trom, 1970; Rice & Fey, 1970; Fenton & Hopf, 1976). Other researchers constructed questionnaires without specifying how they were created or providing the reader with sample items (e.g., Hare, 1952; Bavelas, Hastorf, Gross, & Kite, 1965; Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, 1971). The failure to repeat attitude scale and questionnaire measures across studies severely limits the ability to general- ize. The ability of a scale to distinguish differences which other known instruments have identified is one measure of a scale’s validity. Repeated use of a scale facilitates a comparison of the variance explained by the independent variables in one study with the variance explained by independent variables in a second study. Thus the process of grouping studies and deriving conclusions about the causes of communication satisfaction is facilitated by having some communality run through the literature under examination. One such communality is the repeated use of a measure and that measure’s link to other measures.

A related problem concerns the number of items included in group satisfaction measures. Single item scales were used to indicate satisfaction in some studies (e.g., Shaw, 1955, 1958; Bostrom, 1970; Fenton & Hopf, 1976), while others used two (e.g., Hoffman & Maier, 1961; Vannoy & Moms- sette, 1969; Rice & Fey, 1970), or three item measures (e.g., Shaw, 1954). Shorter measures tend to be less reliable (Ebel, 1972; Wanous & Lawler, 1972) and less valid (Ebel, 1972; Wanous & Lawler, 1972; Locke & Whiting, 1974).

The imprecise nature of measure construction can be traced in part to the place of satisfaction in group research. Researchers have typically studied some variable in the group process and used satisfaction as an indicator of its effect. Group satisfaction has been studied almost exclusively as a dependent var-

Hecht 359

iable in experiments primarily designed to study another variable. Exceptions can be found in the work of Gross (1954) and a series of studies by Shaw and his colleagues (Shaw & Blum, 1964, 1965; Shaw & Caron, 1965). Gross (1954) found that people who were dissatisfied with their groups were more attracted to others who were similarly dissatisfied. Shaw and Blum (1964, 1965) and Shaw and Caron (1965) investigated the effects of covert and overt satisfaction feedback. They found that overt satisfaction feedback produced greater satisfaction with the group product but did not consistently result in better products. Other manipula- tions of satisfaction as an independent variable would contribute to our knowledge of the area by providing criteria for evaluating new measures.

Consideration of satisfaction as a dependent variable has also had the effect of focusing researchers’ attention on changes in overall satisfaction. The wide use of global measures of satisfaction has created a number of problems. Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969, p. 4) noted that global measures “may well mask relationships which involve only one aspect of . . . feelings.” Therefore the reliance on global measures of satisfaction may well be a factor in determining whether or not effects of a manipula- tion will be found as well as inhibiting the specification of the precise nature of those effects. Global measures also tend to involve very few items and are therefore generally less reliable.

Global measures also omit consideration of a time frame. McGrath and Altman (1966, p. 74) lament this shortcoming in group research in general. Does a subject’s rating of satisfaction indicate hidher reaction to the last group meeting; the people in the group in general or at the last meeting in particular; with small groups in general? A global measure cannot provide answers to these questions. Due to the unspecified time frame, global measures are subject to recall bias.

In contrast to global measurement techniques, some researchers have developed narrow operationalizations of satisfaction. Unfortunately these narrow operationalizations are often presented as representations of overall satisfaction. For example, Collins and Guetzkow (1964, p. 188) main- tained that “satisfaction represents an individual’s

subjective evaluation or judgment of the rewards he has received.” Collins and Guetzkow failed to consider negative consequences and thus their conceptualization is overly limited. Any attempt at measurement using this conceptualization will produce an incomplete operationalization. An even more extreme example of this problem is the work of Hare (1952) in which satisfaction is taken to represent the chance to express oneself. Certainly such a concep- tion is too limited to be of much value by itself.

Group Satisfaction Measures

Indirect approaches to satisfaction measurement were taken by a number of researchers who attempted to measure satisfaction without asking questions which included the word “satisfaction” (or syno- nyms) and without satisfaction-dissatisfaction scales. These attempts have gone in a number of directions.

Dunn and Goldman (1966) developed a subliminal measure of satisfaction. Under the guise of a subliminal perception experiment stick figure slides representing four or more people were flashed on a screen for .01 seconds each. Subjects were asked to choose from among positive, negative, or neutral statements to describe the figures. For example, a positive statement read, “They are all smiling,” while a negative statement read, “They are all fac- ing in opposite directions.” A neutral statement was, “Undecided,” or “Can’t tell.” Since the slide appeared for such a short period subjects could not discriminate the figures. Therefore it was assumed they would report their own feelings at the time. Unfortunately Dunn and Goldman neglected to check whether this procedure actually measured satisfaction and did not determine whether the stick figures influenced responses. However, even had the authors performed these checks it is difficult to see the value of such a cumbersome procedure. Surely the disguise introduces as large a source of error as it seeks to eliminate.

A different approach to indirect measurement was taken by Shelly (1960) who measured perceived group success, effort, acceptance, and most important member. Unfortunately neither a rationale nor supporting evidence was offered for this as a technique for measuring satisfaction.


A final indirect measure was developed by Hackman and Vidmar ( 1 970) who differentiated between member reactions and common conceptualizations of member satisfaction. They con- tended that member satisfaction is commonly taken to include only evaluative responses. For this reason they chose to use the term “member reactions” which they took to include both description and evaluation.

Hackman and Vidmar (1 970) developed a 20- item questionnaire utilizing seven-step Likert scales with items drawn from previous research and a priori speculation. However, the member reaction questionnaire was equated with satisfaction. It is not clear whether this was meant to be a new measure which expands the concept of satisfaction, or an additional dimension with satisfaction to be inferred from the evaluative items. Further, reliability and validity information were not provided. Such information should include internal consistency tests to determine if a construct is being consistently measured.

The investigation of dimensions of group satisfaction would facilitate measure construction. While group research has not typically utilized the factor approach, a number of researchers have attempted to incorporate this strategy. Frank and An- derson (1 97 1) speculated that satisfaction with the group’ s performance may be entirely independent of an individual’s satisfaction with hidher own performance. Crowell and Scheidel(l963) have measured satisfaction with respect to the group’s process and product and found that some independent variables were significantly correlated with process satisfaction but not with product satisfaction. Patchen (1958) delineates two types of satisfaction: that which is derived from the use of available rewards and that from the norms governing how those rewards are distributed. However, none of these studies provided an a priori justification for these dimensions.

Factor analysis provides one technique for examining the dimensionality of a construct as well as establishing the content validity of a measurement technique. Daley and Weidman (1972) and Yerby (1975) conducted factor analytic investigations of group satisfaction. Daley and Weidman (1972) de-

veloped items from a review of previous measures of group satisfaction. The items were administered and the data subjected to factor analysis. Three dimensions were revealed: satisfaction with the group, satisfaction with the leader, and satisfaction with one’s self. Yerby (1975) chose 14 items from 20 developed by Hackman and Vidmar (1974), administered them, and submitted the data to factor analysis. Yerby utilized a varimax solution without explaining why she felt the factors should be independent. Two factors were revealed: interpersonal relations and task involvement.

The differences between the dimensions revealed may be attributable to the method of item selection. Both studies used items from other measures without complementing these procedures with items generated from self-report or observational data. Further, neither study presents reliability or validity information for the items selected. As Smith, Ken- dall, and Hulin (1969, p. 26) note, factor analysis may “reveal only the dimensionality of the measure o f . . . satisfaction employed in the study and not the dimensionality o f . . . satisfaction itself.” While these studies begin the process of examining the facets or dimensions of group satisfaction, failure to generate and test items represents a serious methodological flaw.

Conclusion

This review indicates that while group satisfaction has been widely studied, the variable has been poorly operationalized. Researchers interested in this area would do well to construct group satisfaction measures from a zero base. Items should be constructed from respondents’ perceptions and observational studies (e.g., Sieburg & Larson, 1971; Shelly, 1972) and tested and factor analyzed, and reliability and validity information generated.

Developing items from a wide range of sources enables later factor analysis to provide evidence of content validity. Such evidence can be supple- mented by proper reliability testing. If independent dimensions have been created through an orthogonal factor analysis solution, then each dimension should be tested for internal consistency. Unidi- mensional or oblique solutions should establish

Hecht 36 1

internal consistency reliability for the overall measure. This type of reliability information bolsters content validity arguments by indicating the degree to which a construct has been isolated and consistently measured. Further, if group satisfaction has been conceptualized as an enduring affect, stability reliability is also essential. Finally, one’s conceptualization of the variable should be used to guide convergent and discriminant validity strategies. A general view of the variable would indicate at least moderate correlations with global emotional constructs (e.g., cohesion and solidarity) and even higher correlations with other more specific affects (e.g., attraction). Group processes unrelated to expectations can be expected to have near-zero correlations with satisfaction as it is commonly conceptualized. Only after new measures of group satisfaction have been developed, tested, and used to repli- cate previous research will much confidence be accorded the empirical findings in the field.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION

The most extensive satisfaction measurement research has been in the organizational area. In addition to a number of measures of organizational communication satisfaction, research has examined satisfaction measurement issues and has systemati- cally constructed and tested measures of satisfaction with the organization.

Two early investigations of organizational communication measurement were conducted by Nilsen (1953) and Level (1959). Nilsen utilized highly unstructured interviews and follow-up questionnaires constructed based on the elicited responses. Out of the organizational communication efficiency literature Nilsen developed the following interview questions: Would you tell me some of the things you like or don’t like about work at the factory? Would you tell me what you feel would be some of the problems operators run into here? (Nilsen, 1953, p. 123) The interviews were complimented by direct observation of the work environment and processes, and content analysis was applied. While Nilsen’s methodology produced a large amount of useful data, a number of problems must be noted. First, the

interview procedures did not provide for consistent methods of data storage. Sometimes interviewers recorded their impression on cards during the interview, while other times impressions were recorded afterwards. Further, in the latter method the time lag between the interview and the impression recording was not specified. Such inconsistencies may intro- duce unwanted sources of bias. The use of tape recording equipment or the establishment of consistent recording procedures would have overcome this problem.

The second problem is a result of the unstructured nature of the interviews and the observations. While the flexibility afforded interviewers the opportunity to probe and adjust to the nuances of the specific respondent, the lack of structure meant that the results of one interview are not comparable to those of any of the other interviews. The unstructured nature of the observations suffer similar limitations. Neither style of data collection facilitates replica- tion or generalization across contexts. While the lack of structure in the interviews and the observations is more in line with the vicissitudes of the context, both methods suffer similar weaknesses. Had Nilsen chosen a more structured measurement technique for either the interviews or the observations (e.g., category-based interaction analysis), then the weaknesses of one method would have been offset by the strengths of the other, and vice versa.

Level (1959) constructed forced-choice items from a review of the communication efficiency literature as well as consultation with management personnel. The items dealt with the amount of general information workers received from management, advance notification about changes in policies, procedures, or working conditions, expla- nations of company policy, information about the company’s expectations, communication style of supervisors, perceived freedom to discuss matters with supervisors, the perception of being properly informed about vacation policy, salary increases, insurance, personal accounts, and absences, the methods by which information is obtained, and the preferred methods of acquiring information.

While the style of measurement improved upon Nilsen’s in terms of replicability and quantification,


it does not insure that the various dimensions of organizational communication satisfaction receive adequate coverage. A review of the communication efficiency literature, while relevant, does not insure that all the dimensions of satisfaction will be tapped. Self-report and observation styles of item crea- tion would have overcome this problem.

As part of a measure of organizational communication, Roberts and O’Reilly (1974) utilized the Faces Scale as a measure of communication satisfaction. The Faces Scale, originally a measure of organizational satisfaction (Kunin, 1955), consists of a series of sketched faces which range by degree from positive to negative expressions. Kunin argued that this nonverbal style of measurement would be more effective than verbal styles because the respondent would not have to translate herlhis feelings into words. As an organizational satisfaction measure the Faces Scale was found to provide moderate discrimination among five areas of job satisfaction, good convergence with a graphic measurement scale, and wider and more nearly unim- odal distributions than three other scales (Locke, Smith, Kendall, Hulin, & Miller, 1964). When compared to the Job Description Index (a measure of organizational satisfaction) the Faces Scale was shown to provide consistent convergent and discriminant validity (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). In addition, the Faces Scale was found to validate well with the Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank (r = .75, Dunham & Herman, 1975) and the scores were found to be stable when male and female faces were utilized by male and female respondents (Dunham & Herman, 1975). As a measure of organizational communication satisfaction, the Faces Scale was found to have test-retest reliabilities of .60 and .73 with two small samples (Roberts & O’Reilly, 1975). Hecht (in press b) used the Faces Scale as a validation strategy and found that it correlated with the general Com-Sat Inventory at .64 for recalled conversations, .87 for conversations just com- pleted, .79 when the other was a friend, and .73 when the other was an acquaintance. It may be concluded, therefore, that the Faces Scale provides a quick and easily administered global measure of communication satisfaction with moderate test-

retest reliabilities. As a single itein measure, internal consistency reliability cannot be assessed.

The final measure of organizational communication satisfaction reviewed was developed by Downs, Hazen, Medley, and Quiggins (1974). From an examination of the literature, other satisfaction measures, three pilot studies, and interviews, 88 items were constructed. Each item was responded to on five different Likert-type scales:

1. How satisfied are you with these aspects of your job? Dissatisfied I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Satisfied

present on your job? Uncharacteristic I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Characteristic

tics to you? Unimportant I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important

4. How much of each quality or characteristic would you like to be associated with your job? Would not like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Would like

5. How much of each quality or characteristic do you think should be associated with your job? Should not be characteristic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Should be characteristic (Downs et al., 1974, p. 8)

2. How much of each quality or characteristic is

3. How important are the qualities or characteris-

Each participant responded to the 88 items on three of the five scales to avoid fatigue. The five scale types reflect five different conceptualizations of satisfaction. Nine methods of defining satisfaction were tested, including global and facet measurement, and importance weightings of facets.

Item analyses were conducted on the data from the first scale above. The differences between the upper and lower quartiles were subject to t tests. Most questions discriminated significantly between the groups at the .05 level of significance.

Five separate factor analyses were performed with varimax solutions. Items with loadings of .50 or more were considered to load significantly on a factor. Downs et al. (1974) provided no justification for requiring factors to be independent.

Three important results emerged. First, organizational communication satisfaction was clearly mul- tidimensional. Second, the three strongest factors

Hecht 363

(communication climate, communication with supervisors, integration into the organization) were relatively stable across the five scaling styles. Third, importance scales proved to be the least valuable procedure.

The thoroughness of the construction of this satisfaction measure is apparent. While one could com- ment on the fatigue factor in requiring respondents to complete 264 scales (88 items multiplied by three scaling styles), the strategies employed in this study are exemplary. Input into initial item construction was obtained from a wide variety of sources and items were tested and factor analyzed for a variety of scaling styles. Internal consistency reliability for each dimension and validity information for the measure as a whole are lacking.

Satisfaction Measurement Issues

A number of researchers have examined aspects of satisfaction measurement. Wanous and Lawler (1972) devised nine measures designed to examine differences between need and expectation measures, and direct, subtractive, and multiplicative models. Results indicated that the evaluation of how much of expected things there are present in a job correlated most highly with overall satisfaction measures. Further, it was found that direct measurement was superior to other models. The authors cautioned, however, that direct measures of expected or desired conditions may already contain the judgment of discrepancies. Finally, Wanous and Lawler concluded that the weighting of facets of satisfaction was no better, and in several cases worse, than unweighted versions (Wanous & Lawler, 1972, p. 103). They did note, however, that importance weighting may be indicative of the influence of a particular force.

Other researchers have addressed themselves to the issue of importance weightings. Youngberg, Hedberg, and Baxter (1962) concluded that importance weighting improved satisfaction measurement. Schaffer (1953), Decker (1955), and Downs, et al. (1974), found that importance weightings did not improve a variety of organizational satisfaction measures. Schaffer did find that the most important

component correlated more highly with overall satisfaction than did the least important component. Ewen (1964) reports a .99 correlation between weighted and unweighted versions of the Job De- scription Index and concludes that summing across facets seems to diminish or eliminate the promi- nence of the most important component. h c k e found that importance weighting did not improve the psychometric properties of satisfaction measures and found no lawful relationship between satisfaction and importance (Smith, Kendall, & Hu- h , 1969, p. 17).

A second area of research investigated the independence of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Herz- berg’s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959) had posited two separate satisfaction factors: satisfiers contributing only to satisfaction and dissatisfiers contributing only to dissatisfaction. In addition to the data originally reported by Herzberg et al. (1959) in support of the two- factor approach, Schwartz, Jenusaitis, and Stark (1963), Saleh (1964), and Myers (1964) reported successful replications. On the other hand, the results of Friedlander (1964), Halpern (1966), Ewen, Smith, Hulin, and Locke (1966), Graen (1966), Burke (1966), Schneider and Locke (1971), Waters and Waters (1972), Locke (1973), and Wanous (1974) contradict the independence assumption. House and Wigdor (1967) concluded that the independence findings were method bound. It appears unlikely, therefore, that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are separate, independent dimensions.

Organizational Satisfaction Measures

Space precludes a complete discussion of measures of satisfaction with organizations. Some of the more prominent measures include the Brayfield- Roth Scales (Brayfield & Roth, 1951), the Job De- scription Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), and the Critical Incidents Methodology (developed by Herzberg et al., 1959, and modified by Dun- nette, Campbell, & Hakel, 1967; Schneider & Locke, 1971; Locke, 1973). While concerned with satisfaction with the organization, these provide excellent models for communication satisfaction measurement procedures.


Life Satisfaction Measures

Robinson and Shaver (1969) provide a review of early measures of life satisfaction. The measures they review consist of one, two, or three items used in interview situations, with reported test-retest reliabilities between .43 and .70. These measures make no attempt to differentiate satisfaction from other emotions such as happiness. Their validity, therefore, is suspect. A more recent questionnaire measure of life satisfaction (associated with aging) was created by Hutchinson (1975) using single items to operationalize what he felt to be the five dimensions of life satisfaction: loneliness, worry, unhappiness because of nonusefulness, present feelings of happiness, present life Satisfaction. No justification is provided for these dimensions and neither reliability nor validity information is available. Hutchinson does not differentiate satisfaction from other emotions and his measure contains a dimension with the same label as the content do- main.

Neugarten, Havighurst, and Tobin (1961) developed an observation coding scheme as well as two self-report measures of life satisfaction as a criterion for successful adjustment to aging. As in earlier studies, they do not differentiate satisfaction from other aspects of adjustment: Use of the life satisfaction title was only appended post hoc with reserva- tions about its descriptive adequacy after other labels (e.g., morale) had been rejected.

Neugarten et al. (1961) conducted four rounds of panel interviews with two groups of respondents: 50-70 year olds; 70-90 year olds. From the early interviews five components of life satisfaction were identified: zest, resolution and fortitude, congru- ence between desired and achieved goals, positive self-concept, and mood. Later factor analysis (Adams, 1969) did not support the existence of this structure. A second analysis (Klemmack, Carlson, & Edwards, 1974) revealed that the index is not distinct from a measure of social isolation. Using a five-step scale, judges rated transcripts of the fourth round of interviews on each of the five components and achieved 94 percent exact agreement or disag- reement of one step. Judges’ ratings correlated at .78. Correlations among the components ranged

from .48 to .84. The ratings had a .39 correlation with a measure of socioeconomic status.

Two self-report indices were also created. The first (LSIA) consisted of 25 attitude statements responded to by marking agree, disagree, or (?). The second (LSIB) consisted of 17 open-ended and checklist items. Item analyses eliminated five items from LSIA and seven items from LSIB. When compared to the judges’ ratings, LSIA correlated at . 55 , while LSIB correlated at .58. When LSIA and LSIB were combined, they correlated at .61 with the judges’ ratings. Clinical judgments were used as a validating device, correlating .64 with the judges’ ratings, .39 with LSIA, and .47 with LSIB. The size of these correlations was inhibited due to a measurement artifact: the judges’ ratings, LSIA and LSIB, and the clinical judgments were made at interviews separated by as much as 18 months. The authors concluded that the instrument may be used with caution and is most appropriate when used with those over 65. This instrument might provide a useful start for further measure construction.

A number of other life satisfaction measures are also available for gerontological research. Cavan, Burgess, Havighurst, and Goldhamer (1949) developed an attitude survey which contains a happiness subscale. Carp (1967) constructed a sentence com- pletion task in which responses are scored “negative,” “positive,” and “neutral.” Carp (1975) also developed a Thematic Apperception Picture task which scored responses as “positive” or “negative. ”

In sum, then, measures of life satisfaction have been constructed in the context of gerontological research. Even within this context, the measures do not exhibit consistent validity to recommend their unqualified use. Life satisfaction measurement needs are still unfulfilled in other settings.

CONCLUSION

The measurement of communication satisfaction has not progressed very far. In fact, the measurement of satisfaction has been advanced significantly only within the organizational area. As a result, research of the most basic nature is necessary.

Hecht 365

Listed below are a number of suggestions for this research:

1. Approaches to measurement must be linked to theoretical orientations. Much previous research has been conducted atheoretically. The group satisfaction area is particularly lacking in theoretical foundations. If measures are to be judged valid, they must be examined on conceptual as well as operational bases.

2. Trait approaches will not prove useful in satisfaction measurement because satisfaction is, by nature, context specific and transactional. What is satisfying when communicating with one person in a situation may not be satisfying with a different person or with the same person in a different situation.

3. Measures of satisfaction should reflect the process nature of communication. This implies that the items attend to a wide spectrum of elements, as well as the phases of conversational development. Items should be written to describe the communication process and not traits or attitudes existing prior to the interaction. Too many satisfaction studies have adopted input/ output orientations to the exclusion of process variables. Avoiding global measures, specifying the facets of satisfaction in terms of interaction processes, and writing descriptive rather than evaluative items are important process considerations. To wit, the initial construction of items is extremely important. Items should be generated from both self-report and observational bases. As an internal state, the most logical access is via self-reports. This method insures that the respondent population be sampled during the construction of items thereby imparting psychological meaning to factor analytic techniques and improving content and face validity. Exclusive reliance on self-reports, however, neglects those aspects of satisfaction of which the respondent is unaware. Therefore, observational analyses and theoretical treatments of communication satisfaction and communication competence should also prove useful in generat- ing items.

4. As noted previously, satisfaction is contextual.

If satisfaction names an affective response to a type of expectation, then the context should influence the salient expectations and establish the parameters for satisfaction. The construction of satisfaction measures should, therefore, be context specific. Some of the distinctions which may prove useful include: public and private communication (Phillips, 1976), level of intimacy (Gilbert & Horenstein, 1975; Gil- bert & Whiteneck, 1976; Berger, Gardner, Clatterbuck, & Schulman, 1976), goal or pur- pose (Hecht, in press b; Phillips, 1976), and level of relationship (Hecht, in press b).

5. Satisfaction should be compared to other affects, specifically liking and happiness. It will be necessary to determine whether these name the same internal response or can be differentiated. On a theoretical level, Byrne and Krivonos (1976) conceptualize liking as the affect associated with positive reinforcement in a classical conditioning paradigm. Hecht (in press, a), utilizing an operant conditioning paradigm, has conceptualized satisfaction as the affect associated with the positive reinforcement of behavior emitted in the presence of discriminative stimuli. These approaches present liking and satisfaction as conceptually related but distinct affects. Gross (1954) found that satisfied people tend to like each other. This implies a causal relationship which may be spurious if the affects are not truly distinct. The relationship awaits empirical examination.

6. Observational and indirect measures of satisfaction would compliment the paper and pen- cil, self-report strategies which presently dom- inate the field. Sieburg and Larson’s (1971) categories may provide a useful system for category-based observation.

7. Global measures may mask relationships and are therefore less preferable than facet measures.

8. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction do not appear to constitute separate dimensions. However, previous research indicates that in the initial stages of measure development it would be wise to elicit responses applicable to dissatisfaction as well as satisfaction. Such a strategy was em-


ployed by Herzberg et al. (1959) as part of the critical incidents methodology; Smith, Ken- dall, and H u h (1969) in the construction of the Job Description Index, and Hecht (in press b) in the construction of the Com-Sat Inventory. This method overcomes the respondent’s bias to recall positive events and may be useful as a form of item analysis (e.g., Darnell, 1970).

9. Importance weightings are of little value. 10. Requiring one response per item works as well

or better than more complicated scoring techniques, and is more quickly and easily administered.

11. Reliability and validity assessment are essential. Validation strategies should incorporate different measurement techniques.

SUMMARY

The investigation of communication satisfaction can make a number of contributions to our understanding of the communication process. First, communication satisfaction provides an outcome measure of process effects. Second, communication satisfaction may serve as a determinant of other immediate and future communication behaviors. Third, it provides a criterion for assessing communication competence. Finally, on a theoretical level, it furthers our understanding of the relationship between internal behaviors and perceived environmental contingencies. Before such contributions can be realized, however, successful measurement procedures must be established. While a few such procedures are presently available, more work is needed in the area.

NOTE

The author wishes to thank Professors Ken Andersen and Fred Hilpert of the University of Illinois and Dr. William Wilmot of the University of Montana for their comments on various stages of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

ADAMS, D.L. Analysis of a life satisfaction index. Journal of

ARONSON, E., & CARLSMTTH, J.M. Performance expec- Gerontology, 1969, 24, 470-494.

tancy as a determinant of actual performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 65, 178-182.

BAVELAS, A,, HASTORF, A.H., GROSS, A.E., & KITE, W.R. Experiments on the alteration of group structure. Jour- nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 55-70.

BERGER, C.R., GARDNER, R.R., CLATTERBUCK, G.W., & SCHULMAN, L.S. Perceptions of information sequenc- ing in relationship development. Human Communication Research, 1976, 3, 29-46.

BIENVENU, M. J. , SR. An interpersonal communication inventory. Journal of Communication, 1971, 21, 381-388.

BOCHNER, A.P., & KELLY, C.W. Interpersonal communication instruction-Theory and practice: A symposium: I. In- terpersonal competence: Rationale, philosophy, and im- plementation of a conceptual framework. Speech Teacher,

BOSTROM, R.N. Patterns of communicative interaction in small groups. Speech Monographs, 1970, 37, 251-263.

BRAYFIELD, A.H. & ROTHE, H.F. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 195 1, 35, 307-3 1 1

BURGOON, J.K. The ideal source: A reexamination of source credibility measurement. Central States Speech Journal,

BURKE, R.J. Are Herzberg’s motivators and hygienes un- idimensional? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50,

BYRNE, D., & KFUVONOS, P.D. A reinforcement-affect theory of interpersonal communication. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, 1976.

CARP, F.M. Attitudes of old persons toward themselves and toward others. Journal of Gerontology, 1967,22,308-312.

CARP, F.M. Impact of improved housing on morale and life satisfaction. Gerontologist, 1975, 15, 511-515.

CAVEN, R.S., BURGESS, E.W., HAVIGHURST, R.J., & GOLDHAMER, H . Personal adjustment in old a g e . Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949.

COHEN, A.M., BENNIS, W.G., & WOLKON, G.H. The effects of continued practice on the behaviors of problem- solving groups. Sociometry, 1961, 24, 416-431.

COLLINS, B.E., & GUETZKOW, H. A social psychology of group processes for decision-making . New York: Wiley , 1964.

CROWELL, L., & SCHEIDEL, T.M. A study of discussant satisfaction in group problem-solving. Speech Monographs.,

DALEY, J.P., & WEIDMAN, R. A factor analytic study of membership satisfaction. Unpublished manuscript, Illinois State University, 1972.

DARNELL, D.K. Semantic differentiation. In P. Emert and W.D. Brooks (Eds.), Methods of research in comrmmica- rion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970, 181-196.

DECKER, R.L. A study of three specific problems in the measurement and interpretation of employee attitudes. Psycho- logical Monographs, 1955, 69, (16, whole no. 401).

DOWNS, C., HAZEN, M., MEDLEY, W., & QUIGGINS, J. A theoretical and empirical analysis of communication satisfaction. A paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, 1974.

DUNHAM, R.B., &HERMAN, J.B. Development of a female faces scale for measuring job satisfaction. Journal ofApplied

D U ” , R.E. & GOLDMAN, M. Competition and noncompeti-

1974, 23, 279-301.

1976, 27, 200-206.

3 17-32 1.

1963, 30, 56-58.

Psychology, 1975, 60, 629-631.

Hecht 367

tion in relationship to satisfaction and feelings toward own- group and non-group members. Journal of Social Psychol-

DUNNETI’E, M., CAMPBELL, J.P., & HAKEL, M.D. Fac- tors contributing to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in six occupational groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performances, 1967, 2, 143-173.

EBEL, R.L. Why is a longer test usually a more reliable test? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1972, 32,

EDWARDS, A.L., & KENNEY, K.C. A comparison of the Thurstone and Likert techniques of attitude scale construction. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley. 1967.

EWEN, R.B. Weighting components of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51, 68-73.

EWEN, R.B., SMITH, P.C., HULIN, C.L., & LOCKE, E.A. An empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 544-550.

FENTON, R.J., & HOPF, T.S. Some effects of communication inhibition on small groups: Participation, member satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, credibility, and leadership. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, 1976.

FRANK, F., & ANDERSON, L.R. Effects of task and group size upon group productivity and member satisfaction. Soci- ometry, 1971, 34, 135-149.

FRIEDLANDER, F. Job characteristics as satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48, 388-392.

GILBERT, S.J., & HORENSTEIN, B. The communication of self-disclosure: Level versus intimacy. Human Communica- tion Research, 1975, 1, 316-322.

GILBERT, S.J., & WHITENECK, G.G. Toward amultidimen- sional approach to the study of self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 1976, 2, 347-355.

GRAEN, G.B. Addendum to “An empirical test ofthe Heaberg two-factor theory.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 551-555.

GROSS, E. Primary functions of the small group. American Journal of Sociology, 1954, 60, 24-29.

HACKMAN, J.R., & VIDMAR, N. Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions. SociomeQ,

HALPERN, G. Relative contributions of motivator and hygiene factors to overall job satisfaction. Journal of Applied

HARE, A.P. A study of interaction and consensus in different- sized groups. American Sociological Review, 1952, 17,

HART, R.P., & BURKS, D.M. Rhetorical sensitivity andsocial interaction. Speech Monographs, 1972, 39, 75-91.

HART, R.P., EADIE, W.F., & CAIUSON, R.E. Rhetorical sensitivity and communication competence. A paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Associa- tion, Houston, December 1975.

HECHT, M.L. The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Speech Communication, Uni- versity of Illinois, 1976.

HECHT, M.L. Toward a conceptualization of communication satisfaction. Quarterly Journal of Speech, in press (a).

HECHT, M.L. The conceptualization and measurement of inter-

ogy, 1966, 68, 299-311.

249-253.

1970, 33, 37-54.

Psychology, 1966, 50, 198-200.

261 -267.

personal communication satisfaction. Humin Communica- tion Research, in press (b).

HERZBERG, F., MAUSNER, B., & SNYDERMAN, B.B. The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley, 1959.

HOFFMAN, L.R., & MAIER, N.R.F. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-

HOUSE, R. J., & WIGDOR, L.A. Herzberg’s dual-factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation: A review of the evidence and a criticism. Personnel Psychology, 1967, 20, 369-387.

HUTCHINSON, I.W., 111. The significance of marital status for morale and life satisfaction among lower-income elderly. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975, 37, 287-293.

JOURARD, S.M. The transparent self (Rev. ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971.

KLEMMACK, D.L., CARLSON, J.R., & EDWARDS, J.N. Measures of well-being: An empirical and critical assessment. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1974, 15,

KUNIN, T. The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 1955, 8, 65-77.

LEVEL, D.A., JR. A case study of human communication in an urban bank. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue Uni- versity, 1959.

LOCKE, E.A. Satisfiers and dissatisfiers among white-collar and blue-collar employees. Journal of Applied Psychology,

LOCKE, E.A., SMITH, P.C., KENDALL, L.M., HULIN, C.L., & MILLER, A.M. Convergent and discriminant validity for areas and methods of rating job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48, 313-319.

LOCKE, E.A., & WHITING, R.J. Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among solid waste management employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 145-156.

McGRATH, J.E., & ALTMAN, I. Small group research: A synthesis andcritique of thefield. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966.

MILLER, G., BOSTER, F., ROLOFF, M., & SIEBOLD, D. Compliance-gaining strategies: A typology and some findings concerning the effects of situational differences. Com- munication Monographs, 1977, 44, 37-51.

MYERS, M.S. Who are your motivated workers? Harvard Business Review, 1964, 42, 73-88.

MULDER, M. Power and satisfaction in task-oriented groups. Acta Psychologica, 1959, 16, 178-225.

NEUGARTEN, B.L., HAVIGHURST, R.J., & TOBIN, S.S. The measurement of life satisfaction. Journal of Gerontol-

NILSEN, T.R. The communication survey: A study of communication problems in three office and factory units. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1953.

PATCHEN, M. The effect of reference group standards on job satisfaction. Human Relations, 1958, 11, 303-314.

PHILLIPS, G.M. Rhetoric and its alternatives as bases for examination of intimate communication. Communication Quarterly, 1976, 24, 11-23.

REDDING, W.C. The empirical study of human communication in business and industry. In P. Reid (Ed.), The frontiers in experimental speech-communication research. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1966.

RICE, D.G., & FEY, W.F. Student satisfaction with small

chology, 1961, 62, 401-407.

267-270.

1973, 58, 61-76.

O ~ Y , 1961, 16, 134-143.


group teaching of psychiatry. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1970, 23, 174-179.

ROBERTS, K.H., & O’REILLY, C.A., 111. Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology,

ROBINSON, J.P., & SHAVER, P.R. Measures of sociulpsy- chological attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Survey Research, 1969.

ROGERS, C.R. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961.

ROSENBAUM, L.L., & ROSENBAUM, W.B. Morale and productivity consequences of group leadership style, stress, and type of task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 343-348 *

ROSSITER, C.M., JR., & PEARCE, W.B. Communicating personally: A theory of interpersonal communication and human relationships. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Memll, 1975.

RUBIN, R.B. The role of context in information seeking and impression formation. Communication Monographs, 1977, 44, 81-90.

SALEH, S.D. A study of attitude change in the pre-retirement period.Journa1 ofApplied Psychology, 1964,48,310-312.

SCHAFFER, R.H. Job satisfaction as related to need satisfaction in work. Psychological Monographs, 1953, 64 (14, whole no. 364).

SCHNEIDER, J . , & LOCKE, E.A. A critique of Herzberg’s incident classification system and a suggested revision. Or- ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6,

SCHWARTZ, M.M., JENUSAITIS, E., &STARK, H. Motiva- tional factors among supervisors in the utility industry. Per- sonnel Psychology. 1963, 16, 45-53.

SHAW M.E. Some effects of problem complexity upon problem solution efficiency in different communication nets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 48, 21 1-217.

SHAW, M.E. A comparison of two types of leadership in various communication nets. Journal of Abnormal and Social

SHAW, M.E. Some effects of irrelevant information upon problem-solving by small groups. Journal of Social Psychol- ogy, 1958, 47, 33-37.

SHAW, M.E. Group structure and the behavior of individuals in small groups. Journal of Psychology, 1959, 38, 138-149.

SHAW, M.E.,& BLUM, J.M. Effectsofthegroup’sknowledge of member satisfaction upon group performance. Psychonomic Science, 1964, 1, 15-16.

SHAW, M.E., & BLUM, J.M. Group performance as a function of task difficulty and the group’s awareness of member

1974, 59, 321-326.

441-457.

Psychology, 1955, 50, 127-134.

satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 15 1 - 154.

SHAW, M.E., & CARON, P. Group effectiveness as a function of the group’s knowledge of member dissatisfaction. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 2, 299-300.

SHELLEY, H.P. Status consensus, leadership, satisfaction with thegroup. JournalofSocialPsychology, 1960,51, 157-164.

SHELLY, M.W (Ed.). Analyses of satisfaction (3 vols.). New York: MSS Information Corp., 1972.

SIEBURG, E. , & LARSON, C. Dimensions of interpersonal response. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Phoenix, 197 1.

SMITH, P.C., KENDALL, L.M., & HULIN, C.L. The measurement of satisfaction in work and rerirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1969.

STEINFATT, T.M. Human communication: An interpersonal introduction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Memll, 1977.

TROW, D.G. Autonomy and job satisfaction in task-oriented groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1975, 54, 204-209.

VANNOY, J., & MORRISSETTE, J.O. Groupstructure, effectiveness and individual morale, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1969, 4, 299-301.

WANOUS, J.P. A causal-correctional analysis of the job satisfaction and performance relationship. Journal of Applied

WANOUS, J.P., & LAWLER, E.E. Measurement and meaning ofjob satisfaction. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 1972,56,

WATERS, L.K., & WATERS, C.K. An empirical test of five versions of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Organi- zational BehaviorandHuman Performance, 1972,7,18-24.

WATZLAWICK, P., BEAVIN, J.H., & JACKSON, D.D. Pragmatics of human communication. New York: W.W. Norton, 1967.

WHEELESS, L.R. Self-disclosure and interpersonal solidarity: Measurement, validation and relationships. Human Commu- nication Research, 1976, 3, 47-61.

WILMOT, W .W. Dyadic communication: A transactional perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.

YERBY, J. Attitude, task, and sex composition as variables affecting female leadership in small problem-solving groups. Speech Monographs, 1975, 42, 160-168.

YOUNGBLOOD, C.F.X., HEDBERG, R. , & BAXTER, B. Management and action recommendations based on one versus two dimensions of a job satisfaction questionnaire. Per- sonnel Psychology, 1962, 15, 145-150.

Psychology, 1974, 59, 139-144

95-105.

Documents

Communication Satisfaction