This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 22:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

International Journal ofListeningPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hijl20

Exploring the Relationshipbetween Listening StylePreference and PersonalityDebra L. Worthington Ph.D. aa Auburn UniversityPublished online: 02 May 2012.

To cite this article: Debra L. Worthington Ph.D. (2003) Exploring the Relationshipbetween Listening Style Preference and Personality, International Journal ofListening, 17:1, 68-87, DOI: 10.1080/10904018.2003.10499056

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2003.10499056

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Exploring the Relationship Between Listening Style Preference and Personality

Debra L. Worthington Auburn University

Previous listening research has found a variety ofpersonality traits linked to listening style. Researchers in temperament and personality often address the association between temperament type, personality, and social behavior (e.g., communication preferences, miscommunication, and conflict). This study extends this research. Among the results: People Listening Style is moderately associated with the Myers-Briggs Personality Types Feeling and Intuiting. Additional correlational results are presented.

Keywords: Personality, listening style preference, Myers-Briggs

I n his discussion of communication style, Horvath (1 998) argues that communication style is “similar to temperament or personality,” describing a “central tendency of behavior” (p. 7 1). Previous research suggests that an understanding of personality characteristics may shed light on individual communicative differences (Weaver, 1998). For example, earlier studies in listening have found a variety of personality and temperament traits linked to listening style preference (LS), including extraversion, empathy, Type-A personality and gender-role self-perception. (Johnston, Weaver, Watson, & Barker, 2000; Sargent, Fitch-Hauser, & Weaver, 1997; Weaver, 1998; Weaver & Kirtley, 1995). In addition, researchers in temperament and personality frequently discuss the association between temperament type, personality, and social behavior, including communication preferences, miscommunication, and conflict (Bates, 1989; Bouchard, 1993;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthington/ LISTENING PREFERENCE 69

Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985; Kagan & Snidman, 1991; Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Keirsey, 1998). Finally, descriptions of the four different listening style preferences - people, action, content and time - also suggest that listening style preference may be associated with personality type. Therefore, the goal of this study is to explore the relationship between personality and listening style preference.

Listening Style Preference Early research into listening style focused on identification

of listener preferences (Watson & Barker, 1992) and resulted in the development of the Listening Styles Profile (LS- 16) (Watson, Barker, & Weaver, 1995). Measuring individual orientations in the reception of oral information, the LS- 16 identifies an individual as a people-, action-, content-, or time-oriented listener.

People listeners tend to look for common ground with the speaker. They demonstrate concern for others, focusing on understanding their feelings and emotions. Previous research found this listening style positively associated with a person’s expressions of sympathy and empathy (Weaver & Kirtley, 1995). Action-oriented listeners are likely to notice errors and inconsistencies in in-coming messages. In addition, they favor organized speakers, who present direct messages (Keyton & Rhodes, 1994). In contrast, Content listeners are more likely to attend to a speaker’s supporting evidence. They tend to “welcome complex and challenging information, listen to facts before forming judgments and opinions, or favor listening to technical information” (Keyton & Rhodes, 1994, p. 59). Time listeners generally prefer “hurried interactions” (Sargent et al., 1997), often engaging in “communicative time management” by indicating to others the time they have available to listen to them.

Personality Personality Qpes

The renewed interest in personality and temperament was in large part due to the development of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Myers and Myers (1980) contend that many of the differences we observe in people “concern the way people prefer to use their minds” (p. 1). The bipolar dimensions identified by the MBTl address how we perceive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthington/ LISTENING PREFERENCE 70

the things around us and how we judge or make conclusions about these perceptions. These judgments are then used to direct our behavior. Keirsey (1 998) maintains that the four primary temperament types described by Myers are fundamental to human nature, reflecting patterns in “how we communicate with each other and how we use tools to accomplish our goals” (p. 26). Thus, a people’s behaviors, drives, and skills reflect their typological preferences. An understanding of preferences makes it easier to understand and predict the motivations, values and communication styles of an individual (Baron, 1998; McCaulley, 1990). Below, the specific dichotomous functions delineated by the MBTI are outlined, as is their potential association with listening style preference.

Determining npes The MBTI utilizes a series of forced-choice questions that

reflect a person’s behavioral preferences. While people use all of these processes, they tend to prefer one trait type to another in the dichotomy (McCaulley, 1990). Because of the dichotomous nature of the categories, tabulated results indicate an individual’s preference on each scale - Extraversion/Introversion (E/I), Sensing/Intuiting (S/N), Thinking/Feeling (T/F), Judging/Perceiving (J/P).

Extraversion attitude (E) or Introversion attitude (I). Extraversion and Introversion focuses on how individuals are “energized” and how they use that energy (Quenk, 2000). Introverts generally feel a need to “reflect” on events, taking into account “inner experiences and ideas,” prior to taking action (Quenk, 2000). Thus, they are more contemplative, seeking engagement with their inner world, in order to better understand events around them (McCaulley, 1990). As a result, they are more detached from their environment, often preferring solitary pursuits. Consequently, time for reflection and working alone tend to be energizing activities for Introverts.

the environment and give weight to events in the world around them” (McCaulley, 1990, p. 183). Thus, Extraverts focus on taking action as related to the people and world around them (Quenk, 2000, p. 59). Myers and McCaulley (1 985) note that Extraverts desire to “act on the environment,” thus “increasing its effect” (p. 13). Extraverts generally

In the extraverted attitude, “persons seek engagement with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthingtonl LISTENING PREFERENCE 7 1

feel energized when they are around others - in work or social settings. Consequently, Extraverts are more apt to be action-oriented and social, and they find it easy to communicate with others. Because Extraverts orient their perceptions and judgments toward people and objects, they may have a greater tendency to utilize the People LS. Previous research into individual listening style also suggests that extraversion and the People LS may be associated (Weaver, 1998; Weaver, Watson, & Barker, 1996).

Perception focuses on how people become “aware of things, people, events or ideas [including] information gathering, the seeking of sensation or of inspiration, and the selection of the stimulus to be attended to” (Myers & McCaulley, 1985, p. 12). According to McCaulley (1 990), “When using sensing perception, persons are interested in what is real, immediate, practical, and observable by the senses” (p. 183). Quenk (2000) notes that Sensors have detailed memories, prefer clearly defined rather than ambiguous situations, and seek out readily verifiable facts. Not surprisingly, Sensors enjoy realism, develop strong observational skills, have a memory for details, and a preference for practicality (Myers & McCaulley, 1985, p. 12). This focus on information gathering and situational details suggests that Sensors are likely to prefer action listening. This style stresses reviewing, critiquing and analyzing the content of a speaker’s message. Again, action-oriented listeners look for inconsistencies and errors and prefer organized speakers.

Intuitors’ use of evidence and information differs significantly from that of Sensors. McCaulley (1 990) notes, “When using intuitive perception, persons are interested in future possibilities, implicit meanings, and symbolic or theoretical patterns suggested by insight” (p. 183). Because Intuitors’ thinking tends to be more abstract, they develop stronger intuitive skills and are more apt to rely upon their intuition or “hunches” (Myers & McCaulley, 1985, p. 12). As a result, Intuitors tend to pay more attention to their inner voice and tend to be much less observant of present events, focusing upon potential future eventualities. Quenk (2000) notes that unlike Sensors, Intuitors tend to dislike facts and details,

Sensing perception (S) or Intuitive perception (N).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthingtoni LISTENING PREFERENCE ’

depending more on making inferences “about the meaning of others’ words and actions” (p. 60). While it is less clear which listening style Intuitors may endorse, their preference for “reading between the lines” and their reliance on personal insight would be beneficial to people-oriented listeners.

Thinking judgment (T) OY Feeling judgment (F). Myers and McCaulley (1 985) describe the judging function in terms of how people reach conclusions about what they have perceived. Thus, it includes “decision-making, evaluation, choice, and the selection of the response after perceiving the stimulus” (p. 12). Rationality is the heart of this function of the MBTI. However, how Thinkers and Feelers employ “rationality” differs markedly. For example, persons who utilize thinking judgment will derive at decisions via a “logical analysis of causes and effects,” allowing logic to guide their actions (McCaulley, 1990, p. 183). In addition, Thinkers tend to be more emotionally detached and tend to keep a social distance from others (Williams & Bicknell- Behr, 1992; Opt & Loffredo, 2000). As a result, Thinkers will develop related characteristics such as “analytical ability, objectivity, concern with principles of justice and fairness, [and] criticality.. . .,’ (Myers & McCaulley, 1985, p. 12).

This description suggests that Thinkers may prefer the Content LS, with its central stress on fairness. As noted above, Content listeners prefer to withhold judgment until they have heard “all” the facts. In addition, this personality type may also be associated with the Action LS, due to Thinkers’ focus on analytical ability and “criticality.” Both of these elements suggest that Thinkers are evaluating and critiquing incoming information.

In contrast, Feelers (i.e., people who use feeling judgment) have a greater affective focus. Specifically, Feelers have a “need for affiliation, a capacity for warmth, a desire for harmony.. . .,, (Myers & McCaulley, 1985, p. 13). For them, decisions are based on a consideration of the “relative importance or value of competing alternatives” (McCaulley, 1990, p. 183). Because Feelers are more aware of their own personal values as well as those of others, their decision- making relies on “attending to what matters to others,” and “an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthingtoni LISTENING PREFERENCE 73

understanding of people” (Myers & McCaulley, 1985, p. 12-1 3). Thus, they tend to focus on the human rather than the technical aspect of problems. Based on this description, Feelers are likely to evidence a preference for the People LS, as this listening style emphasizes the listener’s concerns for the feelings and emotions of others. Research in listening also supports this claim. Specifically, Weaver & Kirtley (1 995) found the People LS to be positively linked to the three constructs associated with empathy-empathic responsiveness, perspective taking, and sympathetic responsiveness.

are differing approaches to dealing with the external world (Quenk, 2000). Judging and Perceiving qualitatively differ from the Extraverted and Introverted attitudes, which focus on how we are energized via our dealings with the outer world. People with a “perceiving” orientation to the world enjoy being curious, are open to changes, and prefer keeping their options open. When they have the freedom to be spontaneous and flexible, they feel they are more effective at responding to events, tasks, and individuals (Quenk, 2000). As a result, they often maintain an observing attitude longer than their Judging counterparts. Quenk (2000) notes that this observing attitude reflects Perceivers’ need to consider “all the relevant information available” prior to making a decision (p. 62). If forced to make a decision too soon (i.e., without sufficient information), Perceivers may experience great stress. Subsequently, Perceivers often withhold or suspend judgment so that they can gather additional information upon which to make a decision.

persons enjoy moving quickly toward decisions and enjoy organizing, planning, and structuring. Thus, Judgers often move through the perceptual process faster than their Perceiving counterparts. Quenck (2000) describes Judgers as people who would rather make a decision, and change it later, than delay reaching a conclusion. These are people who are agenda makers, forming both immediate and long-term goals (Quenck, 2000). Not surprising, these are people with a strong work ethic, who press for closure.

Judgment (J) or Perception (P). Judging and Perceiving

When the orientation toward the world is Judgment,

Thus, Judgers, rather than Perceivers, are more likely to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthingtoni LISTENING PREFERENCE 74

prefer the time-oriented listening style. This style dovetails with Judgers’ need to reach conclusions as they “schedule” their lives. Moreover, their affinity for “communicative time management” also reflects the Judger’s need to formulate decisions. In contrast, because Perceivers are constantly evaluating this incoming evidence in order to aid in their decision-making, it is unlikely they will exhibit a preference for the Time LS.

Hypotheses

into one’s listening style preference. review, the following hypotheses are posited:

preference for the People LS.

LS.

the Action LS.

As suggested above, personality type may provide insight Based on the previous

H1: Extraverts, Intuitors and Feelers will evidence a

H2: Thinkers will evidence a preference for the Content

H3: Sensors and Thinkers will evidence a preference for

H4: Judgers will evidence a preference for the Time LS.

Met hodo 1 ogy Participants

Participants consisted of 90 men and 84 women, ranging in age from 18 to 43 years, with a mean age of 2 1.7 years (SD = 3.34). Approximately 86% of those participating were Caucasian, while the remaining participants were of African-American, Asian, Hispanic, or of “Other” origin. Participants were drawn from communication courses at a large Southern university and received extra academic credit in their basic communication course for their participation.

General Procedure Data was collected as part of a larger study examining factors

associated with listening style preference. Participants met for one experimental session lasting approximately 50 minutes. At each session, individuals were first given an informed consent statement. Next, as part of a questionnaire containing several psychosocial measures, they completed the listening style and personality measures. Instruments

Keirsey Temperament Sorteu: The personality measurement

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthington/ LISTENING PREFERENCE 75

chosen for this study was the Keirsey Temperament Sorter (KTS). This measure was chosen for several reasons. First, the MBTI is not available to researchers and instructors who lack the specialized training required to administer to test (Quenk, 2000). In contrast, the LS and KTS are easy to score and readily available to educators and researchers via database and Internet searches. In addition, both scales are self- scoring, with the KTS also available for on-line assessment. Finally, research comparing the KTS and the MBTI indicate that the two measures address the same basic constructs.’

The 70 items of the self-administered KTS are forced-choice. Initial scoring of the KTS followed the guidelines presented by Keirsey ( 1 998). For purposes of analysis, a person with a higher score on an index is identified as that type (e.g., E or I; S or N; T or F; J or P). Thus, respondents are categorized into mutually exclusive groups for each type.

Listener Style. The listener styles profile was assessed using the Watson et al. (1 995) instrument (LS- 16), a self-administered, sixteen- item inventory designed to assess four different approaches to listening and receiving information. As noted previously, these four preferences are: people-, action-, content-, and time-oriented styles. On a five-point scale ranging from “never” (1) to “always” ( 5 ) , respondents indicate their perception of how well each statement applies to them. For this study, individual responses to each item were tallied, such that an individual score could range from 4 - 20. Watson et al. (1 995) found test-retest reliability estimates for each scale to be satisfactory: people- oriented (r = .71), content-oriented (r = .76), action-oriented (r =. 71), and time-oriented (r = .63). They also tested for internal reliability using Cronbach’s alpha test: people-oriented (.62), content-oriented ( .58) , action-oriented (.64), and time-oriented (.65).

Data Analysis First, following the scoring guidelines presented above, each

participant was categorized as one psychological type in each of the four areas (e.g., E/1, S/N, T/F, J/P). However, because 19 respondents (10.9%) scored a “0” on one of the dimensions, they could not be clearly classified and were subsequently excluded from the analysis of that dimension. Next, dichotomous scores for each category were converted to continuous scores.* These scores were then used to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthington/ LISTENING PREFERENCE 76

compute Pearson Product Moment Correlations. Due to the nature of the correlation analysis, raw LS scores were utilized. Correlations were run between each of the LS and KTS indices. Finally, the number of participants for the study was based on the most conservative estimate for the statistical tests being utilized. As a result, in keeping with Cohen’s (1 992) recommendation for testing for medium to large effects at the .05 level, 174 subjects participated in the study.

RESULTS Because reliability statistics were not available for the KTS,

the data analysis began with an examination of the internal reliability for each scale of the measure, using Cronbach’s alpha test. Overall, reliability estimates were satisfactory: Extraversion/Introversion (.69), Sensor/Intuitor (.78), ThinkedFeeler (.8 1 ), and Judger/Perceiver (.SO). However, a test of the reliability of each subscale of the LSP- 16 found lower than expected estimates: people-oriented (.63), content-oriented (.46), action-oriented ( .55) , and time-oriented (.59). Pearson Correlation Analysis

People LS. Based on the previous literature review, Hypotheses One proposed that the People LS would be associated with MBTI types, Extraversion, Intuiting, and Feeling. As seen in Table 1 , results indicate that the Thinking/ Feeling and Sensing/Intuiting indices are associated with the People LS. Specifically, an inverse relationship was found between a participant’s Thinking/Feeling function score and People listening score, r = -.47, p < .001, and between the Sensing/Intuiting function and People LS scores, r = -.33, p < .001. Thus, Feeling and Intuiting are both moderately associated with the People LS. In addition, a small association was found between the Extraversion/ Introversion function, r = .24, p < .001, indicating that Extraversion is associated with the People LS. Thus, Hypothesis One was supported. However, one unexpected finding, as indicated by the inverse relationship, was that Perceiving was also associated with the People LS, r = -. 18, p < .05.

Content LS. Prior to the analysis, based on the descriptions of the MBTI functions, Hypothesis Two stated that the Content LS would be associated with Thinking. In support of the hypothesis, a small positive association was found between the Judging function - Thinking/Feeling - indicating that the Content LS is associated with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthingtod LISTENING PREFERENCE 77

Thinking, r = .26, p < .001. As seen in Table 1, no other significant correlations were noted.

Action LS. The description of the Action LS suggested that it would most likely be associated with Sensing and Thinking. In support of Hypothesis Three, a weak correlation was indicated between the Sensinghtuiting indice and the Action LS, r = . l8, p < .05, indicating that the Action LS and Sensing are associated. In addition, a stronger association was indicated between the Action LS and Thinking, r =

.25, p < .05. Finally, an unexpected inverse relationship was found for the JudgingPerceiving indice, indicating that this listening style is also weakly associated with Judging, r = .16, p < .05 (see Table 1 ) .

Time LS. Finally, as the Time LS primarily focuses on communicative time management, it was thought that this listening style preference would likely be associated with Judging. Hypothesis Four was unsupported, r = .12,p > .05. However, as seen in Table 1, Time listening was associated with the three MBTI types, Introversion, r = -

.17, p < .05; Thinking, r = .27, p < .001; and’sensing, r = .19, p < .05. Canonical Correlation Analysis

Next, a canonical correlation was run to further clarify systematic relationships that may exist between the four listening style preferences and the four Myers-Briggs categories. The canonical correlation was significant, A = S72, F ( I 6,483), p < .0001. One of the canonical variates - Variate One - was found to be highly significant, A = S72, F (1 6,483), p < .0001 , while variates Two through Four were not significant, Variate One, A = .960, F (9,387), p > .05; Variate Two, A = .2 12, F (4, 320), p < .05; Variate Three, A = .093, F (1,161), p > .05. Additional examination ofVariate One reflects the findings previously described associated with the People LS. Specifically, Variate One explained 79% of the variance between the People LS and the Myers-Briggs categories. This canonical variate indicates that the greater the People listening orientation, the higher persons’ Feeling (-.97), Intuiting (-.64), and Perceiving scores (-.4 l), and the lower their Introversion score (.42). This analysis provides additional support for Hypothesis One (i.e., Intuitors and Feelers will preference the People LS). Of specific import is that Feeling explains the majority of the variance associated with People listening scores.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthington/ LISTENING PREFERENCE 78

DISCUSSION Results of this study provide additional support for the claim

that listening style preference and personality type are associated. As seen in Table 1, several significant correlations were noted between the four core personality type groups and the four listening style indices. While some correlations were admittedly small to weak, at least two were moderately related to the People listening style orientation. People Listening

associated with the People LS, r = -.33. Specifically, Intuiting was associated with the People listening style. Intuitors have an internal perceptual orientation. In other words, Intuitors tend to be more “internal” focusing on implicit meanings as well as “symbolic or theoretical patterns suggested by insight” (McCaulley, 1990, p. 183). Research examining the relationship between the listening styles and conversational sensitivity sheds some light on this finding. Chesebro (1999) describes conversational sensitivity as the “extent to which people enjoy listening in social interaction, can identify hidden meanings in conversations, and generally are highly aware of implicit messages that may be gained from conversations” (p. 233). Examining the relationship between conversational sensitivity and listening style, Chesebro found a moderate, positive relationship between the People LS and conversational sensitivity ( r = .43, p <.0001) (p. 236). If, as Myers argues, Intuitors rely on intuition, hunches, and reading between the lines when perceiving events, it may be that they are more apt to pay attention to those aspects of the communication they feel will help them ascertain underlying issues influencing those they are in communication with (e.g., the relational dimension of the conversation, nonverbals, emotional overtones, etc.). In addition, conversational sensitivity is related to self-monitoring and private self-consciousness (Daly, Vangelisti, & Daughton, 1987), qualities likely to be endorsed by Intui tors.

Second, study results indicate that People listening scores are moderately associated with Feeling, r = -.47. This finding is further bolstered by the results of the canonical correlation. As noted previously, the greatest amount of variance associated with the People LS is explained by the Thinking/Feeling indice (.97), such that People listeners are more likely to have high Feeling scores. It appears, then,

First, Sensing/Intuiting, the perceptual function, was moderately

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthington/ LISTENING PREFERENCE 79

that how persons make judgments (Thinking vs. Feeling) may provide insight into their listening preference. Keirsey (1 998) describes Feelers as sympathetic, personable, and friendly (p. 13). Their propensity to “attend to what matters to others” reflects their need to belong and their desire for harmony (Myers & McCaulley, 1985, p. 13). Feelers focus on the relational aspects of a communication, and their tendency to concentrate on people-related issues when making decisions dovetails with People listeners’ concerns for the feelings and emotions of others. This finding further supports earlier research by Weaver and Kirtley ( I 995), who found People listening to be positively related to empathy and sympathy.

the People LS and Perceiving. It may be that Feelers, cognizant of the relational aspect of their interactions, are more willing to take the time needed to listen fully, understand, and explore their communication with others, especially as related to the potential effects their decisions have on those with whom they are communicating. Thus, Feelers would be less likely to engage in listening time management. Similarly, because People listeners exhibit a concern for others and focus on understanding the feelings and emotions of others, they may be less apt to hurry their communication with others.

Finally, People listening had only a small association with Extraversion. Initially, it was thought that this would be one of the stronger correlations between personality type and listening style preference, especially given the results of previous research in listening suggesting such a relationship (Weaver, 1998; Weaver et al., 1996). This finding may have been influenced in part by the fact that this previous listening research utilized different measures of extraversion.

This tendency may also help explain the association between

Content Listening

with Thinking, Y = .26. Content listeners tend to favor complex, technical information; they are people who “listen to facts before forming judgment and opinions” (Keyton & Rhodes, 1994, p. 59). This description matches the one provided by Myers and McCaulley ( 1 985), where they note that Thinkers are people who favor objectivity, and who value justice and fairness. The focus on fairness and objectivity suggests that these issues

In support of Hypothesis Two, the Content LS was associated

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthingtod LISTENING PREFERENCE 80

are primary areas upon which these constructs are based. Additional support for this claim is the finding that the other Myers-Briggs types are essentially uncorrelated with this listening type.

Action Listening

between the Action LS and the MBTI was the association between Thinking and Action LS scores, r = .25. As noted earlier, this association was not surprising given the stress on analytical abilities and the focus on “criticality” associated with this personality type. Such leanings fit quite well with the Action listener’s propensity to critique and evaluate incoming information. Similarly, Sensing was weakly associated with the Action LS. Keyton and Rhodes ( 1994) note that Action listeners preference direct messages and dislike ambiguity. These are traits that Sensors, who tend to be detailed-oriented, are likely to preference.

Judging and the Action LS, r = .16. For example, this association may be reflective of an underlying desire for structure on the part of Action listeners. While such a relationship has not been directly suggested by the previous research into individual listening styles, Watson et al. ( 1995) and Keyton and Rhodes (1 994) note that Action listeners favor organized speakers who provide the receiver with direct, unambiguous messages. Such “direct” communication would fit with Judgers’ need to reach decisions quickly and their need to organize and “schedule” their lives.

Related to Hypothesis Three, the most prominent finding

This tendency may also help explain the association between

Time Listening

the Time LS. One’s judging attitude is used to help identify which of the preferred core functions is dominant and which is auxiliary (e.g., S or N, T or F). As noted earlier, people first utilize their perceptive function (S or N), then use the information they have taken in to make a judgment (T or F) on what action they should take (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). While the rest of the MBTI functions are based on Jung’s original theory, this function was contributed by Myers (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). As this indice plays more of a “discriminating”

Results of this study indicate that Judging is not associated with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthingtod LISTENING PREFERENCE 8 1

role, it does not appear to be a distinguisher for Time listeners.

with the Time LS, weak associations were noted between the Time LS and Introversion, r = -. 17; Sensing, r = .19; and Thinking, r = .27. Thinkers, in contrast to Feelers, are less interested in the human aspect of their communication. They tend to concentrate on understanding and evaluating the content of the communication. The focus on communication content and how it may help them to make and reach a decision may affect the Thinker’s communication with others and explain, in part, the small association between Thinking and the Time LS.

More perplexing is the relationship between Introversion and this listening style. Introverts have a distinct need for “down time” from others in order fully to process the information they receive. It may be that Introverts’ desire for contemplation leads them to focus greater attention on managing their communication with others. Similarly, Sensors as information gatherers, may be more cognizant of their time and of utilizing it effectively. Such a use of time would be in keeping with their propensity to be detail-oriented and their tendency to search for clearly defined situations and readily verifiable facts. Thus, if the person or situation does not appear to be providing such information, Sensors may desire to move on to a source that can better meet their needs.

While the Judging/Perceiving function was not associated

CONCLUSION The listening process does not occur in a vacuum. While many of

the associations studied here are small, they do indicate that the listening process should be approached in terms of how pre-existing constructs, such as personality attributes, may subsequently affect how individuals listen. Related to this study is the apparent relationship between the Thinking/Feeling indice and People listening. As a variate, this indice accounts for the greatest amount of variance of the canonical correlation and appears to be the primary distinguishing factor. Thus, it appears that, as a personality attribute, Feeling may help explain why some people develop a preference for the People LS and could potentially explain why it may be difficult for these listeners to utilize the other listening style types. If, as suggested by these measures, the primary intent of People listeners is to understand the “feelings and emotions” of others, it may be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthingtoni LISTENING PREFERENCE 82

difficult for them to “switch gears” and listen for those things generally associated with the other listening styles (e.g., critiquing speaker content, emphasizing communicative time management, etc.).

One area receiving much attention from scholars of personality and temperament addresses the “fit” between one’s temperament and one’s environment (Beatty & McCroskey, 1998, p. 51.). A “good fit” results when “the situational demands or the characteristics of others in the environment, either by change or strategy, complement the salient features of the person’s temperament” (p. 5 1). One early research team, Thomas, Chess, & Birch (1 968) argued that predicting human behavior is predicated upon “the characteristics of the individual, the demands of the environment, and the ‘fit’ between them” (p. 137). Can the same be said for listening style preference? As noted previously, listening style preference is generally considered an unconscious, habitual action by a listener (Langer, 1980). Past research supports claims that, even when given the opportunity to improve their listening through the use of an alternative listening style, people will continue to use the style they feel best “fits” them (Bostrom, 1990; Langer, 1980; Roach & Wyatt, 1988; Steil, Watson, & Barker, 1983; Watson, et al., 1995; Wolvin & Coakley, 1992). If, as suggested by this and other studies, listening preference and personality are linked, then this linkage may help explain why listeners tend to rely on specific listening preferences, even when they are aware of and receive training to expand their listening repertoire.

Limitations

because the Keirsey temperament sorter and the MBTI are based on Jung’s theory of psychological types, and because Jung’s theory is, in part, a theory of adaptation, the effects of situational and environmental influences should be considered. Thus, the fact that the study took place in a university environment may have affected participant scores (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Pittenger, 1993).

shown to measure the same constructs, the two measures do have some qualitative differences.’ As noted earlier, Keirsey tends to focus on the behavioral manifestations of each type, and his scale reflects this focus. As a result, there may be some movement between the dichotomies of a function type. For example, a person who is a low scoring Sensor

In concluding this study, four limitations should be noted. First,

In addition, while the Keirsey Temperament Sorter has been

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthingtoni LISTENING PREFERENCE 83

may become a low scoring Intuitor. Tucker and Gillespie’s (1993) study provides some support for this type of shift. While the majority of subjects in their study scored as the same type for both the MBTI and the KTS, the authors observed that some movement between the function types did occur. However, in her review of the application and analysis of the MBTI, Quenk (2000) also notes that shifts between the dichotomies of a MBTI function can also occur. For example, life circumstances and other situational factors may affect a person’s responses, leading to a shift toward the opposing dichotomy.

Third, as reported above, the reliability estimates of the LSP- 16 were lower than expected, particularly the estimate for the Content LS (.46). These lower than expected estimates may have affected the reported values of the correlation analysis.

Finally, Myers describes 16 possible combinations (inter alia, ESTJ, INFP) resulting from the two preferences associated with each function. However, for purposes of this study, only the associations between dichotomies of the four primary categories of the Myers-Briggs typology were examined (E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P).

Future Research This study provides further evidence of the dynamic nature of

the listening process. In this context, additional study into the nature and relationship of additional temperament and personality traits and their relationship to listening style preference (inter alia, emotionality, persistence, objectivity, reactivity, and reducing-augmenting) is needed. While researchers in listening should continue to explore phenomena related to temperament and personality, we should also be aware of the host of preexisting constructs studies in other social science disciplines that may help us to define and further understand the listening process.

REFERENCES Baron, R. ( 1998). What t]vp‘ um I.? N Y Penguin. Bates, J. E. ( 1 989). Concepts and measures of temperament. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J.

E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood(pp. 3-26). NY. Wiley.

temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. In J. C. McCroskey, J . A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication andpermnulity (pp. 4 1-67). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. ( 1 998). Interpersonal communication as

Bostrom, R. N . ( 1990). Listening behavior: Meusirrement and upplicution. NY:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthingtod LISTENING PREFERENCE 84

Guilford.

Evaluating the evidence. In J . Hettema & 1. J. Deary (Eds.), Foundations of personality (pp. 15-44). Nonvell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

sensitivity. Communication Research Reports, 16, 233-238.

Bouchard, T. J. (1993). Genetic and environmental influence on adult personality:

Chesebro, J . L. (1999). The relationship between listening styles and conversational

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155- 159. Daly, J. A,, Vangelisti, A. L., & Daughton, S. M. (1987). The nature and correlates of

conversational sensitivity. Human Commlrnication Research, 14, 167-202. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the

psychoticism scale. Personulity and Individual Difierences, 6 , 2 1-29. Horvath, C. W. (1998). Biological origins of communicator style. In J. C. McCroskey,

J.A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality (pp. 69-94). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Johnston, M. K., Weaver, 111, J . B.; Watson, K., & Barker, L. B. (2000). Listening styles: Biological or psychological differences'? International Journul of Listening, 14, 32-46.

profiles. Psychological Science, 2, 40-44. Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. (1991). Infant predictors of inhibited and uninhibited

Keirsey, D. ( 1998). Please understund me 11. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis. Kelly, K. R., & Jugovic, H. (2001). Concurrent validity of the online version of the

Keirsey Temperament Sorter 11. Journal of'Cureer Assessment, Y, 49-59. Keyton, J., & Rhodes, S. ( I 994). The effects of listener preference styles on

identifying sexual harassment. Journd of the Internationd Listening Association, 8, 50-79.

W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 35-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

and groups. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,

Langer, E. (1 980). Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction. In H. Harvey,

McCaulley, M. H. (1990). The Myers-Briggs type indicator: A measure for individuals

22, 181-195. Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development

and use of the Myers-Briggs Tvpe Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs f ipe Indicator (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I . B., & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts dzffering. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Opt, S. K., & Loffredo, D. A. (2000). Rethinking communication apprehension: A Myers-Briggs perspective. The Journal of Psychologv, 134, 556-570.

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of'

Educational Research, 63, 467-488. Quenk, N. L. (2000). Essentials of Myers-Briggs type indicator assessment. NY: John

Wiley & Sons. Quinn, M. T., Lewis, R. J., & Fischer, K. L. (1992). A cross-correlation ofthe Myers-

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H. Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTl

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthington/ LISTENING PREFERENCE 85

Briggs and Keirsey instruments. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 279-280.

Roach, C. A., & Wyatt, N. J. (1988). Sziccessful listening. NY: Harper & Row. Sargent, S. L., Fitch-Hauser, M., & Weaver, I l l , J. B. (1997). A listening styles profile

of the Type-A personality. International Journal of Listening, I I , 1 - 14. Steil, L. K., Barker, L. L., & Watson, K. W. (1 983). Effective listening: Key to your

success. N Y Random House. Thomas, A,, Chess, S., & Birch, H. (1968). Emperament and behavior disorders in

children. NY: University Press. Tucker, I. F., & Gillespie, B. V. (1993). Correlations among three measures of

personality type. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 650. Waskel, S. A . (1995). Temperament types: Midlife death concerns, demographics, and

intensity of crisis. The Journal qf Psychology, 129, 22 1-233. Watson, K. W., & Barker, L. L. ( 1992). Comparison of the ETS national teacher

examination listening model with models used in two standardized tests. .Jotirnul qf the Inter-nutional Listening Association, 6 , 32-44.

(LS-I 6): Development and validation of an instrument to assess four listening styles. International Journal of Listening, 9, 1 - 13.

In J. C. McCroskey, J. A . Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication undpers-sonality (pp. 95-1 17). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Weaver, 111, J. B., & Kirtley, M. D. ( 1 995). Listening styles and empathy. Southern Jowrnal o f Speech Communication, 60, 13 1 - 140.

Weaver, J . B., 111, Watson, K. W., & Barker, L. L. (1996). Personality and listening preferences: Do you hear what I hear? Personality and Individual Djf&rences, 20, 38 1-387.

Williams, S. B., & Bicknell-Behr, J. ( 1 992). Assertiveness and psychological type. Journal qf Psychological Type, 23, 27-37.

Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1992). Listening. (5"' ed.). Dubuque: IA. Wm. C. Brown.

Watson, K. W., Barker, L. L., & Weaver, 111, J . B. (1995). The listening styles profile

Weaver, 111, J. B. ( 1998). Personality and self-perceptions about communication.

Endnotes 'Researchers have expressed some concern regarding the KTS.

In their test of the concurrent validity of the online version of the KTS 11, Kelly and Jugovic (2001) note several of the perceived limitations associated with the measure. One of the primary concerns they outline addresses the lack of psychometric information or other references on the validity of the paper measure used in this study. Specifically, Keirsey does not provide any supporting evidence of his claims that the two scales are measuring the same constructs. However, other researchers have examined the psychometric characteristics of this version of the test. First, Waskel ( 1 995) found evidence of satisfactory

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthington/ LISTENING PREFERENCE 86

internal consistency for the four KTS scales. Results of an earlier study by Quinn, Lewis, and Fischer ( 1 992) indicated that either the KTS or the MBTI instrument could be used to determine a person's personality type. Tucker and Gillespie ( I 993) also reported that the MBTI, the KTS (paper version), and the online precursor to the KTS 11, appear to be measuring the same constructs. Specifically, only minor variations occurred in the values of individual scores on the MBTI and the KTS (e.g., E/I, r = .76; S/N, r = .84; T/F, r = .68; and J/P, r =

.73) (p. 650). Kelly and Jugovic (2001) extended this earlier research, examining the online version of the KTS 11. They reported moderate to strong correlations between the MBTI and KTS I1 concurrent measures and concluded that the KTS I1 had satisfactory concurrent validity in comparison to the MBTI, their validity criterion. Moreover, they noted that the results of their study suggest the two instruments assess the same constructs and that the correspondence between the two measures was similar to that between the MBTI and other similar measures, such as the Jungian Type Survey.

MBTI and the KTS appear to support Keirsey's undocumented claims that the two instruments are measuring similar constructs. Kelly and Jugovic (200 1) note, however, that interpretive information is probably best taken from the MBTI manual (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998) until the interpretive information provided by Keirsey is empirically documented.

"Myers and McCaulley (1 985) note that, when conducting correlation research, MBTI preference scores can be treated as if they are part of a continuous scale. Thus, if a person scored as an E, S, T, J, their scores were added to 100. Persons scoring as an I, N , F, and P had their individual score subtracted from 100. As a result, continuous scores for the Extravert vs. Introvert dichotomy could range from 90 to 1 10 while Sensor/Intuitor, ThinkedFeeler, and JudgedPerceiver scores could range between 80 and 120. Specifically, scores below 100 indicate a preference for Introversion, Intuition, Feeling and Perceiving, while those above 100 indicate a preference for Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking and Judging.

Thus, initial research into the correspondence between the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Worthingtod LISTENING PREFERENCE 87

Keirsey Temperament Sorter and Listening ____ Sq

Table 1 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between the Indices of the

: Preference Temperament

s/N

Function 1 T/F l L P Listening Style

Preference People .24** -.33** I -.18**

-.47**

(173)

Content .09 .07 .26** I .09

Action -.15 .18*

Time -.17 * 19* .27** I . 1 2

(173)

..

Note: Continuous scores for each temperament were calculated such that positive correlations would be associated with Extraversion (E), Sensing (S), Thinking (T), and Judging (J) and negative correlations would be associated with Introversion (I), Intuiting (N), Feeling (F), and Perceiving (P). * p < .05 level * * p < .OO 1 level.

Correspondence should be directed to Debra L. Worthington, Ph.D., Department of Communication, Auburn Universiq, Auburn, AL, 36849; voice: 334.844.2 756; worthdl@,auburn. edu.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014